Talk:Neuroscience and sexual orientation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashack17. Peer reviewers: Kaybraidi, NeilJohn11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Albrechtb, Vohraa. Peer reviewers: Zelizimm, MicheleRose97, Rhawley10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding handedness
I understand that odds ratio has a defined meaning in statistics, but I honestly don't quite grasp the concept. Neither, I think, do most people. As a result, to the eyes of those uneducated in statistical theory, the article appears to be making the bizarre claim that 91% of lesbians are not right handed. Can someone please express this concept in a way that does not give this misleading impression? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.22.207 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

> This has just been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.38.189 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerning handedness and 2D:4D digit ratio
Hi there guys! Just brief question: since the article is about NEUROscience and sexual orientation shouldn't it concern only neurological topics? Especially the handedness and 2D:4D digit ratio sections. Don't you thing that Biology and sexual orientation is more appropriate place for them? --Stalik (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Very Outdated
This article is at times very outdated, or, to put it bluntly, very, very shitty, also because it ignores contrary findings. Oldfashioned pseudo-research trying to validate stereotypes shouldn't make it on Wikipedia, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.208.163.56 (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If it's "very outdated" at times, then that is because past research is also included and/or being discussed in the article, which it should be, along with the newer research. I also responded to you here at the Biology and sexual orientation‎ article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neuroscience 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/20100107082947/http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gaulin/page1/Puts_et_al_2004.pdf to http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gaulin/page1/Puts_et_al_2004.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) 15:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:Student editing
Ocheck05 and Albrechtb, don't add any significantly old sources, like those from the 1990s or earlier, to this article...unless it's added for historical material. Even if the material is from the 2000s, it should be as up-to-date as possible or excluded. See WP:MEDDATE. This article should stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Per WP:MEDRS, avoid adding WP:Primary sources. As for the definition of sexual orientation, we go by what authoritative sources such as the American Psychological Association state or at least WP:Due weight. If WP:MEDRS (which includes its WP:MEDDATE section) are not adhered to, you will be reverted...just like I recently reverted you. Do not WP:Edit war. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Albrechtb, Ocheck05 and Vohraa, regarding this, I again point to WP:MEDRS and WP:Primary sources. Also read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Avoid adding primary sources to this article, especially content about different regions of the brain and how the brain works or is believed to work. Look to tertiary and secondary sources. Look to literature reviews. A single study can hardly be representative of anything; research must first be replicated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Rachel's Peer Review
I would suggest adding more sources as I'm sure much research has been published in the past few years. Further, the section "Research directions" is very outdated. I suggest updating it to research directions from at least 2015, not 2005. All of the directions in that list come from one source, so I would look into more sources and what their future goals are. Rhawley10 (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Michele's Review
Lead- The introduction to sexual orientation is nice, gives a good overview. I think you could add a little more leading into neuroscience.

Structure- I think it would make it easier to read through if there were subheadings separating the different topics/points being addressed.

Balance- Good balance of information and sources within the article.

Neutral Content- The article sounded very neutral.

Reliable Sources- Good sources.

Big picture- I like the flow of the article, it started off broad and got more specific as you read on. I also liked the research directions section, and might consider adding a section like this to my own article. My suggestion is to decide on specific points you want to address within this article and create separate sections for them so you can include more information. MicheleRose97 (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Zelina's Peer Review
This is a good start to updating this article. I think the opening paragraph does a good job at referencing what sexual orientation is and how it is being developed through neuroscience advancements.

The following section, Developmental neurobiology, goes very in depth with some studies regarding how sexual orientation is developed, which is good. However, this section focuses specifically on androgens, i.e. testosterone, and nothing regarding if female hormones play a role in sexual orientation development. I think adding information/studies looking at female hormones would be beneficial, if they play a role in sexual orientation development at all. Further, the last paragraph in this section about the hypothalamus is relatively short and it may be beneficial to find more information about the hypothalamus and sexual orientation.

