Misplaced Pages

• 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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Zoophilia is linked to directly on this template, beside paraphilia. Yet the paraphilia article includes mention of zoophilia as a paraphilia:

Under Paraphilia NOS, the DSM mentions.. zoophilia (animals)

Why does it receive this distinction when other paraphilias are not directly linked to? Shouldn't it be removed, or if not, the other prominent paraphilias also linked to directly? The implication here is that zoophilia, referenced as a paraphilia, is included within 'sexual orientation'. This is a contested idea, similar to pedophilia, another paraphilia, also being contested as being viewed as an orientation. To conclude positively on this association in regard to one paraphilia and not another is probably a bit of a bias in the presentation, even if an unintended one. Tyciol (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Zoophilia's involves animals, which paraphilia does not, generally, denounce. paraphilia is generally connected with objects, non-living.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your use of the word "denounce." This seems like a simple question of V: does DSM IV list zoophilia as a form of paraphilia, or doesn't it? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

ResolvedThese terms are scene as a vital part on the field of sexuality and orientation, personal dislike of these terms has no ground for the removal of these affiliated articles. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This template includes a number of unusual terms that only a few writers argue are "orientations" while most psychologists would class them as paraphilias, and the common-usage understanding of "orientation" refers only to gender of attraction. Since you've done this for some terms, it's also POV to exclude certain other paraphilias that their advocates argue are really "orientations." In general, the prominent place the template has in high-traffic articles like homosexuality gives undue weight to fringe ideas.

And it's completely silly to have the joke term "pomosexual" on there.

The fix I propose is to list only those orientations widely accepted as being orientations in common usage -- heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. A general link to sexual orientation and paraphilia can then direct readers to a discussion of various ways orientation is defined by various writers, and whether more unusual terms ought also to be considered under this category.

Dybryd (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work on cleaning it up... though who knows how long before the zoosexuality people want to reclaim their status lol. I tightened up the formatting some and replaced the Homosexuality and transgender item (since it only related to homosexual orientation) with Third sex and Two-spirit (under the non-westernized concepts section) and Transgender under see also. --User0529 (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting, your case is not logical and based on personal opinion. Sexual orientation is a personal choice, not what some doctor says, you have no right to say what is a sexual orientation or not. I changed it from "Classifications" to "Sexual orientation identities" so all terms can fit snug in this category without any conflict.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Misplaced Pages can meaningfully define anything according to personal choice -- we must use the published consensus. Dybryd (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As the content is disputed, I think explicit sourcing may be a good idea. However, are references normally put in a template? It seems unsightly. Could they be added invisibly, commented out -- is that legit? Dybryd (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If what to call the first section is going to be that much of a debate, we could just remove the heading for it, or <!-- --> comment it out. (Personally I can see both sides of the debate, as it is an identity that a person self-identifies as, and it also is used as a classification that some people project onto others (example: List of LGBT people categorizing ancient peoples as homosexual or bisexual when such classifications did not exist before the 19th century CE) User0529 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There is already a Template:Sexual identities which is quite good, and more like the all-inclusive list that Cooljuno411 seems to be looking for.

Whether to define a given form of sex as an "orientation" is a highly contentious question in some cases, one that advocates on each side have strong contrary opinions about. That being the case, it's still more important to stick close to academic consensus to avoid "taking a side" in these debates.

However, it's true that I gave no source for reducing the list of orientations to the "big three" and there really ought to be one, given that the question is controversial. But as I said -- I don't know how to give sources in a template. Any advice on this?

Dybryd (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, methinks it might be overkill to put citations in a navigation template though. You could <!-- include a hidden citation for future editors to discourage additions--> maybe. ?? I think asexual has place in the list, but the others (zoosexuality, autosexuality) seem more questionable User0529 (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, our own opinions about what has a place shouldn't matter. However, I've read a bit about asexuality, and many people who identify as asexual also identify as gay, straight, or bi -- they just seek purely affectionate rather than sexual relationships with the gender(s) they desire. Others may consider it an orientation -- I haven't read enough to know. But, again, it's academic consensus we have to go by.

I asked about this at the Help desk, and the reply was that sourcing for templates is usually just done by referring to the sources of the articles included in the template, rather than being explicitly included in the template in any way.

Dybryd (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources and Citations can go on the talk page, but do not belong in the template. What is the main audience for this template? Trying to make a template fot for all things will cause problems. Is it for science, biology and includes other animals than humans? Or is it primarily for human anthropology, sexuality or sociology? The list has included asexuality for some time without issues, why is there an impetus to change that now? On the other hand, pomosexuality doesn;t seem to have any support for inclusion beyound the person who put it there. If you asked the average girl on the street, she would probably list homsexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality. I would bet not one in a hundred would list zoosexuality, autosexuality or pomosexuality as a sexual orientation. Probably only some small percentage would list asexuality. Why not consider making the list realistic and pragmatic, rather than inclusive of all terms that could possibly be considered as a form of sexual orientation. I suggest keeping it simple with the big three, and possibly asexuality. Atom (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The article asexuality says it is "considered by some to be an orientation" and gives a link to a magazine article which describes the personal feeling of some asexuals that asexuality is their orientation. No more academic background is given.

I won't kick and scream if the consensus is to include it, but I'd really like to find a neutral, authoritative list. There are many forms of sex that their advocates like to describe as an "orientation" as a politically legitimizing strategy.

Dybryd (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The big three (with or without Asexuality) would seem to be neutral for me. I think asexuality has more place in the template than the other non-big-3-classifications (such as auto- and zoo-), but like Dybryd, I won't kick or scream over its inclusion (or lack thereof). User0529 (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you've removed paraphilia. I'm actually the one who inserted that -- I did it because for many of these specific cases of unusual forms of sex that some want to call orientations (like zoosexuality), others want to call them paraphilias. Basically, an ideological conflict between the wish to legitimize and the wish to pathologize. So I think paraphilia is perfect to go under "alternative concepts" because it's a different way of conceptualizing some of the same things. Dybryd (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I do think asexuality should be included. I'm not sure it's a good idea to have removed the template from all the pages, esp. the "big three", while discuss this. Aleta 19:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I did so hoping it would draw the editors of the relevant articles to the discussion. And, in general, I'm strongly in favor of getting disputed content out of article space until the dispute is resolved. Better to be temporarily skimpy on content than to have mistakes or bias turning up in the search results of folks innocently doing research. Dybryd (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted Paraphilia back into See also: under the orientations. I agree w/ your reasoning, just was trying to thin out the miscelaneous some. Problem with putting paraphilia with the other alt concepts is they are all gender-based constructs (Non-westernized male.. refers to male sexuality within gender-based societies of the non-west, Third sex is what transgender and effeminate (female-gendered) homosexuals are called in some places like India, etc) User0529 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

readded pomosexual to "see also", hello it is a RELATED TOPIC, hence in the SEE ALSO--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To me, it comes down to verifiablity. Zoosexuality, autosexuality, and paraphiliac identities would be wholly appropriate on a template for sexual identities (ie. Template:Sexual identities), but I don't think there are any reputable sources citing an "is a" relationship between zoosexuality and sexual orientation. Likewise, I think a "see also: paraphilia" is inappropriate. This suggests a linkage with sexual orientation that is both inaccurate and unverifiable. Queerudite (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about being unverifiable or anything to do with that, this is about "orientation identities", whether or not it is a mental paraphilia or not, it is an identifiable sexual orientation that one classifies themselves as. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno, it sounds like your argument is essentially that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation because zoosexuals themselves identify zoosexuality as a sexual orientation. I don't dispute the validity of that argument, I dispute the verifiability of that argument. Are there any reputable sources stating that zoosexuals commonly identify themselves as having a sexual orientation of "zoosexual"? If there aren't verifiable sources, then it should be removed as per WP:Verify. Queerudite (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Queerudite, are you in favor of expanding the template to a list of all forms of sex which some people self-identify as their "orientation"? I think that would be awful (NPOV, UNDUE, etc.), but if it were done it would have to be done comprehensively, not just with the couple of terms that were in the template in its previous form). Dybryd (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(As I mentioned above, the criteria of self-identification for inclusion seems more appropriate for the existing template Template:Sexual identities, which already has a much longer list). Dybryd (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting, there is lovely references and great detail on the Zoosexuality article, feel free to take a look at that for info and references.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that's interesting. I didn't realize there has been a research study supporting zoosexuality as an orientation. I was surprised too that there doesn't appear to be any academic resistance to the application of the term to zoosexuals (in contrast, to say, the resistance to deeming pedophilia as a sexual orientation). I am still a little concerned that (1) Zoosexuality and autosexuality don't fall under the commonplace understanding of "sexual orientation". That is, "sexual orientation" is generally understood to mean a gender preference as opposed to an animal/human preference. (2) That the sexual orientation template is going become a duplication of Template:Paraphilia, except with homo/hetero/bi/etc-sexuality added. I agree with Dybryd that such a "comprehensive" approach would be excessive. What do other people think? Queerudite (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

