Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 4

Does it involve sex?
Ed, I reverted your most recent change. You defined bisexuality in terms of homosexuality; in other words, what you wrote assumes that bisexuality is a "variety" of homosexuality. That assumes that heterosexuality is the default (why couldn't it just as validly be said that bisexuality were a "variety" of heterosexuality?) The original, which I restored, merely invites readers to compare ("cf.") homosexuality with heterosexuality and bisexuality. - Montr&eacute;alais 01:19, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I regard homosexuality and heterosexuality as two ends of a spectrum (like the political Left & Right spectrum). Bisexuality is anything in the middle. If I expressed myself differently in the edit you deleted, that was accidental. I don't agree with the statement that bisexuality is a variety of homosexuality, so your deletion makes sense.


 * But I think that the terms homosexuality and bisexuality encompass more than just "romance" and sexual desire. Homosexual acts, whether called "same-sex sexual activity" or some other circumlocution, are deemed an essential part of homosexuality -- if only outside the LGBT community.


 * Mentioning gay sex or whatever it's currently called, is essential, because the religious debate over the sinfulness or non-sinfulness of homosexuality focuses on the acts themselves -- not the "sexual orientation" of the actors. --Uncle Ed 15:23, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not really true. One doesn't have to have sex to be gay, straight or otherwise. Exploding Boy 15:32, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I have moved Ed's frequently reverted sentence from the very first line (where it doesn't belong) a little further down in the article. Exploding Boy 15:38, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Please explain why an article about homosexuality should not mention SEX in the first paragraph. --Uncle Ed 15:47, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to do with this article? What on earth was that last edit you made? For comparison, here's the first line from the heterosexuality article:

Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by romantic love or sexual desire exclusively for members of the opposite gender, contrasted with homosexuality and distinguished from bisexuality and asexuality.

Exploding Boy 15:50, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can question my neutrality after writing this:

In the West, most people consider the adjective homosexual and the noun homosexuality to carry a neutral connotation. Some advocates vigorously oppose the use of these terms as either (a) having a    negative, "clinical" connotation or (b) simply not being sufficiently positive. These advocates wish to use language to promote their view that homosexuality is normal, life-giving, wonderful, etc. (see gay    rights).

Exploding Boy 15:51, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

The article on sexual orientation says:


 * Most people distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour.

So I think we should mention "sex" in the first paragraph. Otherwise the article should be called "homosexual orientation", to distinguish between:
 * 1) sexual behavior, and
 * 2) love and/or sexual desire.

--Uncle Ed 15:56, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from editing the homosexuality series. I don't think we're communicating well.

It's not your PERSONAL neutrality I'm questioning. Contributors have a right to HAVE extremely different points of view.

Rather it's the neutrality of your EDITS which I'm questioning. You seem to be trying to exclude from the homosexuality the idea that sex is part of sexuality. Which appears to be an agenda to redefine homosexuality as a "sexual orientation" rather than a sexual practice -- as if one had nothing to do with the other.

Anyway, the articles I hope to see in Wikipedia should describe:
 * (a) sexual activity between people of the same sex/gender.
 * (b) how they feel about this, and how others feel about it (morality, politics, etc.)
 * (c) how homosexual desire or "orientation" arises, and how this affects (b). --Uncle Ed 16:03, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone's trying to entirely separate sex from sexuality here, and you seem to have also misread the sexual orientation article you cite as proof of your opinion (which seems to be, judging by your edits, that homosexuality is abnormal and mostly to do with sex). The first sentence in this article, as it stands, is non-NPOV.


 * The article on sexual orientation does say that most people distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour, but it says so in the context of pointing out that it is not necessary to actually have sex to have a particular orientation. It describes sexual orientation (of which it lists homosexuality as one) as "the object of a person's erotic desires, fantasies and feelings."


 * Homosexuality is defined a sexual orientation; there's no "redifining" going on. Homosexual sexual acts also exist, but the two are not exactly the same.  Exploding Boy 16:13, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think the concept of homosexuality includes sexual behavior. However, interested parties have re-defined it as a "sexual orientation".

