Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 25

Causes of homosexuality
There is no cause it’s all about who you’re attracted to. Wonderousvoid (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood what is meant by "causes". That section is not about causes in the political sense; it's about the factors that cause homosexuality to develop. In the latter sense, homosexuality absolutely has causes, even if people don't agree on what they are. Every phenomenon in the universe has causes, and this is no different. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 00:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2020
I request to add this photo in the passage of Abrahamic religion and church in the history section. 43.245.120.61 (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It would be an WP:UNDUE addition to an article about homosexuality. It provides unnecessary detail on a specific religious story that isn't even explicitly mentioned in the text of this article. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 00:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This editor added this and another image without consensus in six different places at several LGBT articles: . — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 01:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it should not be added. Crossroads -talk- 02:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Barbara Gittings 1965.jpg

An edit?
“Since the end of the 19th century, there has been a global movement towards freedom and equality for gay people, including the introduction of anti-bullying legislation to protect gay children at school, legislation ensuring non-discrimination, equal ability to serve in the military, equal access to health care, equal ability to adopt and parent, and the establishment of marriage equality.“

Is “end of the 19th century“ correct? Perhaps 20th century (that is 1900’s not 1800’s) would be better? Kloyarn (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree, from the examples given these would all be the late 20th century. I think it’s a mistake. AussieWikiDan (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have corrected this. It almost certainly should be 20th century. Sxologist (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

We should add this picture in page.
Peacetowikied (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , There are better (more representative/illustrative) images in the article already. --Equivamp - talk 22:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you homophobic? Why people should not know how proud gays looks a like?? Peacetowikied (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Peacetowikied, please remember that editors should assume good faith and not cast aspersions on other editors without reason. No, I am not homophobic, and there is no reason to assume that my disagreement is due to some veiled bigotry, especially when I have already informed you of my actual reasoning. To answer your second question, this article is not about Gay pride, but you will notice that the images on that article are of pride events and one historical location important to the idea. The connection to the topic is much clearer and says more to a viewer unfamiliar with the topic than a wide shot of a man standing stiffly in front of a chair, the only visible connection to homosexuality being a rainbow flag on a chair behind him, which viewers unfamiliar with the subject might not even recognize. This would be a poor image to illustrate the subject of gay pride, and an even worse one to illustrate the concept of homosexuality generally. --Equivamp - talk 09:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I had to revert your edit Peacetowikied. I have nothing against the image but it does not add anything to the article. As the image is of yourself, you may not be adding it from a neutral point of view.

