Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:08, 7 September 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Environment and sexual orientation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Environment and sexual orientation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

Lead section

Well Flyer22, I think this change I made has been my shortest lived ever. See that I added nothing that it was not already there. The object of the rearrangement was to eliminate the sentence "Environment and sexual orientation is research into possible environmental influences on the development of human sexual orientation" that I, and some other, consider not very fortunate. Notice that I bolded environment, and did not bold sexual orientation because it was linked, and recommendations suggest not to bold them. Of course other approaches are possible, for instance the proposal of MrX.--Auró (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey again, Auró. I'm not sure how I should feel about having reverted you faster than anyone else on a matter. As you've seen, this edit and this edit show reasons I reverted you with regard to the lead. That second one also makes clear that with regard to my criticism about "research has shown," that the text was already there and that you did not add it. To elaborate on the bolding aspect, see WP:MOSBOLD and WP:LEADSENTENCE if you are not already familiar with those guidelines. However, considering that the title of this article is merely descriptive, you are correct (if you were not only speaking of bolding the link) that the title does not need to be bolded (though WP:LEADSENTENCE does not state not to bold it). WP:LEADSENTENCE states that it "does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." To elaborate on the other reason I reverted you, here is why: The first sentence you added did not tell readers what "sexual orientation and environment" is, meaning "what it is about." Instead, it talked about research that has been done with regard to the topic of sexual orientation. WP:LEADSENTENCE is clear that "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is." And like I stated in the aforementioned edit summaries, research has not shown the matter that was stated in the "research has shown" text; instead, researchers suggest that sexual orientation may be a combination of all three of those things. Thus, your lead-in sentence was a theory about what causes sexual orientation instead of a statement about what the topic of "sexual orientation and environment" means. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I tweaked the lead-in sentence, using the "relationship between" type of wording that the Biology and sexual orientation article does. I thought about leaving out the "into possible environmental influences on the development of human sexual orientation." part because I'm not sure if it's grammatically fine as is/flows that well with the rest of the sentence. I also thought about using "with regard to" as a replacement for "into." Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better. - MrX 23:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It was grammatically awkward before. Now it's fine. Rivertorch (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree, it is correct now.--Auró (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The Sociological Theory

There is no genetic evidence of a homosexual gene despite many millions spent over many years in search of a genetic factor. It is a sociological issue despite the many politically based claims designed to elicit sympathy for the homosexual/alternative lifestyle political movement. This hypothesis is understood among sociologists who study cultures over time. Repeating and referencing outdated theories that have been found to be unsupportive by modern genetics is unproductive. A reference must be credible and those claiming a possible biological factor are outdated based on modern genetic studies. It does however serve a political purpose designed to garner sympathy as a "condition someone is born with." There is clearly no genetic evidence to support such claims. The possibility of a genetic mutation from the mother's diet/medicines are also unsupported in genetic studies. The most credible theory that has not been disproven by hard science is that it is a sociological condition. Homosexuality may also have an psychological factor but stating that theory is often met with hostile replies by those promoting political views and not science. There is evidence to support that theory as well which has gained new adherents due to a lack of a genetic basis. The problem with the psychological theory is that it is more of a descriptive science of conditions than a hard science supported by empirical evidence. The psychology of the human mind is still among the least understood areas of the human body so that theory faces many more hurdles to prove or disprove. The Sociological condition is supported with evidence when one studies various cultures throughout history. This theory has been promoted in recent sociological texts. When one considers the lack of genetic evidence and difficulties with the psychological theory this becomes the most scientifically supported theory. 172.56.11.83 (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Have researchers found childhood gender nonconformity to be a factor of homosexuality in adulthood?

Have researchers found childhood gender nonconformity to be a factor of homosexuality in adulthood?

Not according to our sources, which seem to say "the possibility that factors causing people to differ in sexual orientation as adults are already influential in childhood and contribute to a corresponding difference in gender nonconformity." Please let me know if I'm missing something.- MrX 00:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

According to "Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction" by Bearman (Columbia University) and Bruckner (Yale University) published on American Journal of Sociology Vol 107 No 5, 2002.

"In contrast, our results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.102.76 (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have provided the published evidence. In addition, I have updated the article with other supporting evidences on social and parenting influences. I am going to update this nonconformity unless there is a valid objection.76.88.102.76 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I fear I am failing to understand the sentence you have quoted. I understand all of the words, just not the way they have been deployed. I am an ordinary reader, and we must write for the ordinary reader, even when we introduced learned papers. We also need to be careful that interpreting that paper is not WP:OR. I'm not sure what to suggest, here. Fiddle Faddle 18:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

IP, disregarding the childhood gender nonconformity material, all that you are doing is adding WP:Fringe material to the article, and I don't yet have the patience to take up full interaction with you regarding that. I have too many other things to deal with these days, and I'm sure that the article will eventually give its WP:Due weight to scientific consensus. The WP:Fringe matters that you are adding is that sexual orientation can change and that parenting plays any significant role in sexual orientation. The vast majority of scientists do not at all believe that sexual orientation can change, and they are clear about that on matters such as sexual orientation change efforts. Do they believe that sexual orientation identity changes? Yes, of course. But very few of them believe that sexual orientation actually changes. So your addition of "Centre for Addiction and Mental Health of Canada states, 'For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time." to the lead is WP:Undue weight, and the source is likely talking about sexual orientation identity anyway (which is what some scientists mean when they state that sexual orientation can change). If we are to include it, it should instead be included lower in the article with WP:Due weight (meaning in the context of scientific consensus on the matter of sexual orientation changing). When it comes to parenting, the vast majority of scientists believe that it plays no role at all or rather a minor role, and that troubled or otherwise faulty parenting especially is not the cause; for example, the American Psychiatric Association stated, "Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice." When scientists do believe that environmental or social factors cause sexual orientation, they usually mean the womb environment and/or non-womb environment/non-parental interactions.

You should also try to stay away from adding WP:Primary sources, such as what you did with this and this edit. While the study of sexual orientation is not as progressive as other medical fields, and thus, per this section of the WP:MEDRS up-to-date evidence guideline, the expectation of non-WP:Primary sources needs to be relaxed in this area, we should stay away from WP:Primary sources when possible for this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding childhood gender nonconformity: MrX, see its Misplaced Pages article (the references more so) if you have not already. Yes, there is evidence that childhood gender nonconformity factors into homosexuality, though this notion/some aspects of the studies has been criticized. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is some level of consensus about correlation, but a lack of consensus about causation. Is that a reasonable summary of the current science?- MrX 19:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean childhood gender nonconformity? Yes, I think that's a valid statement about the current science on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles