User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive06

= styles =

Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles on royal and papal articles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think if we suggest either that it should be used, or that that it shouldn't, we are going down a POV path. That is why I just stated by implication that these are the styles used in diplomacy and religion. I deliberately phrased them to be neutral so that we are not saying you must or you must not, you have to or you cannot use them, just "these are the form of words formally used. It is up to you, if you bump into the Pope or the Prince of Wales in your local bar, to decide whether you want to call them Your Holiness and Your Royal Highness or Ben and Charlie! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That is how I would expect it to work. But because the page is locked I deliberately didn't tamper with the text, so the style there was left untouched. But if that template goes live, the opening line would of course lose the style completely. I think in the text HMs, HRHs, HHs, etc would have to be used very sparingly, only really where it is useful to show for historical reasons the status of someone, for example in lists, but even then sparingly. I find endless styling of individuals OTT. FearÉIREANN[[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\(caint) 04:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Tone
I'd say I'm sorry my "tone" bothers you, but I'm not. I see no reason to make nice with a user who's been spraying groundless personal abuse in my direction for the last 3 months, including, on occasion, cutting other user's contributions out of the article and telling them I was responsible for the edit. [And who ran the same abusive routine on other editors before I came along.] And I see no reason not to describe something that's plainly incorrect as "wrong." Monicasdude 16:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's utter nonsense about "misclaiming an edit." The whole edit history of articles is easily accessible, so anyone can easily see who actually did any given edit.  As to tone... well, you've managed to earn yourself yet another person who is a whole lot less likely to agree with you on any given edit point; if what you really want is to be right in your own mind, but disliked by all other WP editors, I'm sure you'll be able to accomplish that.  It's not what I would go for myself. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:47, 2005 August 13 (UTC)


 * You're the one who's putting out utter nonsense. All you have to do is work back through the Dylan talk page to the "Christian Conversion" section and you'll see just what I referred to. The fact that someone tells an easily traceable lie doesn't make them any less a liar. Monicasdude 20:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Sexual orientation
Hello :). I read through those websites you provided and further summarized the information. Please check it's accuracy if you find a second. Thanks. 70.57.82.114 16:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you even read your own citation?
You wrote:
 * "or acquired in utero—by "subsequent inevitable developmental pathway" produce the childhood experiences"

Your citation:
 * "For example, they are supportive of an idea developed by Daryl Bem that children are aroused by peers who are different from them (in play, for instance) and that this arousal eventually leads to formation of erotic attraction and sexual orientation. Their argument that the play interests of children are directed by the prenatal hormonal environment serves as an explanation of how earlier events can influence later development. Jack Drescher (1) described this approach as emphasizing a possibly pathological early event (such as alteration in prenatal steroid exposure) with a subsequent inevitable developmental pathway that is not itself pathological."

The "subsequent inevitable developmental pathway" refers to the childhood experiences not the cause thereof. And the American Psychological Association clearly states on their homosexuality FAQ that the nurture debate has been discredited: "It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's." and "considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality." Perhaps your understanding of the subject is outdated? 70.57.82.114 22:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand what "subsequent inevitable..." means. A pre-birth thing leads to childhood experiences; I wasn't trying to suggest a different meaning.


 * Read your own cited APA quote, BTW: they claim only that biology plays a "significant role." That's a very long way from "inevitable pathway."  Still, even most of the bio studies (e.g. Levay's) do not separate cause from effect: are brain regions different because someone is gay, or is someone gay because brain regions are different.  Mere correlation doesn't answer that (even if the correlation stands up, which most has only very weakly). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:35, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

Reducing biological reductionism
Hey, I caught some major reversions of your contributions on homosexuality and restored them, then did a little copyediting so hopefully what you've writte is more clear to people who see "malleability" and have an aneurysm or break out in hives or whatever. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I'll do a little more work later, maybe split out a new sub-subsection or something. -Seth Mahoney 01:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate page
I do not disagree with including some information on explanations of sexual orientation associated with fetal hormone exposure. But let's please move the editorial discussion to the talk pages of Homosexuality and Sexual orientation rather than do it on my personal talk page. Other editors should have ready access to the discussion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:54, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

Hormones
The hormonal theory of homosexuality holds that, just as exposure to circulating sex hormones determines whether a fetus will be male or female, such exposure must also dictate sexual orientation.

