Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:01, 12 March 2013

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

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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

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

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

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

abstractly defining sexual orientation

I wish there was an abstract definition of sexual orientation, not defining by a list ('heterosexuality, etc.') but by what qualifies a sexuality to be a sexual orientation. I've only seen hints, such as in an APA source. I haven't read consistently across the field, only occasionally picking something here and there, but I haven't come across a useful definition. I think persistent prevalence as a majority or a visible minority too numerous to punish or confine and measured among adult parents (because raising one's own children confers respectability) implies societal acceptability with persistence followed by stability of relationships sufficient for child-raising, and that might define a sexual orientation. I suppose a definition based on physicality, such as genetics or hormonal action, is possible, but then the physical explanation must be of a physical norm; the gene or hormonal action cannot be characterizable as abnormal, and that might be a challenge if the gene or hormonal action is infrequent. Lack of choice seems irrelevant; many diseases are not due to choice, so this is different. My unsourced analysis isn't much use. Maybe someone can think of a source. If there isn't anything, maybe we should say that, but if no source says there isn't one, maybe we shouldn't give it weight. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Bagemihl and androphilia and gynephilia/gynecophilia

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

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

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

This is why I almost totally abstain from editing Misplaced Pages anymore: Bagemihl is complaining about the use of the terms "HOMOSEXUAL" and "HETEROSEXUAL", and yes, it's obvious that's the point? (If you're transgendered!)

Seriously, was I shocked to find out that I'm a largely het trans woman after being married and having relationships only with women for 40 years? YEP.

Is that sentence confusing you? Well, that's because I'm trans-gendered psychologically, and my thinking for 35 years was… "I'm a lesbian", even before I realized that's just another indication that I'm transsexual (rather than merely "androgynous").

So, it's clearer to the average reader if you say "bonze blayk is largely androphilic", and it's perfectly neutral w/r/t my MAAB status. Right? The "homosexual"/"heterosexual" makes everything in sex relate to assigned birth sex, rather than a straightforward descriptive "object" preference, which is Just. Plain. Wrong.

thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I of course didn't mean to offend you, bonze blayk, especially since we've talked enough on and off Misplaced Pages about gender and transgender topics. I wasn't the one who added that Bagemihl has criticized the terms "androphilia" and "gynephilia"/"gynecophilia," to either article. And like I stated, it's currently still in the Androphilia and gynephilia article. That also needs to be fixed if it's wrong How did the editor who added this material make this mistake in both articles this article, or at all? That's what I'm mainly wondering. If that editor didn't make the mistake, then someone else added in the wrong terminology. And, yes, with another read of the end of the aforementioned paragraph, it makes sense that he is speaking of the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual." I'm not in the best mindset these days, so I ask that you try not to let any silliness on my part regarding the initial post make you think too badly of me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

See? I just got it wrong regarding the Androphilia and gynephilia article as well; it's actually clear in that article that he's not criticizing the terms "androphilia" and "gynephilia"/"gynecophilia." Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2013‎ (UTC)

I am not exhibiting "offense" with you here, Flyer22, this is freakin' annoyance.

Let me know whether you can figure out whether the editor who botched this in this particular article 1) can't read 2) doesn't bother to or 3) is a troll. Good luck with it, given that said editor is probably anonymous? That is what I find offensive!

I came here from the (pointy, COI-driven) AfD debate initiated by User:James Cantor on Androphilia and Gynephilia to see just how reasonable his assertion that this nomenclature should be discussed in this ENORMOUSLY LONG article, and what do I find?

A FUCKING MESS. A prominent critic of the "homo/heterosexual" nomenclature is represented as saying the exact opposite?

And just right now I've been looking at a Misplaced Pages editor comparing User:Jokestress to a Dinosaur and (unspecified editors) to "puppies" (User:Thryduulf) in @ 19:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC). Follow the fucking link. Is User:Thryduulf an insensitive dolt unaware of the cross-cultural niceties here, or is User:Thryduulf a troll?

You figure it out: Thryduulf's yet another "Jane Pseudo Nym". Meanwhile, ask yourself: why doesn't somebody come forth and deliver a nice brisk WP:TROUT to User:Thryduulf for violating WP:NPA?

COMPARING PEOPLE TO ANIMALS IS INHERENTLY UNCOOL… even if you're not aware that "puppies" is the taunt the Islamists in Iraq use as they beat "emo kids" to death.

That is what I find offensive! IMO, Misplaced Pages is a fucking cesspool, and Cantor and James are not nearly the worst offenders.

"duh", - bonze blayk (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, bonze blayk. I understand how your general annoyance with this site led you to express your thoughts the way that you did in your initial comment above. I apologize for having questioned your correction and for having brought the matter here to the talk page, asking you to weigh in on it after I did; the end of that paragraph, which I obviously didn't read correctly (though I had read it before), coupled with your edit, threw me off. Thanks for having corrected that spot in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC) `

Yikes, turns out that I did add that Bagemihl text. It appears that just like above, I thought that he was criticizing the terms "androphilia and gynephilia/gynecophilia" in the Androphilia and gynephilia article. I then transported that text here, adding in the terms "androphilia and gynephilia/gynecophilia." Reading my edit summary, I wanted balance in the section; for the section to mention those for and against the terms, just as some being against the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are mentioned in the section.