just 3rd-opinioning here... paraphilia generally refers to some sexual behavior that is (considered to be) destructive to the self or others. Zoophilia is not destructive in the same sense as something like pedophilia, and so I can see why it would be seen as an identity and not necessarily a paraphilia. however, I don't think zoophilia counts as an orientation for the simple reason that (as an identity) it doesn't tell whether a zoophile is attracted to male or female animals (or both...). thus there could be 'gay' zoophiles, 'straight' zoophiles, 'bi' zoophiles... Orientation is too deeply connected to the same-gender/other-gender distinction. IMO, the template should include the following: Bisexual, Heterosexual, Homosexual, maybe Pansexual (to the extent that it's different from bisexuality), but not Asexual, Autosexual or Zoosexual (which are sexual behaviors or identities more than orientations), or Pomosexual (which is an intellectualization of bi- or pansexuality, not a separate orientation). --Ludwigs2 20:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What input there has been on this has generally supported the changes I originally made. I'm going to remake those parts of the changes that have received support. Although not that many have commented, consensus among those who have about removal of the neologisms seems pretty clear -- except from Cooljuno411.

I'm hoping that rather than simple reversion, he'll make an effort to get his point of view across on the talk page first.

Dybryd (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, opinions are great but we can't let them get in the way of orderly and informational process, regardless of your opinion on paraphilia or pomosexuality, they are a vital and related topics to sexuality. And the neologism argument for removal is being used incorrectly, the term ] and pomosexuality are well document and written on subjects. Using this incorrect neologism argument would be just the same as arguing the deletion of an article of a newly discovered disease with the same bases of the name being a new term. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno - while these topics are certainly "vital and related topics to sexuality" they are not vital and related to sexual orientation. let me try a compromise edit, though... --Ludwigs2 16:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Like compromise edit , rearranged into a more organized fashion.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

errr... so liking compromise edit means revert to your preferred version, except for one word? Cooljuno, if you want to be hard-core, at least don't be disingenuous about it. I'm going to revert back now (just to make the point), and then we can discuss the matter properly. or you can revert again and try to turn it into an edit war; your choice. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your organization is all off, you basically through many terms that are organizable into an "other" category. You made a "compromise", aka an edit you did without input from others and slapped a "compromise" on it, well i took the terms you used from your "compromise" and organized it into something better then an "other" category. I feel that you have a bias towards such terms as "pomosexual" and "zoosexual" and you have a motive to not place your preferred traditional labels, like heterosexual or homosexual, together with these "other" sexual orientation identities. And i would love to hear why these sexual orientation identities deserve not to be in the same category, cause the only thing i really noticed was this whole "neologism" thing, not a reason why it should be separated, so before YOU go making edits without consulting or to make a "comprise", consider using the talk page. Now until you actually make a reasonable argument why these terms can't be in the same category, i am reverting back. Sorry to break it to you, but it's the 21st century, times are changing.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno - I'm sorry, but you keep confusing sexual orientation with sexual identity. the conventional definitions of these terms mark orientation as a same-gender/different-gender issue. sexual identity is a different term having to do with self-perception around sexual issues. creating a new category called 'sexual orientation identities' is an interesting move, and not one I would necessarily object to, but it's original research since that category doesn't (to my knowledge) exist anywhere in the extensive academic literature on the topic. give some citations that show that term being used, and we can talk further, otherwise we need to stay within the categories handed us.

, bellow i mention the possibility of "sexual preference and orientation" as well.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

unfortunatley, it seems clear to me from this article that Mohr and Fassbinger are not creating a new term 'sexual orientation identity', but rather examining the collective sexual identity of couples. orientation comes in as one of the factors of compatbility. I suspect the article was originally titled 'Sexual Orientation, Identity, and Romantic Relationship Quality in Same-Sex Couples' but that the commas got dropped in press. do you have any more evidence that this is a real term in the field of research? and what precisely does the term stand for (separate from sexual identity and sexual orientation)? --Ludwigs2 05:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I said we can use other terms. But i don't know why your the one putting me on the spot, you are the one changing the context of the template, not me. And you have yet to give me a reason why pomosexual and zoosexuality are separate from heterosexual. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC). NOPE, never mind, read the sexual orientation article, it says "Sexual orientation refers to "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, OR affectional attraction toward others."" Does that say only human partners, no, does it say it has to be a sexual attraction, no. You grouped all these "other sexual identity" into an exclusively sexual context, well sorry they are just like any other sexual orientations that include "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectionate attraction toward others". I am reverting back, you have not proved why your new addition should be kept, do not revert until you can prove your point of why they should be separate.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno411 - you're edit-warring; stop it. there is a reasonable consensus for the other version - you need to convince us by talking about it, not by constantly imposing your version on the page.

wikipedia is not a valid secondary source (see wp:PRIMARY), and so it can not be used for establishing new terminology. even if we accepted the sexual orientation page, however, please note that it also says "The most common forms exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex) to exclusive homosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the same sex) and includes various forms of bisexuality (being sexually attracted to members of either sex)." note that that's a gender preference dimension, nothing more. why are you so insistant on pushing the limits on this template? --Ludwigs2 19:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) Your the one imposing your edit, an you are the one changing a status quo, and YOU have not provided evidence these terms aren't orientation. And maybe you need to look up a word in the dictionary... because i don't see anywhere in your definition '"The most common forms exists along a continuum ...." i don't see a requirement for a male or female attraction. (2) And if you don't like the word "sexual orientation identities", i will drop the word "identity". And like i said, you have yet to prove a point, i have. I have given you definitions of sexual orientation, i have given you reasons why they are sexual orientations and the you keep arguing about this word "identity".... ok fine, i'll drop "identity", but you have yet to prove to me why these terms aren't "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, OR affectional attraction toward others.", aka, a sexual orientation.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC) I separated the terms into "hetero-homo continuum" and "non hetero-homo continuum" to help distinguish them.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno - I keep restoring the edit that a number of different editors here prefer. so far as I can tell, you are the only editor pushing the inclusion of these other elements as orientations. it that's incorrect, would another editor please help Juno out here?

with respect to your "you have yet to prove to me why these terms aren't "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, OR affectional attraction toward others", aka, a sexual orientation. - I didn't say anything about these not being enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others; I said that this is not the normal, established, cultural or academic understanding of 'sexual orientation'. please see the APA's understanding of sexual orientation, which deals only with the (in-species) continuum from homosexual to heterosexual. there are plenty of places on wikipedia for you to advocate for different sexual identities while staying within Misplaced Pages policy - however, trying to change the established meaning of 'sexual orientation' is original research, and just doesn't belong on this page.

I've left a warning on your talk page about edit-warring. --Ludwigs2 20:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I recognize this is important to you, but please keep in mind that wikipedia can't go off into uncharted territory. --Ludwigs2 19:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well good think we aren't, these terms weren't published by a 13 year old after school one day, people who specialize in these fields wrote about it, try looking at the articles if you need more information.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think an RFC is the appropriate next step. I can't help but notice that Cooljuno411 has been blocked for revert-warring on this template before.

Dybryd (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

if that's what you choose - this isn't really my page. hopefully he'll be willing to discuss the matter fairly though. --Ludwigs2 18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I don't support the use of the word "continuum" in the template. The idea that sexual orientation is a continuum is a particular POV, one with notable supporters, but also detractors. I don't think it's appropriate for the template to take a side on this question.

