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.

Hi! Could be discussed the change to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Sexual_orientation&oldid=929964734 ? It is, from what I think, more complete, it features the split model attraction, romantic orientation and other things.

148.69.10.241 ( talk) 11:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Pedro

I don't think that version is better. Rather, it is better as it was and is now, as it is more representative of the reliable sources, and is written better. -Crossroads- ( talk) 04:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The definition Is wrong so are the references. A lot of them don't back up what they are used for. Also the studies on sexual arousal are extreamely outdated and are to be updated which I was going to do. I Will processo to put a lot of references to back up my biology knowledge. I was asked to make a talk about It so let's talk. Biology. So. Definition: wrong biologically and Indeed It Is not confirmed by the references. SGL: cultural appropriation of black culture, also the reference says It. So I don't know why they'd do that. Sexual arousal: outdated. the methods are upgraded and proved controversial data was caused by women disliking the content while being ashamed , basically they cathegorized as materiale of sexual arousal content declared highly disliked. This proved unattendability. I'll explain more. They interpreted the vaginal congestion wrongly as sexual arousal this caused the response to not match "the sexuality declared". They said they didn't like the matherial but scientists were like "we saw Blood, She lying". No. There was more Blood in the area because of shame. Basically data misinterpretation. I was about to update the updated matherial but I have to ask. So here It Is. Also the review I'd use https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/ Francesca Carta ( talk) 21:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

What are you proposing?

On a side note: Regarding this, I don't see what contradiction you were speaking of. It is a fact that "Often, sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity are not distinguished, which can impact accurately assessing sexual identity and whether or not sexual orientation is able to change; sexual orientation identity can change throughout an individual's life, and may or may not align with biological sex, sexual behavior or actual sexual orientation." And we state the same thing in the Sexual fluidity article. That we state that "some research indicates that some people may experience change in their sexual orientation, and this is more likely for women than for men" is not stating that sexual orientation does change. Use of "some," " indicates" and "may" are there for a reason. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 20:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, here in detail are the problems with the content you restored:

As I said in my edit summary, it fails WP:MEDDATE. MEDDATE says, In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources. WP:RS AGE says, Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed....In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine. The sources in the disputed paragraph are from 2006, 1995 (apparently, at least, as the ref note links to two login screens), and 1994. This compares very unfavorably to the much newer sources in the preceding paragraph.

The removed content also tells the reader nothing of added value compared to the preceding value. It begins by stating, Some research suggests that "[f]or some [people] the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span..." This is covered right before where it says, some research indicates that some people may experience change in their sexual orientation, and it adds the more up to date result that this is more likely for women than for men. That first sentence of the second paragraph is redundant.

Next, it goes on about There... [was, as of 1995,]... 1995 was a quarter century ago, so how does it not mislead readers to tell them stale overviews of the literature from 1995? As for the bit about not a good predictor of past behavior and self-identity, given the developmental process common to most gay men and lesbians, the term "sexual fluidity" is not meant to refer to people coming to understand their sexuality, but to a change in it, so this seems off topic. Does the source even mention the phrase "sexual fluidity"? Who knows? And in any case, it is far out of date.

Lastly, it states, Some studies report that "[a number of] lesbian women, and some heterosexual women as well, perceive choice as an important element in their sexual orientations." Weasel words anyone? What studies? How many lesbians? What heterosexual women? Some of that vagueness is in the source, true, but it underscores that the source is not great. Does the source even mention "sexual fluidity"? And fluidity is not the same thing as it being a "choice" - see this, page 11. And lastly, giving any legitimacy to the idea that sexual orientation is a choice totally fails WP:UNDUE.

I see nothing of value in that paragraph; in fact, it is of negative value. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Please wait to see what other editors, especially regular editors interested in this article, think. I will happily agree to the removal of that text if a consensus develops for removing it. There is no consensus yet. Now that you point it out, I agree that some of the text you removed is probably redundant and can go. In the case of the material about choice being relevant to women's sexual orientation, however, your removal of the content seems to be based more on personal disagreement with it. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 08:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering some of it. With the remaining bit, though, I still maintain it fails MEDDATE/RS AGE, UNDUE, and WEASEL. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this removal by Crossroads. And I agree with this re-removal by Freeknowledgecreator. Like I stated with this edit (which includes me adding "older" and the past tense "reported"), I do not think that we should retain the "[a number of]" sentence; it is WP:Undue. It was before better research on sexual orientation developed, and it contrasts the statement in the lead that sexual orientation is not a choice. For now, I repeated the statement that sexual orientation is not a choice there in that section. Of course, sexual identity (also known as sexual orientation identity) can change. But it is not the same thing as actual sexual orientation (no matter how much the two are conflated). Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 20:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Also regarding that sentence, who is being quoted? Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 20:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Cut it. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 21:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Although I won't necessarily revert it, I question edits such as this, by Crossroads. The edit summary was, "Law, politics and theology: Unverifiable, 25 years old and failing WP:MEDDATE/WP:RS AGE, and WP:UNDUE as recent sources are clear sexual orientation is a valid concept". I see no evidence that "recent sources" (a vague term, since "recent" is relative) all take a single view of sexual orientation, nor are sources necessarily correct in their conclusions simply because they could be construed as "recent". Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 09:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

There are many sources and reviews on the topic that are in the article, treat it as a perfectly valid concept, and are more recent than 1995. And, WP:MEDDATE and WP:RS AGE are clear. In what scientific field are we justified in citing 25 year old sources just to question a key concept? And yes, newer sources are better and more likely to be correct. There is no policy-compliant reason to favor old sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Saying that the source should be removed because it is 25 years old might be taken to imply that the views in that source were reasonable 25 years ago. Is that what you really think? Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 19:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That seems like a non sequitur. I never said or implied it was WP:Due even in 1995. All that matters is that it should be removed now because it is definitely WP:UNDUE now, which is supported by MEDDATE/RS AGE. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

If the views in that source weren't reasonable, in your view, even when it was first published then its age now is irrelevant. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 20:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Just like sexual orientation, the due-ness of content can be a matter of degree - that content's age makes it worse now than it would have been then. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I want gender to be erased from the definition. Reason: if a gay man can be attracted by a masculine female then homosexuality does not exist.

I noticed a lot of people complaining about this definition being homophobic.

If gender Is considered the same as sex then there's no problem..but It Is not the case.

Sorry for causing trouble. I Just want to fix this. Thank You for your patience. Francesca Carta ( talk) 21:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This topic clearly strucks nome nerves, regardlees of that a scientific definition has to be correct. Even though Wikipedia states that It itself isn't a valid source, It Is clear that for non scientists people and especially teenagers It Is a science Bible. Therefore a not correct definition in here if read by a homosexual teen can clearly being up confusion in their mind. It has to be simple, correct and easy to understand. I also think It should be protect from further vandalization (pretty extensive in this article).

To the point. The definition writes "Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender." The reference 1 though states "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attraction to men, women, or both sexes". It also talks about gender but not to define "sexual orientation". The reference 2 states "“Sexual orientation” is a term frequently used to describe a person’s romantic, emotional or sexual attraction to another person. A person attracted to another person of the same sex is said to have a homosexual orientation and may be called gay (both men and women) or lesbian. Individuals attracted to persons of the other sex are said to have a heterosexual orientation. Sexual orientation falls along a continuum and individuals who are attracted to both men and women are said to be bisexual. Sexual orientation is different from gender identity..."

While checking the scientific literature I personally did not find any source that affirms that sexual orientation can be towards a gender (current definition of it / different from sex). If someone wants to add "gender" to the definition please do back It up with proof.

At this Moment articles used as references DO NOT Say that. Yet they are used to justify the definition, problem Is someone cannot Say "the American Psychiatrist Association says this" when It isn't true. That Is defamation.

I Will proceed to make the changes and back them up with plenty of references.

Also "These categories are aspects of the more nuanced nature of sexual identity and terminology" Who ever said that. The reference does not say that. How Is this level.of vandalization even possible?

Sexual orientation which Is present in animals Is supposed to be an "aspect" of "sexual identity"? The reference clearly does not say that.

