Talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 3

Genetic factors for sexual orientation
That section is about genetic factors for Sexual orientation in general. What roles do genes play in the development of sexual orientation?

There's a reason why the original section (before the new user's added material) was: Genes may be related to the development of sexual orientation. At one time, studies of twins appeared to point to a major genetic component, but problems in experimental design of the available studies have made their interpretation difficult, and one recent study appears to exclude genes as a major factor.

It encompasses all sexual orientations since this article is about Sexual orientations in general. This section isn't about genetic factors for one specific sexual orientation (that's why materials on genes and homosexuality weren't included in the section in the first place), so the recently added materials would be more relevant to the Homosexuality article or Biology and sexual orientation article.

This problem is sort of similar to this one.

I'll leave this for now because of the 3rr, but hopefully someone else can give some insight on the issue instead of reverting and unhelpfully stating the that the "material is clearly relevant as a significant case of orientation". Someone963852 (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Could someone clarify something? What's the relevance of this information:


 * There have been many studies conducted in order to search for a "gay gene". In Dean Hamer's study, his team found that 33 of the 40 pairs of gay brothers that were studied, had the same distinctive marker near the end of their X chromosome. However, he cautioned that a gene like this would unlikely be the cause of homosexuality.


 * If he said that a gene like that would be unlikely to be the cause of homosexuality, then what is the significance of the data? It seems confusing to readers. Moreover, this is 17 years old. There is surely more recent research which provides more useful information than this. Am I wrong? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you're not wrong. Just because something is cited doesn't mean it should automatically belong in the article.
 * I'm removing the recently added material from the new user. Please do not revert unless you provide a solid and legitimate reason explaining why it should stay. Someone963852 (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why TheSoundAndTheFury is asking "What's the relevance of this information?" If it were not relevant, it would not fit in the Homosexuality article. Which it does. TheSoundAndTheFury's argument appears to be more that we shouldn't report this information at all, not just that we shouldn't report it in this article. It being an old study means nothing. Plenty of studies, such as those done by Alfred Kinsey or Masters and Johnson are old studies...but we report them anyway. Some of those studies are still held up as valid proof of things in today's world. If Hamer was the first to look for a gay gene, his study is even more relevant to that specific topic. I don't care if this information is included in this article or not. I just wanted to offer my thoughts on it. 112.216.29.245 (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "What's the relevance of this information?" If it were not relevant, it would not fit in the Homosexuality article. Which it does. 
 * The problem is, this isn't the "Homosexuality" article. This is the "Sexual orientation" article. Someone963852 (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone963852, did you not read what I stated? I am obviously quite aware of that fact. I said, "TheSoundAndTheFury's argument appears to be more that we shouldn't report this information at all, not just that we shouldn't report it in this article." and that "I don't care if this information is included in this article or not." But since I'm here again, I'll say that, no, I don't see a problem including it in this article. Do I care if you do or not? Also no. 112.216.29.245 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "TheSoundAndTheFury's argument appears to be more that we shouldn't report this information at all, not just that we shouldn't report it in this article.
 * Really? I interpreted TheSoundAndTheFury's statement the other way around. Someone963852 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Origins of concept
Hi, a section on the origins of the concept of 'orientation' is needed if this is to be an up-to-scratch article. As any latin scholar will tell you, the Ancient Romans, didn't have the concept of 'orientation'. It didn't 'come in to existence' until the 18th century. Tjpob (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Asexuality as a sexual orientation, with regard to WP:MEDRS and other things
Hey, everyone. We really need outside opinions about whether or not to list asexuality as a sexual orientation in the Sexual orientation article and Template:Sexual orientation, as well as how to go about mentioning that it is considered a sexual orientation by some researchers (though still not by the general medical community).

