| Revision as of 13:12, 11 February 2022 editLpsspp (talk | contribs)28 edits →Reverts to lead← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:32, 14 June 2024 edit undoZenomonoz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,167 edits →CommentTag: 2017 wikitext editor |
| (54 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Sexuality|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biology|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Psychology}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
| Line 15: |
Line 16: |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Biology and sexual orientation/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Biology and sexual orientation/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Ref ideas |
|
|
|1={{cite journal |last1=Swift-Gallant |first1=Ashlyn |title= Organizational Effects of Gonadal Hormones on Human Sexual Orientation |date=2023 |publisher=Springer |DOI=10.1007/s40750-023-00226-x |pages= 344–370 |url= https://rdcu.be/dKFPC |language=en |journal=Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology |url-access=limited}} |
|
|
|2={{cite journal | vauthors = Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht M | title = Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science | journal = Psychological Science in the Public Interest | volume = 17 | issue = 2 | pages = 45–101 | date = September 2016 | pmid = 27113562 | doi = 10.1177/1529100616637616 | doi-access = free }} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University_Fullerton/Gender_and_Technoculture_(Spring_2022) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2022-01-24 | end_date = 2022-05-13 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Undated Citation Needed tags == |
|
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|
|
|
|
|
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-08-31">31 August 2020</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-12-18">18 December 2020</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. Peer reviewers: ], ]. |
|
|
|
There are 3 undated Citation needed tags. One of them is from March 2007, so if someone more familiar can take a look and see whether they are still needed. Thanks ] (]) 05:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Sexual Orientation in Twins: Evidence That Human Sexual Identity May Be Determined Five Days Following Fertilization == |
|
|
PMCID: PMC10757681 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51346 |
|
|
The disparity in sexual identity in monozygous twins may relate to the time of splitting of the zygote– twins resulting from splitting on or before day 5 after fertilisation are free to develop their own sexual identity; twins splitting after day five have the same identity. |
|
|
|
|
|
See: ] (]) 03:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
:Bad paper, incorrect twin concordance, for example. ] (]) 02:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|
|
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-08-27">27 August 2020</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-12-10">10 December 2020</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. Peer reviewers: ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Comment == |
|
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
|
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|
|
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-09-01">1 September 2020</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-12-18">18 December 2020</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. Peer reviewers: ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi {{u|CommonKnowledgeCreator}}, thanks for your contribution to the evolution section. However, Misplaced Pages generally relies on secondary sources. I think you've included excessive focus on the kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy hypotheses, mostly using primary source studies. It's great there is an overview of the history, but we only need to cite secondary sources on the general consensus on these models. ] (]) ] (]) 02:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
|
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|
|
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-01-22">22 January 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-05-02">2 May 2019</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I am more than aware that Misplaced Pages generally relies on secondary sources. However, per WP:BMI, this is not a medical topic and one that appears (after a search of Google Scholar) to have few secondary sources that systematically review the subject (as most of the content does not appear to systematic reviews or meta-analyses), and WP:RS does not preclude primary sources and only states that secondary sources are preferred. As far as evolution and homosexuality are concerned, kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy are the two main evolutionary hypotheses for homosexuality, and there does not appear to be a consensus about whether either is true. The only review using Google Scholar that I found that discusses kin selection or antagonistic pleiotropy does still suggest that the latter is a plausible hypothesis. -- ] (]) 03:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 15:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
::I'm not convinced of this argument for including so much focus on primary source studies? Many studies have questionable effect sizes, which is why it's best to avoid them, especially on a topic as controversial as this. As for not being able to find reviews, they are better reviewed and criticized in text books. |
|
|
::{{tq|"Kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy are the two main evolutionary hypotheses for homosexuality.. there does not appear to be a consensus about whether either is true"}} – they're both largely ruled out by GWAS, especially exclusive male homosexuality. There's still plausibility for antagonistic maintenance of the trait through other mechanisms such as however. |
|
|
::I'm not saying they should not be covered, the does indeed refer to both of them. I just think the coverage should be trimmed down, similar to the extent it is covered in that review. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::] (]) 04:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Reverts to lead== |
