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 |
I've edited several parts of this article, because of severe inaccuracies and falsehoods. I'm not sure if it was due to vandalism or not, but due to the sensitive nature of the subject, the fact that all the inaccuracies were to sustain a pro-biologist approach, and that some of them were glaring, I don't think the original edits were done in good faith.
"However, Bearman and Bruckner found no direct evidence for the effect of gender socialization on sexual orientation.[21] In fact, no evidence has ever been found linking the gender socialization of parents to the sexual orientation of their children[21] while several twin studies have suggested that almost all of the familial resemblance that is observed for sexual orientation is attributable to genes, not family environment"
All of this paragraph is unsourced. The source, in fact, points to a study which shows that religious background has some effect in same-sex attraction and behaviour; precisely the opposite of what the editor is supporting.
"By contrast, in a study doing genetic analysis of 409 pairs of homosexual brothers, including twins, strong evidence was found that some homosexual men are born homosexual. The study, including approximately three times as many people as the previous largest study on this subject, indicates that it is significantly more statistically reliable. It links sexual orientation in men with two regions of the human genome that have been implicated before."
Sounds like propaganda, and the only sources given are from the press. In fact, the results from these studies are much less definitive than what the editor would like to believe, as acknowledged by the researchers themselves. Even Dean Hamer admited that his original findings on Xq28 would only account for 5-30% of the cases when extrapolated to the general population.
" Bearman, on the other hand, acknowledges a possibility that socialization experiences might shape desire, but not subsequent adult sexual orientation. It is possible that genetic influence could operate on the pathway from attraction to behavior."
At least in the source given, Bearman is a strong supporter of social constructionism and criticizes biological approachs. Quoting from the paper itself: "despite the popularity of the idea, the evidence for genetic and/or hormonal effects on same-sex orientation is inconclusive at best. The most publicized genetic findings, for example, the discovery of a marker for homosexuality in men (Hamer et al. 1993) has not been replicated, and studies purporting to establish a genetic or hormonal foundation to human sexual orientation tend to have serious methodological flaws"
In general, I perceive a certain pro-biologist bias in the whole article. The constant statements that "homosexuality is not a choice" seems also quite out of place and defensive. Saying that homosexuality is caused by environment is not the same as saying that it's a choice, nor I believe that any of the reserach done in this field implies so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.209.169 ( talk) 17:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator, I don't see an issue with what Rivertorch stated. For one, we absolutely shouldn't be using NARTH as a source. For two, claiming that "Huge amounts of impartial scientific evidence now make it abundantly clear that homosexuality is not biologically hard-wired and that change is possible." is indeed at conflict with the general literature on sexual orientation; so WP:Due weight comes into play on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
____
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Environment 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) 22:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Environment 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.psych.utah.edu/people/people/diamond/Publications/Was%20it%20a%20Phase.pdfWhen 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) 18:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
So this page uses a study by cameron, on the SAME page lower it explains how cameron is a bad source who got kicked out of an association for doing bad science.. So why do you use a study by an author who then later gets discredited? I mean in this way people will read it and take it as granted, maybe even overlook that they read from someone who got kicked out for doing shoddy work.
Like under parenting it uses cameron's 06 Study (reference 35) to imply that homosexual parents have a higher number of non heterosexual children, "Although there is no substantial evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role in sexual orientation,[7][8] a Cameron 2006 study found that "parents' sexual inclinations influence their children's."[35]"
but then lower under "History of sexual Abuse, it says: "The study has also come under criticism for relying on the work of Paul Cameron, who was expelled by the American Psychological Association and has been condemned by the American Sociological Association, Canadian Psychological Association and the Nebraska Psychological Association for consistently misinterpreting and misrepresenting scientific research on sexuality, male homosexuality and lesbianism.[53][54]"
it doesn't make sense? Idk, maybe take it out? or maybe find something about the study, whether you can use it?
it comes off as weird if you on one hand say:
"the work of Scientist X isn't good because he misrepresents & misinterprets (possibly intentionally?) data repeatedly, so much he had to be excluded from the APA, [...] Look how, despite no others studies supporting this, Scientist X in his study Y totally shows how gay people influence children to be gay because gay parents make more queer children."
you get what I'm going for here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:13c0:39d0:15f9:93d2:259:6288 ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not trying to make any trouble here---just in the middle of some cold research. What's with Citation #8? It references the "American Psychiatric Association" (APA) regarding a non-trivial point. If you click on that referenced link it takes you to an archived website purporting to be (but obviously not) the official website of the APA. I don't have time to figure out what's up here, but something's up.
If I were to relay this specific citation and associated link to the APA, would they confirm its veracity? Or would they deem it a fraudulent misrepresentation of their opinion on the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.165.219 ( talk) 17:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Just curious why the prenatal environment (womb) doesn’t have a place here? I know it has its own page. I’m guessing there might be related policies as to why. From what I gather, when we talk about the difference between genetic vs environmental causes of sexual orientation, the ‘environmental’ factors also include prenatal ones? Sxologist ( talk) 12:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Freeknowledgecreator, regarding this, this, this and this, I don't see that the Lisa M. Diamond text is needed. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 21:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Under "urban setting" it is written: "Laumann and his colleagues found that homosexuality was positively correlated with urbanization of the place of residence at age 14.", and cites page 308. However, this appears to be a case of quote mining (and lack of proper citation) since the page appears to talk more about how homosexual people migrate to cities, or feel more comfortable to be open about their sexuality in an urban environment. The book does not appear to make a claim of homosexuality being correlated with urbanization "at (or by) age 14"? The hypothesis of homosexuality as a result of being raised in an urban environment was exactly that, a hypothesis. This area probably needs editing to actually support Laumann's actual findings, that higher numbers of homosexual people live in urban environments, and that this was hypothesized to be due to migration and (potentially?) due to being raised in an urban environment. I am sure there is more recent research on this topic, and since original hypotheses are not up to standard this seems like the personal interpretations of an editor. -- Sxologist ( talk) 00:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Crossroads: Just bringing your attention to the family influences section.
First, there is reference to a Taiwan study, which is original research and I know has been criticized because everyone in the sample had an existing "adjustment disorder".
Second, the introductory paragraph also points to the original Danish study by Frisch, and says "Some researchers think this may indicate that childhood family experiences are important determinants to homosexuality". Rather funny since the paper is only able to infer things about those who homosexually marry, and it says nothing about it causing homosexuality when it could in fact mean people are more likely to express non-heterosexual identities. So that part needs to go.