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

Your apology is accepted, Flyer22… the wildly variant terminology employed in sexology, anthropology, gender studies, and other fields becomes to describe "gender" can become very confusing, especially when one considers the tangled history of their development, as does keeping track of all the various actors involved… especially with all the subtleties involved in the meanings they intend to convey when they use those terms?

Perhaps you now will have developed some insight into why I complain so much about the duplication of article content across articles? (I think it's best to keep callouts to a "main article" as brief as possible, for example?)

I worked as a network systems programmer for over 20 years; maintaining parallel code in different places is inherently bad practice, because elements that are supposed to function identically wind up doing different things when one section of code is updated (to fix a bug, for example: a mis-citation would be a relevant example here), and the other is not. Article forks with extensive duplicate contents (cf. Causes of transsexualism and Transgender#Transsexual people and science are guaranteed to be a maintenance nightmare, especially when anyone can edit anything, anywhere?

No, sorry!, when I make remarks like that I am motivated by "Political Correctness" per User:James Cantor. MY BAD

(eyeroll)

sincerely, - bonze blayk (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Definition in lead section

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

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

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

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

So they stress not defining it solely as a personal trait. But if it is important to you to add LeVay's definition, I don't see a problem with it being added to the Definitions and distinguishing from sexual identity and behavior section, though I do it view it as redundant (a redundant definition that limits sexual orientation to sexual attraction). Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And if by "in our nature," you mean "biological" or "innate in that it develops naturally," that is a complicated topic, which, going by this post at the talk page of the Homosexuality article, you already know (you probably also know that I helped tweak that addition after you added it). And the lead already addresses that aspect of sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

So they recognize that the view that sexual orientation is a "characteristic of an individual" is a common one. Their position is different, as they consider it in terms of "relationships with others". In order to have a genuine neutral Misplaced Pages article, we should reflect both points of view.--Auró (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Flyer22 is correct in many ways about not rewording the lead. Just to name a few points made:

• the reworded lead completely ignores and complicates the issue of gender in sexual orientation,
• it leaves out the romantic attraction aspect that the lead currently has (that is cited in two sources),
• the definition should go by what authoritative souces says and not by what one author thinks, so to prevent Fringe theories from being added on,
• nature/ nuture issue,
• Flyer22's quote above: the APA also states that sexual orientation should not be defined soley as a trait (as the proposed rewording would like to make it)
• and see Flyer's second response "The APA does not only..." which tackles the issue of "trait/ relationship to others" in which you're trying to argue.

The current lead already reflects both views presented, and covers the trait aspect that you're trying to emphasize (currently in the lead: "aspects of the more nuanced nature of sexual identity", "people may use other labels", "sexual orientation "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions", "A person who identifies", etc. Rewording the lead will just create more unnecessary problems, and would be very redundant.

Please read Flyer22's responses carefully. She has a lot of experience with this article and has covered every issue (and possible issues) about the rewording of the lead. Someone963852 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that your long answers circumvent the core of the question. As it is presently written, the lead definition boils down to say that a sexual attraction or romantic attraction that has the quality of being enduring is called "sexual orientation". It is quite different of saying that "sexual orientation" is a trait of a person, that produces sexual or/and romantic attraction in a particular direction. I nevertheless think that the term "romantic" should be added to may initial proposal, so this is my modified proposal:

"Sexual orientation is the personal quality that inclines us to feel sexual or romantic attraction or both to persons of the same sex (homosexual, gay, or lesbian), to persons of the other sex (heterosexual or straight) or to persons of both sexes (bisexual)".--Auró (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Flyer 22, Your proposal to add "personal quality" and "inclines people to feel" is acceptable to me. Thank you.--Auró (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it. And you're welcome. Thanks for being patient/initiating a discussion about this instead of, for example, making your desired changes first. Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've also altered the lead a bit further, mostly regarding the gender inclusion because I've found the gender wording that was there (that I'd included) awkward for some time. Flyer22 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Asserting that there is no scientific consensus that sexual orientation is not a choice

Newly registered editor Hawljo made edits to the article to combat the statement that scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice. In the first edit he was reverted on, he removed "whereas the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice"...despite this being supported by three reliable scientific sources. In the second edit he was reverted on, he added redundant text about scientists not being sure what causes sexual orientation, even though the source (the American Psychological Association) also clarifies that sexual orientation is not a choice for most people and that, if there is any choice about it at all, there is little choice.

Like I responded on Dawn Bard's talk page: "Stating that scientists are not sure about what causes sexual orientation, which the lead already states, is different than stating that there is no scientific consensus about whether or not it is a choice." The Efforts to change sexual orientation section and the Sexual orientation change efforts article also make it quite clear that scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not something that one chooses and is very unlikely to be changed. I also stress that sexuality or sexual identity/sexual orientation identity changing is not necessarily the same thing as sexual orientation changing. That second edit obviously also shows that Hawljo used the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) as a source; as some know, that organization is notorious for trying to change same-sex sexual attraction, against scientific consensus about trying to change such attraction, and therefore they cannot be trusted as a reliable source on this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Top-importance sociology articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Top-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles