Talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 4

Bruce Bagemihl and androphilia and gynephilia/gynecophilia
While this edit may be true, it appears that he's also criticized the terms "androphilia" and "gynephilia"/"gynecophilia." For example, the end of the paragraph states: "Bagemihl goes on to take issue with the way this terminology makes it easy to claim transsexuals are really homosexual males seeking to escape from stigma."

The Androphilia and gynephilia article also mentions this, but starts off stating "Many sources, including some supporters of the typology, criticize this choice of wording as confusing and degrading."

I'll ask the editor who made the aforementioned change to weigh in here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is why I almost totally abstain from editing Wikipedia anymore: Bagemihl is complaining about the use of the terms "HOMOSEXUAL" and "HETEROSEXUAL", and yes, it's obvious that's the point?  (If you're transgendered!)
 * Seriously, was I shocked to find out that I'm a largely het trans woman after being married and having relationships only with women for 40 years? YEP.
 * Is that sentence confusing you? Well, that's because I'm trans-gendered psychologically, and my thinking for 35 years was… "I'm a lesbian", even before I realized that's just another indication that I'm transsexual (rather than merely "androgynous").
 * So, it's clearer to the average reader if you say "bonze blayk is largely androphilic", and it's perfectly neutral w/r/t my MAAB status. Right?  The "homosexual"/"heterosexual" makes everything in sex relate to assigned birth sex, rather than a straightforward descriptive "object" preference, which is Just. Plain. Wrong.
 * thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I of course didn't mean to offend you, bonze blayk, especially since we've talked enough on and off Wikipedia about gender and transgender topics. I wasn't the one who added that Bagemihl has criticized the terms "androphilia" and "gynephilia"/"gynecophilia," to either article. And like I stated, it's currently still in the Androphilia and gynephilia article. That also needs to be fixed if it's wrong How did the editor who added this material make this mistake in both articles this article, or at all? That's what I'm mainly wondering. If that editor didn't make the mistake, then someone else added in the wrong terminology. And, yes, with another read of the end of the aforementioned paragraph, it makes sense that he is speaking of the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual." I'm not in the best mindset these days, so I ask that you try not to let any silliness on my part regarding the initial post make you think too badly of me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See? I just got it wrong regarding the Androphilia and gynephilia article as well; it's actually clear in that article that he's not criticizing the terms "androphilia" and "gynephilia"/"gynecophilia." Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2013‎ (UTC)


 * I am not exhibiting "offense" with you here, Flyer22, this is freakin' annoyance.
 * Let me know whether you can figure out whether the editor who botched this in this particular article 1) can't read 2) doesn't bother to or 3) is a troll. Good luck with it, given that said editor is probably anonymous?  That is what I find offensive!
 * I came here from the (pointy, COI-driven) AfD debate initiated by User:James Cantor on Androphilia and Gynephilia to see just how reasonable his assertion that this nomenclature should be discussed in this ENORMOUSLY LONG article, and what do I find?
 * A FUCKING MESS. A prominent critic of the "homo/heterosexual" nomenclature is represented as saying the exact opposite?
 * And just right now I've been looking at a Wikipedia editor comparing User:Jokestress to a Dinosaur and (unspecified editors) to "puppies" (User:Thryduulf) in [ANI:Hebephilia Incident] @ 19:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC). Follow the fucking link.  Is User:Thryduulf an insensitive dolt unaware of the cross-cultural niceties here, or is User:Thryduulf a troll?
 * You figure it out: Thryduulf's yet another "Jane Pseudo Nym". Meanwhile, ask yourself:  why doesn't somebody come forth and deliver a nice brisk WP:TROUT to  User:Thryduulf for violating WP:NPA?
 * COMPARING PEOPLE TO ANIMALS IS INHERENTLY UNCOOL… even if you're not aware that "puppies" is the taunt the Islamists in Iraq use as they beat "emo kids" to death.
 * That is what I find offensive! IMO, Wikipedia is a fucking cesspool, and Cantor and James are not nearly the worst offenders.
 * "duh", - bonze blayk (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply, bonze blayk. I understand how your general annoyance with this site led you to express your thoughts the way that you did in your initial comment above. I apologize for having questioned your correction and for having brought the matter here to the talk page, asking you to weigh in on it after I did; the end of that paragraph, which I obviously didn't read correctly (though I had read it before), coupled with your edit, threw me off. Thanks for having corrected that spot in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC) `
 * Yikes, turns out that I did add that Bagemihl text. It appears that just like above, I thought that he was criticizing the terms "androphilia and gynephilia/gynecophilia" in the Androphilia and gynephilia article. I then transported that text here, adding in the terms "androphilia and gynephilia/gynecophilia." Reading my edit summary, I wanted balance in the section; for the section to mention those for and against the terms, just as some being against the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are mentioned in the section.


 * I sincerely, deeply apologize for such a blunder. A definite idiot moment for me. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Your apology is accepted, Flyer22… the wildly variant terminology employed in sexology, anthropology, gender studies, and other fields becomes to describe "gender" can become very confusing, especially when one considers the tangled history of their development, as does keeping track of all the various actors involved… especially with all the subtleties involved in the meanings they intend to convey when they use those terms?
 * Perhaps you now will have developed some insight into why I complain so much about the duplication of article content across articles? (I think it's best to keep callouts to a "main article" as brief as possible, for example?)
 * I worked as a network systems programmer for over 20 years; maintaining parallel code in different places is inherently bad practice, because elements that are supposed to function identically wind up doing different things when one section of code is updated (to fix a bug, for example: a mis-citation would be a relevant example here), and the other is not.  Article forks with extensive duplicate contents (cf. Causes of transsexualism and Transgender are guaranteed to be a maintenance nightmare, especially when anyone can edit anything, anywhere?
 * No, sorry!, when I make remarks like that I am motivated by "Political Correctness" per User:James Cantor. MY BAD
 * (eyeroll)
 * sincerely, - bonze blayk (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I very much appreciate your accepting my apology. Regarding duplicating content, I'm sure that you know that it is often done to summarize content that can be found in a main article. This is called WP:SUMMARY STYLE. It is too often that content may be relevant to more than one article; in some cases, one of those articles is the main article and, for a related article, we provide a summary of what the main article discusses. Or, if it's a subtopic, we have the summary in the main/primary article while pointing people to the subtopic article that has more detail on the matter (and is therefore the main article for that information). That's what Jokestress did when adding the Androphilia and gynephilia section to this article. I tried to do the same, but by adding balance to the section, which, as we now know, I totally screwed up on. I understand what you mean about cross-posting, especially given the aforementioned blunder by me. Jokestress must not have spotted it. But it's awful that it remained in this article for so long; this type of thing is one of the reasons that people shouldn't wholeheartedly trust Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Definition in lead section
I have found a more precise definition, in LeVay's book Gay, straight, and the reason why. Of course it can not be rendered as it is in the original, but will propose a rewording. It is important to define it as a "trait", something that is in our nature or personality. "Sexual orientation is the personal quality that inclines us to feel sexual attraction to persons of the same sex (homosexual, gay, or lesbian), to persons of the other sex (heterosexual or straight) or to persons of both sexes (bisexual)".--Auró (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Auró. See the Definition in the lead, proposals for 1st 2 sentences and Does "sexes" have a clear definition? discussions for why the initial sentence of the lead is the way that it currently is (though I have tweaked it a few times since then). And with regard to sources, we go by what authoritative sources (such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association) state when initially defining sexual orientation. Different authors may define sexual orientation differently, and, like I stated elsewhere, editors could cherry-pick their favorite authors, or favorite lines from whatever book, to support any stance they have on sexual orientation. One aspect of that is those who have tried to add zoophilia and/or pedophilia to the lead of this article as a sexual orientation, because a few sources call them sexual orientations (though such a categorization is WP:FRINGE), which has also been extensively discussed on this talk page. This is why we are supposed to defer to authoritative bodies for defining sexual orientation. Going by a single author's and/or scientist's definition, or even what a few of them state, is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, while going by one or more recognized scientific organizations' definition is not.


 * I don't see how the current definition is not precise. Yes, it includes "romantic," but that is because the authoritative sources and many other reliable sources include "romantic" in their definition of sexual orientation (I'd removed "emotional," however, because that is redundant since "romantic" covers it and "romantic" is already listed and since some could/would argue that "sexual" is always emotional). The initial line also includes "gender" in addition to "sex" also because of aspects that these sources discuss and what was stated in the second discussion listed above. And specifically addressing your argument for defining sexual orientation as a personal trait, I don't see how that isn't made clear in the lead already. Before these recent tweaks, the lead had already addressed this. It currently states: According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions".


 * The American Psychological Association also states the following of the personal trait aspect of sexual orientation: "Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one’s sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people."


 * So they stress not defining it solely as a personal trait. But if it is important to you to add LeVay's definition, I don't see a problem with it being added to the Definitions and distinguishing from sexual identity and behavior section, though I do it view it as redundant (a redundant definition that limits sexual orientation to sexual attraction). Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And if by "in our nature," you mean "biological" or "innate in that it develops naturally," that is a complicated topic, which, going by this post at the talk page of the Homosexuality article, you already know (you probably also know that I helped tweak that addition after you added it). And the lead already addresses that aspect of sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Flyer22. I am currently reading LeVay book, so I found the definition and thought it to be adequate. This is the reason of my proposal. As for the non inclusion of the romantic aspect in the definition, I think it is probably a question of semantics; nevertheless I would like to examine the American Psychological Association definition, where can I find it?--Auró (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I linked to the American Psychological Association source in my third paragraph above. Here it is again. And here is the American Psychiatric Association source. Both are called "the APA" and both are of course used in the lead, while the American Psychological Association source is also used in the "Definitions and distinguishing from sexual identity and behavior" section. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

See what APA says: "Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others".

So they recognize that the view that sexual orientation is a "characteristic of an individual" is a common one. Their position is different, as they consider it in terms of "relationships with others". In order to have a genuine neutral Wikipedia article, we should reflect both points of view.--Auró (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The APA does not only consider sexual orientation to be a characteristic in terms of relationships with others. It mentions all the ways that it is a personal characteristic, naming things (that are personal characteristics of sexual orientation) before and after it states that viewing sexual orientation solely as a characteristic of an individual is incomplete (and then proceeds to explain itself on that). And I mentioned that the trait aspect is already covered in the lead. Not just by that one example I gave above, but by each of the lead's paragraphs. The lead makes it clear that sexual orientation is a personal trait, even mentioning alternative sexual identity labels that a person may choose. And to once again go to the previous example I presented about this, the lead also states: According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions". So how does that not make it clear that sexual orientation is a personal trait/personal characteristic? If we were to state "Sexual orientation is also a personal trait" right before that line is presented, I would not be able to help but consider it redundant, especially since, right after presenting the categories of sexual orientation in that same (first) paragraph, we state "These categories are aspects of the more nuanced nature of sexual identity" and then name two alternative labels.


 * Also keep in mind what I stated about not going by what one author and/or scientist states when it comes to initially and/or authoritatively defining sexual orientation. By "initially" and "authoritatively," I mean the first line of the lead and anything in this article that sounds authoritative (such as making a blanket statement without attributing it to the thought of the one author and/or scientist). I cannot see how the lead is not clear that sexual orientation is a personal trait; so taking that into account, and looking at your "something that is in our nature" wording in your initial post of this section, it seems that, unless you mean "sexual orientation is natural" (which is something the lead also makes clear), you are proposing that we start off stating that sexual orientation is an inborn thing; but like I stated about the inborn/innate aspect, that is a complicated issue that the lead and other parts of the article already address. The way that authoritative sources, and most sources in general, initially define sexual orientation is as (human-to-human) romantic and/or sexual attraction to the opposite sex, same sex or to both sexes (sometimes including "emotional attraction" along with "romantic attraction" and "sexual attraction"). And that's what we should do as well. Going into the personal trait aspect, and other detail, is for the rest of the lead and article as a whole. And that's what the article does. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 is correct in many ways about not rewording the lead. Just to name a few points made:
 * the reworded lead completely ignores and complicates the issue of gender in sexual orientation,
 * it leaves out the romantic attraction aspect that the lead currently has (that is cited in two sources),
 * the definition should go by what authoritative souces says and not by what one author thinks, so to prevent Fringe theories from being added on,
 * nature/ nuture issue,
 * Flyer22's quote above: the APA also states that sexual orientation should not be defined soley as a trait (as the proposed rewording would like to make it)
 * and see Flyer's second response "The APA does not only..." which tackles the issue of "trait/ relationship to others" in which you're trying to argue.
 * The current lead already reflects both views presented, and covers the trait aspect that you're trying to emphasize (currently in the lead: "aspects of the more nuanced nature of sexual identity", "people may use other labels", "sexual orientation "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions", "A person who identifies", etc. Rewording the lead will just create more unnecessary problems, and would be very redundant.
 * Please read Flyer22's responses carefully. She has a lot of experience with this article and has covered every issue (and possible issues) about the rewording of the lead. Someone963852 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that your long answers circumvent the core of the question. As it is presently written, the lead definition boils down to say that a sexual attraction or romantic attraction that has the quality of being enduring is called "sexual orientation". It is quite different of saying that "sexual orientation" is a trait of a person, that produces sexual or/and romantic attraction in a particular direction. I nevertheless think that the term "romantic" should be added to may initial proposal, so this is my modified proposal:
 * "Sexual orientation is the personal quality that inclines us to feel sexual or romantic attraction or both to persons of the same sex (homosexual, gay, or lesbian), to persons of the other sex (heterosexual or straight) or to persons of both sexes (bisexual)".--Auró (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Auró, I was not trying to circumvent your question with my long answers. There was no way to sufficiently explain to you why I object to your original proposal without giving you those long answers. I don't understand your point on this matter, given all that I have stated above and so I also cannot fully support your second proposal. Also, just a quibble, but "persons of both sexes" sounds as though we are speaking of intersex, which is why I was careful to add "or to both sexes" when adding in "persons" (but "intersex" is covered by the fact that people who are intersex do not usually appear physically ambiguous when it comes to assuming that they are male or female, other than sometimes the addition of breasts and/or the genital area having an effect on their appearance, and they usually identify as male or female). We also should not use "us," per WP:FIRSTPERSON. But again, I don't know why you are insisting that we add "personal quality" when "personal quality" is already quite clear, except for the fact that you somehow feel that "personal quality" is not already quite clear. I prefer "describes an enduring pattern of attraction that is" in place of "is the personal quality that inclines us to feel" and I prefer that the gender aspect remain in the same line (to cover sexual anatomy not always lining up with gender/gender identity). Not only is "enduring" more accurate than "personal quality" when defining sexual orientation because it makes it clear that sexual orientation is lifelong (to most people at least), whereas a personal quality can change, but enduring is also another aspect of personal quality. Your problem with saying that "sexual attraction or romantic attraction that has the quality of being enduring is called sexual orientation" is something to take up with the American Psychological Association...because that's how they -- the largest scientific and professional organization of psychologists in the United States and Canada, and the world's largest association of psychologists -- define the term.