But no doubt it's worth replacing these areas with coverage of the familial environment with citation to the broader findings... especially since family environment is a very old theoretical explanation around the formation of sexual orientation. The history around absent father/ overbearing mother as causes for it. This could require a more significant area?
The Bailey Review has a reasonably good area covering the family environment starting on page 83, so maybe we can update some of this section based on the reflection there? -- Sxologist ( talk) 07:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
reflect the wide range of scholarly literature, not just one paper, we are supposed to be based on recent secondary sources per WP:PSTS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:MEDRS. Older and primary sources hence do not necessarily need to be reflected. As for the Bailey review, we should not downplay it or hesitate to use it unless a source of equal quality contradicts it. Crossroads -talk- 03:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry what I did in fact mean was original research. Quite a lot of the sources are original research, e.g. the danish study which was removed for urban environment but reminds in familial factors. Thanks for clarifying regarding Bailey. Sxologist ( talk) 06:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok thanks both for clarifying, I will do some additional reading of the rules surrounding that so it’s more clear. Sxologist ( talk) 21:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
As seen here, Freeknowledgecreator reverted Sxologist on material that began with "Several studies indicate that a child’s gender nonconformity, which is more common in homosexuals, may make them more desirable targets for pedophiles and child abusers." As seen here, I also reverted Sxologist. Note that the reference tweaks are intermediate edits, not edits by Sxologist.
Anyway, Sxologist, you should not WP:Edit war on this. You made a WP:BOLD edit, and your bold edit was challenged by two editors thus far.
As for your content? It does not seem that this material should be added at this point in time. There simply is no solid research on it. On your talk page, I pointed you to WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. WP:SCHOLARSHIP applies in this case and so does WP:Recentism. The sources themselves, like the brainblogger.com source (which you shouldn't use), call this research new. You reworded it as "preliminary research." We should be looking to high-quality, non- WP:PRIMARY sources for something like this. You did cite this 2016 Bailey review. But, again, there simply is no solid research on this. That is why this "Does Sexual Orientation Precede Childhood Sexual Abuse? Childhood Gender Nonconformity as a Risk Factor and Instrumental Variable Analysis" source you added poses the matter as a question. It's why you added "Additional research in this area is required." If we do come to a consensus to add material on this to the article, it should be given little space and supported by a non-primary source. And, yes, there is other material in the article that is sourced to primary references, but so much of it can be easily replaced by secondary sources and tertiary sources and is better researched. Other material in the article should be trimmed or cut.
As this is a highly controversial topic, I suggest you propose significant changes on the talk page first. Wait for others to weigh in. Same goes for any other highly contentious article. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 00:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
the validity of this model has been questioned on numerous grounds and scientists have largely rejected it.I think Lehmiller overall presents it in a balanced fashion and as Flyer22 Frozen said, we should present it in a balanced way. Crossroads -talk- 03:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I have three sources in sum now. This study here quite carefully discusses the alternate pathway, of 'nascent sexual orientation' and 'gender non conformity' being a cause for child maltreatment. It provides a good criticism of the 'child abuse as a cause for sexual orientation' model, and it does refer to earlier research to draw such conclusions rather than just a theory out of thin air. The study of course directly measures the measurement between the two due to limitations of the data set. The aforementioned Bailey review also quite nicely lays out how gay teenagers, due to lack of available partners their own age and for fear of being outed, will look elsewhere for early sexual experiences. This means they are at risk for older individuals to do so, and that the ability for heterosexual men to do the same is reduced since most heterosexual females have boys their own age to experiment with. I think thats a very important critique of the causation model since research qualifies any illegal sexual contact between younger and older as abuse, but the orientation is often pretty well determined by then (of course, these relationships are still inappropriate). It's pretty unlikely heterosexual teenagers head to the internet to find an older guy to experiment with. Of course, it also touches on non-conformity as a contributing factor in earlier childhood. Finally, at the bottom of page 404 and start of 405 this T. Sweet 2012 paper, it refers to this causation issue: "A more likely explanation is that as children some of these individuals may have declared their sexual preference or exhibited subtle behavioral cues that identified them as more vulnerable and thus targets for sexual abuse by predators. In fact, previous studies have reported that many LGB adults remember being “gender atypical” as children and reported physical and sexual abuse at the hands of peers and family members because of this difference."... they refer to earlier research from 2006 and 1998 indicating gender atypicality is a precursor to abuse. -- Sxologist ( talk) 00:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I would argue the last paragraph under childhood gender non conformity should probably be updated. It criticizes the bias of the CGNC model, and relies on the 2003 writings of the "Scholar" Lorene Gottschalk, a self described radical feminist (TERF) who is highly vocal about her disagreements with transgenderism in general. Reading the paper, her whole argument stems from her radical feminist belief that we are all born with fluid brains and that there's no such thing as people being born feminine or masculine. Adding "scholar" infront of her name doesn't make them more credible. There are likely much more up to date writings about bias, including in reviews of the research. Gottschalk refers to a few studies from the 1970's in terms of bias, yet conveniently skims over all of the work that was done closer to her time of writing that. There have been numerous studies since 2003 which have aimed to minimize bias including by surveying family members as opposed to the individual. Note, I am not saying her criticism should be excluded, but too much criticism of the CGNC research is resting on the opinions of Gottschalk. -- Sxologist ( talk) 03:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Flyer, I have updated the paragraph. If you'd like I can probably add another sentence from the Bailey review which covered the vast body of research on CGNC. -- Sxologist ( talk) 09:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I still think the family influences area can be drastically improved...
Question 1: It opens with "Some researchers think this may indicate that childhood family experiences are important determinants to homosexuality" and links to Frisch (one researcher, not some) whose research provides "prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood". I think this could at least be supported by a larger coverage of the wider research, indicating an impact on sexual orientation as opposed to homosexual marriage. Relying on Frisch and claiming "some" is a bit weak considering there are actual proponents of the environmental theory. Is this sentence with one citation appropriate?
Question 2: I wonder if the paragraph at least open with a statement about the history of the theoretical models (absent father, coddling mother) arising from psychoanalytic hypotheses, primarily through the lens of therapists observations rather than testing? The 1981 Bell et al review was believed to largely have dispelled these hypotheses as the primary cause of non-heterosexuality (at least in men), and as the Bailey review states "when other variables, especially childhood gender nonconformity were covaried in path analyses, the causal paths between parent-child relationship characteristics and child’s sexual orientation were either nonsignificant or quite weak."