AussieWikiDan (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes but this page lacks modern pictures.Peacetowikied (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to be more specific than that. What issues are there with the current pictures? In any case, we won't be using this picture. It's just a guy standing in his underwear. It doesn't help explain anything to the reader. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 07:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Peacetowikied was indef blocked for disrputive editing. --Equivamp - talk 13:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Peacetowikied was almost certainly trolling/sealioning you, Equivamp. Sxologist (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Collapsed trolling by indeffed user. Mathglot (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Change efforts -> Psychology?
I wonder about the inclusion of the "Sexual orientation change efforts" subheading under the Causes section. Should it be shifted under the Psychology heading (since it has little to do with cause)? Some of this article could do with some good consolidation. Sxologist (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not the best organized article ever. Either way works fine for me. Crossroads -talk- 15:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Mine own opinion (take it or leave it) is that this is important enough to merit its own section. This particular question is likely to be what many that come to this page are here to find info on (e.g., young and confused adolescents from conservative environments), and they shouldn't have to search for it like it's an easter egg hunt. Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The 'gay genes' table
I would propose that either the 'gay genes' table is removed or made collapsible. While homosexuality has a moderate genetic component as evidenced by twin studies, it has been known for a while that traits are polygenic and thus informed by many thousands of genes interacting. As written here by Rice et al. in 2017 "Collectively, GWAS thus indicate that there are no major genes contributing to male homosexuality". Ideas about 'the gay gene' or even gay genes are an unfortunate product of media and science by press release. Any thoughts? Sxologist (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Second comment, it would still be useful to include the major findings and specific genes found in GWAS and molecular studies in the text body. However the table itself is pretty distracting and annoying on mobile? Maybe that's just me. But the 'gay genes' thing gives people the false idea that something must be genetic to have biological origins. Sxologist (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see that it necessarily gives that idea, but it could perhaps be replaced by not-overly-long prose that goes over the latest understanding of the same matter based on secondary sources. There's more at biology and sexual orientation, but much of it seems to be written in a fashion where it accumulated info from each study as it came out. Crossroads -talk- 15:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah perhaps just shortened to a prose. Or a collapsable table. I will have to see. It could be reasonably to bring back the 'gay genes' article and put it there, but have it explain the polygenic nature of the trait. Just a suggestion; I see a lot of searches on google relate to gay genes rather than biology etc. Sxologist (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The genes table was briefly discussed: Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 24. I don't see that we need the table. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I have asked the creator if they would consider making it into a collapsed table. Sxologist (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have implemented Sxologist's suggestion of a collapsed table. I think the prose should also be updated to better reflect both "genes ≠ biology" and the complex nature of traits such as sexual orientation. I think keeping the table is important as it does show there is a genetic component - and also the number of related genes is some indication of the polygenic nature of sexuality. Readers looking into the biology of sexual orientation can use it as a springboard for further research. Hope this helps. ArcMachaon (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Collapsible as originally proposed is fine. Default collapsed is not. Adjusted the template to permit collapse. Mathglot (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mathglot, what's wrong with default collapsed? I certainly think it would be appropriate if there were a border on it, rather than just a heading which is confusing. Sxologist (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned at the edit summary for the edit. Mathglot (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mathglot, do you actually read all of the text of the various policies and guidelines that you enforce in an iron fisted, zero-exception fashion? Surely you must know that there exist exceptions to just about every guideline, and if one carefully considers what is actually written at MOS:DONTHIDE, AND the SPIRIT of that guidelines intentions, this is CLEARLY a textbook case of when such an exception would apply: without even any need to invoke IAR, since the guideline text itself provides for such cases.

To summarise the case in point: this regards a table of GENOME LOCATIONS of GENES HAVING BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH MALE HOMOSEXUALITY on the general page for homosexuality. Whether or not it need be on this page at all has been discussed, and consensus is generally that the table is not essential to the article, BUT that having it placed with the article in "expandible" form (i.e., default collapsed). Swooping in to nullify with obscure guidelines the consensus that was formed organically after a thorough and productive discussion seems disruptive. Firejuggler86 (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding your comments on MOS:DONTHIDE, but for the purposes of accuracy, the table lists 6 genes associated with male homosexuality, 4 applicable to both sexes and 1 associated with female homosexuality. Therefore it is not quite as you describe and is still relevant to a 'general' article on homosexuality. ArcMachaon (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020
In the section "Religion"

"Though the relationship between homosexuality and religion is complex, current authoritative bodies and doctrines of the world's largest religions view homosexual behaviour negatively. This can range from quietly discouraging homosexual activity, to explicitly forbidding same-sex sexual practices among adherents and actively opposing social acceptance of homosexuality. Some teach that homosexual desire itself is sinful, others state that only the sexual act is a sin, others are completely accepting of gays and lesbians, while some encourage homosexuality."

This is a single paragraph so it is about one topic, "current authoritative bodies and doctrines of the world's largest religions" views of homosexual behaviour. The third sentence says "some". That "some" refers to "current authoritative bodies and doctrines of the world's largest religions"

Some teach homosexual desire itself is sinful = True

Others state that only the sexual act is a sin = True

Others are completely accepting of gays and lesbians = True

While some encourage homosexuality = Not True, no "current authoritative bodies and doctrines of the world's largest religions" encourage homosexuality