And I hate to beg, but please do help out. The discussion is being had at Template talk:Sexual orientation Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I read the debate, and it was decided that we should include asexuality as a sexual orientation. So why does MathewTownsend show up weeks after the debate ended to go against that decision? He claims to have no personal opinion on the subject, but clearly he does. For example, he added the word "some" (which is a Weasel word) to a line that already has established consensus (see the first section above). The conclusion from that section is that it's not "some" researchers who list these attractions under heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality. All do, except the few who use androphilia and gynephilia. Or terms like men who have sex with men or women who have sex with women, which are more about behaviors. For the APA definition, MathewTownsend then proceeds to add "(which includes only lesbian, gay, or bisexual and not asexuality)." Is that needed, like at all? Isn't it awfully redundant to talk about asexuality's status as a sexual orientation that early on, when this is approached in the third paragraph? MathewTownsend also adds "a "lack of sexual attraction" and backs it to one source. This is not consensus editing. Consensus agreed with putting asexuality as a sexual orientation in the intro of the article, not with calling it a lack of sexual attraction. How do we even know that MathewTownsend has read this source? It didn't seem like he read it when he was debating including asexuality.


 * I don't often edit Wikipedia or comment in any of its discussions, but I have been forced to end my recent silence. 50.78.12.41 (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I took care of the "some" issue, as seen in the above discussion you mentioned. I agree that the issue about asexuality being a sexual orientation should only be tackled at one point in the lead, and the best place for that is the third paragraph which details heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality being the usual sexual orientation categories and how people may not use any category. As for a "lack of sexual attraction," well, the fact that asexuality is considered a sexual orientation was not removed from the lead and the "lack of sexual attraction" is clarifying what asexuality is. But I don't feel that we need to do that in the lead, just like we don't for the other sexual orientations there. That's what the links are for. And if it is felt that we should define the terms, they can be defined in the "Sexual orientation distinguished from sexual identity and behavior" or "Sexual orientations included" sections. In fact, asexuality is already defined in the latter of the two. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 50.78.12.41 (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

new section: sexual orientation and culture
Hi, I'm new to wikipedia editing, so am looking for help and guidance! I would like to add another section to this page on interactions of sexual orientation and culture: Here's what I was thinking to put in, how do I go about adding it in?

Sexual Orientation and Culture
Sexual orientation does not exist independently of cultural and other social influences. Social systems such as religion, language and ethnic traditions can have a powerful influence on realization of sexual orientation. The majority of empirical and clinical research on LGBT populations are done with largely white, middle-class, well-educated samples, however there are pockets of research that document various other cultural groups. Integration of sexual orientation with sociocultural identity may be a challenge for LGBT individuals.

Language
One major obstacle when comparing cultures is problems of translation. Many English terms lack equivalents in other languages, while concepts and words from other languages fail to be reflected in the English language. Translation and vocabulary obstacles are not limited to the English language. Language can be limiting in that it forces individuals to identify with a label that may or may not accurately reflect their true sexual orientation. Language can also be used to signal sexual orientation to others. The meaning of words referencing categories of sexual orientation are negotiated in the mass media in relation to social organization. New words may be brought into use to describe new terms or better describe complex interpretations of sexual orientation. Other words may pick up new layers or meaning. For example, the heterosexual spanish terms marido and mujerfor "husband" and "wife", respectively, have recently been replaced in Spain by the gender-neutral terms cónyuges or consortes meaning "spouses".

Perceptions of Orientation
In Euro-American cultures, sexual orientation is defined by the gender(s) of the people a person is romantically or sexually attracted to. Euro-American culture generally assumes heterosexuality, unless otherwise specified. Cultural norms, values, traditions and laws facilitate heterosexuality, including constructs of marriage and family. Efforts are being made to change these attitudes; and legislation is being passed to promote equality.

Some other cultures do not recognize a homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual distinction. It is common to distinguish a person's sexuality according to their sexual role (active/passive; insertive/penetrated). In this distinction, the passive role is typically associated with femininity and/or inferiority, while the active role is typically associated with masculinity and/or superiority. For example, an investigation of a small Brazilian fishing village revealed three sexual categories for men: men who have sex only with men (consistently in a passive role), men who have sex only with women, and men who have sex with women and men (consistently in an active role). While men who consistently occupied the passive role were recognized as a distinct group by locals, but men who have sex with only women and men who have sex with women and men were not differentiated.