 * Nevertheless, and without attributing the line to Simon LeVay (by text or reference attribution) because of the reasons I stated above about not going by one author and/or scientist's definition, or even what a few of them state, for the initial definition and because it is not his exact definition, I can agree to add "personal quality" and "inclines people to feel" to the initial line so that it reads as: Sexual orientation describes an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex, the same sex, or to both sexes, as well as to the genders that accompany them. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's also important to leave the specific terms heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality to the second line, which also tackles asexuality. And the reason that it is best to leave such terms there is because these terms (which are also Western terms) are not terms that everyone identifies by, as even the American Psychological Association source states. This is why the second, third and fourth lines relay the following: These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, while asexuality (the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category. These categories are aspects of the more nuanced nature of sexual identity. For example, people may use other labels, such as pansexual or polysexual, or none at all.


 * My only quibble with the current wording is that the "ity" part of heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality means that the terms are not referring only to lifelong sexual attraction...but solely to behavior as well; for example, like the Sexual orientation article touches on, a woman who is only sexually attracted to women may have sex with men and therefore display heterosexuality. So, for the second line, it might be best to use the alternate spellings heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual so that it reads as: These attractions are generally subsumed under the terms heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual, while asexuality (the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category. I left "asexuality" in its current spelling format in that example because "asexual" does not fit as well as "asexuality" for the rest of the line. However, there are some members of WP:LGBT who strongly object to using "homosexual" (but not "homosexuality") in most ways. In that case, and since it is more important to link to the Homosexuality article than to link to the Gay and Lesbian articles when speaking of sexual orientation, there is the option of WP:Pipelinking the Homosexuality article under "gay or lesbian." But it's not like people can't find those terms when clicking on the Homosexuality article and/or when reading the "Definitions and distinguishing from sexual identity and behavior" section of this article.


 * Anyway, as you can see, my main proposal on this matter is in my "00:30, 20 February 2013" comment. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Flyer 22, Your proposal to add "personal quality" and "inclines people to feel" is acceptable to me. Thank you.--Auró (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I changed it. And you're welcome. Thanks for being patient/initiating a discussion about this instead of, for example, making your desired changes first. Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also altered the lead a bit further, mostly regarding the gender inclusion because I've found the gender wording that was there (that I'd included) awkward for some time. Flyer22 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Asserting that there is no scientific consensus that sexual orientation is not a choice
Newly registered editor Hawljo made edits to the article to combat the statement that scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice. In the first edit he was reverted on, he removed "whereas the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice"...despite this being supported by three reliable scientific sources. In the second edit he was reverted on, he added redundant text about scientists not being sure what causes sexual orientation, even though the source (the American Psychological Association) also clarifies that sexual orientation is not a choice for most people and that, if there is any choice about it at all, there is little choice. Like I responded on Dawn Bard's talk page: "Stating that scientists are not sure about what causes sexual orientation, which the lead already states, is different than stating that there is no scientific consensus about whether or not it is a choice." The Efforts to change sexual orientation section and the Sexual orientation change efforts article also make it quite clear that scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not something that one chooses and is very unlikely to be changed. I also stress that sexuality or sexual identity/sexual orientation identity changing is not necessarily the same thing as sexual orientation changing. That second edit obviously also shows that Hawljo used the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) as a source; as some know, that organization is notorious for trying to change same-sex sexual attraction, against scientific consensus about trying to change such attraction, and therefore they cannot be trusted as a reliable source on this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know the extent of choice, but the consensus probably is mostly that it's not. Conversion therapists seem to argue that choice is of homosexuality and that really one should be heterosexual, implicitly suggesting that the latter is mandatory. If a scholar is going to posit that sexual orientation is mainly a choice, then presumably heterosexuality is chosen, and, since most of us meet roughly equal numbers of each gender, then perhaps the heterosexual:homosexual ratio would tend to be 50:50, but it's not (I'm not counting single-sex prisons where one might be "gay for the stay"). There's a massive history of failures to convert (and a thin history of successes), suggesting the absence of much choice, just as I can't will myself to double my brain size and nonphysical therapy won't accomplish that goal either, however much the therapists and I may be dedicated to it. The test showing hormonal determinism before birth would seem to deny choice at least to the extent of hormonal determinism. There is an issue of fluidity or unreliability; if we determine sexual orientation by asking people (through self-reporting) or behavioral observers (e.g., friends and family), we'll conclude either that sexual orientation changes through many people's lifespans or that self- and observer-reporting are unreliable for individuals, even if they're reliable across large populations. The burden is on scholars who believe sexual orientation is largely chosen to overcome what is already the apparent consensus. If NARTH is both studying the issue and offering therapy in one direction for pay, that may be akin to Microsoft publishing a scientific study showing that Windows is the best operating system, which tends to make the source less trustworthy. If there's smething to it, then independent scientists ought to be able to replicate the research, and then we'd have a contribution to consensus, perhaps defining more about what part is biologically driven and what part is chosen. That would have to be found and sourced. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One thing about heterosexuality compared to homosexuality is that many people consider heterosexuality to be natural/normal due to the reproductive factor, but view homosexuality as a choice, as something that happens due to some early childhood experience or how the child was raised, or as a biological defect. It's the reproductive factor that also has the scientific community generally focusing more on what causes homosexuality than on what causes heterosexuality when studying possible causes for sexual orientation. Anyway, as you likely know since you, like me, have been involved with this article for years, from time to time at the sexual orientation and/or sexual orientation-related articles, we get editors or simply readers asserting that homosexuality is a choice (this more commonly happens at the Homosexuality article). It's not clear (or rather not 100% clear) from anything that Hawljo added or stated, however, that he was singling out homosexuality as being a choice (not even considering the fact that he used NARTH as a source). Flyer22 (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The imperative to reproduce is likely both biological (many or all species seem to try sometime, not just reproduce by coincidence) and social (e.g., families and nations demanding babies and punishing lesbians and gays, the latter not seen much as parents until lately). You're right and I'm wrong about 50:50; but if sex intended for reproduction is a small fraction of all sex then the ratio wouldn't be far off. The duality of the reproductive imperative confounds assessing how much of sexual orientation is chosen, and there's likely a lot of lesbian/gay history of L/G people living as het, marrying, and raising children without going back, some because they saw what was welcomed and what was punished. I suppose it's possible that genes make some species members L/G across a population in a way that furthers reproduction, in the sense that altruism helps a society and therefore is rewarded even as it is criticized (I'm told Ayn Rand denied altruism's existence, although Wikipedia doesn't go that far on her) and therefore perhaps some members of a species are genetically supposed to help others, maybe very indirectly, so the species as a whole reproduces with larger numbers, better health, etc. But proving all that probably hasn't happened yet (and proving it at an individual's level is fraught with problems). I guess to het-evangelists homosexuality looks more chosen than heterosexuality does, not only because of wishful thinking but also because enough L/G/B people were persuaded or forced to change their behaviors that other people say change of sexual orientation is possible, but that may mean that sexual orientation changeability is reportable only as popular perception or folklore until it's found through scientific method and the APA's reliance on durability makes that less likely. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding how being gay or lesbian helps the reproduction aspect, there is also the belief that being either helps to keep the world from being too overpopulated...as in overpopulated to the point that the overpopulation is damaging. Of course...there's still many more heterosexual people (or appears to be many more) than gay and lesbian people, and some parts of the world are overpopulated to the point that the overpopulation is damaging, so that's one way that the "helping to fight overpopulation" theory can be criticized. I'm not sure in what way you were referring to being gay or lesbian helps the reproduction aspect, but I felt that I might as well mention that theory. We are moving into WP:NOTAFORUM territory, however. Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If nonreproducers make life better for reproducers, offspring might be better off and therefore society as a whole might be better off. This doesn't require that nonreproducers be servants; perhaps it's by being artists, soldiers, investment bankers, or people who don't batter wives (because they don't have wives or are not as conflicted or distressed about life choices) and thus indirectly contributing to the quality of life for parents. In some way, then, possibly L/G people might not simply be nonreproducers but aides to reproduction, not necessarily even intending the role but having that effect, and not necessarily having any particular parents or offspring in mind, since a biological influence need not be that specific.
 * If being L/G is sometimes reactive to overpopulation, then L/G percentages of populations should be higher where critical resource scarcities (e.g., naturally potable water) coincide with population smallness, stability, and isolation; nonnomadic desert- or mountain-based societies might qualify. I don't know if that's been measured. But I gather polygamy, especially where formally accepted, is often reactive to persistent whole-society sex ratio inequalities, so I guess reactivity to overpopulation is also possible.
 * Sometimes, I discuss a subject on a talk page although I don't have sourcing because the concepts might make it easier for someone to find sourcing, e.g., by identifying key words. It's just to open a line for research to understand or build an article, not to debate what's right or wrong as in a forum.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC) (Corrected a misspelling and clarified a sentence: 15:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Effords to change sexual orientation
This section begins by mentioning that there is a main article dedicated to the subject. Then goes directly to the subsection titled "opposition". I think that before opposing some thing some explanation about this something is needed. I propose simply to use the opening paragraph of the Sexual orientation change efforts article:


 * Sexual orientation change efforts are methods that aim to change a same-sex sexual orientation. They may include behavioral techniques, cognitive behavioral techniques (such as "reparative therapy"), psychoanalytic techniques, medical approaches, and religious and spiritual approaches.

--Auró (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Done.--Auró (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Determining and measuring sexual orientation
I find that the title of this section has produced a "mixing" of different concepts in its content. Probably when it was first written it was intended to contain the explanations relative to the methods that are used to verify and measure what the sexual orientation of persons are. In this sense, it should contain testing methods, and classification criteria. It happens that the term "determining" has also an other meaning, a casual one, as synonym to "what are the causes" that produce a particular sexual orientation. The result is a mixing of content. My proposal is to make two different sections, and proceed to distribute the contend according to each meaning.


 * Causes of sexual orientation


 * Measuring sexual orientation

--Auró (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Go for it, though a significant number of the subheadings that are there should remain. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. For the moment I have only rearranged, with no changes.--Auró (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead again
Regarding these edits by Scientiom that kept getting reverted, a matter that was also taken to my talk page, this is why I kept reverting: Removing mention of the other sexual identities from the lead will prove problematic; this is because, as shown in the past, editors (usually IP editors) have tried to add in that pansexuality or polysexuality are sexual orientations. Especially with regard to pansexuality, they feel that not mentioning it in the lead is leaving out an important sexual orientation. But no authoritative scientific organization recognizes it as one, and researchers generally consider it an aspect of bisexuality (same goes for polysexuality). Therefore, I resolved to mention in the lead that people may identify by sexual identities other than heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, such as pansexual or polysexual; this is also an important aspect that is covered lower in the article and therefore satisfies WP:LEAD. The American Psychological Association acknowledges that "heterosexual," "gay," "lesbian" and "bisexual" are not the only sexual identities that people go by. And there's no denying that sexual orientation, whatever the label, is a sexual identity, despite the fact that the two can be distinct. In this case, there's no valid point in removing "These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality" and "These categories are aspects of the more nuanced nature of sexual identity.[1] For example, people may use other labels, such as pansexual or polysexual,[7] or none at all." from the lead, especially considering that the lead also states: "According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation 'also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions'." And since the leads of the Heterosexuality and Homosexuality articles additionally make this clear.

As for the Pan American Health Organization text, I didn't see that during the reverts and have restored it.