"While some encourage homosexuality" should be removed from the first paragraph and if it is worthy of keeping to standing on its own per WP:DUE, it should be in a paragraph about "New and Alternative Religions" which is where the statement is sourced Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, Eugene V. Gallagher, W. Michael Ashcraft – 2006. In the alternative, we need sources that support "Some current authoritative bodies and doctrines of the world's largest religions encourage homosexuality". There won't be any sources because it is just not a factual statement. I know it is a sensitive topic, If someone wants it in a new paragraph, that is great. My issues is with the implications of phrasing, not the content. 2600:1700:1111:5940:44BA:4F87:8AAF:AB38 (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you. I have removed the claim entirely as unverifiable and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. The source is not searchable on Google Books and appears to be a 5 volume set. Crossroads -talk- 03:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021
Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender

Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex. 2600:1012:B10F:144E:30D8:21FD:1DC2:6973 (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Childhood trauma as "environmental determinant"
I apologize for not first posting my additions to the Talk page; please forgive me for not doing so. Included below are the changes I propose to the "Biological determinants" subsection under the "Causes" section:

Although scientists favor biological models for the cause of sexual orientation, they do not believe that the development of sexual orientation is the result of any one factor. Instead they generally hold that it is determined by a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors, and that sexual orientation is likely shaped at an early age. That is to say, scientists do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice. Though sexual orientation is not a choice, a consensus has yet to be reached concerning which factors, by they biological or environmental, ultimately influence one's sexual orientation. Numerous recent studies document an association between childhood abuse (both sexual and non-sexual) and same-sex sexuality. These studies by no means conclude that all homosexual men and women are victims of past abuse, rather that there exists a scientifically recognized correlation between one's childhood trauma, or the lack thereof, and their future sexual orientation.

A 2001 article, published by the Archives of Sexual Behavior, states its findings thus: "In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation."Likewise, a 2020 article, published by Sexuality and Culture, draws a similar conclusion: In the homosexual group, we found that the most common form of abuse was physical neglect (61.6%), followed by physical abuse (38.5%), sexual abuse (30.8%), emotional abuse (23.1%), and emotional neglect (23%). The childhood trauma total score was 49.6 in the homosexual group and 35.0 in the heterosexual group, which is a statistically significant difference (p = 0.001). …The high reported frequency of childhood trauma among homosexuals calls for immediate attention from government and public health officials. Regarding the influence of the parents' sexual orientation, the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers stated in 2006: Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vito Esposito (talk • contribs)
 * This won't work as it is WP:OR based on stringing together selectively chosen WP:Primary sources. We stick to what high quality secondary sources - academic books and review articles - say. See WP:MEDRS for why that is. Those sources are in accord with the current text, not this proposal. Furthermore, this source is not even published, apparently, and this source is from The Linacre Quarterly, a Catholic journal that is not in the relevant field (psychology). Crossroads -talk- 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not vetting two of my eight sources as thoroughly as I should have; but every text, aside from the two you identified, were pulled from respected journals, from peer-reviewed publications, from, what you call, "academic" sources. Therefore, it is not the credibility of the authors that is lacking. Nor is it that I "strung together" a narrative from specially-selected citations. My research concluded that there exists a proven correlation between child trauma and sexual orientation, as evidenced by recent studies; and I felt that, as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, it was my responsibility to update the wiki-page information with up-to-date scientific information. So if not the sources, and if not my selectivity as a writer, what is the problem here? The two studies I block quoted (each of which, again, was pulled from peer-reviewed "academic" publications) were deleted without a comment: was there an issue with those, as well? – If nothing else, the current statement that reads: "There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation," is a patent lie, and it needs to be replaced. Vito Esposito (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is much deeper than those two sources. Please re-read my last comment, and especially read WP:MEDRS to see what kind of sources we must go by. Individual studies are not it. You said "my research", but we go by the research of credentialed experts regarding the conclusions to draw from all the singular studies that have been done. The sentence "There is no scientific evidence..." is attributed to the American Academy of Pediatrics, and as a professional organization of scientists, their statement carries a great deal of WP:WEIGHT. Crossroads -talk- 18:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Crossroads, these studies are limited, do not draw the conclusion you have referred to and therefore it would be improper to refer to them in this article. There are many studies that have been conducted that infer there may be some link or another with various factors but it is a general consensus or peer reviewed conclusion which needs to be reached before it can be referred to in an article. Otherwise, this would turn into a compendium of medical studies.