If someone wants to Say "this Is It" then certain someone has to take the paterniship of the definition and clearly state (similarly to homeopathy) that It Is not backed up by science This Is the tip of the iceberg of problems in the Page. Francesca Carta ( talk) 01:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It would help if you could sum up your points more simply and clearly. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 04:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Seconding that. And I need to look more closely at sources in general myself. But with "gender" as a definition is out there. People often use "gender" simply as a euphemistic word for "sex" anyway. Our article on gender also notes that it can include biological sex characteristics. Also, I'd note that while you are complaining about it saying "sex and gender", if we just say "sex" that may lead to many more complaints. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Francesca Carta, although it's true that the biology of sexual orientation is based on sexual attraction to sexual characteristics, the "or gender" qualifier started to be used a few years back to address those whose assigned sex does not match their gender identity and/or people who identify outside of the male and female categorizations. You can see that this 2015 "Definitions Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity in APA Documents" source, from the American Psychological Association, page 6, and which I added to the lead, states, "A person may be attracted to men, women, both, neither, or to people who are genderqueer, androgynous, or have other gender identities. Individuals may identify as lesbian, gay, heterosexual, bisexual, queer, pansexual, or asexual, among others. [...] Categories of sexual orientation typically have included attraction to members of one’s own sex (gay men or lesbians), attraction to members of the other sex (heterosexuals), and attraction to members of both sexes (bisexuals). While these categories continue to be widely used, research has suggested that sexual orientation does not always appear in such definable categories and instead occurs on a continuum [...] Some people identify as pansexual or queer in terms of their sexual orientation, which means they define their sexual orientation outside of the gender binary of 'male' and 'female' only." The part about a continuum supports the "These categories are aspects of the more nuanced nature of sexual identity and terminology." sentence in the lead. And even the previous source that was used for that sentence states, "This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all." That is why that source was used for that sentence before I traded it for the "Definitions Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity in APA Documents" source. This "Understanding Bisexuality" American Psychological Association source includes "or gender" when defining bisexuality.

In the American Psychological Association's style guide, it states (among other things), "Second, sexual orientation can be conceptualized as having a direction. For people who identify as sexual or demisexual, their attraction then may be directed toward people who are similarly gendered, differently gendered, and so on. That is, sexual orientation indicates the gendered directionality of attraction, even if that directionality is very inclusive (e.g., nonbinary). Thus, a person might be attracted to men, women, both, neither, masculinity, femininity, and/or to people who have other gender identities such as genderqueer or androgynous, or a person may have an attraction that is not predicated on a perceived or known gender identity. Some examples of sexual orientation are lesbian, gay, heterosexual, straight, asexual, bisexual, queer, polysexual, and pansexual (also called multisexual and omnisexual). For example, a person who identifies as lesbian might describe herself as a woman (gender identity) who is attracted to women (sexual orientation)—the sexual orientation label of 'lesbian' is predicated on a perceived or known gender identity of the other person. However, someone who identifies as pansexual might describe their attraction to people as being inclusive of gender identity but not determined or delineated by gender identity. Note that these definitions are evolving and that self-identification is best when possible." It states this despite the academic disagreements about asexuality, the fact that " queer" is not commonly categorized as a sexual orientation in the academic literature, and the fact that pansexual and polysexual are routinely included under the bisexual umbrella and are barely studied by scholars as sexual orientations (and this goes even more so for polysexual).

I don't support including "emotional" for the initial definition. I find it unnecessary and that it can muddle and confuse the definition. I stated before: " 'Romantic' always encompasses emotional feelings. That's why we don't include 'emotional' in the lead of the Heterosexuality and Homosexuality articles either. Or at least not in the first sentence where 'romantic' is also included. I'm not sure why the authoritative sources include 'emotional,' unless it's to cover the 'affectionate'/'affectional' terms they used to use. But we certainly don't need people thinking that just being emotional or affectionate with someone makes someone heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual...if they take 'or' to be an exclusive word in that context...although I am certain that most people will not take it that way. Sources about sexual orientation usually include 'sexual' and/or 'romantic' without also using 'emotional.' "

Use of "(or a combination of these)" is in the lead because of the WP:ANDOR guideline. Because of the "08:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)" suggested wording in this WP:ANDOR discussion that was had at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, I've considered changing the lead sentence to the following: "Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attractions to others, according to their sex, gender, or both." But that text removes "opposite" and "same", and one could therefore argue that we should briefly clarify in parentheses what heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality mean if not specifying "opposite" and "same" early on.