As for the See also changes, the See also section should usually be in alphabetical order. Flyer22 (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Very unprofessional article
This article is poorly conceived and its execution is even worse. The very first sentence:"Sexual orientation is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender." is parochial and just silly. I think there is a physiological basis for the concept of "sexual attraction", even if much of the response is socially conditioned. I am certain there is no good definition of what constitutes a "romantic attraction", unless one is seeking to include those socially conditioned responses indistinguishable from "sexual attraction" except without sexual arousal or interest. [ as an aside I question the use of "people" in this context, shouldn't it be a person or an individual?] My point about romance, is that it is another name for love, and that unless it can be demonstrated that - romance without SEXUAL interest is categorically different from other "types" of love, that it should be included as a potential result of orientation. What is the orientation of the following, and how does this article deal with it. (I leave aside the incorrect meme used here that there are only two human sexes, when biologically (and physiologically) it is just not true.) Bob is sexually aroused only by himself (onanism) Bob is sexually aroused only by children under the age of 8 Bob is sexually aroused only by his dog. Bob is sexually aroused only by his mother. (Oedipalism) Mary is sexually aroused only when she is acting the part of the male (penetrator/inserter). Mary is sexually aroused only by harming others, including animals. Mary and Bob are ONLY sexually interested in each other. Mary is sexually aroused only by fast cars. etc. It seems to me that this article is clearly about an amorphous lay term that has NO possible technically precise definition. At the same time this article attempts to be technical. I submit you can not have it both ways. Is sexual orientation a character trait or is it a behavior pattern? The politically correct answer, as I understand it, is that it is the self-identification that the individual makes, and clearly can change with time (the fact this article IGNORES the vast body of evidence demonstrating this is another major flaw, imho). As one counter-example of some of the "junk science" on display here: consider a heterosexually oriented male that is incarcerated and becomes after some amount of time attracted to one or more male prisoners. Is he or is he not homosexually oriented now? If so, then the claim that the "trait" endures is clearly wrong, if not then reality does not support the terminology; that is the term is contrafactual. So, social context is one (of many) determinates of orientation. I did not intend for this to be a rant, I hope I've made some good points and that some skilled wordsmith can sort this article out, separating the real from the convenient. Many terms have both an informal (vague and/or contradictory) definition as well as one or more technical definitions. It could be the case here that, given the voodoo of psychology today, even the technical definition(s) are vague and contradictory...of the "I know it when I see it" type. I also have a real problem with this article using Freudian "theory", without mentioning that is has been thoroughly discredited as a theory of mind...why not add witchcraft? Not to start a flame war...173.189.78.18 (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP. I'm not clear on some of what you stated. But I will state the following: Wikipedia goes by the WP:Verifiability policy when it comes to adding/sourcing content. For this article, scientific sources, especially what most of the scientific community reports, are what we should generally use; you can view WP:FRINGE for why that is. The article does not state that there is no physiological basis for the concept of sexual attraction; nor does it imply that. After all, it partly talks about sexual arousal. As for your point about romance, I have also stated that romantic love or romantic attraction includes sexual attraction. But there are people who differ on that view (a view I no longer 100% hold), such as the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association (two authoritative scientific organizations used as sources in the introduction and lower body of the article); see here and here. Most asexual people contend that they have romantic attraction without sexual attraction. Also see the Romance (love) and Romantic orientation articles, though the latter is pretty much an article about asexuality and therefore probably won't last much longer since the Asexuality article already exists. Furthermore, romance does not always mean love. And people apparently distinguish romantic attraction from other types of attraction by their desire to have non-sexual romantic experiences with the person or people in question. There are definite non-sexual romantic experiences that would be considered appropriate for an adult to have with another adult, but not with a child. So romantic attraction/romantic love can definitely be distinguished from other types of love. The only reason we haven't included emotional for the lead-in definition, which the aforementioned sources also include, is because it is redundant. Romantic, like the Romance (love) article shows, always encompasses emotional feelings. Like I stated elsewhere, "I'm not sure why the authoritative sources include emotional, unless it's to cover the affectionate/affectional terms they used to use. But we certainly don't need people thinking that just being emotional or affectionate with someone makes someone heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual...if they take 'or' to be an exclusive or in that context. Sources about sexual orientation usually include sexual and/or romantic without also using emotional."


 * As for the lead stating "both sexes," along with including "gender," you might want to look at the Sex and gender distinction article. More than two sexes, unless you count intersex people as a third sex, have not been identified by scientists. There has been no scientific discovery of a third sex. There is male, female, or a combination of the two. And even when a combination of the two, their chromosomal makeup usually reads as male or female; true hermaphroditism is very rare. By contrast, more than two genders have been identified by scientists. See the Third gender article. While third gender and third sex are used interchangeably, a biological third sex has yet to exist (or be found, if you prefer to think that it exists and that scientists simply have not discovered it yet).


 * You asked, "Is sexual orientation a character trait or is it a behavior pattern?" The answer is that WP:Reliable sources define sexual orientation as both -- the character trait may contribute to a person behaving in a way that is consistent with what they are sexually attracted to. Scientists generally distinguish sexual orientation (the enduring sexual attraction) from sexual identity (how a person defines their sexual orientation/sexuality) and behavior (how a person acts). This is because, as the article notes, they do not always line up. A person may be gay, for example, but engage in sexual activity with the opposite sex due to heteronormativity/heterosexism/homophobia or any other reason. And this article actually does discuss whether or not sexual orientation can change. Still, however, sources usually mean "sexual identity can change" when they state "sexual orientation can change." Scientists generally don't believe that sexual orientation can change. The politically correct answer, as is often seen regarding homosexuality debates, is that "people are born with the sexual orientation they have." Scientists, however, are less sure about what causes sexual orientation, which this article extensively notes. With regard to your statement that "a heterosexually oriented male that is incarcerated and becomes after some amount of time attracted to one or more male prisoners," you are speaking of situational sexual behavior. In the case you speak of, it is either a heterosexual-identified man who is genuinely sexually attracted to both sexes or it is a heterosexual man who, due to not having access to women, sexually substitutes men in place of women, often going for the most feminine-looking men while trying his best to pretend that those men are women. Sexual pleasure can be distinguished from sexual attraction.


 * And, yes, this article needs a lot of work, but not because of the points you made. However, the points you made may be used to help clear up some aspects in the article using WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I only see one mention of Sigmund Freud in the article and that's in the Gender, transgender, cisgender, and conformance section where he's simply listed alongside some theorists/researchers. If he's mentioned at any other part of the article, I have not noticed it yet. This is a big article that I still have not read in its entirety. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Factors other than Gender
Based on what I have learned so far, I would like to include a new section near the end of the article entitled something like “Factors other than Gender”. It would state something like:
 * The generally accepted definition of sexual orientation refers solely to sexual orientation with regard to gender. A few researchers have begun investigation into other possible factors in sexual orientation. Michael Seto argues that pedophilia can be understood as a sexual orientation with regard to age, just as heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality can be understood as sexual orientations with regard to gender. He looks at the issue on the bases of age of onset, correlations with sexual and romantic behavior, and stability over time. The Harvard Medical School’s Mental Health Letter states “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.” It defines Pedophilia as “the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty.”  These and other studies suggest changing sexual orientation is not possible, and the most effective treatments for pedophilia are those that enable the pedophile to resist acting their sexual attraction. 
 * Those writing civil rights law have long recognized the possible ambiguous interpretation of the term sexual orientation. US laws, such as the federal hate crimes law, explicitly define sexual orientation to refer solely to sexual orientation with regard to gender, and grant civil rights solely for sexual orientation with regard to gender.

Another reason I think it would be good include this is because when I google “sexual orientation pedophile”, I found claims made on Fox News shows that the federal hate crimes law protects pedophiles, because “sexual orientation” is a protected group in the law. I would like the article to expose the specious nature of these Fox News type reports. 173.95.182.78 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ref fix request
The following reference appearing in this article:
 * Gay, Mormon, married

...which points to an unauthorized reprint of copyrighted material. It should be replaced with the following reference, pointing to the original source:

Thanks. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Introduction
The second paragraph of the introduction states - "the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice.[13][14][15]"

But the website of that second source states it is "a 'Listening Exercise' to gather opinions." As such it does not represent scientific fact.

This is a poor source and should be removed or else qualified as something other than empirical evidence.

see: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian/submissiontothecofe.aspx

jgdiamond2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgdiamond2 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Royal College of Psychiatrists is not a poor source. And it's used in the lead and lower body of the article because of this bit that it states: "It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is." I will now go and correct that link in the lead. Either way, that portion of the lead is supported by two other reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. But as I've noted on this talk page before, I am against using that source to make any authoritative comment about sexual orientation only being biological; on that matter, it states "It would appear," not that "It is." And like the American Psychological Association states, and some other sources in the article state, scientists (while generally agreeing that sexual orientation is not a choice and favoring biological theories for the cause of sexual orientation) do not know what causes sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is really a fringe theory, and furthermore sexual orientation can change, and it's up to a person to decide. It is completely unverifiable, no matter what source says, that sexual orientation is not a choice. Even the idea raises questions, and I dare anyone to tell me otherwise. --209.188.62.150 (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That sexual orientation is not a choice and/or cannot change is a fringe theory? If that's what you meant, scientists, including the major scientific organizations, generally disagree with you on that (though they readily recognize that sexual identity is a choice and can therefore change, because, well, there's no doubt that it can; it's a matter of a person simply changing the sexual identity he or she identifies by, which happens often). The notion that sexual orientation cannot change also does not fall anywhere under WP:Fringe. If you meant the notion that sexual orientation is only biological is fringe, I must state that is also not fringe; it's a significant matter of debate among scientists. And scientists not knowing what causes sexual orientation additionally is not fringe. Interesting that you state "[i]t is completely unverifiable, no matter what source says, that sexual orientation is not a choice" and yet also state "sexual orientation can change, and it's up to a person to decide" as though that (the latter bit) is verifiable by science. All that stated, per WP:Not a forum, this is not the place to debate beliefs about what causes sexual orientation...unless it has to do with improving the Wikipedia Sexual orientation article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that sexual identities can change, and really I am saying is there is no source that can ever prove that sexual identity is permanent, which is what your outrages claims are. This is the claim of fringe, in reality no amount of survey could solve this. As well as this, you should understand that this theory you have is "pure communism"...--209.188.62.150 (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you not read the above clearly or what? I did not state that sexual identity cannot change. In fact, I made a point of contrasting sexual orientation with sexual identity; you are confusing the terms/concepts, as they obviously do not necessarily mean the same thing (something this Sexual orientation article makes perfectly clear). It is clear they do not necessarily mean the same thing by the fact that gay people often identify as heterosexual before coming out as gay; their sexual identity changed, not their sexual orientation. My point that sexual orientation and sexual identity do not necessarily mean the same thing is also currently shown on this talk page elsewhere. Scientists know/recognize that sexual identity can change, but they generally do not believe that sexual orientation can change. If you notice, for example, most scientists discredit sexual orientation change efforts. I'm done discussing this with you, as you clearly do not completely understand what you are talking about on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong, outright lies, read the below for the finality. Bye. --209.188.62.150 (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are wrong. Now bye. Flyer22 (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sexism, is clearly in Flyer22 mind. Sexual orientation can change, and your source violates rules npov. Just the idea of it is offensive, never mind the subversion you are attempting. Just give up, that you are wrong, and you cannot argue correctly. --209.188.62.150 (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

To others: The IP is also obviously wrong about WP:Neutrality. Also note that I am female, as many at this site know, so the IP's claim of sexism, if the IP thinks that I am a male projecting some sort of male bias, is also off-base. I'm done with the IP and this section now. Flyer22 (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't know you were male or female, I don't really care. You still have sexist views, and your claims are false/and falsified.