|
|
|
:::{{tq|As for not being able to find reviews, they are better reviewed and criticized in text books. ... I'm not saying they should not be covered, the Bailey review does indeed refer to both of them.}} Was not aware {{strikethrough|of}} the Bailey article is a review. What textbooks refer to them? I certainly agree that reviews would be better than the primary sources cited for the reasons that you've cited. Are there reviews of GWAS research that contradicts the kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy hypotheses? -- ] (]) 13:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
What are the reasons for revert of my edits ] ? Saying "I oppose" is not a good reason to ignore the largest study regarding homosexuality to date published in Science. |
|
|
|
::::{{u|CommonKnowledgeCreator}}, alongside the Bailey review you could refer to textbook with various chapters, or , or ] also has some discussion of evolutionary hypotheses. There are more I can find if need be. Hope this helps! ] (]) 03:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
Please provide sufficient reasons for your opposition, otherwise it seems like just biased opinion and I will introduce edits again. ] (]) 02:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::I'm sure that textbook would be great. Unfortunately, it has a paywall so I cannot access it. -- ] (]) 11:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
:They reverted material very similar to what I reverted. Per ], you should not reintroduce this material (]) without consensus for it. |
|
|
|
::::::{{u|CommonKnowledgeCreator}} – oh, just start using , which you qualify for. You get access to paywalled content from all the leading publishers. Access to the Springer collection is probably the best, as you get all their papers ''and'' books. I recommend using the 'access collection' button on each publisher and then conducting your search, rather than using the search box at the top of Misplaced Pages Library (which accesses papers in a clunky format, with poor search capability). Hope this helps. ] (]) 09:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
:The problem with edit is that you remove material cited to academic literature reviews to replace it with material about a single study. That is not how Misplaced Pages works. See ]. ] elaborates more on the relevant principles in a medical context, and does a good job of explaining why secondary sources are so important. The evidence for biological influence on sexual orientation comes from many lines of evidence, and is not merely related to studies of genetics, nor can it be rebutted by one such study. You should read article. Reviews since then say basically the same things. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 03:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:: But this new material does not rebut previous studies. It just elaborates on them and explains in what amount genetic factors drive homosexuality(8 to 25% of variance in population and < 1% in person). It didn't conclude that genetic factors don't play role at all. It just set the error bars(previous studies gave the same results, give or take and I'm surprised it's not mentioned tbh). Moreover environmental factors mentioned in the study are not necessarily sociocultural ones(but those are mentioned in the study as well as something that should definitely be considered) but it could also be enviroment of the womb for example. And third, it's the largest study to date and it's really strange to ignore it but reference smaller studies with methodological problems(it's mentioned there as well), specifically: all studies before that suffered from a small sample size.As a conclusion I don't see why you are saying that that the new study rebuts something, it just clarify and says that both genetic AND enviromental factors play role. ] (]) 13:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Moreover APA that "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." which is in direct conflict with what is put on the wiki page. There are also recent that show that sexual orientation might be seriously influenced by social factors(what people were told in this specific case). ] (]) 13:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:: ] my proposal is to write that there is no consensus of what exactly influences SSB and that evidence for genetic and environmental factors are considered. The statement that "Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation, however, are weak, especially for males." is just bias toward specific opinion as other academic paper including meta analysis of APA says the opposite. ] (]) 13:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{tq|Reviews since then say basically the same things.}} - No. ] (]) 18:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:: {{tq|You should read this article. Reviews since then say basically the same things.}} By the way I read that review and what you said is just not true. That's fact confirmed by APA. I don't understand why you're trying to deceive people. Waiting for your reply. ] (]) 19:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That ''is'' what says: {{tq|No causal theory of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support. The most scientifically plausible causal hypotheses are difficult to test. However, '''there is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial causes of sexual orientation than social causes.''' This evidence includes the cross-culturally robust finding that adult homosexuality is strongly related to childhood gender nonconformity; moderate genetic influences demonstrated in well-sampled twin studies; the cross-culturally robust fraternal-birth-order effect on male sexual orientation; and the finding that when infant boys are surgically and socially “changed” into girls, their eventual sexual orientation is unchanged (i.e., they remain sexually attracted to females). In contrast, evidence for the most commonly hypothesized social causes of homosexuality—sexual recruitment by homosexual adults, patterns of disordered parenting, or the influence of homosexual parents—is generally weak in magnitude and distorted by numerous confounding factors....The most common meaningful controversy across time and place has concerned the extent to which homosexuality is socially influenced and, more specifically, whether or not it spreads as a result of contagion and social tolerance. There is no good evidence that either increases the rate of homosexual orientation, although tolerance may facilitate behavioral expression of homosexual desire.}} (Emphasis added.) |
|
|
:::Your quote from the American Psychological Association contradicts none of this and in fact aligns with what the review says about "no specific causal theory". (It's also not a "meta-analysis".) APA is right that there is no consensus about the "exact reasons", but there is strong evidence favoring the biological class of explanations and only weak and confounded evidence regarding the socially-learned class. The single sociological study you link concludes by saying, {{tq|We should stress that present findings do not support the contention that sexual orientation (the underlying compass that directs our sexual/romantic feelings) can be changed. Rather we show that how people understand and label their experiences can influenced by exposure to certain theories of sexual orientation, which arguably more accurately reflect their underlying feelings.}} So no, they don't believe that social influence actually changes people's underlying actual sexual orientation. |
|
|
:::There is no good reason to remove any review article, and while that genetic study is an important scientific contribution, it is but one of many individual studies on genetic data. It is not ] to emphasize it so heavily in the ]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 05:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: First of all you are trying to twist what is said at APA site. What they say is:{{tq|Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. '''Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.'''}}. (Emphasis added). They specifically state that nature '''AND''' nurture play role. Second, why at do you think that this one review should be considered as the source of last truth? Once again I gave you several links that contradict what you say and you continue to state that they should be discarded. Why is it so? It is the largest study so far, peer reviewed and accepted too one of the most famous and recognized science magazines. What authority do you have to say that it is not true? And yes, APA did meta-analysis and article on there site is the result of it. Your statement that "but there is strong evidence favoring the biological class of explanations and only weak and confounded evidence regarding the socially-learned class." is just not true as the largest study to date states and many other studies before that. All you have is one review which you try to make a single source of truth. Nobody has found a "gay gene" and never will as the study I presented shows. What kind of "biological class of explanations" is that exactly that explain it all? Even in your review they say that all the studies before struggle from methodological difficulties and now at last we have one with huge sample size and you want to discard it. Moreover, no previous studies have shown 100% concordance when studying identical twins which itself suggests that nurture plays huge role(75% at least specifically). The best what was shown is 52% concordance and it was poorly made, suffered from methodological difficulties and no other study ever shown anything similar. "So no, they don't believe that social influence actually changes people's underlying actual sexual orientation." - don't twist what they say, my friend. They didn't say that it is not nurture, they said that it '''which arguably more accurately reflect their underlying feelings.'''. You have to stress arguably here. If you are exposed to certain traditions in childhood it could be very hard to change your behavior but that doesn't mean those traditions are result of genetics. That's obvious. And also they included word {{tq|arguably}} there which says that it is just their opinion at best. I can give you another hypothesis. Besides the topic is very sensitive and they might just be politically correct. And by the way, there are plenty of examples when people changed their sexual orientation with one of the most famous examples is ]. "There is no good reason to remove any review article," - ok, let's not remove it. Let's rephrase and present all of the opinions including APA's. Currently the article is heavily biased toward one specific opinion which is obviously not consensus and not representative. "it is but one of many individual studies on genetic data. " - once again it's not "one of many" it's the largest study to date with the sample size at lest 100 times more than any other. You can not just discard it. Currently ] is being violated by presenting review you mentioned before like it is the consensus but it is not. My statement is that currently the wiki article is heavily biased and doesn't include diversity of opinions of scientists and violates ]. Environmental factors play huge role in forming of homosexual behavior as shown by many peer reviewed papers including largest study to date(sample size at least 100 times more than any previous one) and it is just unfair and misleading to reject it. What we should do is to change the phrasing of what is written on the page to include diversity of opinions until scientific community reach the consensus. ] (]) 13:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
There are 3 undated Citation needed tags. One of them is from March 2007, so if someone more familiar can take a look and see whether they are still needed. Thanks Slywriter (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
PMCID: PMC10757681 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51346
The disparity in sexual identity in monozygous twins may relate to the time of splitting of the zygote– twins resulting from splitting on or before day 5 after fertilisation are free to develop their own sexual identity; twins splitting after day five have the same identity.
.svg){kind=small}
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): C.ler2022 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bcruz-cisneros.