Question 3: Is it useful to include researchers opinions about why parental relationships may be more strained among non-heterosexuals?
Quoting Bailey 2016: >>>"First, pre-homosexual children tend to be relatively gender nonconforming, and this may some- times strain relationships with parents—especially fathers (Kane, 2006). Second, on average, homosexual men score slightly higher than heterosexual men on trait neuroticism (d = 0.20; Lippa, 2005a). Assuming the neuroticism differ- ences are apparent during childhood, they could contrib- ute to differences in negative interactions between fathers and sons. Neuroticism is also related to biased recall of negative events (Larsen, 1992); thus, the retrospective dif- ferences in relationship quality could partly reflect mem- ory biases. Third, on average, same-sex attraction in males is associated with elevated traits of separation anxiety in childhood (VanderLaan, Gothreau, Bartlett, & Vasey, 2011; Vasey et al., 2011; Zucker, Bradley, & Sullivan, 1996), and this could further strain father-and-son relationships. Of course, there are many other possibilities that are not causally related to sexual orientation, including the pos- sibility that parents of pre-homosexual children are differ- ent from those of pre-heterosexual children in ways that affect the parent-child relationship."
Inb4 "don't just rely on the Bailey review", I know, but six writers of that review include (arguably) the top researchers on sexual orientation in the states, and have examined the research their entire lives. They all hold some differing opinions on sexual orientation so it's not just one researcher.
Please note: I'm not suggesting we replace everything currently in there. I am suggesting things are expanded with more perspectives. If there's been large meta analysis which takes into account these confounding factors and regarding familial environment, let's see it. As the Bailey review states, there is little scientific research available which has shown anything more than a casual relationship between familial factors and sexual orientation in men (a little more so in women, which could be included?). So far this section mostly provides some original research with too few academic interpretations of it? -- Sxologist ( talk) 11:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure: "They view sexual orientation, unlike sexual orientation identity, as not being a choice" is even legible for the average reader. Should it be included in the opening? It's confusing. I think it makes more sense to have a short sentence after it saying this differs from how one identifies, or simply leave it to the body. -- Sxologist ( talk) 10:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
While I think the mention of the Tomeo, Donald I. Templer et al. study is fine being in there, could the criticisms could be adjusted and trimmed for clarities sake? The main criticisms of the study are the fact that they switch 'sexual experience' for the word 'molestation' in the form vs. publication which could be moved up higher. And their rather dubious combination of both adolescent experience AND child sexual abuse, without actually indicating the ages of the boys or differentiating which were genuine child molestations OR which were teenagers who had relationships with older men due to lack of available partners their age. Considering the fact that between 68%-85% (it's unclear) of the men reported already knowing they were gay when they had this sexual experience this indicates that the vast bulk of men were teenagers not children. It has further been noted there is actually possibility of fraud in the data considering all the numbers in tables didn't even add up, and Templers connections with white nationalist conferences because of his highly questionable race and IQ studies (this is all in the current citations but not quite so clearly mentioned in the wiki article). Funnily enough, Templer published another follow up to try and expand on his work, yet when referring to his 2001 study in the introduction they wrote: "that 56% of gay men" reported molestation, which is completely at odds with the 46% in the study. Their concern for accuracy was shocking. Face palm. Sxologist ( talk) 08:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Flyer22 Frozen: I know you don't like being pinged but just want to check on this. What do you think about removing Tomeo/Templer paragraph? And second, it could also be worth replacing the Holmes citation with a more up to date one. E.g. this 2012 Harvard study has a reasonably good opening which reads: "Epidemiological studies find a positive association between childhood maltreatment and same-sex sexuality in adulthood, with lesbians and gay men reporting 1.6 to 4 times greater prevalence of sexual and physical abuse than heterosexuals". Their study referred to the higher quality studies, so 1.6 to 4 times is more credible than "up to 7 times more likely" considering the quality of the research Holmes had to rely on back in 1998. -- Sxologist ( talk) 02:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
In the first paragraph it reads "In the study of sexual orientation, some researchers distinguish environmental influences from hormonal influences, while other researchers include biological influences such as prenatal hormones as part of environmental influences".
The vast majority of researchers and sexologists (especially the very well known ones) count any factor which is non-genetic as "environmental", including influences such as prenatal hormones. I would argue this introduction should be rephrased to say that. Especially in genetics, anything non-genetic is often deemed environmental. That's kind of why I asked earlier about pre-natal hormonal influences being included on the page. Shouldn't it follow the standard set by scientific journals and researchers? -- Sxologist ( talk) 09:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The “born this way” model of human sexuality would suggest that we’re all hardwired to prefer one or more genders; gayness, straightness, or bisexuality would then simply be our biological destiny. But just this year scientists have yet again debunked the existence of a “gay gene,” finding in a major study that multiple genes could influence the emergence of a person’s same-sex orientation — though “only 25% of sexual behavior can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors.” In other words, our sexual behavior is mostly shaped by the world we live in.This is a prime example of why media sources are bad for academic topics, especially politically charged ones. It also illustrates horseshoe theory quite nicely, IMO. Crossroads -talk- 21:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
In this paragraph it has been said that seven cases were attracted to female who were reassigned female in infant. I want a clarification of that were seven people attracted to female or seven cases meaning many people under one case means more than seven people were attracted to female? Sorghum 05:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by প্রলয়স্রোত ( talk • contribs)
I made this edit expanding the History of sexual abuse section. I am not trying to evade consensus building so if you'd like to revert the edit before it's approved thats totally okay. I just didn't want to write the edit on the talk page since I needed to cite the already cited Bailey PDF with page numbers. Should I use my own sandbox for proposing future edits? Anyway we can discuss if anything was problematic, but I believe I did appropriate citations for everything.
Perhaps formatting may be something to adjust, however I felt this was the best way to configure it. It could be that the bullet point about the definition and problems drawing cause/effect could be moved out of the bullet points and put below.
I wonder if there is any review/study underscoring the fluidity of female sexuality and why that means some women could potentially identify as non-heterosexual based upon past abuse. The general differences between the sexes with regard to arousal/attraction are probably quite pertinent to the impact of abuse.