This is the final, absolute final word, I may come back, but I to often come back. As for you thinking you were a male, I didn't know ether gender, and viewed you as "it" in previous comments, and as as internet is hard to verify who's gender really is, I don't waste my time trying to find who's gender really is online. I openly say I am a woman, proud of it, but do I really have to say it on the internet, the answer is no. This therefor precludes... I am sorry for any hostile comments here, but what I say is final. Thanks... --209.188.62.150 (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh, nevermind 152.78.249.33 (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem of the statement that sexual orientation is enduring....
...if pluralistic point of view this is correct... one can have as many sexual orientations in his lifetime.. pls refer to impermanence of sexual phenotype article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.152.209 (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Enduring does not mean permanent, so I think the lead does not need a change on this. Additional comments on changing sexual orientation during lifetime may be added in the main text of the article, if properly sourced.--Auró (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides not wanting to get into a debate about this with an IP who believes he or she knows better than the sources, I originally ignored the IP's statement because the "enduring" aspect does not imply that people "can have as many sexual orientations in his [or her] lifetime" (it implies the opposite) and because the statement is in stark contrast to what the authoritative sources state on this matter; they use "enduring." And most of them do not believe that sexual orientation changes (meaning, for example, a heterosexual person later becoming gay...or vice versa), but rather sexual orientation identity changes (which is often simply called sexual identity, and is why I'll be merging those articles together at some point). These matters are often mixed up, even by some researchers. That stated, we do have a section in this article on whether or not sexual orientation changes; it's the Fluidity section, with authoritative sources weighing in and differing a bit on the subject. And of course we also have a section in this article on sexual orientation change efforts a little below that, efforts that the authoritative sources state are dubious. Flyer22 (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Another sadistic idea. You really should be careful with these comments, it's clear you are think that sexual orientation is sticky, in which it clearly not, and furthermore, your arguments are clearly not convening me. I have never been more disgusted before this, both in real life and on internet. I will say this. Most Wikipedia people are men, well I am a young woman, and I am not naive about this. I am forceful, in this case, to assert the finality of this claim. The source addition violates npov. Final saying: I will not reply after this, write all you want, but I will simply ignore, and to secure, I change IP address via unplugging modem, and replugging. As I will clear all internet history, I will not be bothered via any person "warning" for any uncivil complaints, though I researched this area, I will not be contacted. --209.188.62.150 (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP barely knows what she is talking about on the subject of sexual orientation or WP:Neutrality, as clearly shown above. Nothing more for me to state to the IP, except that we go by WP:Verifiability; it's all about the sources, WP:Due weight (which is a part of the WP:Neutrality policy) and WP:Fringe on this matter. Not personal opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh, nevermind 152.78.249.33 (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Article as a whole has unverifiable sources.
Yes, I am that IP, and now that my ANI has been closed, I will at least try to move its discussion here. I warn you my comments, following this, may be compromised, because I haven't slept in two days in a row. At any rate, the article as a whole needs fixing, and axing certain sources. While I acknowledge certain sources won't be axed, I will admit my real intent is to assert that any source claiming sexual orientation is fixed, is fundamentally flawed. Thus, these sources cannot be accepted, and anyone asserting this is discreted, as far as I know. My basis is a bit more extreme then I initially told you. Its a reason modern science, since the 1990's, is not really verifiable, especially in gender studies such as this. I got to go to bed, and will come back after and post the full story, as I am starting to see things, please wait I finally sleep. As for what I will post in it, I will post a much more detailed reason why these sources then I did in ANI, and will actually be reading the entire sources, including the really long ones. It will likely take 3 to 5 hours, due to my very slow typing, and these sources are very long, and I read kind of slow as well. I regain sanity as I sleep. --209.188.54.59 (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are claiming that all 140 sources can't be verified, then you will have to convince us, the other editors who believe otherwise. Please take us through the logical, policy-grounded steps that lead you to these conclusions for each source, for example by providing better sources that refute each existing source. - MrX 11:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To everyone (seems that MrX already knows): For what the IP means by "that IP," see here, here, here, here and here.


 * With regard to what I stated about the lead at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI): As seen here, here and here, the lead no longer states that...which the latter two of those WP:Edit summaries show I disagree with. Apparently, the IP's post at WP:ANI caught the attention of an editor I have disagreed with, and still disagree with, on the matter of what causes sexual orientation/noting what causes it, and that editor decided to alter the lead narrowly; the editor decided to do that no matter that I've very clearly pointed out in "The text about what causes sexual orientation in the lead" discussion to that editor at the Homosexuality article why that narrow view is wrong and why it is not WP:Undue weight to mention the other aspect in the lead or lower body of the article. So, clearly, the IP has mistakenly identified me as, among other things, one of those editors who push/try to push a "biology only view," when that could not be any further from the truth, and has achieved the exact of opposite of something she wanted by advertising a content dispute in such a public forum. I will not be interacting with this IP for reasons noted higher up on this talk page and shown in the diff-links of the first paragraph of my reply in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While the content may me changed, the point stands. The reality, including some of these sources are removed, some really, really fringe theory sources are still here. The point is, as I touted earlier, on a larger view I have, and it may be bit extreme, is that any, and I repeat, any, gender study is unverfible. While the result is that over 70 percent of all articles related to sexual related articles might be seriously compromised, so be it. I am also sorry for harassing you on an earlier IP, which you already know what it is. I will try to avoid commenting on other people's pages from now on, and I while I did not sleep for two days in a row, it does not excuse me. I hope you really reply to me for my reasons, even if you don't have to. Before I give my reasons, the intent it seems on my view, and I don't know if it is wrong and right ( I seriously don't know if is) is sort of against reliable sources policy. I haven't read the policy itself, but I have a feeling it is against it. I do remember, sometimes go against all rules over 3 years ago, but I haven't read that article since then, and I vaguely remember. As for the sources themselves, read the following I still find objectionable, and I will give my reasons why these should me removed.

Problem sources: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian/submissiontothecofe/psychiatryandlgbpeople.aspx#history (most extreme source so far

a b Vare, Jonatha W., and Terry L. Norton. "Understanding Gay and Lesbian Youth: Sticks, Stones and Silence." Cleaning House 71.6 (1998): 327-331: Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 19 Apr. 2012. (automatically fringe) though I cannot read it, I won't comment on it, just filler


 * The rcpsych presents no evidence, and you have to blind to trust this. I think this should be wiped off, because this is extreme. No evidence is asserting its outrageous claims, everyone is different, and I assure you that this is an extremist paper. Aside from the fact that the section Wikipedia points to, is obviously false, it reads this:
 * It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.
 * "Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice" shows a red flag immediately. I assure you almost anyone can change sexual orientation, as I have. This article, for the reasons I touted some time ago, is discredited from sources like this. As for other sections, other defects points to this:
 * There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. However, the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others, such as employers, means that some LGB people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems (King et al, 2003; Gilman et al, 2001).
 * Is obviously false. I know for a fact, that in most of the would, gays and or lesbians, are discriminated, and that gay and lesbian attitude is incompatible with normal mental health in most of the world ( mostly third world countries, mostly Africa and parts of Asia.)As such, it doesn't view a worldwide view, and that it is more then enough of a reason to delete this on its own. (fun fact, western bias)

It appears that all other sources were removed that I found objectionable, so it appears that I only have one source. Well, that shows progress, and I am surprised.
 * Other: Scientific consensus is vague and npov, reword that.

Thanks for at least liseting to me. --209.188.54.59 (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the sources the IP cited at WP:ANI have been removed thus far. No comment on the rest. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, created an account... at last. Cannot edit, for now. ( I am the IP address) I kind of knew that it wasn't going to get removed, because my thoughts were perhaps a little to extreme, but hey at least I tried. As for what happens now, you may close this section, as I have lost interest. I will now look at non-related articles. Anyone want to e-mail me ( I will try to avoid spam bot) (Redacted) . Two a not separated and anyone can talk to me! Thinks... --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP having created an account does not matter with regard to this article. If she edits this article in any way that she has indicated above she wants the article edited, she will obviously be reverted...by more than just one editor. And reported if she violates WP:3RR. She repeatedly states that she will move on. But she does not move on; that is why she has now created an account, obviously. Flyer22 (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Still, the article will always be this way. Flyer22 is really, really wrong here, and I don't mean to be an "enemy" but the intent of floating these sources is I repeat, and I repeat, ALWAYS unverifiable. In fact I'm debating to nominate the Article for deletion for insufficient sources, but it will obviously not fly. Sometime back in 2010, I remember her on these same pages, in fact almost all talk pages ( I was active(but as an IP)) related to sexual content. Since this was over three years ago, I remember nothing, and it is really, really vague, but I do remember her. Although I never talked to her until 2013, I do remember. I will, however revive the discussion, saying the entire page should be redone in order for these so-called "research" removed. The fact of the matter is that it will always inherintly be untrue. You may have to believe my words, but trust me, some things just cannot be verified (especially these sorts). The intent, and I repeat, intent is to someday change the polices... but as mention here forth, I know they won't. The entire article's npov is compromised, and I can now edit it, but I'm to scared to do so, because I know my limits. Since the article is obviously in a bad state, nothing will change. As mention, stuff like "if the source if reliable, then EVERYTHING is reliable to EVERYTHING IT PUBLISHES" is policies I wish to get rid of. The idea of course is to put fourth POLICIES in front of ACTUAL ACCURACY. If you don't know what that means, it means as an analogy; if source is verifiable, immediately accept EVERYTHING they publish. This of course compromises accuracy, and it unto further damages the credibility of Wikipeida. Take my words as-is, I am stating an opinion, but this is what I believe. Since while I know it will probably never go unto my ways, I am taking it to the talk page. Unfortunately, I do not have time to do so, and I'm really lazy, so I prefer someone do it in there spare time. "sigh..." Singing off, Love; Sara... --Lesbiangirl (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I am sorry if there was any attack... I did not... mean any attack on anyone, but if so, I'm sorry. Flyer22, if it is taken as an attack, I'm sorry. According to my view, it wasn't, but if there was, I am sorry. I just tried to change the article, as mention, I am stating the facts when I saw you on the various talk pages... now that I think about it, I actually remember talking to you one time... but it was so long ago, on an IP that I forgot what it was. Anyway, my point stands, the article is in dire situation, and I am simply requesting editing it. Love, Sara... --Lesbiangirl (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are saying verifiability, but what I think you really mean is reliability. It is easy to check that an article says what we say it says - that is verifiability. That you believe a given source is inaccurate is a matter of how reliable it is. Lady  of  Shalott  13:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

birth order is a subset of biology
The birth order phenomenon relates to biological brothers, not brothers in the same social environment. It's a biological phenomenon, so I was bold and moved it under the Biology header. Leadwind (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Societal construct
This article doesn't seem to confront the likely possibility that 'sexual orientation' is a cultural construct and that there is no reason to see sexual attraction as intrinsically directed towards any groups on any basis, and that it is entirely possible for sexual attraction to be something one feels towards individuals on an individual basis. Even the section 'Anthropology, history, and sexology' only entertains the possibility that sexual orientation may be based on 'other categories'. What about no categorization? This would be evidenced by the fact that in a history of western culture the idea of sexual orientation is something that has only appeared very recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.148.43 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a section whose very title is "Sexual constructionism and Western societies".--Auró (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Definition of asexuality in introduction
The introduction defines asexuality as "the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others". Could someone with editing powers on this article remove the romantic part to just leave "the lack of sexual attraction to others"? The sources in the introduction and on Wikipedia's page on asexuality concur that asexual individuals vary on the ability/inclination to form romantic attachments, i.e. there are asexual individuals who experience romantic attraction. MagpieMe (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The word lack does not have to mean absence. And notice that the word or is used, meaning that it (the attraction) may be one or the other, if not both. Therefore, the description is accurate. Flyer22 (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On a point of sheer pedantry, the definition of "lack" is "|A deficiency or need (of something desirable or necessary); an absence, want".
 * Back on topic, however, I respectfully disagree. The definition is inaccurate because using the word "or" means that a person who does experience sexual attraction but does not experience romantic attraction can be called asexual, which is not true. The definition currently doesn't match the sources: they concur that there are competing definitions of asexuality, but every definition circles around sexual attraction. Romantic attraction is not included in any of the definitions in the sources. The asexuality page goes into more detail (using the same sources) if you want more info. MagpieMe (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * MagpieMe, Wikis are not WP:Reliable sources. This, this, this and this dictionary source show that lack does not necessarily mean absence; it is also why I chose to use both words (lack and absence) in the WP:Lead of the Asexuality article. Note that while I do not own the Asexuality article, I am the main editor of it, and propelled it to WP:Good article status. So I am well aware of the topic of asexuality and what that Wikipedia article states about it. The lead of that article summarizes that article well, subtly showing that there is not even complete agreement that asexuality means absolutely no sexual attraction. With regard to sourcing, we go by the WP:Verifiability policy at this site. And with regard to the word lack, researchers generally define asexuality as "individuals with low or absent sexual desire or attractions, low or absent sexual behaviors, exclusively romantic non-sexual partnerships, or a combination of both absent sexual desires and behaviors"; this is made clear in the Romantic relationships and identity section of that article, a section that clearly shows that some people with low sexual desire or low sexual attraction identify as asexual.


 * You are incorrect when you state that "[r]omantic attraction is not included in any of the definitions in the sources," as shown by this source, the first source used in the lead of the Sexual orientation article for the asexual bit and which notes how researchers and asexual-identified people define the term, and this scholarly book source (also in the lead and which addresses different definitions of asexuality among researchers and those who identify as asexual). If romantic aspects were not a part of defining asexuality in WP:Reliable sources, or some characteristic of it, the romantic factor would not be mentioned in the Asexuality article...unless, because a WP:Reliable source mentions it, it was to state that asexual people do not experience romantic attraction. So, yes, keeping all of what I just stated in mind, a person who does experience sexual attraction but does not experience romantic attraction can be asexual; this is because a person with low sexual attraction may identify, and may be identified by researchers, as asexual because he or she does not have the desire to engage in romantic or sexual activity/relationships. Furthermore, romantic attraction is usually tied up with sexual attraction, and is what usually distinguishes platonic love from romantic love; but for some people, such as some asexual people, they state that romantic attraction and sexual attraction are distinguished (separate) for them.