Racism & Ethnically Relevant Support
In the United States, nonCaucasian LGBT individuals may find themselves in a double minority, where they are neither fully accepted or understood by mainly Caucasian LGBT communities, nor are they accepted by their own ethnic group. Many people experience racism in the dominant LGBT community where racial stereotypes merge with gender stereotypes, such that Asian-American LGBTs are viewed as more passive and feminine, while African-American LGBTs are viewed as more masculine and aggressive. There are a number of culturally specific support networks for LGBT individuals active in the United States. For example, "Ô-Môi" for Vietnamese American queer females.

Religion
Sexuality in the context of religion is often a controversial subject, especially that of sexual orientation. It is possible to integrate sexual identity and religious identity, though this may require reinterpretation of religious texts. [[Al-Fatiha Foundation is a movement within Islam that advocates for LGBTQ individuals in the Muslim community in the US and abroad.

Internet and Media
The internet has influenced sexual orientation in two ways: it is a common mode of discourse on the subject of sexual orientation and sexual identity, and therefore shapes popular conceptions ; and it allows anonymous attainment of sexual partners, as well as facilitates communication and connection between greater numbers of people. Al-Fatiha Foundation is an example of how the internet can facilitate support within a cultural and religious context. Janesmith344 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Incest
Should incest be added as a sexual orientation? Pass a Method  talk  08:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources do you have that state that incest is a sexual orientation? Sexual orientation is the attraction to which gender. Besides, brothers that are attracted to their sisters (and only other females) are considered heterosexual, etc. Not sure if you're trolling or just dense.Someone963852 (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Asexuality again
Someone963852, why make these edits, when past and current consensus is that asexuality should be acknowledged as a sexual orientation, when asexuality is briefly elaborated on as a sexual orientation in the third paragraph of the lead, is still mentioned in the sexual orientation template, and when the matter is still being worked out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality?

Yes, the American Psychological Association doesn't list asexuality, but that first sentence wasn't backed to the American Psychological Association. But either way, it is not only supported by them...but by other sources (meaning sources that list asexuality as a sexual orientation as well). The first sentence is simply describing categories that attractions fit under, and you have now removed the fact that a person may be attracted to neither sex from the first line. It just screams to me as a stunning omission. Further, it's not really practical to have a section on Asexuality all the way at the bottom of the article when we already have a section titled Sexual orientations included. Asexuality should be mentioned there and only there or that section should be removed, since we don't need it to state what it does. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see the Sexual orientation included section. I moved it there. Someone963852 (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. And I still of course feel that asexuality should be mentioned in the first line as contrasting people who are romantically/sexually attracted to one sex or both, but I'm not going to press hard for it or edit war about it. As long as it stays mentioned in the third paragraph as sometimes being considered a sexual orientation, I can live with your change without stressing out about it, LOL. I'll also go ahead and link it and briefly clarify what it is by way of parentheses. Just be prepared for the occasional instance where others will try to add it back to the first line, especially if they don't read past the first paragraph to see that it's mentioned in the third one. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Asexuality should outright be called an orientation, but I agree that Asexuality should be mentioned somewhere in the paragraphs above the Contents box (about how it's being studied and the debate existing between researchers about whether or not to include it as the fourth orientation). Someone963852 (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note: I don't have much time to participate in this discussion as I'm busy in RL, but as I understand, under WP guidelines and rules generally the longstanding text is kept in place until the issue is resolved: so asexuality should be still included in the list unless the discussion resolves to do otherwise. --~ Knowzilla  (Talk)  09:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the removal of Asexuality in the opening of the SO article, no one had objected or reverted. The issue has been resolved for now. Saying longstanding texts should stay (only with a good reason) and that a consensus has not been reached yet (when it already has) is not a very strong argument on your part to revert the changes to your liking.
 * The template issue is not resolved, however, so Asexuality has been included in the template until consensus is reached. Someone963852 (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How about another compromise? I don't see a problem with lifting asexuality out of the third paragraph and then tweaking that paragraph away from redundancy. For the second sentence in the first paragraph, we should introduce asexuality there...where it says "These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality." Instead of saying that, we should say "These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, though asexuality (lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others) is sometimes recognized as a fourth category." This is what is stated in the third paragraph, except it uses the word "usually" instead of "generally." Why have it mentioned that late, in a line that repeats what the commonly assigned sexual orientations are? It makes more sense to go ahead and get that over with in the second line, and to then tweak the third paragraph away from this redundancy. Flyer22 (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Placing Asexuality in the intro sentences kind of disrupts the flow and seems to give it undue weight. Maybe we can introduce Asexuality ("Asexuality (the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others) is sometimes recognized as the fourth category.") before or after the APA quote? It's basically the same idea and wording, but making it a new sentence. Someone963852 (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this and doing now The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your edit. The Asexuality sentence should not be placed in the first paragraph, not be placed before/after the APA quote (as I wrongly suggested before), and should not be hanging off the other sentence, all due to undue weight. Someone963852 (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to state that I'm not seeing how what I suggested disrupts the flow, or how asexuality is given WP:UNDUE weight by being placed in the second sentence of the first paragraph in the way that I suggested. Keep in mind that asexuality is still listed in the sexual orientation template and that, in addition to this, having it placed in the second sentence as I suggested gives it proper weight because it is contrasted with the other three and is explicitly called "sometimes [the fourth category]." Yes, I was suggesting it come before the APA quote. It makes more sense to name the four orientations and then go into the APA quote about sexual orientation also referring to a person's sense of personal and social identity based on their attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them. But I would also accept it coming after the APA quote while remaining in the first paragraph. All TheSoundAndTheFury's edit has done is made the sentence in the third paragraph about heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality even more redundant. Because, like I stated before, we already state this in the second sentence of the first paragraph. We don't need to state it again. This article is already a big enough mess (a mess that I don't have enough time to significantly fix up). We can at least arrange a decent lead. Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I moved it around, but I still think it needs to be a new sentence on its own. Someone963852 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and I agree with it being a sentence on its own for where you placed it. I linked Asexuality, though, moved the references up to back it, moved the category sentence (about these labels not fitting everyone) behind it, removed the redundant line that was in the third paragraph and tweaked things. Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

add-on to old discussion re zoo- and pedosexuality
Hani Miletski's study is a legitimate study albeit of a small and uncontrolled sample with only limited screening for honesty by subjects; but she relied on a definition of sexual orientation that strikes me as dubiously narrow, having no element of social acceptance beyond the couple. She seems to be qualified to do the study (http://drmiletski.com/about_hani.html as accessed today), so that's no issue. I haven't found the Francoeur book but it may still be worth getting through interlibrary loan.

However, my major concern is this: Sexual orientation seems to be developed into categories concurrently with social acceptance of people being in those categories and arose only when at least two such categories were established; adult humans wanting intercourse with children or animals is not socially acceptable at larger community levels in most of the world, if anywhere. On the other hand, insofar as sexual orientation is defined hormonally rather than communally, all I've seen, as a nonexpert, is support for hetero-, bi-, and homosexuality (asexuality not being discussed in the context of hormones while still being a sexual orientation by another definition), apparently because no one is claiming a hormonal influence producing an age or nonhuman-species interest for a destination (I don't want to say "object") of affections and the like.

I had a surprising bit of difficulty finding a secondary source defining sexual orientation abstractly, i.e., without listing particular sexual oprientations, beyond the sources already reported in Wikipedia, but maybe I wasn't looking in the right places. These are from a tertiary source (Wikipedia allows tertiary sources although not preferring them):
 * "Sexual orientation is frequently defined as a person's emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction to another person." This precludes sexual interest from human to nonhuman as fitting a sexual oorientation and is silent about age.
 * "[S]exual orientation ... is ... the gender of their preferred sexual partners." This is ambiguous on point, but one reading is that it assumes nongenderal issues are not in dispute and only gender matters.

Other sources have been discussed elsewhere; my not mentioning them is not rejection of them.