A lot of what is being tagged as homosexuality would be more accurately described by tagging it as homosexual orientation.

I think the article should say something like:
 * Homosexuality is sex between males or between females...
 * who typically (but not always) identify as "gay", "queer", etc.
 * and sometimes involves romantic love or a quest for it

In other words, the three elements are, in order of descending importance:
 * 1) sexual acts
 * 2) "orientation" or "identity"
 * 3) motivation

Comments? --Uncle Ed 20:11, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Ed, I believe that you are


 * 1) Ignoring reality
 * 2) Defining by fiat
 * Sexual activity isn't what gay or straight people see their gayness or straightness as all about, only homophobes think that being gay is about sexual activity. Therefore you're hierarchy is both inaccurate and anti-gay POV. Hyacinth 21:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it would be incorrect to define homosexuality in large part about behavior only as it would be to define heterosexuality in terms only of penal vaginal sex. One can be a heterosexual and not engage in sexual behavior, so as it is with gay or lesbian people. --ShaunMacPherson 23:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I would argue that gay sex is an important, but not essential, part of being gay. The error is in saying that all gay people have gay sex; or that no straight people have gay sex; or that having gay sex is sufficient for one to be gay. - Montrealais


 * Yes, this is very clear and concise. Perhaps we should include a section on 'homosexual behaviour' and that addresses your point on these fallicies: that all gay people have gay sex; or that no straight people have gay sex; or that having gay sex is sufficient for one to be gay. --ShaunMacPherson 15:06, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * First comment: Sexual acts --> identity --> motivation is exactly backwards. The desire precedes the identity and the act. Second comment: you seem to be confusing etymology with meaning. - Outerlimits 00:14, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ed, first, I don't think you're making any sense, and second, you obviously can't overcome your personal bias (which is clearly illustrated in this quote from your user page: "It is to be remembered that regardless of the disorder, it may be easier to change the psychological outlook of sick persons than to change their physique to conform to what a distorted mind may believe it desires. http://www.symposion.com/ijt/cauldwell/cauldwell_03.htm ") to consider this topic neutrally. Exploding Boy 00:30, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

§ Ed, Try thinking about it this way. Many people are not comfortable looking at one fact, which is that all or almost all humans are capable of sexual arousal by members of both sexes. What distinguishes a "homosexual" from a "heterosexual" is the thresholds that exist for each kind of behavior. When social conditions are unusual, such as they are when people are living in same-sex communities such as prisons, homosexual behavior is more likely to be manifested by "heterosexual" people because the drive states of these individuals are heightened. There actually is a complex of factors in such situations, since individual factors of one's counterpart may raise or lower one's resistance, and since religious or ideological values may inhibit even the awareness of one's attraction.

§ If one were to counsel a young person who had one experience of same-sex intercourse, it would not be appropriate to categorize that person as a homosexual simply on that basis. What really needs to be done, it seems to me, is to help that person understand his/her own nature and what it will take to have a happy and productive life. That means starting with a clear perception of one's wants and needs and then seeing how those wants and needs can be achieved in a socially responsible way in daily life. Part of such a person's life may well involve amorous dalliances of varying levels of depth and intensity, but maybe one's ultimate course in life is to be a hermit or a monk. P0M 00:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Patrick, I very much admire your eloquence and perspicuity; I think your comments here should be collected into an essay and published. Uranographer 01:31, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can we find a middle ground between these two extremes?
 * excluding from the homosexuality article the idea that sex is part of sexuality and defining homosexuality as a "sexual orientation" rather than a sexual practice
 * declaring that sexual activity is what gayness or straightness is all about or that being gay is about sexual activity.

I may be wrong, but I thought the word homosexuality derives from the word sexuality. . . --Uncle Ed 12:08, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Consider this. Sexual desire != sexual identity != sexual acts, although they are generally correlated.