As for non-human animals? Like I stated elsewhere on Wikipedia years ago, "Most scientists do not assign sexual orientation labels to non-human animals, except for when describing the behavior of those animals [..]. Most scientists do not do this (except for, as I stated, describing behavior) because non-humans animals cannot communicate with humans in the same in-depth way that humans can, and most non-human animals cannot communicate with humans in any in-depth way at all. Therefore, assessing their sexual orientation, what goes on in their minds as opposed to their behavior (considering that sexual behavior does not always match up with one's sexual orientation), is very difficult." Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 22:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 23:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You in no way have proved me wrong. What You quoted did not in any way Say what You Say It does. You are clearly biased. Also ONE STUDY aganist ALL I have provide cannot in any way missprove my point. You Indeed have reiforced my allegation of "vandalization" by using references that do not Say what You are claiming.

Francesca Carta (
talk) 05:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the others' feedback on my references. Francesca Carta ( talk) 05:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I also realized that my previous response for some reason didn't get through. I'd have re-adress that.

1. It Is essential to describe sexual orientation as sex-based. If a gay man can be attracted by a masculine woman then homosexuality does not exist. Therefore claiming that It can based on gender Is homophobic. Please do wider reaserch on the "cotton ceiling" topic as You can read for yourself the whole homosexual population feels abused by allegation like "sexual orientation Is based on gender" as gender Is Nowadays recognazied as something different from sex.

Also if the use of the Word "gender" had been the biological One then no problem would have arised. But that Is not the current use of the Word. Please take the topic seriously Francesca Carta ( talk) 05:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of sources can be found to show that sexual orientation can refer to sex or gender. GLAAD, Healthy Children, PFLAG, DPCPSI. Most of these sources do not adhere to the (rather passe) sex/gender terminology distinction. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Francesca Carta, we have to go by what the reliable sources as a whole say, not just ones about the biological origins of sexual orientation, but about sociological aspects too. And while some sources say "sex" only, others say "gender" only, and yet others say "sex or gender", or even use the two interchangeably. We can see this in the sources given by EvergreenFir and Flyer22 Frozen. This includes the sources from the American Psychological Association. Note too that saying "sex or gender" is just a recognition that varying definitions exist. We are not endorsing one or the other, or saying it literally is both, or implying that the terms have the same meaning. And remember that "gender" is a broad term and can include bodily characteristics. Even going just by the "gender" definition, that's just saying that gay men are attracted to men ("men" is a gender category), and not "masculine women". And, too, everyone has preferences about which individuals in a given category they are attracted to; we are not implying that each and every gay man is attracted to each and every man. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Francesca Carta, this is my last reply to you on this matter. You stated that I "in no way have proved [you] wrong. What [I] quoted did not in any way Say what [I] Say It does." But I stated that the "or gender" qualifier started to be used a few years back to address those whose assigned sex does not match their gender identity and/or people who identify outside of the male and female categorizations. I then quoted the APA using "or gender" to define bisexuality. I quoted the APA stating things such as "A person may be attracted to men, women, both, neither, or to people who are genderqueer, androgynous, or have other gender identities", mentioning people defining "their sexual orientation outside of the gender binary of 'male' and 'female' only", and stating that "For people who identify as sexual or demisexual, their attraction then may be directed toward people who are similarly gendered, differently gendered, and so on. That is, sexual orientation indicates the gendered directionality of attraction, even if that directionality is very inclusive (e.g., nonbinary). Thus, a person might be attracted to men, women, both, neither, masculinity, femininity, and/or to people who have other gender identities such as genderqueer or androgynous, or a person may have an attraction that is not predicated on a perceived or known gender identity." And yet "what [I] quoted did not in any way Say what [I] Say It does."? Wrong. Am I'm not sure what study you are referring to.