I continue to agree that the two proposals for sexual orientations should be rejected for these articles and template/s.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC) (Corrected the Francoeur citation by adding the title, year, etc.: 14:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC))


 * On Franceour (et al.) defining sexual orientation:


 * In 1995, they wrote that sexual orientation is "[a] pattern of sexual attraction and limerence ... based on the gender ... of one's partners ...." That's silent about species and age range. The definitions of sexual orientation grid and of sexual orientation disturbance are no clearer on point. However, limerence is defined as referring to "another person", "the other person", and "men and women". Since limerence is a necessary element of sexual orientation according to Francoeur et al., sexual orientation is about "person[s]", "men", and "women". Thus, according to Francoeur et al. (1995), sexual orientation is not about nonpeople (i.e., nonhuman animals) and arguably may be limited to adults. Source: Francoeur, Robert T. (ed.-in-chf.) and Martha Cornog, Timothy Perper, & Norman A. Scherzer (co-editors), The Complete Dictionary of Sexology (N.Y.: Continuum, New Expanded ed., pbk. 1995 (ISBN 0-8264-0672-6)) (eds. Francoeur taught human sexuality, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ., & adjunct prof. in grad. Pgm. in Human Sexuality, N.Y.U., Cornog linguist & librarian, Perper sex researcher, & Scherzer taught human sexuality, Essex Community Coll. & Rutgers, the State Univ., Newark, adjunct prof., Masters' & Doctoral Pgm. in Human Sexuality, N.Y.U., & clinical assoc. prof., Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J., all per pp. [789]–790).


 * Miletski, so far, may have extended Francoeur's definition of sexual orientation beyond what Francoeur et al. intended. Miletski may be legitimate in doing so but the extension then is hers and not his. Miletski so extending it without adequate justification, and I think it was without, may thus undermine her study of zoosexuals insofar as it purports to support zoosexuality as being a sexual orientation. She may have shown that they are well-adjusted psychologically, but I'm not sure that individual health is enough to support finding what they practice as constituting a sexual orientation. Some murderers may be well-adjusted, too, but quite deserve imprisonment (and some say deserve state execution). If being a murderer or a zoosexual is a mental illness, then society can't punish them, because the illness would mean they can't help themselves and therefore they may need inpatient psychiatric care but not punishment, and they would be released from hospitals as soon as they are well, which could be in a month. As a society, we generally reject that and seek the deterrence value from considering what they do as chosen and therefore punishable and deterrable.


 * Possibly, Francoeur changed his mind between 1991 and 1995. Miletski cited his 1991 work but it's unavailable to me through local interlibrary loan (there's a copy in Canada I probably can't get). It's a "college textbook", according to Francoeur et al. in 1995, p. ix (Preface). Maybe someone else has access to it, but it may not matter; if Francoeur was consistent, Miletski may have gone too far; and if Francoeur changed his mind, Miletski's conclusion may have lost modern validity, if it had it before.


 * Nick Levinson (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw these posts by you earlier, Nick, but obviously am just now replying. Just dropping in to say thanks for researching this further. Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting for future reference: An editor recently had to remove zoosexuality from this article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor who was reverted also added it to the Biology and sexual orientation article, but was reverted there as well. I believe that we should be cautious of this "new" editor. And if my placing "new" in parentheses isn't clear enough, then know that I do not believe that this editor is new. Flyer22 (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not wanting to give a fringe topic undue credibility is perfectly valid reasoning; the arguments put forward here are weak. Social acceptability is not useful in defining sexual orientation because it changes; a green chair that is painted red is still a chair, it doesn't become something else because it changed color.

Hormones could work but the lack of evidence for a hormonal cause of attractions to non-human animals or children doesn't constitute evidence they a hormonal cause does not exist (See: null hypothesis).

