Talk:Environment and sexual orientation/Archive 2

Vandalism?
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)


 * I have reverted your good-faith edit, which introduced significant changes to various parts of the article. I do not believe that the preponderance of sources cited in the article support your chosen wording, and I strongly suggest that consensus is required before making changes on that scale. On a side note, please do not lob accusations of vandalism around without providing clear supporting evidence. Vandalism has a very specific meaning around here, and you're absolutely shooting yourself in the foot when you make reckless accusations. Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Have you read the sources? It's not a matter of interpretation. The first paragraph is literally a LIE. You can't say that "However, Bearman and Bruckner found no direct evidence for the effect of gender socialization on sexual orientation." and then link to a study which, not only is not done by Bearman and Bruckner, but that deals with religious background of sexual orientation. Not to say that Bearman and Bruckner precisely support socialization theories (http://www.soc.duke.edu/~jmoody77/205a/ecp/bearman_bruckner_ajs.pdf). I don't see why general consensus is necessary in this. Either one thing is said in the source or is not, and in this case, is not. This is a big problem of Wikipedia: the original editor can write whatever he/she likes with no consensus at all (and evidently, no source-checking in this case) while subsequent editors which try to correct inacuraccies (and in this case, blatant falsehoods) are met with a wall of problems. I challenge you to find out if anything I added to the article was unsourced or misquoted, or if anything I removed was properly sourced and paraphrased. But if you can't find any lie on my part or any truth in the part I removed, then I will restore my edits. The burden of proof is upon you, not upon me. Unlike the original editor, I have taken the effort to actually read what the papers say.217.125.209.169 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, it's hard to fathom how you would know what other editors have or haven't read, and you're still making accusations of bad faith, which is both unnecessary and unpleasant, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and reply. There are multiple sources at issue here, some of them lengthy papers, and it would take anyone considerable time to read and cross-check them with the before-and-after statements of your edit. It won't happen overnight. I have read at least some of them in their entirety, although not recently. Time allowing, I'll start taking a look at them again, and I'll also ping an editor who is much more familiar with the history of the article than I am and whose judgment tends to be superb when it comes to identifying and utilizing sources. I would note that in general we should be wary of primary sources, many of which are likely to contradict each other, and prefer secondary sources that summarize current thinking in the field. It's a complicated topic, often poorly understood, and consensus among leading researchers is limited. I would also suggest that you consider making smaller edits, which would allow other users to keep up with the changes and obviate walls of text, such as the one that began this thread. Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the revert for a few reasons. My time on Wikipedia is winding down at the moment, though, and I might need to revisit this later. Human10.0, care to offer your opinions in the interim? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Human10.0, thanks for this revert. I had missed it.


 * IP, I agree that unsourced content should be removed and that the material should not be misrepresented. I don't agree with all of your changes, though. For example, in the lead, you added "To date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse." in place of "Although there is no substantial evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role in sexual orientation." But this article is specifically about environment and sexual orientation; while it does comment on biology, its focus is not on biology. And it's a fact that the biological theories have more support than the non-biological theories, but the lead does note that scientists don't think that sexual orientation is formed by biology alone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem Flyer22 Reborn and thank you for including me in the discussion. Unfortunately, I've gotten really busy IRL which is why I haven't edited in a while and which is why I took such a long time to respond. But rest assured, I will return to editing when I get free.
 * With regards to the edits by the IP, there are several issues:
 * At Line 6 of the Wiki article, the IP's wording seems to give the impression that psychosocial or family dynamics do have some role in causing a homosexual orientation but that the exact family dynamic or psychosocial cause has not been identified. The given source (the APA's statement) does not say that. The Wiki article's original wording was more accurate as it stated, in line with the source, that there is no evidence of psychosocial causes or family dynamics having a role in the causation of sexual orientation.


 * The IP has also inserted a sentence from the APA's statement. In the context of the APA statement, the sentence seems to mean that we have not found any sole biological cause of all homosexual orientation (i.e., homosexual orientation probably has multiple biological causes). The way the APA sentence has been inserted in the Wiki article (e.g. by using the word "similarly") however gives the impression that biological research and socio-environmental research into sexual orientation have had an equal level of success, which is not true. While we have been successful in identifying a number of biological factors related to homosexuality (e.g., many chromosomal regions, prenatal hormone exposure, etc.), the contrary has been generally true for social environmental factors, i.e., social environmental factors people assumed to be related to homosexuality (e.g., pathological parent-child relationship, recruitment, etc.) have been found to have no actual relation with homosexuality. The IP's wording also gives the impression that studies showing a link between biology and sexual orientation have not been successfully replicated, which is untrue (e.g., studies relating sexual orientation to Xq28, INAH3, the fraternal birth order effect, etc. have all been replicated). All in all, the article's original wording of the relevant sentence was much better.


 * The IP begins Line 20 with the sentence "Religious background plays a role in same-sex attraction." This implies that the following sentences will show that religious background has an effect on the causation of sexual orientation. But the following sentences do not show that. What the IP basically says is (or rather, what the IP copy-pastes from the cited study's abstract is) that so-and-so religious groups are more likely to report same-sex attraction, not that so-and-so religious groups are more likely to be same-sex attracted than other religious groups. The key word is "report." A cursory look at the cited study shows it stating: "It is possible that the apparent effects of religious background reflect different degrees of social desirability bias rather than true differences in the propensity to experience and act on nonheterosexual attraction. Individuals from conservative Protestant backgrounds may be as likely to experience arousal in response to same-gender sexual stimuli as those from Jewish backgrounds; the former may simply be less likely than the latter to admit these experiences in a computer-assisted survey." It would have been more accurate if the IP had phrased his sentence as "Religious background plays a role in the reporting of same-sex attraction." And since such an observation is not really relevant on an article about the causation of sexual orientation, such info need not be mentioned in the article. I feel that the cited study should be read in detail to check if it actually reliably demonstrates an effect of religious background on causation of same-sex attraction or if it merely mentions a difference in reporting of same-sex attraction in various groups.


 * Further down, the IP removed following statements: "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]" On this talk page, he explains that he did so because they were allegedly unsourced. This is a strange claim because an inline citation is given for the statements and the cited study clearly says on page 10: "Bearman and Bruckner’s findings are highly tentative. They speculated about, but found no direct evidence for, the effect of gender socialization on sexual orientation. There is in fact no evidence linking the gender socialization of parents to the sexual orientation of their children."


 * The IP then begins a paragraph with "However, other studies haven't found any significant relationship between chromosome linkage and male homosexuality" and goes on to list three that seemingly did not find chromosome linkage or maternal loading of male homosexuality. I shall have to read the first two to find out if the claim made is accurate. In the case of the third study (Rice et al., 1999), it was found in a later 1999 meta-analysis of all data available at that time that the family pedigree data of Rice et al. 1999 did in fact support X chromosome linkage for male homosexuality. And in their 1999 study, Rice et al. specifically asserted that their results do not exclude the possibility of finding male homosexuality genes elsewhere in the genome and stated that they could not rule out the possibility of a gene in the Xq28 region having a small (as opposed to a large) influence on development of male homosexuality. Also not mentioned is the fact that authors of the 1999 meta-analysis (which included three authors of the Rice et al. study, Rice, Risch and Ebers) presented a host of methodological reasons due to which Rice et al. (1999) were unable to detect statistically significant linkage between Xq28 and male sexual orientation. Hence I feel it is inappropriate to mention Rice et al. (1999) in a list of studies that did not find chromosome linkage. (I've italicised "statistically significant" back there because the linkage analysis by Rice et al. (1999) did report that gay brothers shared approximately 46% of their alleles at the Xq28 region. However, this result was not statistically significant because to show that male sexual orientation is influenced by a gene (or genes) at Xq28 in a statistically significant manner, their linkage analysis needed to find that gay brothers share more than 50% of their alleles at the Xq28 region. In contrast, analyses by Hamer et al. (1993), Hu et al. (1995) and the 1998 study by Sanders et al. did find greater than 50% allele sharing at Xq28 in gay brothers).