Dybryd (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"The most common forms exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex) to exclusive homosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the same sex) and includes various forms of bisexuality (being sexually attracted to members of either sex).", that is a quote from the sexual orientation article, it as well has a reference on the page, feel free to look at it. When i added the this term, i want to add a small side note saying something like "continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality" but would look unattractive on the template, maybe you can try fitting it in, in a way that looks good.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It's as much a problem to have this POV directly endorsed in the article as in the template. Dybryd (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

continuum : a set of elements such that between any two of them there is a third element. Hetero and homo are the two sets elements with bisexual as the third inbetween, don't see the issue, correlates directly with the definition. Please tell what you recommend as a alternative.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC) As well, if you search Continuum, anything that goes through a gradual transition from one condition, to a different condition, without any abrupt changes....--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a footnote that gives the definition of the hetero-homo continuum.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"hetero-homo continuum"? This is awkward and unencyclopedic - not sure how it should be fixed but is it even needed to have a hetero-homo section and a non-hetero-homo section? Seems pointy to me. Banjeboi 14:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the source for this? Kinsey? It is my sense that most scholars today do not classify sexual orientation in terms of a bi-polar continuum. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, that's a fairly common usage in gender studies - note that the APA link I gave above (here it is again) uses almost exactly that language. it's just the extension outside of human sexuality that is novel (unprecedented is maybe a better word).

Okay, as long as you have a verifiable reliable source. Fine by me. Still, I suspect researchers in other fields have different approaches. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

no question, and I wouldn't mind seeing that discussed on an article page - but this is a template, for heaven's sake.  :-) --Ludwigs2 21:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Cooljuno -PLEASE take this entire discussion, and the changes you're trying to make, over the the sexual orientation article, where it can be discussed properly. templates are not the place to try to structure a particular view.

also, footnotes don't belong in info-templates (they end up bleeding over into article space). if what you're trying to do is complicated enough that it needs footnotes, it's way too complicated for a template. --Ludwigs2 06:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the provided references and linked articles to help understand sexual orientations. Heterosexual-homosexual continuum now has it's own article and has a reference from the American Psychological Association "a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality", and additional references. Please consider reading this and understanding the Heterosexual-homosexual continuum before you claim original research. And references have no problems being on templates, the United States article as well has references in it's article. If you are finding a problem with the reference system, please open a talk section, and not revert edits. I will make a template that will allow the template references not to "bleed over into template space", but until then the bleeding over will have to be tolerated, it is not affecting the appearance and people will still be able to access the correct reference .--Cooljuno411 06:32, 25 July 2008

Ok, i "noinclude" the references on this template. The references are not included wherever the template is placed, only on the actual template page. The only thing that appears is "view template source" at the bottom of the template. People wishing to view the template references can click that, and will be redirected to this actual template page and can view the sources. The issue of the references "bleeding over" to the articles is now solved. You can view Heterosexuality and see that the references numbers () are not there, but appear only on the template page.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno - the references are a minor point. you are trying to change the conventional usage of commonly accepted terms by pressing a point in templates. you should be discussing this in article space, and if a consensus emerges in article space (one that is based on properly reliable sources) then and only then should we consider changing templates to fit. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i have referenced and taken all proper procedure. So you are out of luck. And please indulge me in how i am "changing the conventional usage". And also please tell me how i am "twinkling". If you actually prove, i will stop the continuing of the reverting.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is only logical: templates help us organize articles on linked topics at Misplaced Pages; they are an intra-Misplaced Pages reference tool. Ludwigs2 is quite right - everything that goes into a template should derive from actual articles. If there is some controversy over the state of research on a particular topic, the place to hash it out is at the article space. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, your right, "everything that goes into a template should derive from actual articles", it is when you have it how it is, Ludwig's ideal version of the template is not, there are references and link to heterosexual-homosexual continuum and other things he, for some reason unknown to me, finds wrong with how the template is. The template is correct as is.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno - I have given you a link to the APA opinion on this issue, which should be sufficient to support the original version of the template, and my compromise version as well. you have given no such support for your inclusions, so they are 'in fact' original research. fight the issue on article pages, where sources can effectively be brought to bear. DO NOT EDIT WAR IT into templates, which are not designed to handle content disputes. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been controversy of what exactly falls under a sexual orientation and what fall under sexual identity. For example, some find asexuality to be a sexual orientation and other feel it sexual identity. By combining the two group the template holds a neutral point of view, leaving the exact classification up to the user. By separating them we are putting one of point-of-view above the other. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a valid point but there seems to be no consensus for that change as of yet. It seems like each of the disputed articles should be improved so it's clear what each is considered. It may even make sense to have a related subjects section so that we do remain neutral. Banjeboi 23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it is imperative to have them grouped together, who is someone to say that, for example, autosexuality isn't a sexual orientation and is a "sexual identity", and vise-versa. I personally take offense by saying one's emotional desires aren't "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction" and just regarded as sexual choices, it implies that people under these "sexual identities" do not experience emotional, romantic, or affectional attraction, which i find to be rather ignorant that some who is not heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual does not have the right to, nor experiences, these compassionate feelings. It is not in our place to say what is a sexual orientation and who can experience "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction" and what is just regarded as sexual desires. I am reverting the edit with a minor wording changes, it not my, your right, or anyones right to say what is "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction", and what is not.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC) And the thing you said about zoosexuality being under heterosexual-homosexual continuum was a visual error, i originally had a "br" separating them but someone removed it, this time i use a line to separate them.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing sexual identity and sexual orientation in a way that is never done in the literature. sexual orientation always refers to to the continuum from heterosexuality to homosexuality in humans; there is nothing in the psychological or gay/lesbian literature that says otherwise.

PLEASE take this discussion to an article page, rather than trying to force it in on a template. original research in templates is very bad form. --Ludwigs2 01:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your good faith edit, and like i said above, i combined sexual orientation and sexual identity to leave opinions such as yours up to the reader. Like i said above, not everyone has the same views on this topic, some say only the hetero-homo continuum are orientations, and some definitions disagree with that. I have found a way that pleases everyone involved and holds a neutral point of view, so please stop trying to push your personal opinion on this template, you have no right to.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

again, what you are offering is original research. come back with with some verifiable sources that support the view that these things are part of sexual orientation and we can discuss the matter. until then, please leave the template with the (admittedly vanilla) but conventional definition.

CoolJ - I understand that you are trying to make a point here, but this just is not the correct venue to be making points. I can see having this discussion on a talk page, or on some article space, but not on a template. --Ludwigs2 02:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Like i said i combined "sexual orientation" and "sexual identities", if i recall you were the one that made the sexual identity section, the only thing i did was combine the two sections two remain neutral, being that there are wide verity of opinions. I am taking it you have an underling agenda and that you are know contradicting your own edits. Like i said, the only thing i did was combine the two sections that you created, in an effort to remain neutral, and you now you have removed all mention of it simply because they are grouped together. I am going to be seeking administrator assistance because you are going forth with a personal agenda to keep them separate.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Heavens to betsy! you are on a program, man. look, I don't really disagree with your perspective, and I personally don't have an opinion about whether your expanded understanding about sexual orientations has merits. if you really want to pursue this, you have several options: 1) get a PhD and argue for it in academic circles. 2) write a book and argue for it in the real world. 3) (and this would be the easiest short term goal) write an essay and post it here on wikipedia as an essay. I'll even help you get started on the last if you'd like. but stop trying to impose original research as fact in a frigging template! that's silly, and against wikipedia policy. --Ludwigs2 20:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexual orientation and sexual identities