I like how you include the section on Research directions, however, maybe it could be updated considering most of these directions come from 2005. It would also be interesting if you could find information/studies of several of these research directions from 2005 and include them in the developmental neurobiology section, or create a new section depending on the specific topic of sexual orientation development. I say this because it has been almost 15 years since these directions were suggested and may have been studied already.

By adding more information or studies that have been done or are proposed 'next steps', this would lengthen your references section as well which would make the article a more reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelizimm (talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Resource
Be sure to see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29211317 and potentially https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28698022

Forbero (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Dr. Robin

Significant portions deleted
and what do you think of all the edits in 2018 from a now banned user (Jytdog) which pretty much eliminated this article in it's entirety? No doubt some of those criticisms were valid but I think it went overboard given the article has become somewhat of a stub. Is it simply best to re-add in things with secondary sources? Seems like a lot of work. Sxologist (talk)

There are also sections removed which are quite clearly linked with neuroscience, such as the fraternal birth order, which Blanchard always notes is likely due to the antibody ‘taking out’ male-specific Neurons on the surface of the brain. I’m sure I can re-add that in if I cite Blanchards comments with regards to neuroscience. Sxologist (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that, going forward, we should focus on secondary sources for content on sexual orientation. So I would not support bringing back primary sources except for an exceptionally good reason. I don't think we should go over fraternal birth order in full detail, but a brief mention making the connection and linking to the article on it would be fine. Another possibility is to simply merge this stub with Biology and sexual orientation and cover neuroscience material there.
 * While I was not around at the same time as him, from what I've seen from some old discussions and his recent attempt to return, Jytdog wasn't a fringe theory pusher, but rather was overzealous about his manner when applying WP:MEDRS. His behavior led to issues and ultimately being banned. But you can feel free to look over what he cut and see if there is anything that actually would be worth bringing back. Crossroads -talk- 18:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. It might be good to keep this article separate since the most valuable area of research into sexual orientation will be in neuroscience. I agree and judging by Jytdog's user page I think they make really good explanations for secondary sources. It is annoying when people refer to a primary study and draw so many conclusions if it isn't able to be replicated. Regarding birth order I will keep that brief and try and find a source with relation to neuroscience/brain arrangement. Similarly the digit ratios of lesbians is interesting with regards to neuroscience because Marc Breedlove does say it was the first piece of evidence that convinced him of a prenatal origin because babies digit ratios are highly influenced by androgens in the womb. I'm sure a very brief mention might be useful especially since Breedlove's focus was on neuroscience. Sxologist (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me first state that Jytdog (later Jytdog2) being banned does not mean that his edits lacked merit. He fought fringe POV-pushers; that is part of his reputation. He was banned because of the way he behaved with others. As many know, he made many, many good edits and was strict when it came to WP:MEDRS. More strict than I initially was, but I've become somewhat stricter on the matter than I used to be.


 * As for the rest, I agree with Crossroads about sourcing. When first seeing the heading of this section, I thought that you were referring to this content I reverted. How I feel on this matter is also seen in the  section above. I think it might be best to retain this article as its own entity. I would need convincing -- seeing it adequately covered in the Biology and sexual orientation article and not needing a spin-off article -- to agree to a merge.


 * Again, please don't ping me to articles that it's clear I'm watching. By my above talk page posts and presence in the edit history, I think it's clear that I watch this article. I could see if you had reason to suspect I'd dropped this article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Understood - please see my second comment which was supportive of Jytdogs edits. My bad for jumping the gun, and I will not tag you on articles you've edited in the past. Regarding the edit you did highlight (this one) some of that content does come from secondary source reviews, such as Swaab's review in the Journal of Homosexuality. Additionally, does this meta-analytic review of existing research qualify as a primary source or a secondary one? Sxologist (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Flyer, do you think some of the 'brain' chapter provided in LeVay's book would be acceptable. Sxologist (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How would you use it? As long as LeVay is given WP:In-text attribution for parts where that attribution should be used, it should be fine. I state "should be" because I'm not sure what you have in mind. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure – but he covers the main substantial findings/topics which have been covered. The article needs some updating/expansion. And yes I thought so regarding attribution. Sxologist (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)