 * The IP then states "Dean Hamer's research was also criticized for severe methodological flaws, among other things, not using a control group to verify if Xq28 linkage was any different in the heterosexual siblings compared with the homosexual ones" and uses as a reference a 2001 article written by then Vice President of the anti-gay organisation NARTH, A. Dean Byrd. The article was published in the Regent University Law Review so I am not sure if it underwent scientific peer review. The description of Hamer's study's alleged methodological limitations as "severe" seems to be the opinion of the IP editor himself since the source does not use that term. Perhaps unknown to the IP (and apparently to the NARTH Vice President too) is that in 1995, Hu et al. had in fact used heterosexual siblings as a control group and had still found Xq28 linkage to male homosexuality. The Byrd article contains basically two other criticisms of Hamer's study; both in the form of quotes from Neil Risch et al. (1993). Hamer's 1993 response to Risch et al.'s criticism is unsurprisingly not given in Byrd's article. The criticisms are obsolete as Risch agrees with Hamer's conclusions in the 1999 meta-analysis. All in all, the Byrd article does not appear reliable at all and I feel if we decide to keep the "Dean Hamer's research was also criticized"sentence then we must include information that explains how the criticisms are no longer relevant.


 * The IP then removed two sourced statements from the 'Parenting' section of the Wiki article. Since one of them was the official statement of the APA explaining that parenting has no role in causation of sexual orientation and the other was Bearman and Bruckner acknowledging a biological pathway to the development of sexual orientation, it is very difficult to assume that these removals were in good faith.


 * The last contribution to this article by the IP is a list of claims made by Neil Whitehead regarding the maternal immune hypothesis. Neil Whitehead is a Board member of NARTH and has been known to misrepresent research on homosexuality and to make statistics up, which is why I am just not sure if the claims he made are valid. (For future reference: NARTH has also been known to misrepresent research on sexual orientation, which is why I don’t feel it is a reliable source on the topic of sexual orientation).


 * These are all the points I wanted to discuss regarding the IP's edit. If I may, I'd like to talk about the rest of the article too. It has multiple issues. Before I made edits to it (a long while back), the article was giving the impression that a homosexual orientation is the result of child abuse. Cited as evidence were two studies, one of which had been critiqued into oblivion because it had quite serious methodological flaws (that study's actual findings also contradicted the conclusions drawn from them) and the other study stated that there is no link between sexual orientation and child abuse (but this was conveniently left out). All in all, there were no reliable studies or honestly quoted studies to back up the suggestions of abuse-related causation being made in the Wiki article; studies were actually stating the exact opposite. The current Wiki article is citing the work of the discredited Paul Cameron who was expelled from of the American Psychological Association specifically because an enquiry found that he "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism." Additionally, in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer assessed Cameron's affidavits regarding homosexuals and wrote in his opinion that Cameron had engaged in "fraud" and "misrepresentations to this Court." His work is not a reliable source hence any claims in the Wiki article using his work as the sole reference should be removed. The current article is also generalizing the results of Frisch & Hviid’s study on Danish same-sex married people (who are a minority of Danish homosexual or bisexual people) on all homosexual people, even though researchers have pointed out that one cannot interpret findings about the correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriage as if they were findings about the correlates of heterosexual and homosexual orientation. Frisch & Hviid have themselves acknowledged this and stated that their findings "should not be used incautiously to define childhood determinants of sexual orientation," which is what the current wiki article is doing. Also could someone please verify if Frisch & Hviid's study says living in an urban setting causes people to have a homosexual orientation? Otherwise, the sentence in the 'Urban setting' section ("In Denmark, people born in the capital [...] than their rural-born peers") is WP:SYNTH. The current Wiki article also states: "McConaghy (2006) found no relationship between the strength of the effect and degree of homosexual feelings, suggesting the influence of fraternal birth order was not due to a biological, but a social process." However if one reads his study, it's clear that McConaghy (2006) investigated birth order in men and women who anonymously reported "some" homosexual feelings; few of them identified as homosexual. The current article also does not mention yet how numerous studies have demonstrated that the fraternal birth order effect does not operate through social or postnatal mechanisms (e.g. learning, rearing, living with older brothers, etc.); rather it is biological in nature and operates prenatally.


 * These are my issues with the IP's edits and the current Wiki article in general. I would appreciate if information is added honestly to the Wiki article from reliable sources and not from sources known to be dishonest or factually incorrect about sexual orientation-related topics. I would also appreciate if the IP would kindly share the reference for his "Xq28 would only account for 5-30% of the cases" statement. I also feel WP:LGBT needs to get involved in improving this Wiki article. —Human10.0 (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Human10.0, with regard to your statements about Neil Whitehead, I feel I must draw your attention to WP:BLP. The policy applies everywhere, to article talk pages as much as to articles themselves. You have provided two sources to back up your extremely negative statements about Whitehead, but both these sources are blog postings. As I have noted in the past, postings from blogs - where anyone can make any claim they feel like making and there are no accepted procedures for fact-checking - are not an acceptable basis for claims about living persons. I would urge you to redact your comments about Whitehead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See, this is one of the problems I referred to above when I said that multiple, simultaneous changes to various parts of the article, accompanied by walls of text on the talk page, make it difficult to tell at a glance what's going on. If I'd had the time to check things out, I would have found what I suspected was there: total bullshit. NARTH is an organization with a sociopolitical agenda that is both incompatible with legitimate science and potentially ruinous to the health and safety of the most vulnerable LGBT populations. I don't know what Whitehead's exact relationship to NARTH is, but he's all over their web site. At his own site, which I won't inadvertently promote by linking here but is easily found, is posted the prominent claim that "Huge amounts of impartial scientific evidence now make it abundantly clear that homosexuality is not biologically hard-wired and that change is possible." At the very least, that is an extremely inaccurate, misleading statement. He's entitled to his opinion, of course, but we need to be extra cautious about including anything in this article from someone who mischaracterizes the situation that grossly. And come on . . . are we really for one moment taking halfway seriously something about sexual orientation that was published in the Regent University Law Review? Really? Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to disagree with Whitehead's views, but your personal disagreement with Whitehead is not a valid reason for not using his work as a source (there may be other and more convincing reasons for not using it, of course). The talk page is not for discussing our personal views of sexual orientation, per WP:NOTFORUM. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Spare me the arrogant lectures and the links to policy pages, FreeKnowledgeCreator. For one thing, I can quote WP policy just as well as you can; for another, the one you linked is irrelevant. My "personal" views aren't at issue here; what's at issue are Whitehead's stated views, NARTH's activities, and Regent University vis-à-vis their usability for the article. That's what I was discussing. Sorry if you didn't like it. Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You appeared to be trying to use the talk page to discuss your personal views of sexual orientation. A reminder that this is not what talk pages are for seemed appropriate, and WP:NOTFORUM does cover the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I'm sorry it appeared that way to you, and I assume that your "reminder" was made in good faith, but I assure you that I'm not forgetful when it comes to things like the purpose of talk pages. Were you to carefully reread what I wrote, you might perceive that what I actually did was to express my personal editorial judgment about the careless introduction of content rooted in pathological science and its practitioners. Now, if you think further comment on the nature of my contributions to this page is warranted, I suggest making it in user talk namespace. Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 04:32, 4 October 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)
 * You might have noticed that I have not bothered to revert any edits at the article. I'm really less concerned with the article itself than I am with Human10.0's use of blog postings to try to attack and discredit Neil Whitehead; it's not the first time I've pointed out to him that he shouldn't be doing this, per WP:BLP. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

____

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140628094701/http://www.psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation to http://www.psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141228033920/http://knowledgex.camh.net/amhspecialists/Screening_Assessment/assessment/ARQ2/Pages/arq2_question_a2.aspx to http://knowledgex.camh.net/amhspecialists/Screening_Assessment/assessment/ARQ2/Pages/arq2_question_a2.aspx
 * Added tag to http://www.psych.utah.edu/people/people/diamond/Publications/Was%20it%20a%20Phase.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Weird usage of sources?
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)