 * AussieWikiDan (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If you must include these, the raw statistics you cite are better placed in either Health / Gay and lesbian youth or Discrimination sections. This could be simply condensed to "Gay people report higher levels of sexual abuse and neglect in childhood" - any further commentary or interpretation is likely to fall foul of WP:OR. Agree with Crossroads and AussieWikiDan regarding the need for secondary sources before even adding a condensed statement to either section. There is no way that adding it to causes is WP:DUE weight. ArcMachaon (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's honestly a big concern when cited sources for so called gay genes which are speculative studies and theories about why there is homosexuality, which assume a gay gene in their presentation, are consistently allowed. Even organizations flatly stating their views without any citation for why they make that statement are fair game. But there has been a consistent and unrelenting bias against any sources showing homosexuality having an environmental source. Or as ArcMachaon suggests, inserting this information into a section that it blatantly doesn't belong which will immediately be removed. Speaking of which, there is no mention of any of the negative issues about homosexuality on this page, no matter how much citation and evidence is presented after all these years. Not a single source has ever been allowed related to environment being a factor (even though it's stated that environment potentially is a factor). I do find it funny that "Scientists do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice" is directly in conflict with a demographics section that shows that self-identifying as homosexual goes down with age.
 * After years of watching this page not accept any sources for environmental effects, but very flimsy sources for otherwise, I'd love to know what it would take to reach the bar. As it were, there seems to be a very strong bias against some specific views. And this page needs a NPOV tag for it. Sarstan (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Bible
here is the page to seek consensus about the article's content. The problem with your edits were using primary sources to assert a conclusion in Wikipedia's voice (WP:OR, also see note c of WP:PRIMARY). There are scholars who wrote on the topic and who described the various interpretations, those should be used instead. — Paleo Neonate  – 03:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The bible might be a primary source on the subject of religion, but it is not a primary source on the subject of sexuality. It is akin to citing plato on the subject of sexuality. TZubiri (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a primary source on the bible views on sexuality. Citing Plato on his own views on sexuality would also be a primary source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * From the policy text I linked above: — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I read that from the policy, again they CAN be primary sources. So the contention is that it's in a section titled religion? So if it were to be cited under history, then it would be a secondary source, perhaps in the midddle east section.--TZubiri (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're citing the bible for what the bible says about anything it's going to be a primary source, it doesn't matter what section header is above it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As previously mentioned, closely related WP:OR (original research), and its consequences matter. The encyclopedia should reflect scholarly views and interpretations including about scripture.  Thus editors cannot quote-mine out of scripture and suggest their own interpretations...  An example is the part about Akkadian proverbs, that instead of citing a proverb, is a summary of cited source 93.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Obvious issue
I don’t wanna be called out as homophobic but there is an obvious issue with this sentence.

“ While some people believe that homosexual activity is unnatural,[12] scientific research shows that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.”

First of all the whole homosexuality is natural or unnatural is merely an appeal to nature.

Second, the sentence claims “scientific research” has shown it is normal. Yet the sources cited technically don’t cite sources from biologists, the sources cited are merely from Psychology sources. Sure the sources have shown homosexuality has no negative psychological effects.

But, don’t claim be adding sources about nature or scientific research. Because it comes off as pushing an agenda. CycoMa (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * As the text says, the appeal to nature fallacy is part of positions against homosexuality and some scriptural interpretations (related comments on scripture: https://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_126-27). It's not really necessary to have a biology source here (it's not controversial to remind of the scientific consensus, i.e. WP:PARITY) but it would be possible.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh okay CycoMa (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also adding that nowadays, psychology very much aims to be harmonious with biology and to be interdisciplinary with it. Psychology is the relevant expert field for this topic and much of the research on it is both biological and psychological. Crossroads -talk- 23:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am a student and must write on the talk page of an article in order to get credit for my pharmacy coursework. Here I randomly chose to write this here. Daniel.c.oliveira (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The definition does not reflect what the sources say.
The first document mentions "gender identity" in the first definition of sexual orientation, not "gender". This definition is specifically used when dealing with Transgender and Gender Not Conforming People.