Renamed template to Sexual orientations and sexual identities. This data will correspond with Template:Sexual identities. So User_talk:Ludwigs2 please refer to this template for your desired references. I based my edit 100% on your previous edit , but instead of having the sexual orientation and sexual identities separate, i combined the two sections, just how Template:Sexual identities is formated. And if continue your broken record tactics of repetitively claiming "original research", you will continue to prove you have an underlying agenda. And matters like this do not need a reference, they just need a lil' common sense. And if you really need a reference, feel free to look at the one you use to make your two separate lists in the first place, because all i did was combine the two lists you made.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you'll keep hearing "original research" until you, you know, provide a reference... – Luna Santin (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole controversy, if you read above, is personal classification of what exactly a sexual orientation and sexual identity is. Such classifications as asexuality are interpreted by some as a sexual orientation and by others as sexual identity. In an effort to remain neutral, it has became imperative to combine the two separate list under on titled Sexual orientations and sexual identities. By keeping them separate we are supporting one agenda above the other. And i don't know why he need a reference, i am just combining the two lists he made himself, into one, maybe he should look at what references he used to make the list in the first place. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We need references because this is an encyclopedia with a heavy bias toward scholarly content. I'm sure you can provide ample evidence of your own opinions. Do you have any evidence this is supported by mainstream academia? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweetie, do you not understand what is going on? Please try rereading the whole talk again, this is a matter of neutrality. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This was moved without gaining consensus. I have no great opinion either way, but clearly the opinions expressed did not indicate a consensus to merge the two. Also, the time from when you began discussion until the time you merged was much too small. You gave essentially a day and a half for discussion. SOmething like this should have taken a few weeks for discussion to build a consensus. IMO you should put it back and build consensus. This is a template, not a lone article and as such should be treated with exceptional sensitivity. The article has been entirely too volatile. Atom (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This page shows no consensus for such a move, in fact, in the 9 hours span between your proposal and your move, only one other editor commented, and he opposed it. As such, your edit was disruptive. Please self-revert, or I'll do it. ThuranX (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

there is no consensus for this move; CJ is just pushing and pushing for his own perspective. I don't want to keep undoing his work myself (I've been doing it too often, but I will, if necessary), but if someone else wants to do it, I think this clearly constitutes page-move vandalism. --Ludwigs2 20:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove the sexual identities/orientations. By doing so you are just as guilty of what you accuse me of. As i recall by the original edit, , they were on the template before this whole conflict, so please do not remove them. And once again, i combined the list "sexual orientations" and "sexual identities" to say "orientations and identities". I will once again repeat the dispute. There is controversy f what exactly falls under a "sexual orientation" and what exactly falls under a "sexual identity". And once again i will say by having them separate, and having classifications, such as asexuality or zoosexuality, under one list or the other puts one agenda above the other, and is un-neutral. For example, you and others might see asexuality as a "sexual identity" and others see it as a "sexual orientation", but having it under one list or the other puts one agenda above another agenda. And once again i will say, we have not right to say who is right and who is wrong, so the only way to remain neutral is to have the lists combined. And User:Ludwigs2, how am i pushing my agenda, i am trying to remain neutral by having them together, you are the one pushing your opinions by having them separate. And if anyone is going to continue to revert, revert to this edit , the edit everyone keeps reverting to is an even newer edition by User:Ludwigs2 which was made with out input as well. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

CoolJuno - There is no controversy in secondary sources, as far as I can see. the only conflict here is with your personal understanding of the issue, and while I respect that, it clearly constitutes original research and does not merit inclusion on a template that is transcluded across a broad range of pages. this template was about sexual orientation which is a well-established and well-defined topic in secondary sources; it was not and is not a template about sexual identities, sexual preferences, or sexual behaviors. if you want to make it a template about that, that's worthy of discussion, but you are not discussing, you are edit-warring. set the template back to what it was, LEAVE IT LIKE THAT, and discuss the changes you want to make like a decent editor.

if you are not going to be reasonable and try to reach consensus, particularly when a number of editors clearly oppose the changes you are making, then I will treat you like a vandal and revert the damage you are doing. I am willing to listen to you and maybe come to some sort of compromise (I really don't care about this issue, except to the extent that it reflects consensus in verifiable sources), but I'm not going to put up with this aggressive and childish insistence that you get your way. If I ever want to deal with that kind of thing, I'll have kids of my own. understood? --Ludwigs2 22:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, i just combined the two lists to remain neutral. ANd do you want a reference? Here , Sexual orientation: Ones tendencies of sexual attraction, considered as a whole. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

and once again, combining the two lists (while possibly a valid move) should only be done after proper talk page discussion because (once again) this is not how the issues are presented in secondary sources. further, a reference to wiktionary is not a valid secondary source (at best it's a tertiary source, assuming that it itself is properly validated), and even if it were there would still be synthesis issues here that we'd need to discuss.

I want you to understand that I'm not objecting to the changes themselves; I'm objecting to the way you are going about making them. slow down, stop making the same contentious changes over and over again, and try to reach some compromise through discussion that we can all agree to, before you try to put it in the template. I'm not against letting you get what you want here (which is maybe a dangerous thing to say on this topic) but it needs to be substantiated in wp:secondary sources, and have some reasonable consensus among various editors. ok?

combined sexual orientation and sexual identities discussion

I have put in a request for input from users on Portal:LGBT. Pleas continue further discussion here.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC) I put the rquest in the wrong place, can someone tell me where i can place request.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wiktionary, Sexual Orientation: "Ones tendencies of sexual attraction, considered as a whole." --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • wiktionary is not a valid wp:secondary source.

• Religious tolerance: "Some conservative Christian organizations define "sexual orientation" very broadly as a list of parameters that define all aspects of one's sexual desires.....Pedophilia -- being sexually attracted to children -- would be another part for a small minority of adults. So would bestiality -- being attracted to animals. Accepting this definition would complicate government legislation dealing with sexual orientation. Any civil rights legislation which extends protection to persons on the basis of their sexual orientation would, under this definition, also decriminalize pedophilia and bestiality. "--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • this article goes on to say "To our knowledge, this definition does not appear in any dictionary or medical text; it seems to be used only by a minority of fundamentalist and other evangelical Christians" which would make it fall under wp:undue. not to mention the fact that this viewpoint is adopted by people who want to criminalize all non-straight sexual behavior... --Ludwigs2 00:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Remember how i said "there are different views on this, and we are to remain neutral and can't support one agenda above the other.... And btw, that would be a false statement, i just quoted American Psychological Association bellow. "--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sexual Orientation Worksheet, by Ben Roe: "not just three sexual orientations, heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual, but indeed a whole range of complex, interacting, and fluid factors in our sexuality."--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• American psychological association: Sexuality, What is sexual orientation: "sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories... However, some people may use different labels or none at all."--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the quote from American Psychological Association that i list above is evident enough to support my editions to the template.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that the APA page you've linked makes it abundantly clear they use the phrase "sexual orientation" to refer to the heterosexual-homosexual continuum. The Klein Grid doesn't make any apparent mention of zoophilia, autoeroticism, or any of the other items you're pushing to include here. Your desired changes remain unsupported by any reliable sources and are clearly opposed by a consensus of editors here. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No sweetie, it says clearly "However, some people may use different labels or none at all", that is only you opinion that it is "unsupported by any reliable sources". --Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop calling people 'sweetie', it's condescending. Stop quoting from Wikitionary; you can't cite Wikis to push things in other wikis. There is no question in the medical literature about the difference between orientations and identities; you push your own agenda to conflate the two. Please cease now. Consensus remains against your edits and goals, and is unlikely to change soon. This has been going of fro weeks now and is well into tendentious territory; only Ludwigs2 is bothering to continue this, and I'm here supporting him. If you're in any way unclear about the implications, know that I can't stand Ludwigs2. That I'm publicly on the same side and supporting his arguments instead of letting him stand alone should say volumes. You need to drop this already. You're wrong, everyone so far seems to clearly oppose your goals. If you persist, you will wind up blocked or banned. Stop before then. ThuranX (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, your pushing you agenda by denying clearly what the American Psychological Association says "sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories... However, some people may use different labels or none at all." And you would clearly discover you are wrong if you click a link or two, feel free to select the one above. And if you recall, my edit had to sub sections one with orientations that comply to heterosexual-homosexual continuum and and on that didn't. So please tell me what your issue is with that. And btw, i am the one with the refernce on my side, where's yours?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree: calling other editors "sweetie" is entirely inappropriate, and you should stop. That aside, what reference is on your side, exactly? Each time we point out your latest cherry-picked sentence is incorrectly interpreted, you go and cherry pick another snippet. The source as a whole clearly refers to orientation on the aforementioned continuum. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the previous edit by Cooljuno411, his addition clearly complies by the article writen by the American Psychological Association. His edit complies to the definition that says sexual orientations do not have to comply to the heterosexual/homosexual continuum. It supports every contender at hand by clearly classifying what falls under the continuum and what does not fall under the continuum, his addition is the only one that I have seen that supports the definition provided by the APA. The current edit completly denies what the APA says about sexual orientations and how people may use "different labels or none at all". --StealthyVlad (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What part of the edit complies with "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes."? The APA may vaguely allude to the presence of other ideas, once in an entire page which otherwise uniformly describes the homo-hetero continuum, but doesn't identify any of them; absent a specific and explicit reference, the source being used to justify these extra inclusions appears to be nothing more than personal opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Like he said, he believe that "It supports every contender at hand by clearly classifying what falls under the continuum and what does not fall under the continuum". And it obviously complies to "some people may use different labels or none at all". And know who is the one that is guilty of making "cherry-picked sentences"?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, for emphasis: The APA may vaguely allude to the presence of other ideas, once in an entire page which otherwise uniformly describes the homo-hetero continuum, but doesn't identify any of them by name; absent a specific and explicit reference, the source being used to justify these extra inclusions appears to be nothing more than personal opinion. If you can't cite these inclusions to a specific reference, it seems to follow quite obviously that they are unreferenced. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh! alright, I'm going to give User:StealthyVlad a link to read about Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry. I will assume good faith that this user created an account simply to support CoolJuno411's position (since this comment is the only edit that user has made on wikipedia), but I may request a checkuser report regardless. people, I swear... --Ludwigs2 05:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if you look at his talk page, there was an article he attempted to create, which was deleted, over a year ago.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