 * Read WP:Fringe theories. While the scientific community has already clarified multiple times that parenting, social environment, etc have no influence, there will always be publications claiming the contrary but failing the necessary peer review process for one reason or another. To be clear, that's not science. Unsurprisingly, you will usually find their authors or funding come from religious groups or can be connected to them.
 * What to do with this article: What's encyclopaedic about this subject is really just the relevant quotes from APA, RCP, etc., they provide the necessary and sufficient information on what's known/not known to date. Anything else can is necessarily POV, undue weight or original research. Now this whole article is a self-contradicting mess, and should be deleted for the most part. Possibly (most of) the article does not really have a reason to be here on Wikipedia other than spamming non-scientific publications. --151.75.84.245 (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are WP:Socking because you are using your IP to avoid scrutiny. So I suggest you stop unless you want to be reported. That "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" is a fact. And it is supported by solid sources, and yet you removed that from the lead of the article, which was extensively discussed. The lead is meant to summarize the article. And this article is about "environment and sexual orientation." So, yes, per WP:Lead, the lead will include the controversial material you do not like. It is not WP:Undue weight as long as we are clear about what the literature generally supports. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As seen here, I removed the Parenting section since it was based on Paul Cameron's research. His research is better covered in the "History of sexual abuse" section, I suppose. It gives it context. With this edit, I removed "has linked parenting or familial environment to non-heterosexual identities" from the lead. This is because (discounting Cameron) it's supported by one source (so far) in the article and not covered enough lower in the article. I will go ahead and note now here on this talk page that "influence sexual orientation," "affect sexual orientation" and "determine sexual orientation" do not necessarily mean the same thing; in fact, "influence" and "determine" or "affect" and "determine" often don't. So with regard to "linked parenting or familial environment to non-heterosexual identities," some research indicates that children raised by same-sex couples are likelier to be freer with their sexual orientation identity. In other words, where a child who is raised by heterosexual parents might be reluctant to reveal a non-heterosexual identity, a child raised by same-sex parents is more likely to be non-reluctant to do so. As for the link to childhood gender nonconformity and homosexuality, that should remain in the lead. Research has consistently shown that children who display gender nonconformity are very likely to grow up gay/lesbian or bisexual. And the article has a whole section on that. Doc James, thanks for semi-protecting the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not been following this article and I am a little unclear on what is going on here. It does seem, however, that the IP editor wrongly labelled a good faith reversion as vandalism here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How can rollbacking without reading the edit summary be good faith? --151.75.72.194 (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is something another editor is known to do as well. As for what was going on, the IP (like another editor has been known to do) presented a "scientist know the exact cause" and "biology only" view of sexual orientation as scientific consensus, when scientific consensus does not state that, and when one of the sources quotes the American Psychological Association as stating "[t]he reason some individuals develop a gay sexual identity has not been definitively established – nor do we yet understand the development of heterosexuality." The IP also removed the "non-heterosexual identities" and "childhood gender nonconformity and homosexuality" material from the lead. I reverted the IP, but (as noted above) re-removed the "non-heterosexual identities" content and made some other changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The only environment that has been proven to date to influence sexual behavior is the intra-uterine environment, and no evidence exists that the social environment have an influence. Note what's missing it's not just substantive evidence, it's scientific evidence because the "studies" providing what homophobes call "evidence" lack the scientific methodology that allows the results to be called reliable. Now this page is just a big workaround to play on a misunderstanding arising from the omission of the necessary intra-uterine term, based on non-scientific publications such as Cameron, and quoting unrelevant people partially quoting the official sources making them say what they don't. --151.75.72.194 (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As you very well know, my detailed response, with WP:Reliable sources, is here at my talk page. Your "proven" claim is faulty. It is not what sources that have reviewed the literature on sexual orientation state; they don't use the word "proven." The Royal College of Psychiatrists source that you love so much and always default back to states, "It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature." Well, that is not a surprise since no legitimate scientist today has ruled out the very likely impact of biology on sexual orientation. You speak of "partially quoting the official sources," and yet here you left out "it would appear." You speak of "making [sources] say what they don't," and yet you presented the Royal College of Psychiatrists source as relaying scientific consensus. That source does not state that biology is the only factor. Nor does it state what the scientific consensus on sexual orientation is. It does, however, state that "there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences have any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation." Similarly, the lead of this article states that "there is no substantial evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences influence sexual orientation." Scientists state that the hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation are weak, especially for males. They state that "although it would also be less surprising to us (and to others; see Baumeister, 2000) to discover that social environment affects female sexual orientation and related behavior, that possibility must be scientifically supported rather than assumed" and "both hypotheses require direct scientific support; neither can claim confirmation solely because support for the other is weak." They do not rule out the post-natal social environment hypotheses. They call them weak. We definitely see that they are open about the matter with regard to girls/women. At WP:LGBT, you pointed to this section of the Sexual orientation article. Well, that section contradicts you as well, since it repeatedly states that there is no scientific consensus on what causes sexual orientation (but also notes that scientists know it's not a choice). We know that biological models for sexual orientation (some of which include social aspects) are favored by researchers. But, again, they have not ruled out the post-natal social environment. This 2014 Elsevier Health Sciences source used in the lead goes one step further and notes that social factors possibly being part of the combination is something that a number of researchers believe. It states, "No conclusive evidence supports any one specific cause of homosexuality; however, most researchers agree that biological and social factors influence the development of sexual orientation." I don't see that the article is making sources say what they don't say. I already took care of the Cameron stuff, and I will tweak the article more as time goes on. And to be clearer, although what determines sexual orientation is not conclusive and subject to debate, scientists are very clear that social environment affects sexual behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Dubious Referencing of the American Psychiatric Association
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)

Prenatal environment?
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)
 * Prenatal environment is currently mentioned in the lead and briefly in the "Childhood gender nonconformity" and "Family influences" sections. Fraternal birth order (a subsection in the "Family influences" section), for example, clearly concerns the prenatal environment. Discussion of the prenatal environment isn't off-limits in this article. It's just in sections that it's related to rather than having its own section. The way an article is set up can have no deep reason; it can be just because that's how the article evolved due to edits from various editors over the years. More about the prenatal environment can obviously be added to this article, but we should keep in mind that, per WP:Summary style, most of what is in the Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation article shouldn't be duplicated here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Lisa M. Diamond text
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)
 * I disagree, but remove it if you like. I can see that more editors oppose than support it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Freeknowledgecreator, I know it's been removed, but as as a point of interest, everyone has heard of the rare case of women going off men after a nasty divorce, but do we hear stories of straight men 'going gay' after a nasty divorce with a woman? Unlikely. The inclusion of the quote "contradict conventional models of sexual orientation as a fixed and uniformly early-developing trait" is a poor use of quote mining (not to mention unrelated to environment and sexual orientation?), since Lisa M. Diamond has also co-authored articles with J. Michael Bailey which state that most exclusive homosexuals show very little change in their attraction. Diamond cites examples of bisexually oriented women realizing they are attracted to women at a much later age (usually after in an unsatisfied relationship with men), but rarely gives the example of exclusive lesbians suddenly liking men. Diamond has made rather broad proclamations about homosexuality based on her research of lesbians (e.g. in a Ted talk), yet appears to ignore her other work with Bailey showing men don't change their sexuality. --Sxologist (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Urban setting (Laumann 1994)
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)
 * You can certainly adjust the text to match the source more closely, including adding the suggestion that gay people simply move to cities and/or can be open about their orientation. Crossroads -talk- 03:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

"Family Influences" poor citations
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)
 * The article you link to represents only one opinion about the issue and much of what it says could be criticized. There would be little point to trying to enter into criticism of it, but it is worth noting that content added to the article should reflect the wide range of scholarly literature, not just one paper. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I did not say everything should be replaced with Bailey. There are actually two citations about familial environment in the introduction which are not used in the body. I quite clearly say this area should touch on all areas of the theoretical models which would clearly not be covered in Bailey. As the heading states, my main criticism is of the primary research which is used to make unsupported statements. The point was Bailey covered most of the theoretical models around the social environmental causes of homosexuality, so it is a good starting point to cover all the proposed ideas. --Sxologist (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * since you appear relatively knowledgable on the topics surrounding familial impact on sexual orientation, I would actually appreciate your help in revamping this area of the article. You could take a look at the Bailey review starting at page 83 onwards. It is a pretty carefully crafted article that makes no grand or sweeping statements. We should be committed to improving the article rather than leaving it stagnant with primary research and the conclusions from the abstracts of papers, or worse, the conclusions a drive by IP editor decides to make from research. --Sxologist (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not utterly dismissing the Bailey paper or saying that it should not be taken into account. I also make no claim to being any kind of authority on "the topics surrounding familial impact on sexual orientation". However, I am familiar with some of the works cited by Bailey and his colleagues. In my opinion, quite different conclusions could be drawn from those works than the conclusions Bailey and co draw. Bailey and co's conclusions might well look authoritative to a casual reader. However, if you are well-informed enough, you can see how the literature they cite could suggest very different conclusions. Actually, I would love to explain why I think Bailey and co are wrong in some of their conclusions, but I know better than to try. Wikipedia is hardly the place for it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * That’s the reason I asked. If you know of some common explanations they should be included here. If there’s more recent reviews of the research regarding familial factors then should we consider including them? Obviously that means including the arguments against those. The current paragraphs are messy. Sxologist (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't use the term "original research" to refer to primary sources. That term, on Wikipedia, overwhelmingly refers to violations of WP:NOR; that is, research or WP:Synthesis that is original to a Wikipedia editor. Using it otherwise will confuse people. But I see no reason to bring back the Taiwan study.
 * As for whether we should 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)
 * The sources are original research? Are you using the term "original research" differently than Wikipedia uses it? What Crossroads means regarding how the term is used on Wikipedia is what WP:NOR states. WP:NOR states, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." It then clarifies with a note: "By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are  to the topic of the article, and  the material being presented."


 * As for older sources, WP:MEDDATE has solid guidance, including not giving undue weight to recent sources. The literature on sexual orientation doesn't produce many reviews or even a lot of reviews. So the "may need to be relaxed" aspect of WP:MEDDATE applies to this area. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sxologist, sources can't be original research in the Wikipedia sense. While off-wiki that phrase is sometimes used to refer to individual research papers/studies, on-wiki it is always used in line with what Flyer22 Frozen quoted above. You shouldn't use the term to refer to Wikipedians call "primary sources". People will get confused, and you may end up accused of misrepresenting what you removed - e.g., "this is not original research, this is just relaying what this study found." While original research is never allowed, primary sources sometimes are. See WP:PSTS. Crossroads -talk- 18:58, 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)

"Men who exhibited gender non-conforming (feminine) behaviour as children are more likely to experience child sexual abuse"
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)
 * As I said when I removed it, the problem with the material, as I saw it, is that its overall relevance to the article topic, proposed environmental influences on the development of sexual orientation, was less than clear. The material might of course possibly have other problems as well. I didn't look at it that closely. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article already talks about sexual abuse and sexual orientation, so I don't see it as off topic. But as Flyer said, it would be best to rely on secondary sources. The Bailey et al review and the meta-analysis would be fine. Crossroads -talk- 05:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article already talks about sexual orientation in relation to child sexual abuse, but that's addressing whether or not child sexual abuse influences a gay/lesbian or bisexual orientation. The text in question is about whether or not a male child is at risk for child sexual abuse because of his gender-noncomformity. The Environment and sexual orientation article is about how the environment affects or may affect sexual orientation. Even if we want to say, well, the text in question is related to sexual orientation because childhood gender nonconformity is such a prominent indicator of sexual orientation (especially for males), it's still the case that the text is not about how environment impacts sexual orientation. It's still the case that this research is too new and including it can be argued as WP:Undue based on that alone. If this material is to be added (in a trimmed fashion), it's better suited for for the Gender variance article (which currently and briefly already addresses the topic),  and the Childhood gender nonconformity article. If we agree that the scope of the Environment and sexual orientation article should also allow for content like this, since it is titled "Environment and sexual orientation", okay then. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the Bailey et al. review explicitly makes the point that nonheterosexuals having experienced sexual abuse at higher rates may be because of their being targeted for gender non-conformity, among other explanations. It's the last paragraph under "Recruitment/seduction". I said it was on topic because it is about the claim that this aspect of the environment influences sexual orientation. Crossroads -talk- 05:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You and I have discussed the Bailey source for other material. I've read all of the source and recall the piece you're pointing to. I'm simply stating that this is new research needing further investigation, isn't something that is stated as a definitive reason, and that the text in question is about whether or not a male child is at risk for child sexual abuse because of his gender-noncomformity rather than how environment impacts (influences) sexual orientation. It could be worded differently to better fit with the notion that child sexual abuse influences sexual orientation, such as noting that researchers have looked into this aspect as a result of that notion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I found the full text and an additional source. The full text is available here: Xu and Zheng (2015). Page 9-10 "CGNC and CSA" reports that heterosexual men with gender non-conforming childhood (CGNC) behavior were 41% more likely to report child sexual abuse than heterosexual met who did not. Homosexual men reporting CGNC behavior were 19% more likely to report child abuse than homosexual men who did not. Gay/bi men were significantly more CGNC than heterosexual men. For both heterosexual and non-hetero women, CGNC was not a significant predictor for CSA. Additionally, Roberts et al. (2012) reports "We identify gender nonconformity before age 11 years as a risk indicator for physical, sexual, and psychological abuse in childhood". They state: "our study cannot determine the causal relationship between abuse and gender nonconformity; in other words, the extent to which nonconformity is a risk factor for abuse versus an indicator of abuse". But the other sources cited on this wiki page have not determined the casual relationship between sexual abuse and orientation. Does that mean they should be excluded too? An existing citation on the wiki page, Holmes (1998), touched on the hypothesis that gender non-conformity precedes abuse so the theory was put out long ago and there is research to back it up. I understand additional research would be great, but, this page (rightly) includes theoretical models that have been criticized, such as Bem's exotic become erotic theory. Bem relied on decades old convenience sample data, not his own, and appeared to contradict the data in many cases. Wouldn't a theory of CGNC preceding molestation of boys (with relevant data to back it) be considered up to standard?  I would argue Bailey/Xu/Roberts/Holmes are at least reason enough to include the statement that there is evidence CGNC is a factor which may lead to CSA among men, as potentially part of the reason there is an increased rate among homosexual men. --Sxologist (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Including Bem's research is not the same. It's been around for a long time now and is covered in secondary and tertiary sources. Plenty of academic sources, such as this 2010 "The SAGE Handbook of Identities" (reprint) source, from Sage Publications, pages 177 to 178, and this 2017 "The Psychology of Human Sexuality" source, from John Wiley & Sons, that cover "exotic becomes erotic." That is why it's very WP:Due to include it in this article. We don't exclude a theory or hypothesis simply because it's been criticized. Whether or not to include such material should be based on our WP:Due policy. Even content that is generally considered fringe by academics and falls under our WP:Fringe category may get space in a Wikipedia article or have a Wikipedia article about it. Also note that the "Psychology of Human Sexuality" source states that Bem's theory received a lot of praise, which is something that should also be noted on Wikipedia, including in this Wikipedia article.


 * If you propose text that doesn't give this relatively new research undue weight and sticks to using only Bailey et al. as the source, unless covered in another secondary source or tertiary source that can be placed alongside it, I can agree to including mention of it in the article. Unless a reliable source states it, connecting Holmes (1998) to having thrown the notion out there is WP:Synthesis.