The objection to the definitions given are best supported by another chair analogy, if a chair is defined as: 'A piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person that comes in red, blue, and green' and object is discovered that that matches all the essential criterion for a chair but is painted yellow that we would not be overstepping to redefine chair to include the color yellow (and preferably get rid of the accidents from the definition all together). The justification for extending the definition of sexual orientation is perfectly valid; as Miletski discusses in her thesis 'zoosexuality' matches the essential qualities of sexual orientation defined by Francoeur despite not matching the accidental characteristics; it's the yellow chair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.138.174 (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pedophilia and zoophilia should not be listed as sexual orientations, unless listed as "a disorder of sexual preference/orientation," for the reasons stated in this discussion. The bottomline is that they are paraphilias and calling either a sexual orientation is WP:FRINGE. And like you stated, "Not wanting to give a fringe topic undue credibility is perfectly valid reasoning." It appears that your chair analogy is trying to convey that zoosexuality is just another type of sexual orientation, but with a different "color." But I don't much see how the analogy fits...since calling either pedophilia or zoophilia sexual orientations is not as simple as "a green chair that [has been] painted red [still being] a chair." Sexual orientation refers to being sexually attracted to a males or females, both or neither, which is completely different than being sexually attracted to a specific physical development time frame or another species. And, yes, social acceptability has something to do with this, seeing as scientists don't consider pedophilia and zoophilia to be socially acceptable for a variety of reasons and have deemed them paraphilias. And before it is brought up, as it is always is in such discussions, yes, we know that homosexuality was once deemed socially unacceptable (which was probably hinted at in the above "social acceptability changes" line by you) and a paraphilia/mental disorder by scientists. The point is that, while still considered socially unacceptable and a paraphilia/mental disorder by a minority of scientists...it is no longer considered such by the overwhelming majority of scientists. For those waiting until the day that pedophilia and zoophilia no longer are, I wouldn't hold my breath. And the point is...they currently are. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Causes of sexual orientation
I had to revert Scientiom on this topic at the Homosexuality article, this article and the Biology and sexual orientation article,, per this extensive discussion: Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 21. In short, scientific consensus is not that sexual orientation is only biological, whether that includes hormone exposure or not, as is made clear by this and this source used in these articles. The first source is authoritative, which is why we use it for defining all the sexual orientation articles here at Wikipedia first and foremost. The second source, while stating that "In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts," also states, "A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." It was made explicitly clear in the extensive discussion linked above that these researchers don't only mean "uterine environment" when they state "environmental factors" or "environmental influences," which is why "hormonal" and "environmental" are listed separately. This source stating that "It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment" does not trump the American Psychological Association stating, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles." The American Psychiatric Association, which is also authoritative, states: "''No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.''"