After birth, there may be, physiologically-based differences present at birth that lead girls and boys to perceive the world or behave in slightly different ways. Some children exhibit childhood gender nonconformity (CGN) and research indicates that seventy five percent of these cases will be homosexual as adults.

Cornell psychologist Daryl Bem has proposed a theory called “the exotic becomes erotic”. In it he suggests children with CGN (a biologically caused attribute) are often ostracized by their own sex for their atypical behavior and this leads to physiological arousal of fear and anger in their presence, arousal that eventually is transformed from exotic to erotic.

William Reiner, a psychiatrist and urologist with the University of Oklahoma has evaluated more than a hundred cases of children born with sexual differentiation disorders. For decades, the standard medical response to boys born with severely inadequate penises was to castrate the boy and have his parents raise him as a girl. However this practice as come under attack because even though these boys were raised as girls they nearly all report as adults that they are sexually attracted to women, suggesting that their sexual orientation was determined at birth. The only cases he has found where children born with a X and Y chromosome are attracted to males as adults are those when the receptors were absent and prevented the male sex hormones from masculinizing the fetus.

There is substantial evidence showing correlation between sexual orientation and traits that are set when a baby is in the womb. Breedlove in 2000 found that finger length, a characteristic controlled by prenatal hormones, is different in people of distinct sexual orientations. Another study by McFadden in 1998 found that auditory systems in the brain, another physical trait influenced by prenatal hormones is different in those of differing orientations. Homosexual men were found to have more older brothers in 1993 and the greater the number of older male siblings the higher the level of androgen exposed to fetuses. In 1991 a study by Simon LeVay discovered that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus – which is believed to control sexual behavior and linked to prenatal hormones – was on average more than twice the size in heterosexual men when contrasted to homosexual men. Initially he could not rule out that this may be due to AIDS since all of his homosexual male subjects had died from it before the autopsies were performed. However in 2003 scientists at Oregon State University announced that it replicated his findings in homosexual sheep. Other studies regarding pheromones, penis sizes, circulating androgen levels, number of sex partners over a lifetime and MRI brain scans also found differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals all related to prenatal hormones. In freemartins it has been detected that a clearly casual relationship exists between sexuality and prenatal hormones.

The evolutionary disadvantage of homosexuality as led Amherst College biologist Paul Ewald to argue that it might be caused by a as of yet undetected virus working in the utero that triggers the hormonal responses. In response to recent findings the National Institute of Health in 2005 announced a 2.5 million dollar five year study of sexual orientation. One prominent evangelical leader, Rev. Rob Schenck, who used to advocate reparative therapy was quoted after speaking with scientists about homosexuality as saying that homosexuality is not a choice and that to continue opposing homosexual sex conservative Christians need to drop the choice argument, "If it's inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don't have one, we won't have any credibility."

The sources are WEBMD: Pointing the Finger at Androgen as a Cause of Homosexuality and [Boston Globe: "What makes people gay?"

I suggest we add it under the three sexual orientations section. Do you have any corrections? Or input? This theory certainly has more scientific backing than the nurture and reparative therapy schools of thought. 70.57.82.114 01:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

live
Hiya,

The discussion seems to have gone all quiet on the proposed styles solution, though I have tried to get it going again. There is from what was said a clear consensus on using this solution. I'm going to start putting in the papal box to see if it will work. It is probably the easiest page to start with. Is that OK with you? Fear</b><b style="color:#FF6600;">ÉIREANN</b>\<sup style="color:blue;">(caint) 21:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Like I said, all I care about is use versus mention.  Probably I'd ideally like the box tweaked to be a bit smaller and less flashy; but that's tertiary. The pope seems like a good starting point. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:54, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

3RR violation reported
Regarding 4 reverts in 13 hours to the Bob Dylan article; appropriate notice added to admin notice board. Monicasdude 17:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)