 * Beyond this, I'm for the article being cleaned up so that it barely uses (or doesn't use) primary sources. By this, I mean replacing primary sourced material with secondary sources or tertiary sources. For content we consider cutting, we should keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * On a side note: As mentioned here, I never saw an academic state that Bem argues that people aren't born with a sexual orientation, like Justin J. Lehmiller does (in the "The Psychology of Human Sexuality" source). They speak of Bem talking of how people are predisposed to have a certain sexual orientation; but Justin J. Lehmiller does mention that aspect. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "In this address, I outline my “Exotic-Becomes-Erotic" theory of sexual orientation (Bem, 1996), which provides the same basic account for both
 * opposite-sex and same-sex erotic desire—and for both men and women. It proposes that biological variables do not code for sexual orientation per ::::::::se but for childhood temperaments that influence a child’s preferences for sextypical or sex-atypical activities." From "Exotic Becomes Erotic:
 * Explaining the Enigma of Sexual Orientation", freely available ::::::::here. If someone writes something like that it seems perfectly obvious that he believes sexual orientation is not innate. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As noted by Lehmiller, he speaks of biological predisposition. And biological predisposition concerns innateness. Lehmiller notes that Bem's theory "links biological and environmental influences." Also, the "The SAGE Handbook of Identities" source relays that Bem "does not intend his model as an absolute prescription for all individuals, but rather as a modal or average explanation. He suggests that biological variables (these could be genetic, and/or development[al]) affect early temperament, which in turn influence the development of preferences for sex typical or atypical play. Such preferences lead in turn to feeling different from opposite or same-sex peers. He further postulates that individuals develop attractions to those from who they feel different during childhood. Thus, early gender interests lead to later physiological or sexual attractions." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sxologist, I agree with Flyer22 Frozen regarding the sexual abuse material. With Bem's theory, while it did get some positive attention as Lehmiller states and Flyer22 Frozen pointed out for balance's sake, I do want to emphasize that Lehmiller also said, 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)
 * Agreed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, given these assessments I am happy to concur. Thank you to all for the time put into checking this. Flyer, regarding your statement: "If you propose text that doesn't give this relatively new research undue weight and sticks to using only Bailey et al. as the source, unless covered in another secondary source or tertiary source that can be placed alongside it, I can agree to including mention of it in the article". I'm just seeking clarification as to what you mean here. Does this mean a valid secondary source would need to refer to Bailey (which seems more like an analysis)? Or Xu? Of course, I'm not expecting to find a current source that will support this but seeking clarification for the future. Thanks --Sxologist (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mean that a valid secondary source would need to refer to Bailey. I mean another secondary source that speaks on the topic. This, or a tertiary source, could be placed alongside Bailey et al. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:14, 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)

Criticism paragraph under "Childhood gender nonconformity"
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)
 * As you know, childhood gender nonconformity often correlating with sexual orientation is well-established, especially for men. So we definitely need to consider any criticism of it in the context of WP:Due weight. If including criticism of it, it shouldn't be much, should be from non-primary sources, and it's best not to just include Gottschalk's criticism. If Gottschalk is the only criticism, that is clearly a WP:Due weight concern. And what is done at this article regarding that material should also be done at the Childhood gender nonconformity article (since Gottschalk's criticism has a section there).


 * On a side note: Not all radical feminists can be described as "TERFs." And per this BLP RfC and this category discussion, it's best to not call a BLP subject a TERF (except for minor exceptions). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * By the way, I didn't call her a TERF simply for being a rad-fem, but on the basis that she helped co-author a book with Sheila Jeffrey's which attacked sexual orientation and transgenderism. Gottschalk and Jeffrey's referred to anyone who detransitioned as 'survivors', and insists on using male pronouns to refer to trans women and female ones to refer to trans men. It's outlined in an article from the New Yorker. So, is it possible we can just shorten the criticism and follow it with the methods used to minimize bias? Bailey wrote one response in 2009 to a criticism regarding video, which covered the volume of research on it. Although there's probably something more up to date if I look harder. I think Bailey pretty much acknowledges where bias may play into it through all of his papers. --Sxologist (talk) 12:10, 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)

Seeking clarification re: Family influences
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)

Introduction sentence
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)


 * The problem is that the previous wording ("Unlike sexual orientation identity, they do not view sexual orientation as a choice") was ungrammatical. It implies that "sexual orientation identity" is a thing that has a view of whether sexual orientation is a choice. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but the new sentence requires more than a double take. My eye goes to "as not being a choice" and back to 'sexual orientation identity' and then is confused about what part is really meant. My point is that it is not legible for the average reader. The page is about sexual orientation and thus doesn't need to say 'but by the way orientation identity is a choice' in the intro because the average person has no clue what that means. --Sxologist (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove the reference to sexual orientation identity entirely if you like. I don't care. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding this and this? The grammar was better before this change. I fail to see how "Unlike sexual orientation identity, they do not view sexual orientation as a choice." was an issue or poor grammar. Reading the original wording for the sentence again, from a different line of thinking, I can see how "Unlike sexual orientation identity, they do not view sexual orientation as a choice" could have been better worded. But I don't think that most readers would have read it in the way it was recently read. It was there for years, and readers knew, for example, that "they" was referring to "scientists." But, anyway, like I stated with this note, since sexual identity is a choice and is often conflated with sexual orientation, this should be mentioned in the lead and lower. It is already mentioned lower, although that section needs tweaking, which I can easily do with reliable academic sources. The lead should summarize the article per WP:Lead. That stated, I see no need to focus on this right now. First, the body of the article should be fixed up and then we can focus on any needed tweaking of the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * And sexual identity has to do with the environment for reasons noted in the Sexual identity article. Sexual identity being conflated with sexual orientation is an issue with regard to, for example, demographics of sexual orientation. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A reader could probably guess what "Unlike sexual orientation identity, they do not view sexual orientation as a choice" was intended to mean, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is ungrammatical. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I stated, and as indicated by Sxologist, the new wording wasn't an improvement, though, at least not much of one. Or maybe Sxologist did view the new wording as a slight improvement and didn't bring up the previous wording due to not having paid much attention to it before you edited it. Again, we can come back to this aspect later and word the matter better then. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Tomeo/Temper (2001) under sexual abuse
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)


 * Update: I will post some suggested changes here, when I have some time, and get consensus first instead of just editing it. --Sxologist (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have been in contact with Ken Zucker and it sounds like this study is being considered for retraction. Should we remove it anyways since it's practically bunk? Having a Donald I. Templer study here is like including a Paul Cameron study. Templer compared his fellow white supremacists to Galileo. --Sxologist (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Anybody? --Sxologist (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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)
 * I suggest editing the article with whatever you have in mind for this, and if we feel the need to tweak it and/or revert and discuss further, then we can do that. Crossroads -talk- 02:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Introduction sentence, Part 2
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)
 * We need a solid academic source stating that first. Also, this is better addressed lower in the article first. And while it's common for sources to state "genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure", I have at times seen sources categorize or seemingly categorize prenatal hormones as genetic. This ranges from biology, physiology, psychology and sociology sources to other types of sources. That stated, I do more often see wording such as "hormones and genes" (as to make it clear that they aren't the same thing). For example, this 2014 "Knobil and Neill's Physiology of Reproduction" source, from Academic Press, page 2179, focuses on reproduction, but takes the time to state, "Alternatively, the postnatal educational or social environment could interact with prenatal biological factors (hormones, genes) to determine adult sexual orientation." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the "prenatal hormones as genetic" thing has to do with "biological" and "genetic" often being seen as synonyms...even though "biological" covers a lot more. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, it needs a good source. My point is that often many scientists when talking to the media will simply say "environment" as though the general public has any idea what that means. Take the 2019 Ganna study, in which ganna says genes make up 8-25% of the influence and the rest is "environmental". Very few journalists even covered what that meant, and just left it as "it's mostly environmental". People google that and they're left a bit unsure. I would probably say that the page should have a short section explaining exactly what environment encompasses with regard to sexual orientation research? --Sxologist (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Given good sources, of course, I'm fine with it. Maybe propose it here on Talk when you're ready? Crossroads -talk- 20:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as far as journalists getting it wrong, you are absolutely correct that this happens too much. A particularly egregious example is here, where BuzzFeed News, in a piece about whether heterosexuality may be "a doomed project", claims: 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)

Sexual orientation of boys who were surgically reassigned female
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)
 * It was seven individual boys. The section was perfectly clear to me. Crossroads -talk- 05:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes seven boys. You can see a table here from the original Bailey review. Sxologist (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

History of sexual abuse - expansion
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.