These are the definitions of sexual orientation and homosexuality in the APA website: "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes.[...] sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to members of one's own sex)[...]"

And this is what APA website says about sexual orientation in relation to gender identity: "What is the relationship between gender identity and sexual orientation?[...] Transgender people usually label their sexual orientation using their gender as a reference. For example, a transgender woman, or a person who is assigned male at birth and transitions to female, who is attracted to other women would be identified as a lesbian or gay woman."

The APA defines homosexuality as "attractions to members of one's own sex", and then mentions the way transgender people label their sexual orientation. This doesn't change the fact that the APA defines sexual orientation and homosexuality in terms of sex. The current definition on Wikipedia is an oversimplification or misrepresentation of what the sources say and must be changed.

Aluswordknight (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless, some other sources do use 'gender'. This was discussed and shown at Talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 5. Stating both staves off the inevitable debates from stating one, and seems to be more neutral. Whether those sources say 'gender' because the word "sex" sometimes sounds impolite because it can also refer to sexual intercourse, or in recognition of the fact that attraction to a transgender person who passes as their identified gender doesn't negate sexual orientation the way a definition based purely on 'sex' would, it is better to say both. I get that attraction isn't typically based on inner gender identity alone as isolated from a person's appearance, being very heavily influenced by appearance and often occurring before one could even ask about gender identity, and sources aside I would understand thinking of sexual orientation as something like "attraction to the phenotype of a certain sex(es)", thus including those who have medically transitioned, but we have to follow the sources. Crossroads -talk- 22:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Then we are creating a definition for homosexuality by doing original research. You are explaining how the definition was created here, you are not quoting reliable sources that explicitly define "homosexuality" like that. What I found is that the APA discourages the usage of the term "homosexuality":
 * "Inaccurate or pejorative terms[...]Avoid the terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality.” Instead, use specific, identity-first terms to describe people’s sexual orientation (e.g., bisexual people, queer people). These specific terms refer primarily to identities and to the culture and communities that have developed among people who share those identities. It is inaccurate to collapse these communities into the term “homosexual.”"


 * If most reliable dictionaries and the APA explicitly define homosexuality as "attraction between members of the same sex", then we should define homosexuality as "a term that primarily refers to attraction between members of the same sex". Then we could mention that gender is sometimes used as the reference to define "homosexuality" (citing reliable sources that explicitly do that) and include how the APA also states that transgender people usually identify as gay or lesbian using their gender identity as reference. This way is more neutral and not original research.


 * I think it is very complicated to define "sexual orientation" by mentioning the sexual orientations that exist (as it is currently defined in the Wikipedia article), but I think these quotes point us in the right direction. It seems to me that The APA is acknowledging that sexual orientations have been usually categorized using sex as reference, but maybe it should be categorized based on gender (or gender identity). We could define sexual orientation as "sexual attraction to people" (or something similar) without mentioning "sex or gender", and say that there are three "classical" sexual orientations using sex as reference (heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual, while asexuality...). Then mention the "developing understanding of constructs", labels, identities and the recommendations from the APA and other institutions, organizations, etc:


 * "Terms related to sexual orientation and gender diversity have been defined in several APA documents. Due to the developing understanding of constructs, shifting usage of terms, and contextual focus of these documents, the definitions vary somewhat."


 * "Sexual orientation can be conceptualized first by the degree to which a person feels sexual and emotional attraction; some parallel terms are “sexual,” “demisexual” (or “gray-asexual” or “gray-A”), and “asexual” (see The Asexual Visibility & Education Network, n.d.)."


 * "Second, sexual orientation can be conceptualized as having a direction. For people who identify as sexual or demisexual, their attraction then may be directed toward people who are similarly gendered, differently gendered, and so on."