 * All that stated, I went ahead and granted your request...for better consistency with the lead of the Asexuality article and because (and I've noted this on Wikipedia before) it seems that the vast majority of asexual people experience romantic attraction. On a side note: You are not completely new to editing Wikipedia, are you? I notice that you have signed your username twice now, something that WP:Newbies usually have to be told to do (despite the fact that, whenever they are typing up a comment in the Wikipedia editing space, there is a message above it informing them to sign their username), and you have used WP:Indent (properly at that, though you might have been following my lead...correctly deducing that you should indent one mark further after me). Flyer22 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making the amendment. I started this topic because I felt the definition given was incorrect in itself, but also because I had read the asexuality article and saw an inconsistency between the definition of asexuality given in the asexuality article and the definition given in this article. I did not know you were the lead editor of the asexuality article (obviously), but now that I do, I'd like to thank you and your fellow editors for doing such a good job with it.


 * Having read your response, I think I might not have explained what I meant clearly enough. I am not trying to say that romantic attraction has nothing to do with asexuality. I've been trying to say that the original wording defined three types of people as asexual:


 * 1) Does not have a standard level of sexual attraction and does not have a standard level of romantic attraction;
 * 2) Does not have a standard level of sexual attraction and does have a standard level of romantic attraction;
 * 3) Does have a standard level of sexual attraction and does not have a standard level of romantic attraction.


 * This is because "the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others" allows for the presence of a standard level of sexual attraction or romantic attraction, so long as the other is absent.


 * I've re-read my comment about the sources and it wasn't clear, apologies. In both of them (and others), the only definitions of asexuality which include romantic attraction also specify a lack or significant reduction of sexual attraction/behaviour. I have not seen any definition of asexuality which includes "normal" sexual attraction. (Which doesn't mean a source along those lines doesn't exist, although it would be pretty weird! Regardless, if you know of one I'd be grateful if you'd point me in its direction.) None of the definitions in the sources defined person 3 as asexual, but the original definition here did, which is why I said that the sources did not support the definition. I didn't make my point well, but I hope it's clear now.


 * On the side note of me not being new to Wikipedia, no I am not, although this is the first time I've had a user account. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that? I haven't bothered with a user account before because I've tended to use Wikipedia very infrequently, if at all, but I made one recently because I've been on the site more often. While we're on this topic, though, could you please bear in mind Assume good faith and Please do not bite the newcomers? I was honestly quite taken aback and a little upset by the tone of your response. If I was completely new to Wikipedia, it's quite likely that I would have abandoned my account and probably felt scared to go onto Wikipedia at all for a while. That was my initial reaction anyway, despite being a little more experienced that your average new-account-holder. I had to struggle with myself to get past it. I don't think any of that was your intention, but you'll never know it happened if I don't say something, which is why I've mentioned it here. MagpieMe (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome for the alteration. Yes, I know that you were not stating that romantic attraction has nothing to do with asexuality; after all, you began your commentary in this section by stating that romantic attraction can be a part of it. I don't feel that the lead was implying any of the three interpretation examples you gave above (well, not exactly in those ways), but thanks for explaining your point of view on that matter; I certainly didn't want any readers interpreting that text the wrong way, and I think I had at one time considered removing "romantic" from the asexual bit because it felt "off" to me because I know that people can sometimes take "or" the wrong way (which is one reason the and/or construct is popular, though Wikipedia has the WP:ANDOR guideline that advises us to generally stay away from that construct). As for assuming good faith and not being bitey, you felt that my question about whether you are completely new to editing Wikipedia was a violation of those guidelines? I don't see it that way, but I apologize for having upset you in that regard. It's just that I'm usually very good at spotting editors who are not new to editing Wikipedia, whether they are experienced IP address editors, an editor who has made a legitimate WP:Clean start or a WP:Sockpuppet; I have had many experiences with that last type, and so I am commonly suspicious of a new Wikipedia account that shows familiarity with editing Wikipedia, but I was not suggesting that you are that type. I was curious, and definitely did not mean to bite you. I think it's something that only experienced Wikipedia editors (whether having low, mid, or high Wikipedia experience) would get upset by. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Pedophilia
The Harvard Medical School’s Harvard Mental Health Letter states “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.” It defines Pedophilia as “the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty.”

Is there any appropriate place to include this information in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.182.78 (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a reason that you were reverted here and here, and it's the reason that pedophilia has been kept from being mentioned as a sexual orientation in this article for years: WP:Fringe. Stating that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, at least regarding the usual/authoritative way that sexual orientation is defined (which is by sexual and/or romantic attraction to males and/or females, men and/or women, not whether or not someone is a child, adolescent or adult), is WP:Fringe. Calling it a sexual orientation, especially in the WP:Lead, is WP:Undue weight. Some people (including a minority of researchers) use the term sexual orientation loosely (including with regard to pedophilia), but it is not at all scientific consensus to call pedophilia a sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I also found the claim that Pedophilia is a sexual orientation in the medical testimony given to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of CANADA’s 40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION, Monday, February 14, 2011. I have yet to find any medical reference where it is claimed it is not a sexual orientation.  Do you know of any? 173.95.182.78 (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how WP:Fringe and WP:Undue work. Read that guideline and that policy. The vast majority of sources with regard to sexual orientation mention nothing of pedophilia as a sexual orientation; that is the point. That is why there is barely a debate among scholars with regard to pedophilia being a sexual orientation and thus is why there is barely a need among scholars to state that it is not one. Flyer22 (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So there are multiple quotations from independent sources for the view you call WP:Fringe and no quotations or independent sources for the view you call not WP:Fringe? 173.95.182.78 (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you going to read WP:Fringe and WP:Undue or not? Do I need to start citing parts of that guideline and parts of that policy for you to understand why it's not just my view that calling pedophilia a sexual orientation is WP:Fringe? Again, the vast majority of sources, WP:Primary and WP:Secondary, and whatever other type of source, define sexual orientation as sexual and/or romantic attraction to males and/or females, men and/or women...with no mention of pedophilia. Most of the time, when researchers refer to pedophilia as a sexual orientation, they do not mean literally (like I stated, being loose with the term) and/or are usually comparing it to sexual orientation...as to state that it is like one (not that it is one). The significant minority calling pedophilia a sexual orientation, a minority that is mostly made up of pedophiles and pedophile supporters, do not even deserve a mention in this article...per WP:Fringe and WP:Undue.


 * I'll cease replying to you now so that someone else gets a chance to respond to you first. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn’t get the impression that the two sources I found (Harvard Medical School, and the experts asked to testify to Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights) were “mostly made up of pedophiles and pedophile supporters”. They seemed to want to stop child abuse from what I read, and thought that by recognizing pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change, more effective treatment would be establish.  I believe they are recommending that enabling pedophiles to resist acting on sexual urges is more effective at preventing child abuse than trying to change a pedophile's sexual orientation towards children.


 * I would not want to see any sort of pro-NAMBLA rhetoric included in the article. If greater understanding of the sexual orientation of pedophiles can help prevent child abuse, then that information might be useful to include. 173.95.182.78 (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Not here. The overwhelming majority of relaible sources on sexual orientation do not include pedophila in the concept. That sporadic reliable sources that do so don't carry much WP:WEIGHT, and need not be mentioned at all per WP:FRINGE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I would certainly accept that the Harvard Medical School view was WP:FRINGE if I could find medical or scientific references to that effect. So far, I can only find political sorts of arguments.  Can you point me to any medical or scientific reference where it is claimed Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation? 173.95.182.78 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether pedophilia is a sexual orientation, paraphilia, perversion, or the result of demonic possession, it simply isn't sufficiently common to warrant any discussion in the lead of this article. Period. Now, as for whether it can be described as an "orientation" and not as a "paraphilia" later in the article, Harvard Medical School is a WP:RS but is taking a position contradictory to most RS on the topic. We don't need the other RS to explicitly say that it isn't an orientation, since not saying that it is an orientation is sufficiently descriptive of their position on the matter. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree it should not be in the lead (I just figured my WP:BOLD would last about 10 seconds no matter where I put it), I think it belongs towards the end. The statistics I am reading do not make it look much rarer than asexuality, which is in the article. In addition to the two WP:RS I mentioned above, I am now reading Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 2012, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 231-236,  “Is Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation?” By Michael C. Seto.  He argues that pedophilia can be understood as a sexual orientation with regard to age, just as heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality can be understood as sexual orientations with regard to gender. He looks at the issue on the bases of age of onset, correlations with sexual and romantic behavior, and stability over time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.182.78 (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Michael C. Seto bit is hardly any different than what I told you above: "Most of the time, when researchers refer to pedophilia as a sexual orientation, they do not mean literally (like I stated, being loose with the term) and/or are usually comparing it to sexual orientation...as to state that it is like one (not that it is one)." That is why the sexual orientation aspect is mentioned in the Pedophilia article, but pedophilia is not called a sexual orientation in that article; it is also WP:Due weight to mention that aspect in the Pedophilia article without asserting that it is a sexual orientation in that article. And asexuality has substantially more support as a sexual orientation than pedophilia has; that is why it is mentioned in this article and pedophilia is not, and is why it is currently included on the template for sexual orientation (not to mention that there has been WP:Consensus to keep it listed on the sexual orientation template, without the WP:Consensus having yet changed on that matter). Also take note that most adult asexual people experience romantic attraction toward other adults (as in men, women or both), and that romantic attraction is a defining aspect of sexual orientation in many or most sources with regard to sexual orientation (in fact, it's because of this that some asexual people identify as heterosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual...relating to the romantic aspects of those sexual orientations/sexual identities). Now I am just about done, or am done, discussing this topic with you because you are not getting the point and this discussion is going in circles. Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I can’t find any WP:RS to support what you are saying, and you have not provided any despite the fact I have ask repeatedly. It appears to me it is just new science that may hold a key to more effective treatments in preventing child abuse.  It is politically inconvenient new science. But removing from view all new science regarding sexual orientation that is not politically convenient moves sexual orientation into a pseudoscience realm. It’s not even all that politically inconvenient, it just means people in the future may have to be more specific when they are only speaking with regard to gender sexual orientation and not sexual orientation as a whole. 173.95.182.78 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of what I stated above is supported by various reliable sources, so be specific. What you mean is that you want a reliable source stating that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. Well, you have already gotten replies about that with regard to what relevance it has in support of your addition/proposal. And, surely, in the few reliable sources discussing pedophilia as a sexual orientation, you can find one researcher who disagrees with calling it one; but again, that is not the point. The WP:BURDEN is not on us to prove that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation (the significant majority of sources, reliable and non-reliable, show that it's hardly ever considered a sexual orientation anyway); it is on you to prove that it is not WP:Fringe and WP:Undue weight to call it a sexual orientation and therefore not WP:Fringe and WP:Undue weight to include it in this article. And you have not proven that. I'm now done replying to you about this topic.  Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and researchers speculating and/or arguing about something does not necessarily equal science. Researchers aren't even clear on the science behind sexual orientation, as this article clearly notes. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there anyone who can identify any WP:RS that states pedophilia is not a sexual orientation? I would be interested to hear about one if there is one.  Certainly traditionally it has been research from a gender point of view, but is it impossible to believe that science could discover that other factors like age could be involved? 173.95.182.78 (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No source is required to explicitly state pedophilia is not a sexual orientation because the very term "sexual orientation" is a nothing more than a label with several definitions, some being more authoritative and in far more common use than others. It is simply that those authoritative, more commonly used definitions, due to their criteria, would not apply to pedophilia.  This article currently demonstrates this in spades.  Two or three letters or editorial journal articles that choose a non-standard definition do not invalidate the multiple other sources that use definitions that would exclude pedophilia.
 * Key to this matter, whether you want to admit it or not, is the motive for including pedophilia under this definition in this Wikipedia article. It's read by laypeople, so the only real motive is social agenda.  That is, to exploit the common association of "sexual orientation" with civil rights matters and thereby ride the coattails of the LGBT community.  Groups have been trying to do that for decades.Legitimus (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If the US and state governments accepted your view that sexual orientation is “nothing more than a label” with no scientific basis, it would set LGBT rights back decades. The whole marriage equality argument is predicated on the idea that sexual orientation is a scientific fact, and not a lifestyle choice.
 * I can’t believe anyone really thinks pedophiles are going to get civil right protections as result of the above medical discussion being included in the article. Laws, like the federal hate crimes law, are already written very carefully to state explicitly that civil rights only apply to gender sexual orientation and not sexual orientation as a whole.  I think the motivation for including this information would be to promote effective treatment programs for pedophiles, and to provide accurate information about the current state of scientific investigation into sexual orientation, including new developments. 173.95.182.78 (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To comment on what Legitimus stated, it's obvious to me that he was not stating that sexual orientation is nothing more than a label; he was stating that the term sexual orientation is nothing more than a label, which is hardly any different than what the American Psychological Association states, and is why he used the word term. The IP has also clearly twisted Legitimus's words with regard to the rest as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Other than communicating you are full of hate, I really don’t get what you are trying to say. If you are not concerned about pedophiles getting civil rights (which I agree no one wants) what does “exploit the common association of "sexual orientation" with civil rights matters and thereby ride the coattails of the LGBT community” mean? 173.95.182.78 (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that all people (should) have civil rights, no matter what their sexual preference. Certainly paedophiles should not be discriminated against just because they are attracted to children. I SHOULD POINT OUT that I am using the term paedophilia to refer to people who are attracted to children, NOT to people who have abused children (although I'm sure most of those people would be classed as paedophile too). There was a big debate on this a while back on one of the pages (maybe the paedophilia one, cant remember), and I think it ended with them saying paedophile could refer to both people who were attracted to children, and those who had followed through with these attractions. I personally think that the word, paedophile, just like any other -phile, just means attracted to the thing, in this case, paedo- (child). You can be a paedophile and not act out your desires. Anyway, back on topic, Legitimus is clearly saying that he is talking about the word sexual orientation, rather than that which it describes. He has repeatedly pointed out that what you are asserting is, at the moment, WP:FRINGE, and until you substantiate it with multiple reliable sources, it is a no go. You keep asking him to provide sources, seemingly not understanding that the burden of proof is upon you, not him, as you are trying to "go against" an established school of thought. The fact that reliable sources dont mention paedophilia while talking about sexual orientation is proof of this. If you want sources for that in particular, just look at the bottom of the article. 152.78.249.33 (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, new IP, you are correct that pedophilia more accurately refers to sexual attraction to children (a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, to be more precise). You are also obviously correct that child sexual abuse is a separate matter. Though it is common for pedophiles to sexually abuse children, not all pedophiles do. And not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles (especially since child sexual abuse, in addition to sexual abuse of prepubescents, covers sexual activity with underage pubescents and underage postpubescents as well). I was the one repeatedly pointing out WP:FRINGE to the aforementioned IP. But, as you can see, that and some other things didn't sink in far enough for him or her. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant flyer22. 152.78.249.33 (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Paedophilia isn't (and never will be) a sexual orientation. It's a categorical impossibility. Children aren't a sex.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeBonolo (talk • contribs) 02:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead
The first sentence of the article states that, "Sexual orientation is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender." I find that sentence to be both poorly written and confusing. I suggest instead something like, "Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of attraction—emotional, romantic, sexual, or some combination of these—to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both sexes." Looking through the revision history of the article, I found that older versions used similar wording. It seems to me that "pattern of attraction" is better than "personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction", which sounds vague and mysterious. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the lead has been extensively worked out more than once, so I am not enthusiastic about extensively debating it again. After much discussion, I got it to a point that it pleases everyone. By that, I mean including sex and gender, and by including pansexual and polysexual as alternative terms (note that pansexual and polysexual are not defined as sexual orientations by authoritative sources, such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, on sexual orientation, but rather as sexual identities; so I've given them WP:Due weight as sexual identities in the lead, and they are mentioned lower in the article). We've included "sex" and "gender," because, like the hidden note I added in the lead about that states, these terms are not always the same thing; for example, "sex" may refer to "biological sex" (being male or female), while "gender" may refer to a person's gender identity of being a man or a woman; therefore, like the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles, we have included both in the lead. Like before, people will complain if we only state "sex" and not "gender" as well. Articles such as Pansexuality, Polysexuality, Sex and gender distinction and Genderqueer are clear as to why they will complain. If people are confused by the lead stating "opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender," they can go to the Wikipedia articles to see what we mean.