Thanks for taking the time to check the edit. Let me know what you think. Sxologist ( talk) 09:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Some researchers hypothesize that sexual abuse of females by male perpetrators may cause some women to be aversive to sexual relationships with men, while sexual abuse perpetrated by men, may cause men to believe they are homosexual, since straight men may understand it as a sign that they are “really” gay.As it is just a hypothesis and not scientifically confirmed, I think it is undue. I don't think it's needed to balance out the Bailey and Bailey comment below it (which is firmly the mainstream position). On a side note, regarding Flyer's comment that "some lesbians have relayed that they are penis-repulsed and/or male-repulsed because of child sexual abuse they experienced", as we know, it could of course be that, despite their own belief, those women would have been lesbian regardless; after all, most victims of sexual abuse still wind up heterosexual. Crossroads -talk- 06:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
"The near-perfect quasi-experiment" has been frequently referred to by J. Michael Bailey and others as some evidence against social-environmental factors playing a predominant role. I.e. men born between 1960 and 2000 who had botched circumcisions or accidents, and surgeons altered their geneitalia to be female. They were then reared as girls, and in all 7 documented cases in the literature they grew up to be attracted to women in line with the heterosexual attraction of their birth sex. It's well laid out on page 72 and page 73 of Bailey et al. 2016. This is briefly mentioned in the 'biology and sexual orientation' page, but it has clear implications for evidence regarding the social-environmental factors of male sexuality. -- Sxologist ( talk) 23:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Connectedpapers.com has recently launched out of beta, and is an excellent tool for finding prior and derivative papers to a paper you're looking at. Also very useful for finding secondary source reviews and critiques. It produces a nice map of all the papers like this. It also shows which papers referenced one another under the derivative papers like this (the light blues cited the grey). Sxologist ( talk) 00:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I just wondered if sci-hub was acceptable to link to for papers? (I'm guessing not, but I know many wikipedia articles do so since it doesn't show up that it's scihub in the actual citation).
Side note: could some of the discussions on this talk page be archived since they're long resolved? Sxologist ( talk) 11:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
We can't link there per WP:COPYVIOEL. Make sure to check Google Scholar though; a lot of times a full version is legally hosted somewhere other than the journal website, like ResearchGate or on an author's personal or university site, and Google Scholar links to them if they exist. I also adjusted the archive bot to archive after 30 days. Those are not normally set by discussion or even noticed, and can be changed in accord with WP:BRD, same as article content. Crossroads -talk- 16:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I see the prehomosexual article was merged (into a rather odd section, making a section in the childhood gender nonconformity article might've been better). Is there any way I can access a copy to see what was on it? Sxologist ( talk) 05:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Just a comment re: Bearman and Bruckner. I have done some looking around, and it seems that study is fatally flawed but numerous other findings would appear to contradict it. In the study they write: "The proportion of adolescents reporting a same-sex relationship or homosexual activity is small in this sample (3.4% and 0.84% respectively). Consequently, we focus on same-sex romantic attraction".... Text here has been removed for alleged copy-vio by Darren-M talk 23:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Also there is the shared prenatal environment between twins. I know that in female twins of boys, they often have a lot of masculinization from shared prenatal environment – not sure about feminization effects on men, but maybe... however it's also possible both twins have androphilic genes meaning there would be more male attraction? The socialization effect of having a female twin posited by B&B would have been found by Blanchard by now... never has older female siblings been correlated with male homosexuality. Why would a twin have an effect and not a sister 1.5 years older? Claims about the shared socialization of twins have largely collapsed given the ones separated at birth. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's possible theres some level of attraction but not ultimate orientation influenced by a female twin, but those numbers of students in same sex relationships with such a low rate of homosexuality activity would lead me to believe that the dataset is fundamentally flawed... Sxologist ( talk) 01:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Dean Hamer briefly comments on Bearman & Bruckner in this article, although not by name. Sxologist ( talk) 13:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
What do you think of adding this section? It could be clarified that associations are not causation and this would be one contributing factor if true, however I think it's kind of a worthy section to add given some prominent scientists have said it's a plausible contributing factor. If the whole section isn't appropriate I'm sure you'll let me know. If you want to make changes, copy the text body into a section beneath it and do so. Thanks. Sxologist ( talk) 23:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Question: Should I use American english or British english on WP? I usually change my laptop to American english while editing on WP but now I've seen a lot of articles are titled in British English. Sxologist ( talk) 22:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Flyer, curious why you removed smoking as undue and by what standards? It's a secondary source written by one of the most famed neuroscientists in the world, published by a reputable publishing house. The media sources only refered to the criticism of Swaab. Sxologist ( talk) 04:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay I went and checked, from what I can see, it’s only been confirmed in *one study* with a sample of 350 homosexuals. That seems a little weak if it hasn’t yet been replicated, although Ellis did replicate it for female homosexuals again related to drugs which have a similar function (but didn’t test for nicotine again). So yeah a single study claim is undue. Don’t know why Swaab would put too much emphasis on it. Sxologist ( talk) 05:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Edwin trinh14 contributed information saying that the digit ratio research consistently fails replication. The paragraph before this reports the opposite. This information needs to be rewritten. Enlightenedstranger0 ( talk) 06:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Should take this source out. Enlightenedstranger0 ( talk) 06:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
"Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation are weak." - What does it mean for a hypothesis to be weak? I am a scientist, but I think this is the first time I encounter this phrase in such a context. It's the evidence that can be either weak or strong. (The common meaning of "weak hypothesis" is a hypothesis that is true under broad range of conditions and therefore is more likely to be true than a strong hypothesis. For example, the hypothesis that 80% or more of all swans are white is weaker than the hypothesis that all swans are white. The problem is that it's obviously not the meaning that's intended here.)
Now let us assume the intent of the author was to say "evidence for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation is weak". How can it be so when the previous paragraph said "Scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they theorize that it is the result of a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."? (Presumably most of the environmental influences are social ones, unless other environmental influences such as diet are significant, but it is difficult for me to imagine this.) Moreover, "The causes of human sexual orientation" (Cook, 2020) states that "These analyses suggest that, overall, sexual orientation in homosexual people is 32% due to genetic factors, 25% due to family environment, and 43% due to specific environment" (note that family environment is a special case of social environment), although I am not familiar with the specific context of this statement. 79.191.138.179 ( talk) 14:03, 14 September 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 |
I've edited several parts of this article, because of severe inaccuracies and falsehoods. I'm not sure if it was due to vandalism or not, but due to the sensitive nature of the subject, the fact that all the inaccuracies were to sustain a pro-biologist approach, and that some of them were glaring, I don't think the original edits were done in good faith.