This has nothing to do with bias on my part, me needing to read up on this topic or the topic of "cotton ceiling" (which I'm also very much aware of), or needing to take the topic of sexual orientation seriously. "Sex" is the standard for defining sexual orientation, as also seen by the sources EvergreenFir listed using "sex" first or more often than "gender." But the point is that the "gender" wording also exists. This is about the fact that the "or gender" qualifier exists these days and it can be soundly argued that we'd be remiss not to include it. Also, with regard to gender, some people (like the APA relays) do state that they are sexually drawn to masculinity or femininity in addition to one's sex or excluding one's sex. At the Sexism article you mentioned trans women. Well, what if a cisgender man is sexually attracted to a trans woman he does not know is transgender because she passes as cisgender after sex reassignment therapy (including or excluding sex reassignment surgery)? Is he sexually attracted to her sex or gender? It depends on how one is defining sex and/or gender. Also, despite what you stated at the Sexism article, there are sources there that clearly include "or gender." Gender discrimination is tied to sexism, and that includes men not liking women because of gender stereotypes associated with women. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 22:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the thing that they were trying to get at that they take issue with is the implication that, for example, a gay man is defined as a man attracted to others of the same gender, biological and/or physical sex notwithstanding. The wording in the newest of sources as you quoted above is, in all honesty, somewhat of a convoluted mess of a multitude of words and terms and definitions that seems to have been done for the express purpose of covering every possible meaning of the subject (within the scope the APA deems acceptable). While that may be perfectly FINE for the purposes for which they were written, Wikipedia articles are meant to be written in natural language that can be (somewhat) easily understood by the average reader. That requires us to paraphrase and summarize the content of the sources. However, in cases like this, in when there is ambiguity as to what certain words or phrases in the sources actually mean, then it becomes the de facto role of the Wikipedia editors to decide the matter. That is to say, while we must always "accurately report what is in the sources", as is zealously stated again and again in talk page threads, when the sources are exceedingly verbose and are unclear and open to multiple interpretations, there is truly no way to avoid having an article text that more strongly implies some interpretations over others -- that is the unavoidable consequence of writing a clear and concise encyclopedia. Having said that, the question at hand is thus: are "gender-based sexual orientations" to be presented as one and the same as "sex-based sexual orientations"? Should it be implied that, say, gay men are attracted to males and to others whose gender identities are men, whether trans or cis? Or, if not, should both the former and the latter still be implied to be of the same sexual orientation? To be clear, since the sources ARE unclear and ambiguous on these topics, we CANNOT have the article state in no uncertain terms one thing or the other. HOWEVER, given that no matter what we do the lead text of the article will carry an implication that swings towards some particular interpretation, the matter ought to be discussed and a consensus ought to be attempted to be reached, on two fundamental points: both WHAT the most reasonable interpretation of the sources is, and HOW that should be best summarised in the lead of the article.

Firejuggler86 ( talk) 10:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see an issue. It is saying concisely that definitions vary - some say "sex", others say "gender". I don't see how it is privileging one over the other, or saying that both must be true. Keep in mind, too, that for ~99.5% of people, sex and gender are precisely the same. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

incompatibloexual = a person which cannot find a partner for psychological, ideological, philosophical, esthetic, cultural, practical etc reasons (it cannot be an asexual, but in some cases it can be the cause of asexuality; in most cases it has nothing to do with asexuality) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4116:62FE:7D98:D20A:8886:EE28 ( talk) 14:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like an orientation at all, but if you can find reliable sources, you can add it to the article. PepperBeast (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. GMG ^talk 15:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Even with reliable sources, that would be WP:Undue. Not everything covered by reliable sources gets a mention. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 05:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sexual Preference

A term in which redirects from Sexual Orientation. /info/en/?search=Sexual_orientation

Sexual Preference denotes from the English language as the alignment, or preference (favor? priority?) in sexual encounters.

This preference can be more widely (or properly) defined through Sexual Orientation.