Treatments to Change Sexual Orientation FRED S. BERLIN, M.D., PH.D. Baltimore, Md.

The Journal recently published a "Position Statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation" that had been approved by the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association (1). That statement correctly cautions mental health professionals that there is little scientific evidence to support the efficacy of treatments designed to change sexual orientation. That statement was intended to address the matter of homosexuality and to take a clear stand "against discrimination, prejudice, and unethical treatment..., including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation" (p. 1131).

The psychiatric profession still correctly considers pedophilia to be a mental disorder. However, like heterosexuality and homosexuality (orientations that differ from one another on the basis of differences in sexual attraction), pedophilia, too, can be thought of as a sexual orientation that is different from others on the basis of age of attraction. As with other sexual orientations, irrespective of the relative contributions of genetics and environment, maturing individuals discover the nature of their own attractions; such attractions are not the consequence of a volitional decision. Historically, untold numbers of human beings have been both demonized and vilified simply because their sexual makeups differ from the norm ...

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/5/838 Am J Psychiatry 157:838, May 2000 © 2000 American Psychiatric Association

How are you going to fit that into your restrictive APA definition?

Yours,

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 06:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite simple: by pointing out you're citing a letter to the editor, which is generally not considered a reliable, peer-reviewed source. If there's any confusion on this point, only part of the quote you're using is from the APA (specifically, the part which refers to orientation on the continuum -- fancy that). – Luna Santin (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Luna Santin, i would love to get your input on what exactly asexuality, autosexuality, zoosexuality is. Because you have not given any input but saying your personal opinion of why everythings wrong. Know it's your turn, what exactly do you feel falls under and orientation and what do you propose we do with this article.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but the burden of evidence remains with those who want to push through changes. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well i have already given you a quote from the APA, so there ya go. And btw, the current edit would contradict your opinion you put forth, you said only hetro-homo continuum orientations are true orientation, well not according to the current edit. So do you think it would be time for you to prove a point yet, or are you just going to make agreements to defend something that clearly goes against what you are are arguing. I am just curious, have you even scene my previous edit? If you haven't, here it is, you can clearly see that it has two sections under sexual orientations, one section with heterosexual-homosexual continuum orientations and another section with orientations that do not fall under that classification. We would be satisfying every party involved. I ask if you have scene my edit because i believe many do not even understand what i am trying to even get at. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

besides, I already did that, way back in this discussion (probably archived now...). look, part of the problem here is that 'sexual orientation' is an oldish term - it came into use before the concept of 'sexual identity' came into existence, and so it really has no capacity to deal with the complexities of modern understandings of sexuality. In 20 years 'sexual orientation' might be a history book phrase: no one will use it except to talk about how narrow-minded we were in the last century. but it means what it means, narrow as that is, and we can't go changing the meaning of the phrase to suit our own personal preconceptions. yah? --Ludwigs2 07:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well not according to the quote i gave you from the APA.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that the APA quote you're relying on doesn't source what you seem to think it does. By your logic, I could add automobile to the sexual orientation list because the APA suggested people use "other" labels, no? After putting some more thought into all of this overnight, I think it may be more appropriate to create a master sexuality navbox, completely aside from this one, where we can more easily build a (hopefully) comprehensive list. Would you be amenable to that? – Luna Santin (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Luna Santin:

You believe Berlin and all those who work with him in the field, posted in Am J Psychiatry, are not credible sources?

Addendum: Just checked your details ... you are only a kid/novice. I will take your comments and actions with a pinch of salt.

I say this, because you, as an admin, are restricted to 'believing' that only the 'authorities' change the world ... this is a weakness of Wikipaedia. E=mc^2 should show you otherwise (as in many other cases). This awareness comes with the wisdom of age.

Yours,

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 08:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, sorry, but I'm not obliged to believe every last word that comes out of a doctor's mouth is gospel truth. By all means, I'm inclined to respect their opinion in an op-ed piece, but when I have a more authoritative and neutral source staring me right in the face, it's abundantly clear which I should rely on. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

There is a more authoritative and neutral source than the APA? (well, actually, of course, they are not neutral, but that is another story ;) ).

Yours,

Nigel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I prefer:

sexual orientation n.

The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. Replaces sexual preference in most contemporary uses.

The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

As it encompasses 'members' of all ages, then being a MAA is coherent with the definition of Sexual Orientation. It is also important to make clear, that it is dependent on/identified by physiologic and not sociologic forces.

IMHO, 'Sexual ID' has little to do with sex, but a lot to do with self image and power bases.

Of course, the most correct definition of all, would be:

The direction of one's sexual interest to anything, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. Replaces sexual preference in most contemporary uses.

Perhaps we will get there soon :)

Yours,

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 09:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, you just gave us a definition from a medical dictionary which refers quite specifically to the continuum, then pulled an entirely different definition out of a hat. What gives? – Luna Santin (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

I do not care much about your continuum issue ... stick with it if you like (it is obvious that there is a continuum in terms of sexual activity, but this is not the same as sexual orientation or identity). My point is about the wider issues of sexual orientation and how you are being confined by wikiconvention. I have clarified why I prefer the 'medical' definition, over the one under discussion.

The second definition is 'mine' ... which will become the accepted case, in good time.

Yours,

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 17:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. As much as I think Misplaced Pages should document the world which "is", I can appreciate more personally the efforts of those who wish to realize the world which "should be". As far as I can see, though, the APA definition cited above fits pretty well with the AHD definition you've provided (if not identically in practice, then at least seemingly so for our purposes on this template). – Luna Santin (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I didn't have time when first pulled here to go through all the articles, and now, this page seems just, well, more a mess than a help. I wonder if, sadly enough, we should use separate RfC's on these subjects so it's crystal clear what the consensus is? For instance, "Does Zoosexual need to be included on the template?" might be more efficient to deal with these issues rather than tackling several at once. Any thoughts? Banjeboi 10:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

The problem is, that this topic is in major, socio-political transition.

Of course, it is easy just to quote what 'The Man' says. He is 'The Man'.

'The Man' always falls.