Heterosexual romantic attraction is a part of heterosexuality. But it does not necessarily imply that sexual activity will follow. Many men and women will never have sex in their lives, but still consider themselves to be heterosexual. Again, many people who consider themselves gay have had sexual partners of the other sex, but this does not make them heterosexual.

Similarly, this article is careful to make a distinction between homosexual attraction, same-sex sexual activity, and considering oneself to be "gay". -- The Anome 12:16, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for (literally) putting this into terms I can understand. Are you a computer programmer? ;-)


 * We seem to be discussing human sexuality in three distinct aspects:


 * 1) attraction or desire
 * 2) sexual activity
 * 3) identity or "orientation"


 * Am I hearing you correctly, Anome? Hyacinth and others, do you agree with this formulation? --Uncle Ed 12:48, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * "Identity or orientation" does not make too much sense, because orientation would be part of "attraction or desire", not "Identity", even if that identity is sometimes called "sexual orientation". I have to agree with Ed on one point: Some words are inaccurate, not only "orientation" as above (depending on use), but also homosexual and heterosexual. There is a reason that at several times words like "Homophilia" and "Homoeroticism" were proposed, any why "gay" and "lesbian" are prefered by many.


 * Also, but that's an entirely different can of worm, both are horribly inaccurate when talking about transgender people. Technically, a gay transman living in a relationship with a gay cisgendered man is living in a gay, heterosexual relationship - which does not make all that much sense. -- AlexR 13:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * "Heterosexual" in what way? If both of the participants are men... - Montr&eacute;alais


 * A transman is a female-to-male transgendered person, in case somebody wonders; and regardless of medical treatment, even it all possible ones are taken, transgendered persons always retain several sexual characteristics of their old sex, chromosomes for example don't change. Also, particularly transmen, and gay ones even more so than straight ones, often do not opt for genital reassignment surgery, therefore even the primal sexual characteristics would probably be different, so from a technical point, it's certainly heterosexual. It is also heterosexual, or rather heterogendered (but that's not a word, thanks god), because a person identifying as transman (unlike a transgendered person who identifies as "man" or "woman" only) does not have the same gender identity as a cisgenderes man. Therefore, the relationship between a gay transman and a cisgendered gay man is definitely gay, but also by many definitions heterosexual. Which is why homo- and heterosexual ought to be used with caution when talking about transgendered people. Not to mention the problems you get when you talk about the relations between a transman and a woman as homosexual, which is highly offensive, and not exactly correct, either. (Same of course for transwomen.) -- AlexR 19:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, "with caution" not least to avoid plonkingly informing somebody that their relationship is "technically" something just because of what plumbing they happen to have left over. I don't think there's anything of interest to be gained by describing a relationship between two lesbians as "technically" heterosexual just because one of them is trans. - Montr&eacute;alais 20:18, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Montrealis, if you had been reading my comment, you would have noticed that I consider a transwomen (regardless of surgery or not) who lives in a relationship with a woman a lesbian, that is no question whatever. And I think that this is the important part, lesbian, because that is identity; not homo- or hetero-, because that is technical stuff. Whether such a relationship is technicaly homo- or heterosexual should be completely irrelevant; however, many people do use those words with regard to either plumbing, or worse, chromosomes. Look at those marriages of transgender people for example in Texas which have not been accepted as valid because of that sort of reasoning.
 * I personaly never use these words when describing relationsships of transgender people; actually, I don't even use them for cisgendered people, because of those problems. All I wanted to do was point out the difficulties that can arrise from their use; certainly I had no intention of insulting anybody, but to prevent (probably unintentional) insults from careless use of homo- and heterosexual when talking about transgender people. -- AlexR 00:07, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would say activity, attraction, identity, and romance, in no order of importance with all four being equal, or rather, varying from person to person. Attraction is obviously not activity, but neither is it romance (as it may be attraction to the activity, not the personality). Likewise "making love" is not always love, and even being in a (romantic) relationship doesn't mean one would identify. As Ed pointed out, romance is vague and poorly defined, but so is sexual activity. Hyacinth 18:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