 * First I trimmed the APA quote since higher rate of abuse is pretty well established, but the first half of the quote about direct causality is still valid.
 * Meta-analysis of abuse: Holmes (1998) is very much out of date and relied on some convenience samples, so I replaced it with largest meta analysis (2011) of 17 different population sample studies which reported an average of a 3.8 times higher rate of childhood sexual abuse among sexual minorities. For the readers sake, I think it does fit best after the longitudinal study and flows nicely into the explanations of higher rates of abuse?
 * Gender nonconformity as a risk factor: this time I included secondary sources for Xu & Zheng 2015 (covered by LeVay) and Roberts 2012 (covered by CNN). By the way, Roberts et al. talk extensively about sexual orientation in the study, I wasn't just linking it in with sexual orientation purely on the basis of gender nonconformity.
 * Other risk factors: Teenage risk based upon limited options seems pretty well established and nicely outlined in Bailey. That review in of itself should be a reasonable citation since they refer to earlier research on age discrepant relationships. Wide definitions and reporting bias are mentioned in Bailey and have always been underscored in most research. Corrective rape (I used citations from that article). Convenience sampling worth mentioning IMO.
 * I also added the hypothesized effect on orientation from a few researchers. The first two are that abuse can have an impact on sexual orientation (Roberts 2013) however I kept this to their proposed hypothesis on why that is (aversion in women and confusion in men), because their mathematical calculations were heavily criticized for trying to calculate the impact with a model usually restricted to economics (more research required). The second perspective, from Bailey & Bailey was from the first of two criticisms he published of Roberts - and argues that abuse has little to no impact on males.

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)
 * This is perhaps too much. And you know how I feel about including single study material. You also didn't propose this content in a sandbox first, which is less collaborative, given the contentious nature of the material and that I've suggested you using your sandbox to propose things first. I have not taken the time to read all of what you added or thoroughly examine it. So I will at at some point get back to this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Having looked at it a bit more, it's not bad. I'll try not to come across as snippy regarding your edits in the future. But I do think it's a bit heavy on citing single studies. And I really prefer to not use primary sources for this material. I will also note that one has to be careful with the following: "Some researchers hypothesize that sexual abuse of females by male perpetrators may cause some women to be aversive to sexual relationships with men." This is because it's led to the belief that child sexual abuse against female children can turn them into lesbians. That stated, some lesbians have relayed that they are penis-repulsed and/or male-repulsed because of child sexual abuse they experienced. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. And no problem regarding snippiness, I know that my early edits were poorly cited and I have been too aggressive on some talk pages, and I don't think it was constructive or useful - you should continue to be vigilant because I will clearly still have those blind spots. Thank you for clarifying to use sandbox - I will absolutely do that if I proposed a big edit in future. Do you think this: ""Some researchers hypothesize that sexual abuse of females by male perpetrators may cause some women to be aversive to sexual relationships with men" should be changed? I can see it causing issues if people translate the English article into other languages too. My reading about female sexuality does have gaps since most research tends to focus on men. Perhaps it needs to follow with something about most lesbians having not been abused? The paragraph following that cites the Bailey study with regards to men, but happy to find something for women (be it from a Bailey review or maybe something from Diamond etc). Sxologist (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. I did opt to cut the sentence 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)
 * Regarding the lesbian thing, the women aren't saying that they are lesbian because they were sexually abused as children. They typically aren't saying that anyway. They are saying that they are penis-repulsed and/or male-repulsed because they were sexually abused as children. The same thing has happened to adult women who were raped by men. Not wanting to be touched by another man (or, in some cases, anyone), especially sexually, is a common response after rape. Lasts longer for some than for others. For some, the feeling appears indefinite. It's more so documented among adult women because the rape literature is more so focused on women as victims (with child sexual abuse often being treated as a separate category). There's also the fact that child sexual abuse victims grow up and reflect more deeply on the abuse as adults than they did as children. As we know, as children they often don't even understand that they were abused or the context of it. So while reflecting on the matter as adolescents or adults, these girls or women report that the child sexual abuse traumatized them to the point that they are penis-repulsed and/or male-repulsed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you're saying. That makes sense to me. Crossroads -talk- 05:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Something else I should have mentioned is that the "some researchers hypothesize" text isn't really a hypothesis or scientific matter that needs to be proven since lesbians and heterosexual men do report those things. As you know, I touched on the "I was raped by a man, so I fear I'm gay or that others will think I'm gay" line of thinking among heterosexual men (with sources) at Talk:Rape of males. Whether it's happened to men as children or as adults, heterosexual men often question their sexuality and/or masculinity after the sexual violation. When I read the "while sexual abuse perpetrated by men, may cause men to believe they are homosexual" text in the article, though, it seemed like it was focused on how perpetrators feel -- that the perpetrators might believe themselves to be gay. I'd need to look at the source to see what was meant. I'm not stating that the text you removed should go back in the article, but adding something about these aspects to the article is something to consider. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It may have been some complicated wording on the part of the original article. But it actually meant victims may think they are gay because they were targeted by men (which they believe was due to some signal they gave off, e.g. gender nonconformity or appearance). It simply pointed out that most of the child abuse of men is primarily perpetuated by men. It didn't mean the abusers think they are gay. And I agree about the confusion etc. which was also highlighted in the longitudinal study at the top of this section. That's probably how it should have been worded, and is exactly what the original sentences were getting at. The "some researchers hypothesize" was really pointing to the Roberts (2013) study because although they mathematically calculated an impact on sexual orientation, they did hypothesize at the end that these identifying bisexuals and homosexuals may not really be gay. The Bailey critiques were pretty strong against Roberts (faulty methodology) so that's why I used the word hypothesize. It's perhaps more useful to just simply keep it simple and say child abuse can provoke confusion about orientation. Sxologist (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Since "think they are gay because they were targeted by men" is not necessarily the same thing as "think they are gay because they were sexually abused by men" (when heterosexual men think the sexual abuse means that they are or might be gay and gay men think that the sexual abuse caused or may have caused them to be gay), that's another reason we have to be careful when relaying this information. In the aforementioned linked discussion at Talk:Rape of males, we can see that I provided a source that relays that gay men who were raped by men as adults think they were targeted because they are gay (which is similar to gay men who were sexually abused by men as children thinking that they were targeted because they read as gay). I'm sure that not all gay men (especially non-feminine ones) think this, but it is a common thought among gay men. I also wouldn't want to add something as simple as "child sexual abuse can provoke confusion about sexual orientation" without context (despite the fact that the section is clear that the idea that child sexual abuse can make someone gay, lesbian, or bisexual is a faulty notion). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * On a side note, I'm also not keen on the term "prehomosexual" being used, and I didn't know until this expansion that the term had a Wikipedia article. But if using the term helps in this case, especially because it's what the researchers use, oh well. Still not keen on the single study material, but when it's reported on in a secondary or tertiary source, I don't mind its inclusion as much or at all. Also, this section is currently, or comes across as being, the biggest section in the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I am planning on adding to the other sections of the article since they look to be often incoherent summaries of the evidence, and many of the paragraphs rely on the summaries of various studies rather than that of secondary reviews and meta analysis. Only included those two studies under gender nonconformity risk because they are covered by two secondary sources. Sxologist (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I didn't think you were done expanding the article. Just pointing out how hefty that section appears in relation to the others. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding the term 'pre-homosexual'; it was used in the Bailey review (hence why I included it) and I have seen Blanchard use it a lot. Case in point at 1:05:15 in this presentation Blanchard invokes the term. I guess it corresponds to people who have what he would describe as brains with homosexually arranged sections. This term is still useful even in EBE theory because it still states that homosexual neural pathways would be formed prior to knowledge of sexual attraction. On the other hand childhood sexual abuse can still be occurring after you have knowledge of sexual attraction - especially since many childhood sexual abuse research papers define it as unwanted sexual contact before 16 or 18. Having read numerous studies, it appears a lot of abuse is occurring at ages 13-15 when boys usually have some idea of who they are attracted to. No doubt a feminine 13 year old boy could be targeted for abuse in part for his gender nonconformity, but he wouldn't be what you would call pre-homosexual if he knows he is homosexual. Perhaps it's best to say that pre-homosexuals and homosexuals are somewhat identifiable - putting them at risk for abuse (or homosexually attracted people, since that could include bisexuals). Sxologist (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Boys reared as girls, worth a mention?
"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)
 * Seems like it could be added. Crossroads -talk- 04:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * On the topic of one gender to another, this article can also include material on some transgender people reporting a change in their sexual orientation after going on hormones. This is currently reported on in the Transgender sexuality article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * That's quite a complex area and there is a lot of conflicting research. It's well known that testosterone makes FTM more horny in general, and if they stop taking hormones or reduce doses their sexual attraction dissipates. I note that some of those citations on the Transgender sexuality article mention nothing of sexual orientation so I do think some of those citations are poorly sourced. Sxologist (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I wanted to add another comment here regarding transgender people for future editors. I personally think you would need good lab studies to include this. The problem with the self-reports, as Ray Blanchard points out, is many transsexual men who would be characterized as autogynephiliacs (or even just transsexuals attracted to women) claim that they now have attraction to men after they transition because they want to be seen as 'more female' or 'as female' as androphilic transsexuals (transwomen who are attracted to men). I think Blanchard's point is valid, in that self-reports are not reliable nor substitutes for lab arousal studies. Such lab studies would be incredibly easy to perform, since genital blood-flow testing still works well on MtF who have had surgery; performed by shining a light onto the interior vagina/skin and measuring blood flow that way. MtF's follow in the same arousal patterns as males, and are much more 'on' or 'off' in blood flow reaction to sexual stimuli than women are (who express arousal at a variety of different images and it becomes impossible to determine what's actually turning them on). No doubt there is more flexibility in the case of female-to-male transsexuals and transgendered, but it's still impossible to untie confounding factors. One of these is the effect of testosterone on the sex drive, I have seen transmen say they felt sexuality 'changes' because they were on testosterone and it made them incredibly horny – in the same way that teenage boys may same-sex experiment but long term have zero attraction to boys – but after they reduced their doses they felt they had their existing sexual orientation. Regarding men, all of the cases of boys re-assigned as girls in infancy or birth, which are highlighted in the Bailey review, were prescribed estrogen and saw no attraction to men (excluding one person, who is predominantly attracted to women with a small amount of bisexual attraction to men – aka a kinsey 1)... So I'm really not impressed with the Transgender sexuality article claiming transwomen saw a shift in sexuality based on self reports – as Blanchard points out, it's only gynehpilic transsexuals who say that but have no hard evidence to show for it. Of course it's possible that some of them truly do, but I think until there is additional evidence it's a pretty contentious point to make because it gives off the idea that you can just change someones sexual orientation by prescribing them hormones. Sxologist (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Without getting into all of that other stuff, the thing is that some (not all or most) transgender people report changes in their sexual attraction/sexual orientation after going on hormones, which actually strengthens the arguments about hormones affecting sexual orientation. Others don't mention hormones. As long as we have secondary and tertiary sources reporting on this (which we do), we can report on this as well. It's not WP:Undue to do so. And self-report is not an issue when being clear that transgender people are reporting this. As is clear by the Demographics of sexual orientation article, the vast majority of that demographic information is based on self-report. We can't just exclude the "transgender people sometimes report a change in their sexual attraction/sexual orientation" aspect because of personal doubts or other personal views on the matter...any more than we can suppress the overall sexual fluidity literature (which, as I've stated times before, is more so about sexual identity than actual sexual orientation changing and includes people conflating sexual identity change with sexual orientation change).