Yours,

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 10:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally want to see the template appear similar to this similar to User:Cooljuno411/Template:Sexual orientation, the template on the right. With all the orientations group under one category, not separate "sexual identity" and "sexual orientations" categories. With all the labels under on category, the hetero-homo continuum orientations would be visually separated into their own subsection from the other orientations that do not comply to the hetero-homo continuum. This would clearly comply to the definition put forth by the APA that says that sexual orientations generally lie on the hetero-homo continuum but acknowledges the fact that there are people that classify with other orientations are none at all. The current version is being selective of what is an orientation and what is not. What gives, say for example, asexuality the right to be under sexual orientations but not autosexuality, both are not on the hetero-homo continuum, so what gives it the right to be classified under a separate listing? I believe the current edit is the result of personal opinion and not factual reference. Many people state support for this current edition with reference to the hetero-homo continuum but that clearly contradicts the current edit because there are labels under the sexual orientation category that do no comply with the continuum, and at that, the current edit contradicts the quote from the APA that clearly recognizes that there is more than just the three orientations on the continuum. Like i sad before, i think it would be best to have one category titted "Sexual Orientation labels" with the hetero-homo continuum orientations listed in it's own sub-categorized section and the other labels as well in their own sub-section, without this selective "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity" categories that are placed into these category with absolutely no bases for it. I will create a draft template to show an example of what i believe it should appear to be, whcih would be a more up-to-date version then what i linked above. One might not agree with my proposed edition but I have brought to light that there is something wrong with the current edit, with biasly selected categories that have been created with no logical distinguishes of what exactly falls under a "sexual orientation" and what falls under a "sexual identity". --Cooljuno411 (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC) I have created a a proposed draft, i am going to place my prosed template here next to my comment, or you can see it at User:Cooljuno411/Template:Sexual orientation. The color is of course up to a session of user input, i just want to make the template look a lil fresher, the current edition looks like something from windows 95 ¦¬ ]. I would love to here everyone opinion regarding the content and actual appearance of the drafted template.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the simply answer is yes but will await some others to offer input. Cooljuno411, my suggestion would be to hold off on aesthetic issues, as important as they might be, a stick with the content of including pages and restructuring which has yet to be met with strong support. We've now had a lot of Bold and revert, which pointed out elsewhere is better suited for articles rather than templates, so it may makes sense to focus on consensus discussion. Banjeboi 12:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The appearance of the template can be discussed later, i mainly created the draft template as a visual. I feel that this draft and my paragraph written above has become a great method of consolidating my argument which was speratically spread across the talk page, which i feel has lead to a misunderstanding of what I was trying to imply, do to the fact everyone kept saying i was trying to create original research.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Equating zoosexuality and pedophilia with homo- and bisexuality is one of the most egregious NPOV violations I've ever seen, thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

Sorry, are you suggesting that they are not 'equivalent', fundamentally ... and by that I mean, scientifically?

Yours,

Nigel.

Comment: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You cannot have 'zoosexual' and then not have 'paedosexual' (although it is not a word I like, MAA is better) ...

... and don't go telling me that 'paedosexuality' is not 'correct'. :)

Paedosexual delinquency A study into prevalence, circumstances and criminal justice interventions

http://english.wodc.nl/onderzoeksdatabase/aard-en-omvang-pedoseksuele-delicten.aspx

Legal treatment of pedosexuality, Dannecker M.

1: Beitr Sexualforsch. 1987;62:71-83.

Yours,

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

Don't like the second one.

"Other non-heterosexual labels"

What is that supposed to mean? Homosexual labels?

Yours,

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have formated your comments, Nigel, but i wasn't sure exactly who you were replying to with all three of your comments, i was assuming Luna Satin being taht they were all bellow her statement. When you add another comment take not to how formated your comments with the ":". You should always have one more ":" than the comment you are replying to so it will look like how my comment appears as a reply to yours. Thanx ¦¬ ] --Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

TY ... I am getting my head around this formatting. Yours, Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 08:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it "is one of the most egregious NPOV violations I've ever seen" to actually say something like that. That statement has no basis, and is just personal opinion. Not everyone has the same opinions as you, your going to have to accept that. The APA clearly says that not everyone complies to the same agenda, i don't understand why you just can't accept that people are different. The current edit was created with no basis, and doesn't give any justification for discriminating people's sexual orientations by say they aren't true sexual orientations but only "sexual identities". All you do is say why everything is wrong, can't you help be more productive for the article?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

appearance-wise, you're proposed template looks nice. content-wise, it's original research of a blatant sort. NPOV assertions aside, equating homosexuality with something like pedophilia (which is generally illegal, and generally considered immoral in this country) is highly contentious and offensive. your content additions add nothing to the understanding of sexual orientation that I can see, and merely serve to muddy already difficult waters.

by the way, taking a single off-hand phrase from the APA article and expanding on it is synthesis. there is no way you can claim that the APA meant to include all of these divergent identities and behaviors under the construct of 'sexual orientation', not based on that single, vague phrase. you'd have to have some much clearer statement to make that point.