It can also be presumed as a popularized term due to the book by the similar title: /info/en/?search=Sexual_Preference_(book)

It was utilized in the early 2000's as a term within conversation, and has been a topic of debate in the 2020 elections as an "offensive" term.

However, politicians have been known to utilize this term over Sexual Orientation.

Sources in YouTube videos below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYfPtEaBSAw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsYGOAVqmQI

Merriam-Webster recently changed the term of Sexual Preference after a political debate in order to label the term as "offensive."

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/merriam-webster-changed-definition-sexual-preference-barrett-hearing

I require help in order to provide some sources to verify this dictionary linguistic change as a viable source for Wikipedia's Sexual Orientation Page.

[Sexual Preference was merged into Sexual Orientation in 2009.]

The Sexual Preference (Early 2000's Term) page is missing, and no longer redirects to the page (Modern Term) Sexual Orientation.

There's current political unrest causing old definitions labeled as offensive to be deleted despite there being historical significance for outdated terms.

(Google no longer shows any results for Sexual Preference.)

Wikipedia has a duty to denote all changes to history, including those which might be seen as offensive or inappropriate.

I have reason to believe it may be best to review edits to the Sexual Orientation page without official federal linguistic and librarian feedback as to which term should be utilized.

So if anyone knows how this information should be put into the Sexual Orientation page, please reply to me for feedback and I will add more sources into the talk page for you to go through and verify as worthy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AKB769 ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact Sexual preference does redirect here. - MrOllie ( talk) 23:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you MrOllie, but this post is inquiry as how to inform 2020 users as to why the topic of Sexual Preference was merged in 2009, and not during the political elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKB769 ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

While I understand the topics are merged, I cannot understand how to describe the Sexual Preference page as a need for a new page defining political debates with regards to Sexual Orientation.

If you have any information as to how this technicality works, please reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKB769 ( talk • contribs)

This article already discusses the term "sexual preference", which is where it belongs. There is no topic of "sexual preference" as distinct from "sexual orientation". When you state, I have reason to believe it may be best to review edits to the Sexual Orientation page without official federal linguistic and librarian feedback as to which term should be utilized, that is confusing. There is no federal influence here. As for why the topic of Sexual Preference was merged in 2009, and not during the political elections, it's because that's when the decision was made; there was no reason to wait until another time. And it was the right decision. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, there is still no visible connection that I can see in the first notations of the article that properly explains why Sexual Orientation- derived from the derogatory term of Orient (Modern Oriental), is the term utilized in favor of Sexual Preference. Also need citations as to that right time statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKB769 ( talk • contribs) 03:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you anon for adding the redirect information. You can correct the IP Address in the history log of the accidental nuke as my ID. -- AKB769 ( talk) 06:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Orientation was reverted, despite the Google search availability of bringing attention to the change of Preference to Orientation. Is there a way to bring that up front to the top of the second paragraph rather than the bottom? Or is the phrasing here meant to be locked?-- AKB769 ( talk) 11:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It is good that this was resolved, but, CycoMa, I don't think you should close a discussion this way in the future. If others have more to say, they will say it. As long as there is no disruption or violation of the talk page guidelines, all is well. Enlightenedstranger0 ( talk) 23:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Pepperbeast, where at WP:TALK is it acceptable for CycoMa to close a discussion he was involved in, saying, "do not add onto it or modify it"? You say my post is WP:NOTAFORUM, but it was in direct reference to this close, which I do not think was appropriate as it can lead others to think that they can no longer comment in this section. They can. Enlightenedstranger0 ( talk) 01:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yep they sure can; including #here, inside the collapsed part. Mathglot ( talk) 04:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Let me just say this to everyone. I personally don’t believe sexual orientation is a choice. I’m just trying my best to be a good contributor to this site.

Sorry about my behavior it’s just I was kinda freaking out and concerned y’all were accusing me of being homophobic. Because let’s just say I have been accused of being a bigot on Wikipedia before and I do take those accusations personally because in real life I am very close to LGBTQ+ people. CycoMa1 ( talk) 18:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Also looking at the article right now. I think it’s currently fine. Maybe a few touch ups could be okay. CycoMa1 ( talk) 18:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Yangxinxin0407.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)