"However, Bearman and Bruckner found no direct evidence for the effect of gender socialization on sexual orientation.[21] In fact, no evidence has ever been found linking the gender socialization of parents to the sexual orientation of their children[21] while several twin studies have suggested that almost all of the familial resemblance that is observed for sexual orientation is attributable to genes, not family environment"
All of this paragraph is unsourced. The source, in fact, points to a study which shows that religious background has some effect in same-sex attraction and behaviour; precisely the opposite of what the editor is supporting.
"By contrast, in a study doing genetic analysis of 409 pairs of homosexual brothers, including twins, strong evidence was found that some homosexual men are born homosexual. The study, including approximately three times as many people as the previous largest study on this subject, indicates that it is significantly more statistically reliable. It links sexual orientation in men with two regions of the human genome that have been implicated before."
Sounds like propaganda, and the only sources given are from the press. In fact, the results from these studies are much less definitive than what the editor would like to believe, as acknowledged by the researchers themselves. Even Dean Hamer admited that his original findings on Xq28 would only account for 5-30% of the cases when extrapolated to the general population.
" Bearman, on the other hand, acknowledges a possibility that socialization experiences might shape desire, but not subsequent adult sexual orientation. It is possible that genetic influence could operate on the pathway from attraction to behavior."
At least in the source given, Bearman is a strong supporter of social constructionism and criticizes biological approachs. Quoting from the paper itself: "despite the popularity of the idea, the evidence for genetic and/or hormonal effects on same-sex orientation is inconclusive at best. The most publicized genetic findings, for example, the discovery of a marker for homosexuality in men (Hamer et al. 1993) has not been replicated, and studies purporting to establish a genetic or hormonal foundation to human sexual orientation tend to have serious methodological flaws"
In general, I perceive a certain pro-biologist bias in the whole article. The constant statements that "homosexuality is not a choice" seems also quite out of place and defensive. Saying that homosexuality is caused by environment is not the same as saying that it's a choice, nor I believe that any of the reserach done in this field implies so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.209.169 ( talk) 17:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator, I don't see an issue with what Rivertorch stated. For one, we absolutely shouldn't be using NARTH as a source. For two, claiming that "Huge amounts of impartial scientific evidence now make it abundantly clear that homosexuality is not biologically hard-wired and that change is possible." is indeed at conflict with the general literature on sexual orientation; so WP:Due weight comes into play on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
____
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Environment 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) 22:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Environment 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.psych.utah.edu/people/people/diamond/Publications/Was%20it%20a%20Phase.pdfWhen 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) 18:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
So this page uses a study by cameron, on the SAME page lower it explains how cameron is a bad source who got kicked out of an association for doing bad science.. So why do you use a study by an author who then later gets discredited? I mean in this way people will read it and take it as granted, maybe even overlook that they read from someone who got kicked out for doing shoddy work.
Like under parenting it uses cameron's 06 Study (reference 35) to imply that homosexual parents have a higher number of non heterosexual children, "Although there is no substantial evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role in sexual orientation,[7][8] a Cameron 2006 study found that "parents' sexual inclinations influence their children's."[35]"
but then lower under "History of sexual Abuse, it says: "The study has also come under criticism for relying on the work of Paul Cameron, who was expelled by the American Psychological Association and has been condemned by the American Sociological Association, Canadian Psychological Association and the Nebraska Psychological Association for consistently misinterpreting and misrepresenting scientific research on sexuality, male homosexuality and lesbianism.[53][54]"
it doesn't make sense? Idk, maybe take it out? or maybe find something about the study, whether you can use it?
it comes off as weird if you on one hand say:
"the work of Scientist X isn't good because he misrepresents & misinterprets (possibly intentionally?) data repeatedly, so much he had to be excluded from the APA, [...] Look how, despite no others studies supporting this, Scientist X in his study Y totally shows how gay people influence children to be gay because gay parents make more queer children."
you get what I'm going for here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:13c0:39d0:15f9:93d2:259:6288 ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not trying to make any trouble here---just in the middle of some cold research. What's with Citation #8? It references the "American Psychiatric Association" (APA) regarding a non-trivial point. If you click on that referenced link it takes you to an archived website purporting to be (but obviously not) the official website of the APA. I don't have time to figure out what's up here, but something's up.
If I were to relay this specific citation and associated link to the APA, would they confirm its veracity? Or would they deem it a fraudulent misrepresentation of their opinion on the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.165.219 ( talk) 17:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Just curious why the prenatal environment (womb) doesn’t have a place here? I know it has its own page. I’m guessing there might be related policies as to why. From what I gather, when we talk about the difference between genetic vs environmental causes of sexual orientation, the ‘environmental’ factors also include prenatal ones? Sxologist ( talk) 12:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Freeknowledgecreator, regarding this, this, this and this, I don't see that the Lisa M. Diamond text is needed. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 21:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Under "urban setting" it is written: "Laumann and his colleagues found that homosexuality was positively correlated with urbanization of the place of residence at age 14.", and cites page 308. However, this appears to be a case of quote mining (and lack of proper citation) since the page appears to talk more about how homosexual people migrate to cities, or feel more comfortable to be open about their sexuality in an urban environment. The book does not appear to make a claim of homosexuality being correlated with urbanization "at (or by) age 14"? The hypothesis of homosexuality as a result of being raised in an urban environment was exactly that, a hypothesis. This area probably needs editing to actually support Laumann's actual findings, that higher numbers of homosexual people live in urban environments, and that this was hypothesized to be due to migration and (potentially?) due to being raised in an urban environment. I am sure there is more recent research on this topic, and since original hypotheses are not up to standard this seems like the personal interpretations of an editor. -- Sxologist ( talk) 00:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Crossroads: Just bringing your attention to the family influences section.
First, there is reference to a Taiwan study, which is original research and I know has been criticized because everyone in the sample had an existing "adjustment disorder".
Second, the introductory paragraph also points to the original Danish study by Frisch, and says "Some researchers think this may indicate that childhood family experiences are important determinants to homosexuality". Rather funny since the paper is only able to infer things about those who homosexually marry, and it says nothing about it causing homosexuality when it could in fact mean people are more likely to express non-heterosexual identities. So that part needs to go.