 * As for how the article got changed from "enduring pattern of attraction that is" to "enduring personal quality" and "inclines people to feel," see Talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 3. Auró wanted to use "trait"; I and another editor objected. Auró and I finally settled on "enduring personal quality" and "inclines people to feel." However, I don't mind if we go back to using the "enduring pattern of attraction" wording. Flyer22 (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't proposing to extensively debate anything. I was simply making a suggestion that others can agree with or not; I do think the current wording is poor. Thank you for pointing me to the relevant discussion in the talk page archives. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding extensively debating, I meant that past experience concerning the first paragraph has led to extensive debating. I am exhausted on that matter, trying to please everyone regarding that. There comes a point where we have to realize that everyone is not going to be pleased with it. But whatever I can do to stop the same debates coming up again and again, such as debates regarding sex or gender, or bisexuality vs. pansexuality, I go for that...as long as going for it is reasonable. And for a debate on the sex or gender matter that led us to maintain both terms in the lead of the Homosexuality article, and then for me to take that approach to the leads of other aforementioned sexual orientation articles, see Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 21. Flyer22 (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed some of the previous discussion. Auró claims to have found that definition in Simon LeVay's Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why. I must note that this book is not actually used as a source in the lead. I'm afraid I can't see any coherent rationale for the wording Auró favors. If there are no further objections, I will change the definition to, "Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender." ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As you can see in that discussion I had with Auró, we gave strong reasons why it's best not to go with a single author's definition of sexual orientation for the lead, unless that author is an authoritative scientific body. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, but what is your point? Do you agree with the proposed change of wording or not? ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My point regarding the "04:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)" post was to highlight why Simon LeVay is not used as a source for that first sentence. And, yes, I agree with your proposed change; remember, I stated above, "However, I don't mind if we go back to using the 'enduring pattern of attraction' wording." Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Both "personal trait", "enduring personal quality", include the personal dimension, "enduring pattern of attraction" does not. May be it is a too fine distinction, and it can be said that the personal dimension is included in the overall meaning. Nevertheless I favor to maintain "enduring personal quality", as being more explicit, and a result of previous consensus.--Auró (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in previous consensus. I am interested only in using the best and most accurate wording. Your wording clearly is not preferable, and your reasoning is confused. What do you suppose "the personal dimension" even means? Is "the personal dimension" even a scientific expression, and is it supported by any of the article's sources? Obviously "enduring pattern of attraction" is "personal" inasmuch as it refers to people. Your wording simply adds unnecessary verbiage. Can you give any clearer reason for preferring your wording, Auró? If not, I will remove it, and change the lead as I proposed. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should use material that is as scientific as possible, avoiding personal opinions. I found a definition in ''Gay, straight, and the reason why. The science of sexual orientation", Simon LeVay, Oxford University Press.2011. The book starts with a definition for sexual orientation, that is this:


 * "..it is the trait that predisposes us to experience sexual attraction to people of the same sex (homosexual gay, or lesbian), to persons of the other sex (heterosexual or straight), or both sexes (bisexual)". Flyer22 was opposed to use a single reference to build the definition of the article. There was a discussion and a consensus was met. We can repeat the process, no problem, but based on authoritative references.--Auró (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Auró, since the Sexual orientation article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need to ping me to it via WP:Echo. I pinged you to it because you don't edit Wikipedia as much as I do, and might overlook a new discussion on this talk page. Moving on to the topic at hand: In that aforementioned discussion, I and another editor, Someone963852, were against using a single author's (as in a single person's) definition of sexual orientation for the initial definition in the lead, not a single source, and I stated why I was against that and why it is best to go by what the authoritative sources on sexual orientation state when initially defining sexual orientation. Alternative definitions can come after that, and already do. Using a single author's definition of sexual orientation opens the door for people to state, "Oh, that's just that person's definition.", and to offer a different definition from a different author so that they can push their personal POV, including a POV that might be WP:Fringe. I and Someone963852 also stated that "trait" is already clear by the American Psychological Association; I stated the following: "The lead makes it clear that sexual orientation is a personal trait, even mentioning alternative sexual identity labels that a person may choose. And to once again go to the previous example I presented about this, the lead also states: According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation 'also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions'. So how does that not make it clear that sexual orientation is a personal trait/personal characteristic? If we were to state 'Sexual orientation is also a personal trait' right before that line is presented, I would not be able to help but consider it redundant, especially since, right after presenting the categories of sexual orientation in that same (first) paragraph, we state 'These categories are aspects of the more nuanced nature of sexual identity' and then name two alternative labels."


 * I didn't understand back then why you want "trait" to be added, and I still don't understand it. The reasons that I support ImprovingWiki having re-added "pattern of" is because the American Psychological Association, an authoritative source on sexual orientation, uses the word "enduring pattern of" for their definition of sexual orientation, and because sexual orientation is generally believed to be enduring among scientists/researchers who study it. When people talk about sexual orientation changing, what they are truly talking about (usually anyway) is sexual orientation identity, not actual sexual orientation...even when they don't qualify "sexual orientation" with the word identity. Like the Fluidity section of the Sexual orientation article currently states, "Often, sexual orientation and sexual identity are not distinguished, which can impact accurately assessing sexual identity and whether or not sexual orientation is able to change; sexual identity can change throughout a person's life and may at times not align with actual sexual orientation." The vast majority of scientists/researchers do not believe that actual sexual orientation can change, which is why the vast majority of them do not believe in sexual orientation change efforts. So I don't see what is wrong with stating "enduring" or "enduring pattern of" in this case; it is very much WP:Due weight. I also disagreed (and still disagree) with your proposal because it leaves out "romantic," when the authoritative scientific organizations include it, and because limiting the first sentence to biological sex, instead of stating "sex or gender" and "or to both sexes or more than one gender," has caused problems before, per what I stated above in this section. Since I am for going by what the authoritative sources state first and foremost in this case, I personally could go without emphasizing gender in the first sentence, and instead emphasize that with the "nuanced" part of the lead. But, again, leaving gender out of the first sentence will only cause problems. And since the American Psychological Association mixes up gender and biological sex (for example, by stating "to men, women, or both sexes"), even though they don't state "sex or gender," we might as well keep mention of gender in the first sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * On a side note: For why I am for keeping "emotional" out of the first sentence, see Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 3. Flyer22 (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Flyer22. I have nothing to do with any ping. In fact you have just informed me about its existence. I have no intention of making any new discussion with you about this subject. My comment was directed to ImprovingWiki, as an explanation of where the present edition came from .--Auró (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The ping is when you link an editor's username; that's WP:Echo. And if this lead discussion continues, as a way to form a new lead, then I will be a part of it. You stated, "We can repeat the process, no problem, but based on authoritative references." I'm not going to excuse myself from forming the lead, not with the concerns that I have (as expressed above). Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22 that we should not rely on a book by a single author for a definition of sexual orientation. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And so do I.--Auró (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Causes
In the causes section, a sentence states, "Homosexuality was considered to be the result of troubled family interactions or psychological development that was improper, but these assumptions were based on misinformation and prejudice." I suggest that this sentence be removed. It is made redundant by the sentence in the paragraph immediately above it stating, "There is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that early childhood experiences, parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation." I am not saying that the sentence is wrong; rather, that it is unnecessary overkill. I also think it is misplaced, since the purpose of the "causes" section should surely be to summarize current thinking about the subject rather than to discuss no longer accepted views. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean about only having current views on causes in the Causes section; we do similarly for medical articles, regulating "no longer accepted" views among scientists to a History section or something similar. But, although sexual orientation is partly a medical topic, it is also very much a social topic and, in my opinion, a Causes section in this case is more comprehensive if it includes a bit of material on past scientific beliefs about sexual orientation. Besides that, as you know, homosexuality is still very controversial in 2014 and many people still think that "[homosexuality is] the result of troubled family interactions or psychological development that was improper." That's partly why sexual orientation change efforts still exist. I suggest you reorganize the two lines you cited above, perhaps using WP:In-text attribution for the "Homosexuality was considered" sentence, since that material is currently quoting the American Psychiatric Association but is not in quotation marks for its word-for-word parts. Or regulate that sentence to the Efforts to change sexual orientation section. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The section on causes goes directly to "biology", and then some of the contend in this section is not properly biologic. I propose to make an introductory general paragraph, to center the subject, based on the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association references. In a second step, part of the biology section contend, that is not properly biological, would be placed in the now devoid "environmental factors" section. My proposal, open to discussion, is as follow:


 * "The exact causes for the development of a particular sexual orientation have not been established, in spite that a lot of research has been conducted to determine the influence of genetics, hormonal action, development dynamics, social and cultural influences. This has led many to think that biology and environment factors play a complex role in fixing it. It was once thought that homosexuality was the result of faulty psychological development, resulting from childhood experiences and troubled relationships, including childhood sexual abuse. It has been found that this was based on prejudice and misinformation".--Auró (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The Biology subsection in the Causes section is not strictly biological because of what the section states -- scientists these days generally don't think that sexual orientation is caused solely by biology or any other sole factor. As for your proposal, placing your proposed text as an introductory paragraph above the Biology section, and moving the "faulty psychological development" content there (and perhaps cutting back on any other redundancy), I am fine with doing that...except for the "fixing it" part; I think "fixing it" should be "causing it" or "forming it." We could also do similarly (for this article) to what we did with the beginning of the Causes section at the Homosexuality article; if I remember correctly, you are responsible for that introductory paragraph as well, and then I and another editor tweaked it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I will proceed in this direction.--Auró (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For documentation on this talk page, this is the edit that Auró made. And I removed the redundant "Homosexuality was considered" material. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC).