 * --Aluswordknight (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it would be pertinent to create a more concrete proposal that includes the necessary specific changes and sources to keep congruence between sexual orientation related articles and in the articles themselves. I will try to post that detailed proposal within this month on the Sexual orientation talk page. I am open to suggestions on my user talk page.
 * --Aluswordknight (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Aluswordknight, I think you should remove the tag you added. It tags an imaginary section rather than a specific sentence, and I don't see anything in the American Psychological Association source provided for the first sentence that qualifies as synthesis when paired with that sentence. There are three definitions of gender, and the source says that sexual orientation may not only encompass sexual orientation in the traditional sense, but also gendered angles. You quoted the APA style guide saying "who are similarly gendered, differently gendered, and so on." Considering the explanation given by Crossroads, we shouldn't say "between members of the same sex or gender identity." And there's no vital reason to get into romantic/sexual attraction to transgender people in the article's lead. Homosexuality is a scientific term that even the APA uses. The Wikipedia article is also titled "Homosexuality", not "Same-sex attraction." LGBT guides advise that calling people "homosexual" should be avoided, but "homosexuality" is still widely used to refer to sexual orientation demographics for same-sex attracted people.


 * You can use a source like Cross-Cultural Psychology: Critical Thinking and Contemporary Applications, Sixth Edition or The Equal Curriculum: The Student and Educator Guide to LGBTQ Health as a second source for the first sentence in the lead. Cross-Cultural Psychology says, "Homosexuality is a romantic or sexual attraction between persons of the same sex or gender." And The Equal Curriculum says, "Homosexual, literally meaning 'same sex', is used as an adjective to describe same-sex or same-gender attraction." It adds that the term homosexual introduces some ambiguity because of its use as an identity label.


 * As for the sexual orientation article, it says what the standard sexual orientation categories are, and then says what the exceptions are. It shouldn't use vague phrasings such as "sexual attraction to people." That's imprecise. A person may be sexually attracted to someone because of their height, but that's not sexual orientation because it's not the whole story. The whole story includes the person's sex/gender. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the sources provided in the definition of the article are enough to remove the tag, but I think the sources you mention in this discussion are reliable enough to keep the definition as it is, and they should be in the article.
 * About the vague phrasing, I agree. That's why I was talking about making a concrete proposal, but I guess there is no point in doing that anymore.


 * Thank you very much.
 * --Aluswordknight (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia claimed definition of homosexuality does not equate with the 1,2,3 citations linked.
Homosexuality is based upon 'sex' and not 'gender'. Someone who identifies as 'homogender' is not to be conflated with 'homosexual'. The APA makes a clear distinction between gender and biological sex - as do homosexuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.30.6 (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This was discussed in depth in the discussion above. Crossroads -talk- 19:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Study on sexual behaviour of homosexuals.
Hello, I want to include the following study and some of its results.

"In 1978, before the AIDS pandemic, a study published by the Kinsey Institute surveyed more than 500 homosexual men and found that around 28% of the respondents reported having more than 1000 sexual partners, and only 26% reported having less than 100. "

Pretty standard stuff, neutral language reporting the findings of a reliable source, but an editor seems to have a problem with it and is reverting it, does anybody else see an issue here?--TZubiri (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The reasons that it's not acceptable for inclusion have already been explained to you. Can you give any rationale for giving undue weight to a primary source on this subject from 1978 more than four decades later? --Equivamp - talk 19:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the comments on the edit summaries, I'll list them here for reference:

"No, this is a 40+ year old source that is being given WP:Undue weight. Read WP:RS AGE and WP:Secondary."

Also, WP:RSMED has been mentioned.

While linking to wikipedia policies and guidelines might help in some cases, it's not an argument that I can respond to, especially if it pertains to 4 disparate links. I'm opening this talk page for someone to expand on the reasons they think this should not be included. For example, does WP:RRSAGE mean that the behaviours under study might have changed? Or that the techniques used for the study are obsolete? If so are there any more recent studies that you might mention? Please expand, use full sentences instead of rapid firing WP links.--TZubiri (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the answer to your questions about WP:RS AGE are given at that section itself. However, if you think it is unclear or have additional questions about how to interpret it, no one will see your comments here; a better place to ask, would be at the Talk page, WT:Reliable sources.
 * As to your comment:
 * that's the wrong question to ask. The right question is, why it *should* be included, and as long as it's relevant to the topic, is properly cited, and meets sourcing and due weight considerations, you can add it. Also, since this regards sexual behavior, I believe it falls under WP:MEDRS as it's not a survey article, it's just one study, it fails to meet that bar. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * that's the wrong question to ask. The right question is, why it *should* be included, and as long as it's relevant to the topic, is properly cited, and meets sourcing and due weight considerations, you can add it. Also, since this regards sexual behavior, I believe it falls under WP:MEDRS as it's not a survey article, it's just one study, it fails to meet that bar. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The policies and guidelines try to apply to multiple scenarios, that's why they use language like 'sometimes', or 'in some cases'. Please quote a specific line and explain how it applies to the current scenario.