But no doubt it's worth replacing these areas with coverage of the familial environment with citation to the broader findings... especially since family environment is a very old theoretical explanation around the formation of sexual orientation. The history around absent father/ overbearing mother as causes for it. This could require a more significant area?
The Bailey Review has a reasonably good area covering the family environment starting on page 83, so maybe we can update some of this section based on the reflection there? -- Sxologist ( talk) 07:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
reflect the wide range of scholarly literature, not just one paper, we are supposed to be based on recent secondary sources per WP:PSTS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:MEDRS. Older and primary sources hence do not necessarily need to be reflected. As for the Bailey review, we should not downplay it or hesitate to use it unless a source of equal quality contradicts it. Crossroads -talk- 03:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry what I did in fact mean was original research. Quite a lot of the sources are original research, e.g. the danish study which was removed for urban environment but reminds in familial factors. Thanks for clarifying regarding Bailey. Sxologist ( talk) 06:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok thanks both for clarifying, I will do some additional reading of the rules surrounding that so it’s more clear. Sxologist ( talk) 21:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
As seen here, Freeknowledgecreator reverted Sxologist on material that began with "Several studies indicate that a child’s gender nonconformity, which is more common in homosexuals, may make them more desirable targets for pedophiles and child abusers." As seen here, I also reverted Sxologist. Note that the reference tweaks are intermediate edits, not edits by Sxologist.
Anyway, Sxologist, you should not WP:Edit war on this. You made a WP:BOLD edit, and your bold edit was challenged by two editors thus far.
As for your content? It does not seem that this material should be added at this point in time. There simply is no solid research on it. On your talk page, I pointed you to WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. WP:SCHOLARSHIP applies in this case and so does WP:Recentism. The sources themselves, like the brainblogger.com source (which you shouldn't use), call this research new. You reworded it as "preliminary research." We should be looking to high-quality, non- WP:PRIMARY sources for something like this. You did cite this 2016 Bailey review. But, again, there simply is no solid research on this. That is why this "Does Sexual Orientation Precede Childhood Sexual Abuse? Childhood Gender Nonconformity as a Risk Factor and Instrumental Variable Analysis" source you added poses the matter as a question. It's why you added "Additional research in this area is required." If we do come to a consensus to add material on this to the article, it should be given little space and supported by a non-primary source. And, yes, there is other material in the article that is sourced to primary references, but so much of it can be easily replaced by secondary sources and tertiary sources and is better researched. Other material in the article should be trimmed or cut.
As this is a highly controversial topic, I suggest you propose significant changes on the talk page first. Wait for others to weigh in. Same goes for any other highly contentious article. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 00:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
the validity of this model has been questioned on numerous grounds and scientists have largely rejected it.I think Lehmiller overall presents it in a balanced fashion and as Flyer22 Frozen said, we should present it in a balanced way. Crossroads -talk- 03:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I have three sources in sum now. This study here quite carefully discusses the alternate pathway, of 'nascent sexual orientation' and 'gender non conformity' being a cause for child maltreatment. It provides a good criticism of the 'child abuse as a cause for sexual orientation' model, and it does refer to earlier research to draw such conclusions rather than just a theory out of thin air. The study of course directly measures the measurement between the two due to limitations of the data set. The aforementioned Bailey review also quite nicely lays out how gay teenagers, due to lack of available partners their own age and for fear of being outed, will look elsewhere for early sexual experiences. This means they are at risk for older individuals to do so, and that the ability for heterosexual men to do the same is reduced since most heterosexual females have boys their own age to experiment with. I think thats a very important critique of the causation model since research qualifies any illegal sexual contact between younger and older as abuse, but the orientation is often pretty well determined by then (of course, these relationships are still inappropriate). It's pretty unlikely heterosexual teenagers head to the internet to find an older guy to experiment with. Of course, it also touches on non-conformity as a contributing factor in earlier childhood. Finally, at the bottom of page 404 and start of 405 this T. Sweet 2012 paper, it refers to this causation issue: "A more likely explanation is that as children some of these individuals may have declared their sexual preference or exhibited subtle behavioral cues that identified them as more vulnerable and thus targets for sexual abuse by predators. In fact, previous studies have reported that many LGB adults remember being “gender atypical” as children and reported physical and sexual abuse at the hands of peers and family members because of this difference."... they refer to earlier research from 2006 and 1998 indicating gender atypicality is a precursor to abuse. -- Sxologist ( talk) 00:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I would argue the last paragraph under childhood gender non conformity should probably be updated. It criticizes the bias of the CGNC model, and relies on the 2003 writings of the "Scholar" Lorene Gottschalk, a self described radical feminist (TERF) who is highly vocal about her disagreements with transgenderism in general. Reading the paper, her whole argument stems from her radical feminist belief that we are all born with fluid brains and that there's no such thing as people being born feminine or masculine. Adding "scholar" infront of her name doesn't make them more credible. There are likely much more up to date writings about bias, including in reviews of the research. Gottschalk refers to a few studies from the 1970's in terms of bias, yet conveniently skims over all of the work that was done closer to her time of writing that. There have been numerous studies since 2003 which have aimed to minimize bias including by surveying family members as opposed to the individual. Note, I am not saying her criticism should be excluded, but too much criticism of the CGNC research is resting on the opinions of Gottschalk. -- Sxologist ( talk) 03:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Flyer, I have updated the paragraph. If you'd like I can probably add another sentence from the Bailey review which covered the vast body of research on CGNC. -- Sxologist ( talk) 09:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I still think the family influences area can be drastically improved...
Question 1: It opens with "Some researchers think this may indicate that childhood family experiences are important determinants to homosexuality" and links to Frisch (one researcher, not some) whose research provides "prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood". I think this could at least be supported by a larger coverage of the wider research, indicating an impact on sexual orientation as opposed to homosexual marriage. Relying on Frisch and claiming "some" is a bit weak considering there are actual proponents of the environmental theory. Is this sentence with one citation appropriate?
Question 2: I wonder if the paragraph at least open with a statement about the history of the theoretical models (absent father, coddling mother) arising from psychoanalytic hypotheses, primarily through the lens of therapists observations rather than testing? The 1981 Bell et al review was believed to largely have dispelled these hypotheses as the primary cause of non-heterosexuality (at least in men), and as the Bailey review states "when other variables, especially childhood gender nonconformity were covaried in path analyses, the causal paths between parent-child relationship characteristics and child’s sexual orientation were either nonsignificant or quite weak."