 * I propose to keep the first paragraph in section "hormones" and suppress the rest. The reason is that it contains excessive detail that can be found in the main article prenatal hormones and sexual orientation.--Auró (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What you are proposing is WP:Summary style, and that is, of course, fine. But that first paragraph is too small. I think that either that paragraph should be fleshed out more or there should be two decent-sized paragraphs for that section. I feel similarly regarding any other section in the article that does not have one or more adequate WP:Summary style paragraphs. I'm not fond of sections that have only a little bit of material in them. Like MOS:Paragraphs states, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Flyer22 (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

To make a summary of this section is not a simple task. I will do it, but not immediately.--Auró (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Done, with material from Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation, sexual differentiation and androgen.--Auró (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Causes section was awkwardly worded (the "in spite of" clause, specifically), so I reworded it for clarity. I believe that my changes didn't change the meaning. The original read "The exact causes for the development of a particular sexual orientation have not been established, in spite that a lot of research has been conducted to determine the influence of genetics, hormonal action, development dynamics, social and cultural influences.", my edits split that into two sentences and changes "have not been established" to "have yet to be established", in order to justify the next sentence which speaks of on-going research: "The exact causes for the development of a particular sexual orientation have yet to be established. To date, a lot of research has been conducted to determine the influence of genetics, hormonal action, development dynamics, social and cultural influences—which has led many to think that biology and environment factors play a complex role in forming it." Silus Grok (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , I'm fine with the change you made. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Spiritual Friendship blog under Religion Section
Hi, @KateWishing, you undid my addition of a reference to the Spiritual Friendship blog and its novel philosophical stance in this conversation based on reliable sources. In this case, I propose that the testimony of individuals pursuing this stance (i.e. the blog) is a sufficient indication of the merit of the idea in this area of the article. If you think the idea needs to be articulated better for the sake of the article, let's please discuss that.SocraticOath (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It needs a better source; see WP:BLOGS. KateWishing (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Imperative order
It looks like when it is in current order that it it allies with normative behavior instead to deacribe it objectively e.g. hetero,homo,bi, instead trying to describe in suffiecient terms encompassing sex and gender. 178.34.202.160 (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * IP, what do you mean? Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sexual orientation towards person/disregarding gender?
Ie. where the gender of a target of affection is irrelevant, only the individual/person matters. Someone who might be attracted to literally anyone, but does not show any attraction based on gender.

I thought there was an article(or at least part of one) covering this, but now that i tried finding it again, i cannot. And i don´t recall the word used for it either. None of the definitions under the "Sexual orientations identities" covers this. Gender blind comes closest, but is not an orientation, while the description for pansexual is clearly far too all-inclusive. DW75 (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * DW75, the only thing I see that you could be talking about is pansexuality, and we mention that in the lead of the article and in the Androphilia, gynephilia and other terms section. Flyer22 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * While it can technically appear the same from an outside point of view, the mentality is drastically different, so no, pansexuality doesn´t cover it.  Pan and poly still looks at attraction towards GENDER, what i´m trying to locate again is attraction to individuals.   Where gender in regards to sexual orientation is just irrelevant.

DW75 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * DW75, I don't know what you are talking about then. Pansexuality is commonly cited as gender-blind, as noted in the Pansexuality article. Also, it's usually not cited by authoritative sources as a sexual orientation; it's subsumed under bisexuality if acknowledged at all by such sources, and is commonly considered an aspect of (or the same thing as) bisexuality anyway. There is no sexual orientation where gender is not an aspect. Asexuality, which is still being debated as a sexual orientation, for example, concerns gender since it's about little to no sexual attraction to people, and since asexual people may be romantically attracted to one or more genders. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes but the definition of pansexuality is far from being similar to "genderblind".  If genderblind was stated as an orientation, then that would at least to some extent be what i refer to, but still not quite.

The difference can said to be in how people look at something, and the difference between feeling "oh that girl/boy/etc is cute i like" and "oh that person is cute i like". People who looks at the PERSON instead of their gender. The people who would not be surprised and not care the slightest if it turns out the person they´re flirting with is a crossdresser or transgender of some sort. Someone pansexual would probably still at least be surprised by that revelation, even if specific actual gender may not in the end bother them. And seriously, "There is no sexual orientation where gender is not an aspect.", huh? Exactly how do you KNOW that? And the orientation i´m trying to find the name of was included when i took a psychology class, that´s where i´m taking the definition from, but since that was almost 20 years ago, i can´t recall what it was referred to as. It is very annoying not being able to remember what it was called now that i suddenly needed to find it. DW75 (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * DW75, I'm going by what the literature/WP:Reliable sources on sexual orientation and sexuality state. Sexual orientation is based on sex/gender. I am not interested in WP:Original research arguments, unless I am arguing against WP:Original research. I'm done discussing this matter. Maybe someone else watching this talk page will be interested in discussing these topics with you. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Self-Contradictory Page Regarding Choice or Lack Thereof
The opening paragraph states that, "Sexual preference may also suggest a degree of voluntary choice, whereas the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice." However, the article goes on to state that; Freud, Kinsey, and Foucault all inherently disagreed with this conclusion based on their research and expertise. I do not believe a "consensus" can exist in this area if it discludes these folks' views, such would be the equivalent of a "consensus" on special relativity which discludes and contrasts the opinions of Einstein, Planck, and Dirac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.97.19 (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Scientific consensus reflects current scientific thinking by the vast majority of the scientific community, as also made clear by WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS). Scientists these days generally do not view sexual orientation as a choice; they generally believe it's not a choice. Sexual orientation identity, however, is a choice. Furthermore, given that most of Freud's theories (or just "very many of his theories" for those who believe that the other theories are still debatable) have been discredited, why should we consider him with regard to scientific consensus on this matter? Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because the article itself cites Freud, though his veiws remain controversial and are not infallible, his pioneering work remains a foundation of many psychological and related sciences. It seems that like many "fringe" or controversial views; what there is here, is a media consensus which is regarded as (dogmatic) "Scientific" consensus by mainstreamers. If there is indeed an objective (lower-case 's') scientific consensus, why is the article so lacking in such citation? Do you really believe that Humans (unlike other Mammals, animals, and various lifeforms) are binary (or boolean) in their sexuality (on/off switch, which inherently undermines the concept of bisexuality, by the way.)? As a critical thinker, I find this notion preposterous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.97.19 (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your rationale or much of what you are trying to state in your "05:13, 14 July 2015" post (for example, your commentary on bisexuality). Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, regarding non-human animals, you might want to read the current lead of the Homosexual behavior in animals article (what Bruce Bagemihl and Simon LeVay state) and its "Applying the term homosexual to animals" section if you think that non-human animals choose their sexuality and/or are generally sexually indiscriminate. Read the Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals article as well. Flyer22 (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Romantic orientation and androphilia and gynephilia in the lead
I reverted on the addition of adding romantic orientation, and androphilia and gynephilia in the lead, stating that this is not WP:Lead material. While it can be validly argued that androphilia and gynephilia should be noted in the lead since we have a decent-sized section on that material in the article, the terms romantic orientation and androphilia and gynephilia are barely used. Romantic orientation in particular is considered synonymous with sexual orientation by researchers in general, and is mostly used by the asexual community. This is why the vast majority of sources in the Romantic orientation article are sources about asexuality. For some time now, I've considered that the Romantic orientation article shouldn't exist, and should either be merged into this article or the Asexuality article (the bits that wouldn't be redundant, that is). Furthermore, Dietic included the "romantic orientation" aspect too high in the lead, pushing down the more important terms heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality. Dietic also included the following sentence too high: "For example, although a gynephilic person may feel sexually attracted to females, they may be predisposed to romantic intimacy with males." This was introduced before the "Androphilia and gynephilia are terms used in behavioral science" sentence, which tells us what androphilia and gynephilia are. This is seen with this link to a clear version of the article. I'll re-add the "Androphilia and gynephilia are terms used in behavioral science" sentence, and where Dietic placed it. But I disagree with the rest of Dietic's changes, per what I stated in this post. Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: I re-added "androphilia and gynephilia" (followup edits here, here, here and here), and reorganized the lead just a little. Another concern of mine was keeping the lead at the standard WP:Lead four paragraphs. Flyer22 (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Slightly Misleading Sentence
In the lede, 2nd paragraph, it says,

"These categories are aspects of the more nuanced nature of sexual identity and terminology.[1] For example, people may use other labels, such as pansexual or polysexual,[7] or none at all.[1]"

However, in the 2nd sentence, the 2nd subordinate clause is a tad misleading, as it implies that pansexuality is distinct from polysexuality; although certainly not the same thing, they aren't mutually exclusive either, as pansexuality is a type of polysexuality. – SarahTehCat (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , all that sentence is meant to do is report that people may identify by sexual identities that are not of the typical variety. Pansexuality and polysexuality are different sexual identities, not two different sexual orientations. As far as various scholars (and much of the bisexual community, or even the general public) are concerned, pansexuality and polysexuality are bisexuality. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't see how what the general public thinks even matters, except for describing public perception in the article; the article should represent the truth, not how the public thinks the truth is. Besides, pansexuality and polysexuality aren't even the same, nor completely distinct, orientations. Again, pansexuality is a particular variant of polysexuality. They can be separate identities, but they are not so easily rendered irrelevant to each other in terms of orientations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahTehCat (talk • contribs)


 * And,, I mentioned more than what the general public thinks. WP:Reliable sources (which is what we go by, not our personal opinions) in the Bisexuality and Pansexuality articles are clear that they are viewed as being the same thing. Of course, both articles note that they are viewed as distinct as well. We commonly get people wanting to define bisexuality in a particular way, despite the fact that it is defined in the binary way and in a way that makes it identical to pansexuality. Polysexuality is the sexual identity that gets the least attention out of the three (which is also why its Wikipedia article is so small), and it is also considered an aspect of bisexuality. Either way, I see no contradiction with the line in question. And unless you show me a WP:Reliable source that would make me think it's a contradiction, I'll continue to think that way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

PNAS/pheromones material
Neither this material nor this material belong in the article. The reasons for excluding it (though the bad and/or messy formatting certainly does not help) are WP:Due weight, WP:Fringe and WP:MEDRS. If it's included at all, it should be added appropriately and not added as though it is some type of scientific consensus matter. It is not mainstream in the least. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

And I will note here now that Lulu.com falls under WP:Self-published. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is the sentence under discussion; it is not a consesus, which is why it was included under hormones. A possible reason for the permanence of sexual orientation is the Ventral Olfactory Nucleus, which has only recently discovered in humans as in animals, dies at the end of the first trimester usually.  In the first trimester the amiotic fluid is from the mother, in the second the placenta oxygenates and it also releases testosterone.  I agree that as it is new it only deserves one sentence, but not to mention pheramones is to misrepresent a body of scientists who have persued it since the `1970s.  If you look up the VON you will see what wide ranging influence on the structure of the brain it has and a malfunction could be the reason for the different but consistent blood flow in sexual offenders as seen in a recent study reported in Archives of General Psychiatry - can we get some discussion on this?


 * After development gay men respond to pheromones based on testosterone while hetrosexuals respond to ones based on estrogen. Lesbians too respond differently to pheromones than heterosexual women

202.86.32.122 (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you want discussion on this, I'll alert WP:Med, WP:Biology and WP:Physiology to it...considering that it concerns biomedical information. You can also consider another form of WP:Dispute resolution. On a side note: I WP:Indented your comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Alerted here, here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * as informed people will be looking at this sentence I'll just mention a few things that were in the original par but was deleted: Could pheromone imprinting be responsible for our sexual preferences for example smells of foods are passed to the fetus this way; the mother's pheromone is in the amiotic fluid for the first trimester and the VON is usually only active in this time, mucus can stop the proper action of the VON, the placenta oxygenates at the end of the first trimester and passess testosterone the VON can sometimes be present at term, mice will mate with juveniles if a pheromone in their tears is deleted.  All this is in the literature.  The VON is responsible for the dichotomous sexualization of the brain.  As it dies the programming is permanent.

203.17.70.26 (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * and does not comply w/ MEDRS Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) thank you ..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I can identify the sources - one is PNAS which has an impact fator of about 20 Nature 30 etc
 * If we don't write something on pheramones we are not representing the full body of research

202.86.32.122 (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess other editors are not interested in weighing in on this. You can try WP:Third opinion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a comprehensive summary of the VON's role in recognising pheramones - note it includes mate selection.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shlomo_Wagner/publication/6835959_Genetic_analysis_of_brain_circuits_underlying_pheromone_signaling/links/00b7d538dbc0405e43000000.pdf
 * Here is an article which i think is listed in pubmed which specifically deals with the role of pheramones in sexual orientation, the appropriate section in the article points out that the circuitry from the pheramone to hypothalamus is affected by hormones which is another reason to include a few sentances under hormones

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK200984/

Steve 202.86.32.122 (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Given the very first sentence of this ncbi bookshelf ref,, it would be inappropriate to cover this material in the context of anything but a hypothesis w.r.t. humans. Frankly, I don't think it should be added at all without at least some evidence of signal transduction through a human olfactory receptor.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 23:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a very useful review of knowledge aptly titled "Review: brain aromatization and other factors affecting male reproductive behavior with emphasis on the sexual orientation of rams" Pinckard; Stellflug; Resko; Roselli; Stormshak; DOMESTIC ANIMAL ENDICRINOLOGY 18(2000)83-96 which is still very relevant and shows the history of pheramone research. It points out that there is fewer estrogen receptors in the amygdala of homosexuals.  It shows receptor transcription is dependent on aromatization at a critical period.  It shows the formula for aromatization is dependent on oxygen and androgen/estrogen exposure and theorises that the fewer receptors is due to less of the hormone.  However what was unknown to the authors at the time is that the placenta is hypoxic in the first trimester.  This was reported in PNAS recently.  In schizophrenia this causes more dopamine and near disintegration of the receptors as shown by their activation in autopsis and additional fragments FABES.  This reaches a crisis in cerebral palsy where the d2 receptors no longer exist in the striatum - hence the current success of stem cell treatment in s.korea.  If there is less aromatization fewer of the estrogen receptors will be switched to sensitive state and fewer will be transcripted.