POV in the article
The article is highly selective in its sources. It also makes several assumptions without making them clear. Pointing this out is not 'trolling' as User:AlexR suggests, it's simply an attempt to improve the article. See my other comment below. Mr. Jones 13:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Other users have made similar edits to the one you just made. They were reverted for the same reasons yours probably will be: what you have added to the first paragraph does not belong there.  If anything it belongs in the Theories on homosexuality and homosexual behavior section.  Exploding Boy 14:32, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

That's not NPOV. A full summary of the topic and views of it should be given, not just a prevailing viewpoint. Mr. Jones 15:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The lead paragraph states what homosexuality is. Homosexuality is a type of sexual orientation characterized by sexual desire or romantic love exclusively or almost exclusively for members of the same gender.  The lead paragraph is not the place for discussing what some people think of homosexuality. Exploding Boy


 * It certainly is. The subject and its surrounding POVs must be discussed, if only briefly, to achieve NPOV. Mr. Jones 15:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I can tell you're going to be one of those infuriating contributors who, under the guise of trying to acheive neutrality, only manages to unbalance the article.
 * Exploding Boy 15:48, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ad homeniem. Poor. Mr. Jones 16:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * We've been through this a million times with this page. The lead paragraph is not the place to discuss the fact that some people don't like gays, or that some people think homosexuals choose to be gay.  Put it further down, in the appropriate section.  Not in the opening paragraph.  Your current edit manages to relegate what homosexuality is -- an orientation (see definition above) -- to a mere afterthought.
 * Exploding Boy 15:48, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * That seems unlikely with one page of archive, but I'll review the history.

I didn't write that some people don't like gays. I wrote that there are other points of view than the one in the article. Those that hold that view might interpret their views as dislike, but they would not, I believe. I didn't write that some people think that gays choose to be gay. At all, that I can see.

Those misunderstandings aside, the issue is of the definition. Only one definition from one narrow set of viewpoints is presented. I maintain that is POV. You've said nothing to convince me otherwise, though thank you for the explanations you've given. What I've written is flawed in the way you point out. How about improving it without changing the intended meaning?

Have faith. It is possible to convince me with sound argument. I'm only talking about other people's views.

This is the last reply from me for today. Please don't mess with the sectioning again, EB. Mr. Jones 16:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for accusing you of misrepresenting me. That's not polite. You may just have not understood me. Mr. Jones 09:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Leaving [the issue of sections] aside, the lead paragraph is not the place to discuss "points of view" on homosexuality. The lead paragraph, once more, is the place to explain what the article is about.  In this case, the article is about homosexuality.  All that remains to be said above the TOC is -- briefly -- what homosexuality is, that is, a sexual orientation.  Exploding Boy 02:57, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Addition of sections as converstions evolve
This might be better placed in meta.


 * "Mess with the sectioning"??? I restored it after you split my post.  We don't just break people's posts into random sections and redistribute them around the talk page, ok?  However, in the interests of getting on with it, I'm going to leave it as it is now.  Don't do it again, please.  Exploding Boy 02:57, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Who is "we"? And the split was far from random. As the conversation diverges, it makes sense to collect together related points rather than to end up in a quagmire of unrelated assertions. In fact that's how village pump, meta, etc all work.

Sorry not to reply on the meat of the issues raised, but I've not much time today. Mr. Jones 09:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Homophobia
Similarly, what's with the remark "complete rejection (termed homophobia by some groups)"? Aversion to, or discrimination against, homosexuals is called homophobia. It's not "termed homophobia by some groups." Exploding Boy 15:17, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * That definitely is POV.


 * There are people who do not accept the term homophobia. They do not accept that they are homophobic. To say that they are makes the assumption that homophobia exists. Secondly, even if the term is accepted in the limited sense that some people fear gays or being gay, "rejection of homosexuality" is not homophobic from the POV of certain groups.