Question 3: Is it useful to include researchers opinions about why parental relationships may be more strained among non-heterosexuals?
Quoting Bailey 2016: >>>"First, pre-homosexual children tend to be relatively gender nonconforming, and this may some- times strain relationships with parents—especially fathers (Kane, 2006). Second, on average, homosexual men score slightly higher than heterosexual men on trait neuroticism (d = 0.20; Lippa, 2005a). Assuming the neuroticism differ- ences are apparent during childhood, they could contrib- ute to differences in negative interactions between fathers and sons. Neuroticism is also related to biased recall of negative events (Larsen, 1992); thus, the retrospective dif- ferences in relationship quality could partly reflect mem- ory biases. Third, on average, same-sex attraction in males is associated with elevated traits of separation anxiety in childhood (VanderLaan, Gothreau, Bartlett, & Vasey, 2011; Vasey et al., 2011; Zucker, Bradley, & Sullivan, 1996), and this could further strain father-and-son relationships. Of course, there are many other possibilities that are not causally related to sexual orientation, including the pos- sibility that parents of pre-homosexual children are differ- ent from those of pre-heterosexual children in ways that affect the parent-child relationship."
Inb4 "don't just rely on the Bailey review", I know, but six writers of that review include (arguably) the top researchers on sexual orientation in the states, and have examined the research their entire lives. They all hold some differing opinions on sexual orientation so it's not just one researcher.
Please note: I'm not suggesting we replace everything currently in there. I am suggesting things are expanded with more perspectives. If there's been large meta analysis which takes into account these confounding factors and regarding familial environment, let's see it. As the Bailey review states, there is little scientific research available which has shown anything more than a casual relationship between familial factors and sexual orientation in men (a little more so in women, which could be included?). So far this section mostly provides some original research with too few academic interpretations of it? -- Sxologist ( talk) 11:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure: "They view sexual orientation, unlike sexual orientation identity, as not being a choice" is even legible for the average reader. Should it be included in the opening? It's confusing. I think it makes more sense to have a short sentence after it saying this differs from how one identifies, or simply leave it to the body. -- Sxologist ( talk) 10:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
While I think the mention of the Tomeo, Donald I. Templer et al. study is fine being in there, could the criticisms could be adjusted and trimmed for clarities sake? The main criticisms of the study are the fact that they switch 'sexual experience' for the word 'molestation' in the form vs. publication which could be moved up higher. And their rather dubious combination of both adolescent experience AND child sexual abuse, without actually indicating the ages of the boys or differentiating which were genuine child molestations OR which were teenagers who had relationships with older men due to lack of available partners their age. Considering the fact that between 68%-85% (it's unclear) of the men reported already knowing they were gay when they had this sexual experience this indicates that the vast bulk of men were teenagers not children. It has further been noted there is actually possibility of fraud in the data considering all the numbers in tables didn't even add up, and Templers connections with white nationalist conferences because of his highly questionable race and IQ studies (this is all in the current citations but not quite so clearly mentioned in the wiki article). Funnily enough, Templer published another follow up to try and expand on his work, yet when referring to his 2001 study in the introduction they wrote: "that 56% of gay men" reported molestation, which is completely at odds with the 46% in the study. Their concern for accuracy was shocking. Face palm. Sxologist ( talk) 08:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Flyer22 Frozen: I know you don't like being pinged but just want to check on this. What do you think about removing Tomeo/Templer paragraph? And second, it could also be worth replacing the Holmes citation with a more up to date one. E.g. this 2012 Harvard study has a reasonably good opening which reads: "Epidemiological studies find a positive association between childhood maltreatment and same-sex sexuality in adulthood, with lesbians and gay men reporting 1.6 to 4 times greater prevalence of sexual and physical abuse than heterosexuals". Their study referred to the higher quality studies, so 1.6 to 4 times is more credible than "up to 7 times more likely" considering the quality of the research Holmes had to rely on back in 1998. -- Sxologist ( talk) 02:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
In the first paragraph it reads "In the study of sexual orientation, some researchers distinguish environmental influences from hormonal influences, while other researchers include biological influences such as prenatal hormones as part of environmental influences".
The vast majority of researchers and sexologists (especially the very well known ones) count any factor which is non-genetic as "environmental", including influences such as prenatal hormones. I would argue this introduction should be rephrased to say that. Especially in genetics, anything non-genetic is often deemed environmental. That's kind of why I asked earlier about pre-natal hormonal influences being included on the page. Shouldn't it follow the standard set by scientific journals and researchers? -- Sxologist ( talk) 09:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The “born this way” model of human sexuality would suggest that we’re all hardwired to prefer one or more genders; gayness, straightness, or bisexuality would then simply be our biological destiny. But just this year scientists have yet again debunked the existence of a “gay gene,” finding in a major study that multiple genes could influence the emergence of a person’s same-sex orientation — though “only 25% of sexual behavior can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors.” In other words, our sexual behavior is mostly shaped by the world we live in.This is a prime example of why media sources are bad for academic topics, especially politically charged ones. It also illustrates horseshoe theory quite nicely, IMO. Crossroads -talk- 21:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
In this paragraph it has been said that seven cases were attracted to female who were reassigned female in infant. I want a clarification of that were seven people attracted to female or seven cases meaning many people under one case means more than seven people were attracted to female? Sorghum 05:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by প্রলয়স্রোত ( talk • contribs)
I made this edit expanding the History of sexual abuse section. I am not trying to evade consensus building so if you'd like to revert the edit before it's approved thats totally okay. I just didn't want to write the edit on the talk page since I needed to cite the already cited Bailey PDF with page numbers. Should I use my own sandbox for proposing future edits? Anyway we can discuss if anything was problematic, but I believe I did appropriate citations for everything.
Perhaps formatting may be something to adjust, however I felt this was the best way to configure it. It could be that the bullet point about the definition and problems drawing cause/effect could be moved out of the bullet points and put below.
I wonder if there is any review/study underscoring the fluidity of female sexuality and why that means some women could potentially identify as non-heterosexual based upon past abuse. The general differences between the sexes with regard to arousal/attraction are probably quite pertinent to the impact of abuse.