Steve 202.86.32.122 (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Abuse and orientation
It appears that this article doesn't mention the relationship between abuse (especially sexual abuse) and orientation. I am not in any way suggesting that all or even anything but a small portion of people with any given sexuality or who question their sexuality are such because of abuse. However, as other articles have noted, severe changes in sexuality and concerns about orientation are not uncommon in cases of sexual abuse. Sexual orientation may usually be a choice or a state brought on by a variety of normal and harmless environmental factors, but it should be at least acknowledged that disturbance and changes can also arise as a symptom of other problems such as rape trauma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.32.145.62 (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What about the age-based sexual orientations?
Why does this article only includes the gender/sex-based orientations as sexual orientations, but neither the specie-based or age-based ones?

If you don't see what age-based and specie-based sexual orientations are, here is an overview and comparison to gender/sex-based sexual orientations:

Gender/sex-based sexual orientations:
 * Homosexuality
 * Bisexuality
 * Heterosexuality
 * Polysexuality
 * Pansexuality

Age-based sexual orientations:
 * Infantophilia
 * Nepiophilia
 * Paedophilia
 * Hebephilia
 * Ephebophilia
 * Teleiophilia
 * Gerontophilia

Specia-based sexual orientation:
 * Zoophilia

A male attracted to other males in their thirties isn't just a homosexual since being a homosexual only means being attracted to same gender/sex. It gives no information about the age of the one who's preferred. In this example is he attracted to other adults and is therefore also a teliophile. So the male in our example is then a homosexual teliophile. (Since he's attracted to humans, and I do not know the terms for being emotionally and sexually attracted to unspecified humans as a specie, I can unfortunately not include that part.) Jon the plumber (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Jon the plumber, as I'm sure you know, we won't be adding any of that per WP:Fringe. Those are not sexual orientations, going by what the vast majority of the literature on sexual orientation states. Read Talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 4. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Very misleading sentence in the lead section
The lead section contains this sentence:

"With regard to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women.[18]"

That is a very bad summary of the study which is cited. (Langstrom et al., 2010, Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden.)

The study is about sexual orientation. What they call "sexual behavior" is really a proxy measure for sexual orientation, in this study and in this context. In this study, "sexual behavior" means "what kind of people do you have sex with?" They use "sexual behavior" and not "sexual orientation" because "sexual orientation" is too subjective for their taste. They don't want to ask "how do you feel", they want to ask "who do you have sex with?" So that is what they asked.

A very plausible explanation for the shared familial environment is this: If your family is Catholic, then they teach their homosexual children to be celibate. This is slightly successful. The celibate but homosexual children now throw off the numbers.

The real conclusion of this study is exactly the same as the prior sentence from the lead section of this Wikipedia article:

"There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation."

I am going to remove the misleading sentence entirely, because I believe it simply shows confusion about the meaning of "sexual behavior" in this context. Also, the readers of Wikipedia will have absolutely no idea what "sexual behavior" means. That is exactly why I read the cited paper. Fluoborate (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Fluoborate, I don't care much about the sentence you removed, but it's also currently in the lead of the Homosexuality article; so you might want to challenge it there as well for consistency. The text was added at both articles by, who, at this time, hasn't edited Wikipedia since 2013 (unless he has a new account and is editing Wikipedia with that one). This link shows Cavann adding the content to this article, and me replying with this and this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: I went ahead and removed the material from the lead of the Homosexuality article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sexual orientation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070411090510/http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Pedophilia, Incest and Bestiality are all sexual orientations too and deserve to be in the article
Since people are not responsible for who or what they are attracted to, there needs to be more inclusion of people who have sexual attractions to children, family members, animals or other "objects" in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:a89c:cc00:a00e:c890:a5c1:52af (talk • contribs)
 * Interesting. What reliable sources and academic communities support or endorse this position?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

closeted can refer to more then just gay people hiding their sexual identity
In the General subsection, the term closeted is used to refer solely to gay people in the article when in reality the term has also been used to refer to people of other sexual identities that refuse to publicly admit their true sexually identity. The most frequent example would be "closeted bisexuals" whom are said to falsely identify as straight or gay rather then bisexual due to biphobia. A google search brings up about 2200 results for the search "closeted bisexual". As such, I think the sentence should be modified to cover any person hiding their true sexual identity such as bisexuals, transsexuals, asexuals, etc. who refuse to publicly identify as such. --2601:644:400:8D:F0F0:ECA4:4AAD:40AC (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. D 1960 edits
has been trying to add content about the so-called "gay gene", but the source used fails WP:MEDRS (e.g., ). Their most recent edit added a whole paragraph about their personal beliefs on the matter as well, contrary to WP:OR. I'm hoping the user will discuss the edits here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

studies supporting genetic derivation are far from conclussive. There is greater evidence for psychosocial. The promary concern is if we force a genetic nidus we are claiming homosexuality, not a mear appreciation of the same sex or transitory piqued emotion twards same sex, is a genetic abnormality. Hence the homosexual community will be verified and seem as a disability. Homosexuality will be considered a genetic abnormality. This could fuel greater seperation from mainstream and provide fuel for  communistic, socialistic, and fascist minded to further softly, turning to more outward persecution.

I hopeva more cautious approach will be taken. The dignity of a person with a tendency less pervassive in nature can be easily exploited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. D 1960 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Assessment and measurement/Draft:Scales of Sexual Orientation
Starting this discussion here because this seems a bit more involved than a simple WP:AfC accept or decline.

Draft:Scales of Sexual Orientation seems, on the face of it, to be a fairly well written submission on an obviously notable topic. However, this is 100% overlap with the related section in this article, so it's not clear whether the best way forward would be to 1) accept and incorporate content from this article into a main, 2) decline and incorporate content from the draft into the section on this article, or 3) something...else? Timothy Joseph Wood  15:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging the resident AfC guru for their input as well. Timothy Joseph Wood 15:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Timothyjosephwood - Thank you for asking me to look at this. It appears to me, as mentioned, that the draft is well written and reasonably well researched.  It isn't obvious to me after reading it whether it should stand on its own or be in the existing article Sexual orientation.  I would suggest discussion either on this talk page or the talk page of a WikiProject.  I am not yet sure what WikiProject is most appropriate.  (I would also strongly advise the unregistered editor to create an account.  Creating an account has advantages and no disadvantages, and some editors discount the opinions of unregistered editors.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments requested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Timothy Joseph Wood 15:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
I agree with User:MjolnirPants, Sexual orientation is written and sourced better but the new article could be the basis for a good summary article with content from Sexual orientation filling it out better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:D9E8:8AB4:72C9:DF3E (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at both articles, and I think the draft should be accepted as an article and content from this article incorporated into it. Trying to avoid my usual wordiness, so I'll hold off on explaining exactly why unless asked to. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  02:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Action
I have accepted it. Can other editors who are familiar with Wikipedia's complicated categories go and put it into categories? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I commented on the topic at WP:SEX days before the query was posted here. I do not agree with the creation of this poor article. It has had cleanup since its creation and it still currently reads like a poor essay. I would have declined it as poorly worded, poorly sourced and not needed. But, hey, it exists now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * And as for what I mean by poor sourcing, I mean the old sources and primary sources, and the parts that are unsourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on 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/20120513004558/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_3_41/ai_n6274004/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_3_41/ai_n6274004
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310220454/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0341/is_2_56/ai_66419862/pg_2 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0341/is_2_56/ai_66419862/pg_2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/tribpm/s_473458.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140628094701/http://www.psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation to http://www.psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6803&Itemid=1926
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=105&p=0
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/duberman.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/1/3/4/8/p113482_index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=60752
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/etiology.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/INDEX.HTM
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-5GA2YX
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/14754.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.htm

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) 04:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Demisexual as a sexual orientation
Serveral sources, such as the Wikipedia article "Demisexual", and the UC Davis GLBTQIA glossary, state that Demisexual is (now) a sexual orientation. Recommend the text be revised to reference this, probably in the same passage in which "Asexual" is mentioned as an orientation.

Spope3 (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have to point to WP:Fringe. Asexuality is barely recognized as a sexual orientation (as made clear in the Asexuality article). And demisexuality is an aspect of asexuality, which is why demisexuality redirects to the Gray asexuality article. Well, that...and because there is not a lot to state about it, which means it should not have its own Wikipedia article. Per WP:Lead, we should not be stating that demisexuality is a sexual orientation in the lead of the Sexual orientation article. As for lower in the article, well, not unless it's clearly presented as a minority viewpoint. In the Gray asexuality article, romantic orientation is more the focus (although, yes, "romantic orientation" and "sexual orientation" are used interchangeably in some sources). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible WP:Student editing
Regarding this, this and this, I'm not sure if this is WP:Student editing or just one editor moving on to a new account after a new account, but I ask that watchers of this article keep a close eye on the matter. I don't have the time to monitor it at the moment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring
I've been noticing a lot of edit warring behavior in the revision history of this article. If we could please discuss the article here instead of reverting each other's edits, that would be great. EMachine03 (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Improper redirect?
Why does sexual preference redirect here? Sexual preference is a broad topic but it includes more things than just the gender or sex of the potential partner. This page does not discuss sexual preferences aside from gender or sex. Xanikk999 (talk)
 * It's likely not currently a substantial enough topic to have its own article. It is mentioned in the lead section: "The term sexual preference largely overlaps with sexual orientation, but is generally distinguished in psychological research. A person who identifies as bisexual, for example, may sexually prefer one sex over the other. Sexual preference may also suggest a degree of voluntary choice, whereas the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice."


 * and also at the end of #General. – Rhinopias (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Sexual preference" too often means "sexual orientation" in common discourse; that's why it redirects here. It can't really be usefully distinguished other than what the above cited text states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Quote from abstract
I don't feel like tracking down what's going on here, but thought I'd post this in case someone else wants to. A citation here contains a quote from an abstract (do we need the whole huge quote?) which differs somewhat from the wording found here. In addition, the author's name is misspelled here (Waits vs. Waites). I only found this through checking articles with the goofy phrase "the this," which this quote contains. These red flags mean... transcription error? Someone changing the quote? Jessicapierce (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Jessicapierce, you are welcome to fix whatever error. I'm not sure which quote you are referring to, but we should avoid very big quotes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Dead links
I'd like to note that two sources used in the article - both links to NARTH websites - are no longer accessible. I've added appropriate templates here and here. An effort could be made to repair the links using archived versions of those pages, but I think that perhaps instead the content sourced to those sources should be removed entirely. The material about NARTH is now outdated since the "NARTH" name is no longer being used. See Talk:National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When it comes to mentioning fringe views on sexual orientation, their views are still relevant for this article. We can easily note that their name used to be "NARTH." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Presumably it would be best to have information about what the current positions of the organization, currently calling itself "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity", are? One can't assume necessarily that these are the same as those they had when using the NARTH label, granted that those may be historically relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm stating that NARTH itself is WP:Notable and deserves a mention in the article, whether we are noting their past or present views (or both). They are covered in academic sources that take the time to note fringe views such as theirs. We could use some academic sources to cover the matter. But, yeah, it would be good to cover their present views; I doubt that their present views are much different, but we should look into that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Another dead link is in this footnote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation#cite_note-rcp2007-16 --92.75.159.224 (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Attraction to a sexual orientation: it's not an additional item (probably just a typo)
That is just a misinterpretation of a poorly written sentence, copied and pasted several times. Source paper(s) give a quick general definition of "sexual orientation" (it's not a statement about an additional aspect of sexual orientation): "sexual orientation, which refers to a person's choice of sexual partners, who may be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual". It's just a typo: "who" shouldn't be there, or should be "which", or "and". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.253.119.52 (talk) 14:24, August 21, 2019 (UTC)
 * 91.253.119.52, Good job in adding a section on the Talk page, although I missed your comment entirely (and so, apparently, did Genericusername57) because you placed it in the middle of the page, instead of at that bottom. Have a look at WP:TALK for general principles of Talk page use.
 * In particular, please always sign your Talk page comments with WP:4TILDES . For replying to previous talk comments, please indent once for each additional reply; see WP:THREAD for details. :See the section that is now immediately below this one, for further follow-up on your article edit. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

choice of partners
I think the IP is correct that this is a misreading of the source: in the poorly written sentence from the linked source "A second aspect of sexual identity, sexual orientation, refers to a person's choice of sexual partners: heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual", "heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual" modifies "choice", not "partners". The APA isn't saying that a woman and a man who each wish to date a bisexual man therefore both have a bisexual orientation. Cheers, gnu 57 12:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Genericusername57, Thanks for this; yes, you're right. My change was based on the grammar only, but I see what you're saying. Do you think we should take it out entirely, as IP (who I pinged on their talk page) did, or reword? Mathglot (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to cut it altogether: as the IP editor said, the sources appended to it aren't talking about an additional aspect of orientation, just giving a garbled version of the basic definition. Cheers, gnu 57 15:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mathglot (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Shively & DeCecco Scale (1977) - as table
Free to use, if you need. Use now the english original terms in my table from the German Wikipedia.

--Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 13:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)