Mr. Jones 15:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * As for people "not accepting" the term homophobia, sorry, but that's simply not an option. Open a dictionary; homophobia is an established word with a long history.  It has an established, recognized definition.  The phrase "termed homophobia by some groups" is the worst kind of weasel editing.  The fact that some people "don't believe in" homophobia means nothing.  ::Exploding Boy 15:48, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, one more.
 * Of course one can reject words and their meanings. People do it all the time. And certainly there are groups that choose to do so, and do.  You will not find, for instance, southern baptists talking about homophobes.  Such groups should be represented by the terms of NPOV. Mr. Jones 16:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Choosing to reject the established meaning of a word is in itself non-NPOV. Homophobic baptists may reject the term homophobia, but that doesn't alter the fact that they're homophobes. It's akin to saying "the slaughtering of several million Jews in the second world war (termed murder by some groups)...". Now would you put that in the Holocaust article? Exploding Boy 03:05, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Homosexual
This is the first I ever heard of the "assumption" that homosexuals choose their orientation. My careful study of the Bible -- okay :-) my haphazard skimming, geez, gimme a break! -- shows absolutely nothing about choosing to have sexual desires of any sort. The Bible speaks only of what to do with those desires we realize we have.

There is no small controversy over how homosexual desire arises. Is is it innate (perhaps genetic), learned somehow, or what? I've never heard anyone admit, "It was then I decided to have homosexual desires." --Ed Poor


 * I agree that it's a ridiculous theory, but there are vocal conservative christians in the US who hold this position, blaming gays for their "wrong choices" and trying to reform them. These views are probably irrelevant or non-existant elsewhere, (I certainly haven't heard them in 25 years of living in Germany) and that should be mentioned in the article. --AxelBoldt


 * I believe that the argument is something along the lines of: "Although we may covet a neighbors's goods, it would be wrong to act upon these impulses." Similarly some would argue that we have a duty not to act on homosexual or other "ungodly" desires.


 * Right, it's such a ridiculous theory that it's probably a staw man argument. After you knock down that straw man, you can say that having conceded that I didn't choose to be homosexual, surely you must see that I was born that way. I think this is the fallacy of the excluded middle. --Ed Poor

I do not believe this argument is a straw person. A closely related, often accompaning, assertion is that one may be tricked or fall mistakenly into homosexuality. This argument may or may not include a degree of choice, but I believe usually does.

More importantly, the idea that one can choose to stop being gay and become straight inherently includes the argument that one chose to be gay in the first place (unless one wished to argue that most people choose to be straight against the constant temptation to be gay). Hyacinth 22:37, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If find an insect on my arm, I can choose to brush it off, or not. I may not have chosen for it to be there, but I still have a choice. Similarly (logically speaking) there is nothing to say that, being gay, I have no choice but to be gay. So something else must be involved to make it inherent. And that, I think, is what the groups mentioned above contest.


 * Also, by similar reasoning, why must the temptation be constant? Mr. Jones 16:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the argument isn't really that people choose to be gay, but that everyone is heterosexual and chooses to engage in same-sex sex. That is, the people who would argue that being gay is a choice reject 'homosexual' as a category of person and view all people as having essentially the same sexuality, a sexuality which there are "right" and "wrong" expressions of ("right" being heterosexual sex, "wrong" being homosexual sex). Thus homosexuality is a threat to all people, a sinful action that anyone can take part in at any point, not a biological or psychological category of person, or so the argument seems to go. -Seth Mahoney 17:02, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Removed sentence
I have never seen anything to suggest that the following sentence is true.


 * Judaism, Christianity and Islam have always assumed that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation.

The only thing I've ever heard from any of the monotheistic religions about homosexuality and "choosing" is that people have a moral obligation to choose not to perform homosexual acts. The quoted sentence is more likely a straw man, but I'll let it alone while I follow Taw's advice.