 * Some sources reporting on the changes aspect with regard to trans people is this 2012 (reprint) "When The Opposite Sex Isn't: Sexual Orientation In Male-to-Female Transgender People" source, from Routledge, pages 65-68, this 2018 "Transgender Mental Health" source, from American Psychiatric Pub, page 170, and this 2018 "LGBTQ Divorce and Relationship Dissolution: Psychological and Legal Perspectives and Implications for Practice" source, from Oxford University Press, page 296.


 * I'll repeat what I stated with this post at Talk:Transgender sexuality, since you took the matter there. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent tool for sources
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)

Acceptable source for paper links?
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)


 * I think I would ask this question at the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
 * The talk page is archived every 90 days, according to the banner at the top of the page. I imagine that was a period decided by consensus. Consensus can be altered by forming a new one. Fiddle   Faddle  12:30, 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)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. Yeah unfortunately some are tightly paywalled and the authors (usually older) don't put them on ResearchGate. I contacted Blanchard who informed me that some journals are going to begin adding special URL's for authors to distribute, which he did say could *potentially* be useful for Wikipedia. Sxologist (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sxologist, make sure to keep WP:COI in mind when contacting researchers or other public figures, especially when editing articles about them. Not that all researchers are public figures. But, anyway, I keep the COI thing in mind as well. Of course, with someone like James Cantor, he edits Wikipedia and considers his own WP:COI, which is helpful.


 * Crossroads, this talk page usually isn't that active. So I think 60 days for the archive is a better fit, but I don't oppose the 30 days you added.


 * Timtrent (Fiddle Faddle), hi. I haven't seen you in a long time. It took me seeing the name "Fiddle Faddle" in your signature to recognize you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Just to clarify the extent of it, I contacted him about one of his meta-analyses of fraternal birth order effect research and whether or not that was available publicly. He pointed me towards a newer one which is publicly available. And i'm sure it could be changed back to 60 days, I simply wasn't aware about the timer. Sxologist (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding "changed back to 60 days", it was 90 before Crossroads changed it to 30. But, yeah, 60 works as a sort of a middle ground for a talk page like this one. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Prehomosexual article
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)
 * Here you are: Crossroads -talk- 05:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh wow lol, what an article ;). However, I would say the term might be worth mentioning in the childhood gender nonconformity article. Sxologist (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When including that, I would reword that first sentence. It, like the term itself, makes it sound like the child is not yet gay or lesbian (when, really, it's that the child is not yet at a typical age where they are going to identify as gay or lesbian), which is one reason I avoid the term. I mean, that version of the article uses the word "undecided", as if the child simply hasn't decided if he or she is gay. As if it's a decision. I'd also consider rewording or dropping that last sentence. Yes, not all gender nonconforming children are gay or lesbian (or bisexual). But, as we know, the correlation is very strong and very common, especially for boys. Also not sure that it needs its own section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I’d never thought of it that way – that makes sense. I will propose an edit to cut down the sexual abuse section, and make it more readable, and it will dispel of that term. I’m guessing Bailey et al use the term on the grounds of brain arrangement in a homosexual fashion, prior to knowledge of orientation, but it probably makes no sense to the layman. Sxologist (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought you were satisfied with the current length of that section. So it seems you feel it can be downsized without cutting any important information? Okay. We'll see what you come up with. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Bearman and Bruckner
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)
 * Well, I guess we can say this illustrates why we rely on secondary sources, since we need them to evaluate the primary sources and disregard the problem ones. Crossroads -talk- 05:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah exactly, I just wanted to take a look because Flyer did say a secondary source mentioning it would be useful but I haven't seen many serious researchers cite it (apart from Blanchard citing it since it didn't find the FBOE because a sample of teenagers wouldn't likely open about orientation). In a long interview I once watched of Blanchard he did not seem impressed with any study positing to claim socialized sexual orientation – and Blanchard is certainly no activist. It's funny how people think they've discredited a body of evidence with one study, simply because the author is a Cornell professor who happens to agree with their views... I have seen many constructionist types cite this study on social media. Sxologist (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You stated, "Flyer did say a secondary source mentioning it would be useful." Eh? When, and for what? I prefer secondary sources in all cases on this topic. So I might have been speaking generally. And as for "socialized sexual orientation", I've only spoken of social environment interacting with genes/hormones in a complex way, meaning things like the "exotic becomes erotic" theory, and Bailey et al. stating "the hypothesis that causal influences on sexual orientation are nonsocial rather than social is better supported for male than for female sexual orientation. [...] Although it would also be less surprising to us (and to others; see Baumeister, 2000) to discover that social environment affects female sexual orientation and related behavior, that possibility must be scientifically supported rather than assumed." In this archived discussion (your "08:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)" post), you stated, "I wasn't saying social environment has no role to play. Coming and editing with the belief that it is 100% biological is just as unscientific. It's pretty clear it varies from person to person and is particularly more important in female development of non-heterosexual orientation." That's what various scientists have stated -- that development of sexual orientation is very likely due to a number of biological and environmental factors (although it seems social environment plays a minor role, especially for men). The idea that social environment alone is responsible for sexual orientation is simply not something that any well-respected expert in this field believes. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Um... what? I think you misunderstood everything I wrote. I simply looked into this paper because you posted this comment stating "If we find criticism on Bearman and Bruckner in non-primary sources, it might be worth mentioning". I simply noted your comment that if criticism was found it should be included. I have not found any notable comments on it. I looked at the paper myself and spotted these obviously flaws. I never said you supported the conclusions drawn by B&B. This paper is with regards to male sexual orientation and contradicts every other finding, so dragging up a comment I made about female sexuality and EBE is unrelated. I feel you have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. If you read my statement in neutral tone, you will see it matches up with your comment about finding a secondary source. I found no such secondary criticism, probably because most scientists in this field don't really care about the conclusions drawn by a sociologists interviews with teenagers. I was doing my best to actually check if there were published criticisms because you had left a comment saying it would be a good idea. :) Sxologist (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please remember that it's best to avoid saying things like "I feel you have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later." That is per WP:FOC. Crossroads -talk- 00:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I did not misunderstand everything you wrote. I wanted to know where you got "Flyer did say a secondary source mentioning it would be useful." The linked statement you pointed to shows me stating, "If we find criticism on Bearman and Bruckner in non-primary sources, it might be worth mentioning." Okay. So that is what you meant. As for the rest, you spoke of "socialized sexual orientation", and I wanted to make my thoughts on that very clear. I was not stating that you said I supported the conclusions drawn by B&B. You stated that "dragging up a comment [you] made about female sexuality and EBE is unrelated." That statement of yours is not simply about female sexuality and EBE. It is about whether or not social environment plays a role in sexual orientation. So, yes, related. You stated that you "feel [I] have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later." I feel the same regarding you when you jump on the defensive time and time again. This is still fresh. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Problem solved. Sxologist (talk) 01:36, 18 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)