Thanks for taking the time to check the edit. Let me know what you think. Sxologist ( talk) 09:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Some researchers hypothesize that sexual abuse of females by male perpetrators may cause some women to be aversive to sexual relationships with men, while sexual abuse perpetrated by men, may cause men to believe they are homosexual, since straight men may understand it as a sign that they are “really” gay.As it is just a hypothesis and not scientifically confirmed, I think it is undue. I don't think it's needed to balance out the Bailey and Bailey comment below it (which is firmly the mainstream position). On a side note, regarding Flyer's comment that "some lesbians have relayed that they are penis-repulsed and/or male-repulsed because of child sexual abuse they experienced", as we know, it could of course be that, despite their own belief, those women would have been lesbian regardless; after all, most victims of sexual abuse still wind up heterosexual. Crossroads -talk- 06:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
"The near-perfect quasi-experiment" has been frequently referred to by J. Michael Bailey and others as some evidence against social-environmental factors playing a predominant role. I.e. men born between 1960 and 2000 who had botched circumcisions or accidents, and surgeons altered their geneitalia to be female. They were then reared as girls, and in all 7 documented cases in the literature they grew up to be attracted to women in line with the heterosexual attraction of their birth sex. It's well laid out on page 72 and page 73 of Bailey et al. 2016. This is briefly mentioned in the 'biology and sexual orientation' page, but it has clear implications for evidence regarding the social-environmental factors of male sexuality. -- Sxologist ( talk) 23:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Connectedpapers.com has recently launched out of beta, and is an excellent tool for finding prior and derivative papers to a paper you're looking at. Also very useful for finding secondary source reviews and critiques. It produces a nice map of all the papers like this. It also shows which papers referenced one another under the derivative papers like this (the light blues cited the grey). Sxologist ( talk) 00:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I just wondered if sci-hub was acceptable to link to for papers? (I'm guessing not, but I know many wikipedia articles do so since it doesn't show up that it's scihub in the actual citation).
Side note: could some of the discussions on this talk page be archived since they're long resolved? Sxologist ( talk) 11:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
We can't link there per WP:COPYVIOEL. Make sure to check Google Scholar though; a lot of times a full version is legally hosted somewhere other than the journal website, like ResearchGate or on an author's personal or university site, and Google Scholar links to them if they exist. I also adjusted the archive bot to archive after 30 days. Those are not normally set by discussion or even noticed, and can be changed in accord with WP:BRD, same as article content. Crossroads -talk- 16:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I see the prehomosexual article was merged (into a rather odd section, making a section in the childhood gender nonconformity article might've been better). Is there any way I can access a copy to see what was on it? Sxologist ( talk) 05:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Just a comment re: Bearman and Bruckner. I have done some looking around, and it seems that study is fatally flawed but numerous other findings would appear to contradict it. In the study they write: "The proportion of adolescents reporting a same-sex relationship or homosexual activity is small in this sample (3.4% and 0.84% respectively). Consequently, we focus on same-sex romantic attraction".... Text here has been removed for alleged copy-vio by Darren-M talk 23:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Also there is the shared prenatal environment between twins. I know that in female twins of boys, they often have a lot of masculinization from shared prenatal environment – not sure about feminization effects on men, but maybe... however it's also possible both twins have androphilic genes meaning there would be more male attraction? The socialization effect of having a female twin posited by B&B would have been found by Blanchard by now... never has older female siblings been correlated with male homosexuality. Why would a twin have an effect and not a sister 1.5 years older? Claims about the shared socialization of twins have largely collapsed given the ones separated at birth. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's possible theres some level of attraction but not ultimate orientation influenced by a female twin, but those numbers of students in same sex relationships with such a low rate of homosexuality activity would lead me to believe that the dataset is fundamentally flawed... Sxologist ( talk) 01:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Dean Hamer briefly comments on Bearman & Bruckner in this article, although not by name. Sxologist ( talk) 13:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
What do you think of adding this section? It could be clarified that associations are not causation and this would be one contributing factor if true, however I think it's kind of a worthy section to add given some prominent scientists have said it's a plausible contributing factor. If the whole section isn't appropriate I'm sure you'll let me know. If you want to make changes, copy the text body into a section beneath it and do so. Thanks. Sxologist ( talk) 23:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Question: Should I use American english or British english on WP? I usually change my laptop to American english while editing on WP but now I've seen a lot of articles are titled in British English. Sxologist ( talk) 22:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Flyer, curious why you removed smoking as undue and by what standards? It's a secondary source written by one of the most famed neuroscientists in the world, published by a reputable publishing house. The media sources only refered to the criticism of Swaab. Sxologist ( talk) 04:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay I went and checked, from what I can see, it’s only been confirmed in *one study* with a sample of 350 homosexuals. That seems a little weak if it hasn’t yet been replicated, although Ellis did replicate it for female homosexuals again related to drugs which have a similar function (but didn’t test for nicotine again). So yeah a single study claim is undue. Don’t know why Swaab would put too much emphasis on it. Sxologist ( talk) 05:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Edwin trinh14 contributed information saying that the digit ratio research consistently fails replication. The paragraph before this reports the opposite. This information needs to be rewritten. Enlightenedstranger0 ( talk) 06:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Should take this source out. Enlightenedstranger0 ( talk) 06:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
"Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation are weak." - What does it mean for a hypothesis to be weak? I am a scientist, but I think this is the first time I encounter this phrase in such a context. It's the evidence that can be either weak or strong. (The common meaning of "weak hypothesis" is a hypothesis that is true under broad range of conditions and therefore is more likely to be true than a strong hypothesis. For example, the hypothesis that 80% or more of all swans are white is weaker than the hypothesis that all swans are white. The problem is that it's obviously not the meaning that's intended here.)
Now let us assume the intent of the author was to say "evidence for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation is weak". How can it be so when the previous paragraph said "Scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they theorize that it is the result of a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."? (Presumably most of the environmental influences are social ones, unless other environmental influences such as diet are significant, but it is difficult for me to imagine this.) Moreover, "The causes of human sexual orientation" (Cook, 2020) states that "These analyses suggest that, overall, sexual orientation in homosexual people is 32% due to genetic factors, 25% due to family environment, and 43% due to specific environment" (note that family environment is a special case of social environment), although I am not familiar with the specific context of this statement. 79.191.138.179 ( talk) 14:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)