I'm sorry, perhaps I thought it was obvious why it should be included, but I'll explain. I found these claims, found they were backed by reliable sources, found that the claims were not in this Wikipedia article, so I added them. That's all that's needed really.

More generally, sexual patterns, particularly partner count, differs greatly between heterosexual and homosexual people, gay men have more partners than heterosexual people, and these in turn have more partners than lesbians. There is no information regarding this hypothesis in the article, in fact another section seems to suggest that sexual activity is similar or identical to heterosexuals. This addition addresses these claims by introducing a reliable source.

Please cite anything from the policies and guidelines that are being cited so that I can respond directly to them. Maybe MEDRS is applicable, maybe not, it depends on what you are trying to say, say it.--TZubiri (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to address the blanket claim that this gives undue weight to a view, we'll see how responding to a link goes: This addition is not for the lede, it will be in its appropriate section, it's a single sentence paragraph, and it's in one article of many that cover the same subject, ( See gay men,Men who have sex with men, gay, etc...). Whether weight is due or undue is a highly subjective and controversial matter, but the weight here is negligible, it's almost impossible for this small a weight to be undue.--TZubiri (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as being WP:Undue weight on a single study from over 40 years ago when there are more recent studies on this topic as well as review articles. Those newer review articles - secondary sources - are what we should be using. WP:MEDRS explains this well. It doesn't make sense for me to quote long passages here; better just to read it. Other studies find different results from this one; some are laid out at Promiscuity. Rather than possibly accidentally cherry picking, please look for more recent sources that are reviewing the research and cite those. Crossroads -talk- 03:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Since there's insistence in not citing any part of the policies, I'll choose one: "Assessing reviews may be difficult. While the most-recent reviews include later research results, this does not automatically give more weight to the most recent review (see recentism)." So there you go.

If there are more recent studies, it might be appropriate to cite those more recent studies, removing the old study without adding the recent study does not make any sense.

Regarding the Promiscuity article, that's interesting thanks for linking that. It seems like all of the studies are post-AIDS-pandemic, which explains why the results show less promiscuity.

Homosexuality is an ancient phenomenon, it has existed for thousands of years, a study from 40 years ago isn't stale, there are no massive innovations in technology that would further our understanding of their behaviour, in the way that it might happen for an obscure type of cancer. Additionally human behaviour can absolutely change in the span of 40 years, pandemics being a very obvious case of these sudden behaviours. Information about behaviour along the history of humanity is relevant, applying WP:RSAGE blindly would leave us to consider the behaviour of humans just in the latest decades, ignoring how it might have been different before. That's what WP:RSMED and WP:RSAGE talk about when they mention recentism.

Feel free to add the sources from Promiscuity into the article as well, but Wikipedia is a work in progress, removing contributions because they are incomplete is against the spirit of wikipedia.--TZubiri (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The quote you've cited is about reviews. Do you have a review? --Equivamp - talk 04:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