and please stop insulting Luna - it's uncalled for. thanks. --Ludwigs2 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear, the APA does not consider the paraphilias (pedophilia, zoophilia, etc) to be part of their conceptualization of sexual orientation. Those are disorders, being LGB is not. Check DSM-IV-TR for proof. Even mentioning them in the same breath is offensive, because it implies a relationship between behavior that is considered deviant and what should be a socially acceptable lifestyle choice. If someone wants to created a broader template about human sexuality and include the paraphilias there, fine, but they cannot appear on this template together. Period. Steve Carlson 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let us be clearer, the APA is not the be-all and end-all of knowledge and truth (very far from it), they offer 'proof' of very little. Being LGB is illegal and a disorder in other societies, right now. Being LGB was, recently, a disorder, as defined by the APA ... now, what changed, exactly? Not science, not any activities, just the lobbying of a small group of vocal LGB supporters (including those in the APA). Being LGB is a socio-biological dysfunction and deviant (by the actual definition of the word) ... people do suffer, mentally, from being LGB and by the actions of LGB people. Get off your xenophobic and selective-thinking high horse and smell the coffee, my friend :) Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, a smiley face and a cordial salutation doesn't mitigate a personal attack. Your point re: the APA and the shift in academic consensus is valid but calling me xenophobic and selective-thinking was unnecessary. My intent is not to judge - I am arguing from the perspective of a person with several LGB friends whom I have witnessed having strong emotional reactions to the conflation of sexual orientation with pedophilia. I have come across several blogs on the internet alerting people to a perceived injustice being done by this template in its current form and calling for action. I am just trying to prevent further such reactions by proposing a different way of handling this that is not so provocative - please see my proposal below. Steve Carlson 08:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you are far too sensitive to be here :) You are xenophobic, because you think that the APA is the arbiter of truth and ethics ... there are other societies, you know, who are much more consistent than the APA. The conflation from your friends (and mine and of many people) is ignorance, nothing more. Paedophilia/Paedosexuality/being a MAA is not a criminal or immoral activity ... it is a condition of sexuality, a sexual orientation, whose actions are, presently, unacceptable in some circles, just like being LGB in some countries. I am challenging the ignorance and short memories of the LGB 'community', in this respect. You will see that I have agreed with you, below, on a way forward. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the current edit is the result of personal opinion by User_talk:Ludwigs2 biasly selecting what falls under "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity". And your reference does not change the fact that people "classify under different orientations or none at all". The current edition would clearly be an error because it completely denies pomosexual, autosexual, and other orientations labels as true orientations.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the inclusion of pomosexual and autosexual, but I do have a problem with the inclusion of paraphilias and zoosexuality. I feel that the inclusion of sexual behaviors that are widely considered socially deviant and psychologically disordered is damaging to the LGB community. Steve Carlson 02:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So would you be ok with this draft edit?, which does not include paraphilias and zoosexuality. Or this draft edit could be appealing as well, it lists paraphilias and zoosexuality under debated identities, which would allow the template to not show support or disapproval of those labels.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, I like the second one with "debated identities" - I have to admit that people who identify as such would consider these their orientation, which seems to fit the definition. However, I'd still like to see a reliable source that explicitly says "sexual orientation includes paraphilia", without need for interpretation. Steve Carlson 04:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That is because you are a blinkered, xenophobic, gay ;) NOTE THE SMILEY. Yours, Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 07:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• From ‘asexual’ to ‘zoosexual’: "Zoosexuality is a term covering sexual orientation towards animals....Zoosexuality is a value-neutral term covering the spectrum of human-animal sexuality, and implies nothing more than a person with an orientation towards animals."--Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Human animal sexual interactions: a predictive model to differentiate between zoophilia, zoosexuality and bestiality: "The current study led to the development of a predictive model, differentiating further between zoophilia, zoosexuality and bestiality. It is suggested that these differences are predicated on underlying individual levels of empathy, attachment and sexual attraction. It is considered that zoophilia is an attachment based relationship, zoosexuality is a sexual orientation and that bestiality occurs in people whose sexual orientation may be predominately directed to other humans."--Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The current edition is what should be called "original research", it biaslly and discriminatory selects what a "sexual orientation" and what a "sexual identity" is, with the no basis for why such labels are listed under such sections. I am complying to the quote from the APA that clearly states that people generally classify under the three sexual orientations that fall into the hetero-homo continuum but their are other that do not classify under this category or do not classify at all. I am the on that is using the entire article, you are the one picking and selecting what sounds best to you by completely denying that "single off-hand phrase", as you like to call it. And maybe you are looking at the wrong drafted template, but the one I proposed clearly separates the continuum from non-continuum orientations, so i don't see where you get at saying "equating homosexuality with something like pedophilia". Now your just throwing any statement you can at me by saying "your content additions add 'nothing' to the understanding of sexual orientation that I can see", well maybe you should take a look at the sexual orientation article, cause i don't think you are quite understating what a "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attraction" actually is. Your the one that has made the waters "muddy" by picking and choosing what you feel classifies as a "sexual orientation". You continue to using the hetero-homo continuum as your basis for why you are correct, but that would completely contradict your edit. In you edit, asexuality is under sexual orientation and autosexuality is under sexual identity, yet they are bolth not on the continuum, nor is pansexuality at that. What baisis do you have for distinguishing the the two categories?, other than personal opinion. And know you say that "the APA 'meant' to include all of these divergent identities and behaviors under the construct of 'sexual orientation'" but they clearly state that some people do not classify under the orientations on the hetero-homo continuum, and simply saying that they " 'meant' to include all of these divergent identities" you are clearly contradicting your current edit once again by saying that the only "true" sexual orientations lie on the continuum, but yet you have a whole handful of other identities, such as pansexuality and asexaulity, that mix together with what you classify as a true orientation. These blatant contradictions continues to prove you are improvidently changing your opinions to try and get your cherry-picked template to be correct, but it appears your twisting of facts has caught up to you. And your broken record tactics of says that my clearly referenced template is "original research" is not going to work anymore. You have yet to prove why your pick-and-choice template is correct. I will be the one taking the offense know, i have already proven and complied as to why your edition is an error, and you have yet to state why your edit is right, so i recommend you stop repeating yourself and take a search or two on google before you continue in the direction of scaring your creditability--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(Outdenting) Proposal: Here's a thought: why not create List of debated sexual orientations or an actual article on the debate over the precise boundaries of sexual orientation (it seems like it would be a fruitful topic) and put a link to it in the template? That way nobody would be offended by the inclusion of any specific items on this template, while still allowing access to fringe opinions. Perhaps even create a template for "orientations" that are the subjects of this debate, and use that on those articles so they can have a nice sidebar too. Steve Carlson 04:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done something like that in this draft edit, is that what your implying?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about taking it one step further and removing the links to zoosexuality and paraphilias, replacing them with a single link to an article with a title like Debate over the definition of sexual orientation, which would discuss the philosophical, social and political arguments related to this debate and list these and other sexual identities that fall into this grey area. That way there is no direct mention of these controversial topics on the template, but they would still be accessible through the article, along with the proper context of the debate. Steve Carlson 06:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe Steve is correct. Although your are all counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I guess we have to, for now. So long as thoughts such as 'mine' are pointed to, then that would be acceptable. However, it is essential that it is made very clear, that the APA and friends are not scientific, and they change their minds for reasons far removed from science. Sexuality is a fluxional concept, in time and place. Yours, Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 08:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment above with two references. I like you idea of having a new article, but couldn't we still having the subsection "debated identities", in an effort to remain neutral, but "debated identities" would link to your proposed new article. One of the references i gave above is called "Human animal sexual interactions: a predictive model to differentiate between zoophilia, zoosexuality and bestiality" which clearly distinguishes zoophilia and zoosexual. I have not yet searched for any information of paraphilia as a sexual orientation, so that is still up to debate.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are wrapping yourself up in structural fallacies created by The Positivistic Man. Zoophilia is a psychiatric term. Zoosexual is psychological/wider term. The first is a mental disorder, the second is not. Sometimes, in action, one is illegal, sometimes both, sometimes neither. This is odd, because they are exactly the same thing. If there is ego-dysfunction (thus, it becomes a psychiatric issue), then, that is not due to the sexual orientation, per se, but due to socio-legal responses, this is true of all the paraphilias. Both are the sexual attraction to non-human animals ... and that's that. Berlin makes his point on paedophilia, as provided above. Berlin is a leading worker in the field. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw your references, thanks. As for your counter-proposal, I feel it is essential to remove the links to the specific topics on zoosexuality and paraphilias. How to format the link to my proposed article is still up in the air. It could be done as a section-level header, but without subitems it would be a little inconsistent with the other sections, so my recommendation would be to include it into the "Study" subsection. Steve Carlson 08:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well here is a draft edit of what i described. I put paraphilia in gray because that is still debated. Would there be an issue if we include zoosexual but not paraphilia? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course there would be an issue, for some of the reasons I have just provided :) Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want clarification, are your okay with this draft edit except with the debated identity section that includes paraphilia and zoosexual. I want make sure the rest of the template is going in the correct direction.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes and no ;) Paraphilias are not 'Sexual Identities', whether debated or not. They are real and scientifically-proven sexual attractions (i.e Sexual Orientations). This is not what a 'Sexual ID' is. No, I do not agree with the fallacious sub-systems, but I will have to accept them, for now. I think it correct, that the Paraphilias should have some 'is it a sexual orientation?' type heading, but not under 'Sexual ID'. You do need to put Paedosexual next to Zoosexual, though, as they have the same intellectual stem (also, Paedosexual has an auto redirect on Wiki). Other than that, you are doing a good job. :) Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

Here is further, recent, published confirmation, that paedophilia is a bona fide sexual orientation.

"A substantial amount of research has been performed on what leads one to be attracted to children. Pedophilia, especially the exclusive type, may be best thought of as its own category of sexual orientation, not something that is superimposed on an existing heterosexual or homosexual identity."

HALL, MD, RYAN C. W.; AND RICHARD C. W. HALL, MD, PA.. "A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues" (PDF). MAYO CLIN PROC 82:457-471 2007. MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH.

From:

Bogaert AF, Bezeau S, Kuban M, Blanchard R. Pedophilia, sexual orientation, and birth order. J Abnorm Psychol. 1997;106:331-335. Fagan PJ, Wise TN, Schmidt CW Jr, Berlin FS. Pedophilia. JAMA.2002;288:2458-2465.

"THE DSM & THE PARAPHILIAS mentioned in the clinical literature in regard to the treatment of the Paraphilias (Moser, 1988; 1999). A strict reading of the definition of a mental disorder suggests that the distress must be “present distress” (APA, 2000, p. xxxi), which implies that if the distress is mitigated, the individual no longer meets the criteria for the diagnosis. Some individuals sincerely wish to change their sexual interests and have not found solace from or are unwilling to attend support groups. These individuals should be treated in a similar fashion to those who are uncomfortable with their sexual orientation.

DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal On May 19, 2003, Charles Moser, Ph.D., M.D. gave a presentation on the topic of this paper at the American Psychiatric Association’s Annual Meeting in San Francisco. Moser C, Kleinplatz PJ (2005). DSM-IV-TR and the paraphilias: An argument for removal. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 17(3/4), 91-109.

Bibliography for Facts About Sexual Orientation

Includes:

Blanchard, R., Barbaree, H. E., Bogaert, A. F., Dickey, R., Klassen, P., Kuban, M. E., & Zucker, K. J. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478. Finkelhor, D., & Araji, S. (1986). Explanations of pedophilia: A four factor model. The Journal of Sex Research, 22 (2), 145-161. Groth, A. N., & Gary, T. S. (1982). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pedophilia: Sexual offenses against children and adult sexual orientation. In A.M. Scacco (Ed.), Male rape: A casebook of sexual aggressions (pp. 143-152). New York: AMS Press. McConaghy, N. (1998). Paedophilia: A review of the evidence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 32(2), 252-265. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_bibliography.html Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be comfortable with Steve's proposal, above. It would allow for a more nuanced approach that might give us a reasonable chance at actually keeping everybody happy. For what it's worth, I actually rather like the look of the edit CJ proposed, even if I'm arguing strongly about its particular content. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nigel, CJ - I respect the fact that you both think the APA and other scientific bodies are incorrect in their assessment of what sexual orientation is. however, challenging or changing that professional assessment is original research. please read this link carefully so you understand wikipedia we can't include what you want to include. no question that you make interesting arguments, and no question this may be something that the APA and academics ought to consider, but it still does not reflect a major point of view as expressed in secondary sources. if you don't understand that, please ask for clarification, because that is essential to understand for editing on wikipedia.