WP:Consensus at the Homosexuality article was that we should not state that sexual orientation is only biological when no authoritative source on sexual orientation states that. Further, changing the lead of the Biology and sexual orientation article to state that sexual orientation is only biological/hormonal, despite the consensus on that talk page about listing the causes of sexual orientation, is also inappropriate. If we are to alter how we relay the causes of sexual orientation, that should be discussed in one place. I chose here. But there is also the argument that the way that something is relayed in one article doesn't have to be relayed the same way at a related article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If my changes are to be reverted, then they should be reverted to the version before my edits and not changed to anything else without discussion. --Scientiom (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, my changes are supported by the the source from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. So I don't see what the problem is here. --Scientiom (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Scientiom. They were reverted to the changes before your edits. So far, the only change to a previous version has been at the Homosexuality article, per this discussion. And above, and in that discussion, I addressed what the problem with your changes are -- scientific consensus is not that sexual orientation is only biological/hormonal; three of the four sources above make this clear. There is no true consensus among scientists on this topic, except that sexual orientation is not a choice. But what most scientists do believe on this topic is that sexual orientation is determined by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors. The Royal College of Psychiatrists source stating that "It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment" does not trump what the other (or more) authoritative sources state on this subject. The Royal College of Psychiatrists source doesn't even state "is"; it states "would appear." And while it states that "there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation," the other sources acknowledge that there is no conclusive evidence that sexual orientation is only biological/hormonal. The American Psychiatric Association, for example, states, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality." Flyer22 (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So I don't see how this revert at the Homosexuality article is for the better at all, given what was stated in the recent discussion about such wording. MrX feels that it is WP:SYNTHESIS. And I have to agree that "especially with regard to early uterine environment" is WP:SYNTHESIS because the sources do not state that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a procedural revert to the stable version before my edits, as is the norm on Wikipedia when a discussion is invoked. I actually agree with some of concerns raised - especially those by MrX on the other page about giving too much weight to 'environment'. Genetics and hormones should probably be specifically mentioned in the lead. --Scientiom (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Scientiom, I don't know what else to state on this topic that hasn't already been stated in the extensive discussion we had about this last year, what I stated above and what I've recently stated at the Homosexuality talk page about it. After I explained to MrX that "The consensus wording was 'Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors.', which is supported by the two sources backing that line. That is not WP:SYNTHESIS or giving WP:UNDUE to the environmental theory in the least. That is reporting what the authoritative sources on sexual orientation state.", he agreed with me. Excluding "environmental factors," which includes social factors, is to exclude a component of what the majority of these researchers state. It's the exact opposite of WP:UNDUE. Stating that sexual orientation is only caused by biological/hormonal factors simply has not been proven because there is no research that conclusively demonstrates it/or makes it seem very likely to be the only cause, which is why the majority of these researchers do not state it...despite favoring biological models for sexual orientation. Again, this is made abundantly clear from three of the four sources mentioned above. MrX's main concern was the inclusion of two different types of "environment" in the lead, in a way that it can be argued as WP:SYNTHESIS. The wording "especially with regard to early uterine environment" is not the WP:CONSENSUS version that was achieved last year, the consensus version that you were a part of forming. So what MrX did was return the text to the WP:CONSENSUS version, but with tweaks -- breaking it up into two sentences and adding a few additional words, including "hormonal." The term "hormonal" was suggested last year as well, and the only reason that we didn't include it is because "biological" can cover "hormonal." Either way, including it now, as MrX and I agreed to do, covers "uterine environment." And "biological" covers "genetic" as genetics are an aspect of biology. It is therefore redundant to include "biological" and "genetic"; the sources on this always use one term or the other, even if starting off using the word "biological" before going into specifically stating "genetic," and we should use one or the other as well. Since three of the four sources above state "genetic" and since "genetic" is more specific than "biological," especially since "uterine environment" would already be covered by "hormonal," I am fine with using it in place of "biological." But "environmental factors" should remain, per above. The wording either needs to return to the consensus version...but with the tweaks I just mentioned, or it needs to return to MrX's wording...but with "genetic" in place of "biological." Flyer22 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation: Does "sexes" have a clear definition?
Nowhere in the article is it explicitly stated whether sexual orientation describes only individuals attracted to members of the human species or whether it includes such categories as zoosexuality and sexual fetishism. Can someone (with sources) clarify the lead of the article and provide a concrete explanation of the use of the words "sex" and "sexes"? --Volons (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, Volons. I changed the lead to include "persons" in the first sentence; this is supported by the sources. Parts of the rest of the lead, however, already make it clear that we are speaking of sexual orientation with regard to humans. As for what else "sexual orientation" can mean, there are a few researchers who apply the term to non-human animals, but, as can be seen by the sources in the article, that's not how the term is usually used. Defining sexual orientation on Wikipedia is all about WP:DUE WEIGHT and/or WP:FRINGE. With regard to zoophilia, for example, as discussed above, using the term "sexual orientation" to refer to sexual attraction to non-human animals is a very fringe view; thus, we have not included that view in this article. As for sexual preferences, such as sexual fetishism, the article does mention (both in the lead and in the Sexual orientation distinguished from sexual identity and behavior section) that the term "sexual preference" largely overlaps with "sexual orientation" but also how it is distinguished; I tweaked that information as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I also tweaked the sexual preference part again just a few moments ago. The article, as was discussed before on this talk page, does need a bit of expansion on how "sexual preference" is used; sexual fetishism, for example, can be considered a "disorder of sexual preference" (as the Sexual fetishism article notes). Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

abstractly defining sexual orientation
I wish there was an abstract definition of sexual orientation, not defining by a list ('heterosexuality, etc.') but by what qualifies a sexuality to be a sexual orientation. I've only seen hints, such as in an APA source. I haven't read consistently across the field, only occasionally picking something here and there, but I haven't come across a useful definition. I think persistent prevalence as a majority or a visible minority too numerous to punish or confine and measured among adult parents (because raising one's own children confers respectability) implies societal acceptability with persistence followed by stability of relationships sufficient for child-raising, and that might define a sexual orientation. I suppose a definition based on physicality, such as genetics or hormonal action, is possible, but then the physical explanation must be of a physical norm; the gene or hormonal action cannot be characterizable as abnormal, and that might be a challenge if the gene or hormonal action is infrequent. Lack of choice seems irrelevant; many diseases are not due to choice, so this is different. My unsourced analysis isn't much use. Maybe someone can think of a source. If there isn't anything, maybe we should say that, but if no source says there isn't one, maybe we shouldn't give it weight. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)