No, do you?--TZubiri (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:UNDUE as well as disagreeing with adding data that old. It does nothing to expand knowledge of the topic, especially in the current time since as is noted in the proffered sentence this was before the AIDS epidemic. There's also no similar coverage in other articles on sexual orientations. Also it appears that particular study is derided for its lack of scientific rigor . If someone has access to jstor to read that, I believe it would easily tip the balance away from keeping that as a source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do have access to the article and I just finished reading it. The review is indeed pretty negative, objecting to both the manner in which the data was collected and the interpretation of said data. Perhaps the most relevant part for this discussion is the issue of the sample, which the authors of the original article openly admit to not being representative. The respondents were identified through the "snowballing method", through which more respondents are recommended by those who have already took part in the research. Now, while this is probably not as bad as previous studies on homosexuality, which were extremely skewed by having a majority of respondents come from demographics such as sex workers and inmates (this is also mentioned in the review), the snowball method still leaves the door open to having a very homogeneous sample, because people tend to recommend people who are similar with them. The snowball method would be imperfect even when doing market research on yogurt, let alone a study that deals with a heavily stigmatised behaviour, and especially during the 1970s. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per reasons of methodology I explained above. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, and also on preface seems unnecessary.  Heart  (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality itself; if the article subject were "Urban gay male culture of the pre-AIDS 1970s" or something of the like, that would be another matter. But, no. Not to mention that it would be dishonest (I will grant you the benefit of the doubt by assuming good-faith-ignorance on this matter on your part) tom give readers the impression that the activities of a certain segment of a population, for the most part only in big cities, over 40 years ago, and largely confined to only that one decade, is the normal condition of all homosexuals across all points of time and through to the present day. To do so would be completely uncalled for. Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * :: As an aside, I don't understand how the first reference has anything to do with the topic or this discussion in any possible way whatsoever...except it being related to a pandemic, and the gay population in the 1970s were being hit by the AIDS pandemic? Or maybe it was an error? no big deal, just thought I'd mention it. cheers Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course not - There are problems with using such old sources in the area of social science and sexuality (WP:RS AGE). There are better and more recent sources, the understanding of human sexuality has also improved since.  Moreover, this is a statement that is relation to health and medicine, where Wikipedia has a stronger guideline, WP:MEDRS.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

There are no righteous scientific evidences for considering homosexuality as natural Egon20 (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Linacre Quarterly is a Catholic journal about medical ethics. It is not a WP:RS for psychology and has a clear religious bias. Crossroads -talk- 03:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

", or sexual behavior"
Wouldn't that be "same-sex sexual behavior"? I've never heard of "non-reproductive copulation" being referred to by "homosexuality".

Besides, sexual identity and sexual behavior are distinct, and are not confused in modern (as in: since Simon LeVay's "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men" was published in Science [1991]) literature,

the reason for that is: there exists no causal link between sexual orientation and sexual behavior (read: "promiscuity").

If you believe otherwise: you're wrong. But I'll hear your argument.

See: any English dictionary under "behavio[u]r", "identity" A Muddy Taco (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tranhtruong.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2022
The first sentence is wrong. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex. NOT gender. The cited references (1,2,3) do not represent the scientific consensus on the matter but rather the opinions of lobby organisations or individuals.

The Oxford learners dictionary defines it correctly as follows: ​"the state of being sexually attracted to people of the same sex" https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/homosexuality

Furthermore the following section "Scientists do not yet know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they theorize that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences and do not view it as a choice. Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically-based theories." Indicates a lack of understanding of the scientific method on the authors part. Scientist do not "theorize".They design experiments to see if a certain hypothesis informed by observations is corroborated by data. In thid case several biological factors who by themselves could only partly explain homosexuality. Also in science a theory is corroborated by it's replicability and it's power to predict the phenomena in question. Not, as implied by the cited section above, by the number of people supporting it.

I have been a donor to Wikipedia for many years and I expect a higher standard.

Best regards Amator hominum Amator hominum (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This will be a contentious change to the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that there is a consensus to add gender to the definition of homosexuality. Which can easily be verified by checking the definition of homosexuality used in other languages. I maintain the sources used to make this addition are not reliable. The addition of gender to the definition rather seems to be informed by a change in policy on behalf of the editors than additional information. It thus violates WP:5P1 and WP:5P2. Amator hominum (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022
The definition of HomoSEXuality has not changed to include gender. The Oxford dictionary has not succumbed to pressure for inaccurate definitions and neither have many dictionaries. Also, homosexuals do not sometimes have sex or relationships with the opposite sex. This is Heterosexual or bisexuality only. Please do not alter definitions, it has far reaching consequences 90.243.46.223 (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)