Thoughts on adding Chemical disruptors?
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)
 * I'd be curious to get Flyer22 Frozen's thoughts. I wonder how WP:Due the smoking thing is. Is anyone else besides Swaab saying that? I didn't check the book yet. The DES thing is fine with me because I remember reading about that before. Not sure about the soy bit, but since it's more of a debunking and it is apparently an idea going around, one sentence on it may be fine. No real thoughts on the rest at this time. Crossroads -talk- 03:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If included, I would remove the last two paragraphs. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think that's fair. Since the phalates and chemical studies only began in the late 2000's it's still a while yet before there will be ones relating to sexual orientation, much less replications.


 * Crossroads, regarding smoking, Bao and Swaab make reference in this review to some earlier research which found prenatal effects of nicotine, amphetamine, and thyroid medication increases the chances of having lesbian daughters. To be clear, it may only be an association. I'm in no rush to add this into the page so maybe you would like to take a look at Swaab/Bao review to check that, the original smoking study is here. They also implicate prenatal stress, which is much more reliably done than Bailey's earlier one in the 90's, although again – it's just an association not necessarily causal. Shared genes between parents and children are important. Let me know what you think, happy for it to be not included if it's not reliable enough – but the result would be expected, since excess testosterone exposure (caused by smoking) should masculinize the female fetus, while having little effect on a male fetus. Sxologist (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, I didn't know about that review. So long as it is covered here in accord with it, it can be included as far as I'm concerned. Crossroads -talk- 15:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed. No other scientist states that. It is completely WP:Undue. And I do not agree to adding media sources to this article. This existing CNN source should also be removed. And the media sources in the Biology and sexual orientation article should also be removed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * And by "no other scientist states that", I obviously mean the smoking thing. That's why he faced criticism. Yes, fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation is something that is often discussed, but we already have a section on that in the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't endorsing the media sources. Those really should not be used when describing scientific matters. Some pre-existing content in other articles does it, but it's something we should try to avoid making worse. Crossroads -talk- 02:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are media sources not okay even for comments from the authors which clarify the research? Sxologist (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSBREAKING, WP:MEDPOP and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it's best to not use them for academic material. Occasionally, though, as seen with Template:Citation Style documentation/lay, it might me be appropriate to include one as an adjunct to the better source. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:52, 16 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)
 * This is covered by MOS:ENGVAR. Basically, it should be consistent within an article according to what was already there for this sort of topic. Crossroads -talk- 01:15, 15 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)


 * Edit: sorry I missed your comment above. No other scientist states it? It's included in a review by Bao and Swaab here. Does that mean it's undue? Most of the other work which cites the original smoking research only does so for interest of prenatal stress. Yet most of these people are theoretical psychologists, whereas Swaab and Bao are biologists. Tells you a lot. Sxologist (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Second comment just to be clear. I did link the original sources in my paragraph above so that other editors could check it. However it's pretty straightforward that nictone which promotes testosterone exposure would have that effect on female fetuses. I will add that I am happy for it to *not* be included if that is still undue. Sxologist (talk) 04:32, 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)
 * Sxologist, this is what I was going to tell you before your most recent latest reply: I noted from the beginning that I would be against the inclusion. And we can also see what you stated in reply to that. I saw the Bao and Swaab source when you linked to it in response to Crossroads. It's still Swaab. When I commented that "no other scientist states that", I didn't mean that no other scientist could have possibly looked into the matter with Swaab or independent of him. It wasn't about a literal tally. It is about WP:Due. This notion is still a claim largely associated with Swaab. It's something he believes in. So it is not surprising that he would include it in the Bao and Swaab source you linked to since he finds it plausible. But what other scientist agrees with him on this smoking theory? I mean actually agrees rather than just throwing it out there as a possibility? Anyone who explicitly does? Anyone besides Bao if Bao does? If it's a valid theory, the text you included wouldn't attribute it to just Swaab and mention that he received criticism for it.


 * There's also the fact that I hardly see this covered in any academic sources outside of the Bao and Swaab source. I'm guessing that's why you included media sources instead of academic sources for the criticism bit.


 * This is not a significant theory. Yes, I've supported including the criticized "exotic becomes erotic" theory, but that is because of the attention it has received in academic sources.


 * So, taking all of this into account, how is the text not significantly WP:Undue -- to the point where we shouldn't even mention it? Why include it at all? That a famed scientist, neuroscientist or otherwise, stated it is not enough.


 * I've long been aware of research such as "Prenatal nicotine increases testosterone levels in the fetus and female offspring", but that's not all that Swaab is stating on the matter.


 * And I remember when the "The effects of prenatal stress, and of prenatal alcohol and nicotine exposure, on human sexual orientation" source came out all those years ago. To quote the abstract, which I know is not ideal, this study "was undertaken to determine if prenatal stress could be one of the causes of variations in sexual orientation in humans, both singularly and in conjunction with prenatal exposure to alcohol and nicotine. [...] Prenatal nicotine exposure [...] appears to significantly increase the probability of lesbianism among female offspring, especially if the exposure occurred in the first trimester along with prenatal stress in the second trimester. [...] In the case of prenatal nicotine, this study is the first to suggest that this drug has masculinizing/defeminizing effects on the sexual orientation of female offspring."


 * As you know, there hasn't been much research in this regard since. And mention of this notion is mainly attributed to Swaab in the media. I can reconsider including a bit on this, but I really don't see that it's needed/improves the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Completely agree, actually. I think it's bad for Swaab to have included the smoking statement if an association was found in ONE study and controlling for such variables is almost impossible. I know his work on the INAH-2 was considered insignificant by LeVay. Sxologist (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Digit ratio research and replication
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)

Confusing statement in the introduction
"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)
 * I changed it to "evidence". Environment can include biological factors, such as the fraternal birth order effect. "Environment" does not equal "social environment". Crossroads -talk- 02:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, but it still doesn't make sense to say that the evidence is weak if the evidence for fraternal birth order effect (thank you for reminding me) is strong. Similarly, it doesn't make sense to say that if the research (the paper I quoted) suggests otherwise. 79.191.119.78 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)