I could work with Steve's proposal as well. I'd edit it into CJ's template as a trial, but I don't want to do that in his user space without his permission. --Ludwigs2 22:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have provided primary, source references, from members of the APA. What is more important, however, is that the APA has a doubtfully-credible position on what Sexual Orientation is, because Sexual Orientation is not a psychiatric condition ("Psychiatry is a medical specialty which exists to study, prevent, and treat mental disorders in humans), and is, therefore, outside their ambit and influence (they are also heavily-influenced by politics, over science). Only you give them the credence they do not deserve, due to one of the major weaknesses of Wikipaedia. This is why I will never edit an article and will only ever make comments in discussions, as I will not be party to intellectual restrictions of that variety. As I have indicated, had Einstein visited, in his day, and offered his theories, you would have refused to include them, until lesser mortals began to understand, accept, talk and write about them. However, this is even worse, because the information I have provided is actually higher quality than a reflection of a major point of view as expressed in secondary sources. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you have provided primary sources - that is the problem. Nigel, you have to accept wikipedia for what it is - an encyclopedia, whose only purpose is to report the current state of knowledge in the world. take you PhD and your greater mind and go change the way the world views sexual orientation; I'll root for you, and when it's done we here at wikipedia will happily report that new consensus. until then, deal with the fact that wikipedia has to report the current understanding, however inferior that might be.

you're right, Einstein's original research would never have been included in wikipedia. but then Einstein was a scientist, and he would not have bother trying to prove his point in wikipedia in the first place. get it? --Ludwigs2 23:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The current state of knowledge being what? There is little, more correct, than primary sources. I have said very little about what I think about sexuality, I have quoted The Professionals. I am changing minds, by these very posts :) No, Einstein would have been here, as would Shakespeare and many others. I think you underestimate just what 'this' is. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you make a list or a visual of how you would like to see the template appear. thnax.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have only have these issues (at this time). If you have zoosexual anywhere, you have to have pedosexual next to it (these being the major, 'fringe' sexualities). I guess transsexual has to be there too.

List:

Sexual orientation in human sexuality

Sexual Orientations labels

hetero - homo continuum Bisexual · Heterosexual · Homosexual

Asexual · Autosexual · Pansexual · Transexual · Pomosexual · Zoosexual · Pedosexual

The Paraphilia versus Sexual Orientation debate

Paraphilias · Pedophilia · The Debate

Gender-based alternative concepts

etc. OWTTE, Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i made a draft edit of what you listed. The only thing i changed was "the debate" would be linked with the actual sub title of "The Paraphilia versus Sexual Orientation debate" because they are the same article, i put a note in grey to show what i am talking about. Would this draft edit be ok with you?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, thank you (I don't know about over the next decade though ;) ). Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry, that's even more laden with original research. that draft will not fly. --Ludwigs2 00:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify and detail your claim. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

<sigh...> once again, using the same APA reference that's been cited about 6 times here already, 'sexual orientation' is a term used to discuss the range of sexual attraction specific to gender within the human population. it's a continuum that goes from being exclusively attracted to people of the opposite gender to being exclusively attracted to people of the same gender, with varying degrees of bisexuality in-between. there is no explicit connection made to paraphilias (which are treated entirely differently by the APA), no explicit extension to non-human sexuality, and most importantly no real debate in the scientific or academic community that these connections or extensions should be made. there is a small group of extreme christians who want to equate homosexuality with bestiality, another small group of paraphiliacs (primarily pedophiles) who want to legitimize their acts as normal sexuality, but neither of these groups carries sufficient weight in the discourse to be treated as credible. now maybe there's something I haven't read (this is not really my field of interest), so if you have credible secondary sources that can demonstrate that there is a notable discussion in academia, please give it. otherwise your presentation is pure original research.

... and I have shown you, that the APA are not the credible or qualified body to define what is a Sexual Orientation, so all your arguments, based on it's definition fail. The reasons why the APA cannot possibly accept that the, so-called, Paraphilias, could be Sexual Orientations have been stated, in quoted sources, above (which are non-scientific and the reasons are partially fallacious). I also note, that you choose to ignore a number of articles, within this Wiki, which categorise pederasty etc as being a Sexual Orientation. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

you've shown me that you don't believe that the APA is a credible source. however, most professional psychologists and psychiatrists would disagree with you. you can't really use your personal opinion to support your own original research... --Ludwigs2 02:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Do I need to tell you why I am correct and they are incorrect again? That is not original research, it is a statement of fact. Now, if the Psychologists had said it (which they never would), then it would be more likely to be correct. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok well you can put that input in when we see what everyone thinks.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I will go ahead and clean up the template and and post it here to see what everyone thinks. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break

The draft edit to the right, which can be viewed here, is the proposed version by Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield. I would like to know everyones opinion.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I support and approve of the eddtion proposed by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield. It is a great inprovement from the current eddtion that biasly says what falls under a "sexual orientation" and a "sexual identity".--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Go on then ... I support and approve of the eddtion :) I guess non-heterosexual has to be in the top section, for completeness. There are a number of reasons why this in an improvement, one being, that the Paraphilias are not 'Sexual IDs', by any measure. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So where the gray line is, you want it to be a subsection that says "non-heterosexual labels"--Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, just like it is in the existing version, as it points to an article. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, strongly. This version is filled with original research that goes well beyond the current understanding of sexual orientation, and draws unfortunate and problematic associations between homosexuality and paraphilias, which is both incorrect and insulting. --Ludwigs2 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, let us be very clear why that first grey line is there. This being, that, the LGB 'community' wishes to believe that their abnormality is somehow more normal than other's abnormalities, and we would not wish to upset them. They have the grey line ... that should be more than enough for them, until they wake up and smell the coffee. There are gay, straight and bi paedophiles, or, to put it another way, there are paedophiles who are gay, straight or bi ... take your pick. The sources for 'The Debate' section have already been provided and they are consistent, scientific and totally credible. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, your just saying false statements to support your arguement, i don't see anything that would "draws unfortunate and problematic associations between homosexuality and paraphilias". And to my knowledge a sexual orientation is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions", so where do you get off saying that the edition "goes well beyond the current understanding of sexual orientation". And if you can clearly see it says "sexual orientation labels", sorry to break it to you, but not everyone can be conveiniantly molded to fit into on of the three orintations that you claims to be the only true orientations. Your desired opinions denies "sexual orientation labels" that are clearly in use. You original research claim is opinion, not fact. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What has emerged, as it needed to, is a pretty clean division, between the psychological terminology regime and the psychiatric terminology regime. The conflict and contrasts, between these two areas of study, are ones which they are grappling with, in many areas, presently. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So, Nigel, you are of the opinion that homosexuality is abnormal, a form of paraphilia, and you wish to make sure that is clear in this template. ok. now, go to an article page on the topic, get that included as a major view about homosexuality, and then we can revisit the issue here on the template. until then, no.

Not opinion at all. Yes, of course homosexuality is abnormal ... statistically and in social/evolutionary biological terms (also, legally in many areas of the world). It is not a Paraphilia (although, it was, of course), for the reasons I have given above. Just as there will be no paraphilias, in time. There is nothing wrong with being abnormal. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

cooljuno - I say that because the current and conventional use of 'sexual orientation' refers to gender attractions in adult humans. there is nothing in the literature which suggests it goes beyond that. again, if you don't understand why original research can't go on wikipedia, ask. I'm happy to explain. --Ludwigs2 02:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The APA definition fails. You can see the sources I have provided? Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ludwig2, see that red font on the template that says "Paraphilia versus Sexual Orientation Debate", why don't you feel free to click it and finish all your ranting there. There has already been many references provided to you, and all you can say is "original research", so feel free to start taking action and create the article that debates all your views, but remember now, wikpedia is an neutral place, so don't think your one reference rains supreme over others...--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• view
• talk
• edit

• view
• talk
• edit

• view
• talk
• edit