 * (How old are these comments?) There is some discussion of this by the author of the article I linked to. He suggests that homosexuality is caused by environmental factors that can be compensated for.  It seems quite carefully considered and written.  I'd be interested to incorporate some of the views it presents into the article to address the fairly severe POV (in its selectivity of reporting and assumptions) it is currently suffering from. Mr. Jones 22:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Introduction
I removed the bit about the current particular manifestation homosexuality generally being seen as socially constructed, as it is, flatly untrue as written. Generally, homosexuality is seen in one of two ways:
 * 1) as an act that people engage in
 * 2) as an orientation toward same-gender relationships that is innate

A lot of people do think that the way sexuality manifests is socially constructed, to varying degrees, but this has not entered into popular opinion, which is what the sentence seems to be saying has happened. -Seth Mahoney 18:25, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Why don't you re-add the sentence with your correction? Hyacinth 04:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the reason I didn't add the sentence with my correction is because social constructivism is covered elsewhere in the article. -Seth Mahoney 06:20, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right section of this page to write this in, sorry if it is not. In the introduction, shouldn't it say sex not gender? Sex being physical sex and gender being mental thing, the 'brain sex' if you like. Pikpik 12:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§ That's an interesting question, and it points to some of the difficulties of conceptualization and law making in this area. In Anne Fausto-Sterling's Sexing the Human Body she relates the story of an Olympic competitor whose medal was taken away when it was discovered that although e had competed as a female, microscopic examination showed an XY chromosomal sex. Since the competitor's body had not been masculinized (female form is the "default" value so when androgen is missing the body form is female regardless of chromosomal identity), in all ways that related to athletic competition she was a woman. If some guy falls in love with a person whose body form is female but whose chromosomal sexual identity is male, that surely does not make the guy a homosexual. If some guy falls in love with a person whose gender identity and (especially) whose gender role is feminine, that does not indicate that he is a homosexual. Legally, things seem to be regarded as "o.k." if one person looks male and one person looks female as far as external genitals are concerned. As far as I know, transsexual people can get married without all the furor that has accompanied same-sex marriage issues.

§ Another way to look at it is that, regardless of whether the attraction is heterosexual or homosexual, the attraction seems to be (almost has to be) predicated on what can be seen or otherwise experienced with regard to the object of romantic interest. It's probably too late to change the term "homosexual" into "same-gender attraction", which makes talking about homosexuality as same-gender attraction sound strange, but there are many indications that that is the appropriate way to speak of the phenomenon. P0M 14:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is an extremely tricky issue; I wrote Homosexuality and Transgender to address exactly that problem. (Although the article could actually be quite a bit longer.) Since this article talks about homosexualitly it makes sense to me to say sex, not gender; especially since the distinction between sex and gender is quite recent. It would also make sense to link the article mentioned above, something I was sure I had done. Well, links occasionally disappear, for a number of reasons ... A sentence explaining the difficulties of "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality" when speaking of transgender or (some) intersex people would not be a bad idea, either. -- AlexR 15:59, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, have a look at the archive, under "Does it involve sex". There the very same problem has already been adressed. -- AlexR 16:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I didn't change it because I thought someone might disagree and change it back, so I thought I better explain why I thought it should be changed first. It's not really that much of a tricky issue. Most people seem to define sexuality in terms of who one is physically attracted to, so it make sense to refer to sex not gender. For example, a heterosexual man may be attracted to a pre-transiton (that is, before any hormone threapy or surgery, and before they start presenting as male) female-to-male transsexual. The transsexual man's gender would be male, but that doesn't make the heterosexual man homosexual, as he is attacted to the transsexual man's female sex.Pikpik 18:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§ Alex. I saw you (sex = sex, gender = genus) change. Good edit. P0M

Neutrality dispute
Seems to have been placed on the page at least 10 days to two weeks ago, but nothing has been done about it since. Exploding Boy 05:58, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

§ Is it clear what the alleged problem is? Is there anything left to respond to? It looks like maybe the individual who placed the ND notice has left the field. P0M

§ I just re-read the article. To me it seems that there are no big neutrality issues. If nobody comes forth to list specific points of dispute, I recommend removing the notice. P0M 00:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems that historical information about "treatment" of homosexuals is missing. Paranoid 23:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)