| Revision as of 02:08, 2 July 2008 editMickMacNee (talk | contribs)23,386 edits missed the point← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:32, 14 June 2024 edit undoZenomonoz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,166 edits →CommentTag: 2017 wikitext editor |
| (650 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{WP Sexuality|class=B|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
{{Biology|class=B|importance=|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=high}} |
|
{{LGBTProject|class=B|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Psychology}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Biology and sexual orientation/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Ref ideas |
|
|
|1={{cite journal |last1=Swift-Gallant |first1=Ashlyn |title= Organizational Effects of Gonadal Hormones on Human Sexual Orientation |date=2023 |publisher=Springer |DOI=10.1007/s40750-023-00226-x |pages= 344–370 |url= https://rdcu.be/dKFPC |language=en |journal=Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology |url-access=limited}} |
|
|
|2={{cite journal | vauthors = Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht M | title = Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science | journal = Psychological Science in the Public Interest | volume = 17 | issue = 2 | pages = 45–101 | date = September 2016 | pmid = 27113562 | doi = 10.1177/1529100616637616 | doi-access = free }} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
For 2004 August deletion debate over this page see ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Opening quote (APA) == |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the bolded statements "sexual orientation" and "biology." The emphasis does not appear in the original, and the quote's relevance to these topics is obvious from it's inclusion in the article "Biology and sexual orientation." I consider this a minor edit, but the emphasis could return, with a notation "emphasis added." Any thoughts or preferances? ] (]) 19:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Heretability Table== |
|
|
{| class="wikitable" align="right" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
!colspan="3"| Estimates of heritability of homosexuality |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! Study |
|
|
! Male |
|
|
! Female |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Hershberger, 1997 ||align="center"| 0% ||align="center"| 48% |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Bailey ''et al.'', 2000 ||colspan="2" align="center"| 30% |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Kendler ''et al.'', 2000 ||colspan="2" align="center"| 28–65% |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Kirk ''et al.'', 2000 ||align="center"| 30% ||align="center"| 50–60% |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Bearman ''et al.'', 2002 ||align="center"| 7.7% ||align="center"| 5.3% |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
I have removed the heretability table until it can be corrected. Bearman et al did not estimate the heretabilities of same sex attraction to be 7.7% and 5.5% in males and females respectively. Those numbers refer to the concordance of homosexual attraction in MZ twins when at least one feels same sex attraction. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
: Hmmm, well, isn't that what each of the other studies in the table also are based on: the concordance of homosexual attraction in MZ twins when at least one feels same sex attraction. The incidence of concordance is then taken as the measure of heretability. ] (]) 03:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Maybe the table is consistent - but heretability has a technical meaning in genetic epidemiology. I don't think the numbers in the table correspond to this (i may be wrong).15:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Scans see 'gay brain differences'== |
|
|
01:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Awful wording== |
|
|
|
|
|
The article reads, 'Biology and sexual orientation is the research within the field of biology with regard to investigating the nature of sexual orientation in humans and its causes.' Sorry to whoever wrote this, but it sounds awful. Just to start with, the beginning, 'Biology and sexual orientation is the research within the field of biology...' does not make sense. This needs to be rewritten so that it makes sense. ] (]) 10:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I suggest avoiding the use of the term "etiology". From the WP article ] "In medicine in particular, the term refers to the causes of diseases or pathologies", and the dictionary closest at hand (Penguin dictionary of Psychology) defines it with one short sentence "The study of the causes of disease". The use of this term very strongly implies that a homosexual sexual orientation is considered to be a disease or a pathology. It has been reverted once, and I'm choosing to abide by 1RR here. ] (]) 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::What has this article got to do with the use of the word in medicine? If you read the ] article again, it is a general word covering many fields, including '''biology'''. ] (]) 19:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::If you simply intend the term to mean "cause" then I suggest you use the word "cause". Anything related to the topic of sexual orientation will be read by many who will read the term as it is defined (as for example, in a dictionary of psychological terms cited above) as meaning "cause of disease". The only reason I can think of for using the term "etiology" rather than "cause" is the different implication of the common psychology/medical definition. ] (]) 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I'm using it to represent its universal meaning:- "The study of causes or origins." in biology. This is supported by wording of the second reference of this article: "''No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.... there is a renewed interest in searching for '''biological etiologies''' for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific '''biological etiology''' for homosexuality''", from the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics. Presumably they know what the word means. So I'll ask you once again, what has an article on the '''biological''' causes and origins of sexual orientation got to do with fields of medicine/psychology and how they choose to further define the meaning of what is otherwise frankly a universal word? ] (]) 20:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::You ask "So I'll ask you once again, what has an article on the '''biological''' causes and origins of sexual orientation got to do with fields of medicine/psychology" and I'll reply once again that it's pretty obvious. I doubt very much that any biologist uses the term "etiology" without being aware of the inference of disease. Clearly, you & I are merely two samples, and I'm prepared to be swayed by evidence against my opinion, I'll go ask for further input ]. ] (]) 20:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::So a biologist is never going to use the word if he isn't talking about disease? Patent nonsense. But if you have to go to such an obviously biased place to prove your point, go right ahead. Quite what is wrong with the standard ] I have no idea. ] (]) 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University_Fullerton/Gender_and_Technoculture_(Spring_2022) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2022-01-24 | end_date = 2022-05-13 }} |
|
:::::::Go ahead with ] fine by me (I wasn't under the impression that this rose to the status of a "dispute"). I thought you were saying that if folks like the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics used the word, then it was unreasonable of me to assume that it would be at all offensive to Gays and Lesbians, or --more to the point-- to misrepresent the views of researchers on this topic, so how better to determine that than to ask our fellow wikipedians over at WikiProject Sexology and sexuality? ] (]) 20:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
:::::::"So a biologist is never going to use the word if he isn't talking about disease?" well, as a biologist who does research into the biological influences on adult behaviour, I would certainly not use it unless I was referring to a disease. In the approximately twenty years I've been doing research in behavioural biology I don't think I've heard it used as a drop-in term for "cause" as you seem to think is common. ] (]) 20:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Undated Citation Needed tags == |
|
::::::::Use of 'etiology' as a replacement for the word 'cause' is your assertion, not mine. I am using it in its defined literal context in the field of biology and science in general, to mean the study of the causes and origins of something. If your personal opinion is that this meaning would be so bizarre to anybody else reading this article, or that it is so obviously yet another banned hate word in this context because you say so, then change the ] article, and change the various dictionary definitions that are not about the specific definition about disease, if you are honestly that sure that your opinon is correct. ] (]) 21:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are 3 undated Citation needed tags. One of them is from March 2007, so if someone more familiar can take a look and see whether they are still needed. Thanks ] (]) 05:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::::::::It is my considered opinion, based on my years of personal experience as a behavioural biologist engaged in scientific research, that any biologist seeing the term "etiology" applied to sexual orientation would assume that it was being used in the the medical/psychiatric/psychological sense of "cause of disease". I am not asserting that a dictionary definition of etiology doesn't include definitions which apply to causes of things other than disease. I've changed it once, I'll leave it to others to enlighten me as to whether my personal experience is out of touch with reality. ] (]) 21:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Sexual Orientation in Twins: Evidence That Human Sexual Identity May Be Determined Five Days Following Fertilization == |
|
Well it's a moot point now, thanks to a fly-by edit by {{User|Joshuajohanson}} presumably in response to this . ] (]) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
PMCID: PMC10757681 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51346 |
|
:And I can't honestly see what the relevance is between the provided edit summary , and the actual dispute over the use of the word in the context here. Is the assertion supposed to be that somehow, the research described in this article actualy begins with the premise that there is no bilogical etiology to be found? That they are therefore only concerned with proving the existence of a contributing factor? (which is what the replaced wording now reads as). ] (]) 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The disparity in sexual identity in monozygous twins may relate to the time of splitting of the zygote– twins resulting from splitting on or before day 5 after fertilisation are free to develop their own sexual identity; twins splitting after day five have the same identity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
See: ] (]) 03:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
::I don't see how the edit summary addresses the point either, and the distinction between "cause" and "contributes to" has always seemed sophistry to me. MickMacNee, if the rationale doesn't satisfy you the you can always just revert it and wait for more opinion to appear. I wish you wouldn't, but I'm not going to revert again, or wikilawyer XRR on you. I'd rather see more input on the point. ] (]) 21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::Both etiology and cause suggest that it is the sole factor in the development in homosexuality, whereas contributes suggest there are other factors involved. ] (]) 21:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
:Bad paper, incorrect twin concordance, for example. ] (]) 02:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Comment == |
|
::::And how is that a bad thing? i.e. in a lead sentence explaining the topic of the article, biological research into orientation, opening with the statement that there is ongoing research into whether there is a biologcal etiology to orientation? What is the problem here? With your edit summary, and its repetition above, you seem to be making a general point, instead of addressing a specific problem with the actual form of the lead sentence before you changed it. How exactly do you start research holding a pre-determined opinon that you are only looking for a contributory factor and not a cause? The lack of consensus resulting from research is already stated later in the lead, your objection on these grounds seems wholly pointless. ] (]) 22:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi {{u|CommonKnowledgeCreator}}, thanks for your contribution to the evolution section. However, Misplaced Pages generally relies on secondary sources. I think you've included excessive focus on the kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy hypotheses, mostly using primary source studies. It's great there is an overview of the history, but we only need to cite secondary sources on the general consensus on these models. ] (]) ] (]) 02:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::The intro should be a summary for the article. The source says that "there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality." However, there are plenty of studies supporting biological contributions to the development of homosexuality, and that is what the rest of the article is about. The view of a minority of psychologists that homosexuality is solely determined by biological factors should not outweigh the majority of psychologists and official statements that indicate homosexuality results from a combination of factors. I don't mind having a section about the fact that some people are looking for or believe there to be a sole biological cause, but that isn't the majority view and should not be in the first sentence. ] (]) 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I am more than aware that Misplaced Pages generally relies on secondary sources. However, per WP:BMI, this is not a medical topic and one that appears (after a search of Google Scholar) to have few secondary sources that systematically review the subject (as most of the content does not appear to systematic reviews or meta-analyses), and WP:RS does not preclude primary sources and only states that secondary sources are preferred. As far as evolution and homosexuality are concerned, kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy are the two main evolutionary hypotheses for homosexuality, and there does not appear to be a consensus about whether either is true. The only review using Google Scholar that I found that discusses kin selection or antagonistic pleiotropy does still suggest that the latter is a plausible hypothesis. -- ] (]) 03:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::You've completely missed the point. The first statement described the basic topic of the article, that research into biological etiology of orientation is ongoing. It said nothing about the current state of the art or the conclusions currently drawn from that. Even if it said 'cause', which 'etiology' is not a replacement word for, that would not be implying what you are claiming it does. You cannot start any research with the pre-determined idea that you will not find a sole cause, nor that you will. But you can undertake research into biological etiology, period. I fail to understand this basic breakdown of understanding the English language. The current wording is meaningless, and your correction to 'contribution' wasn't justified. ] (]) 02:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I'm not convinced of this argument for including so much focus on primary source studies? Many studies have questionable effect sizes, which is why it's best to avoid them, especially on a topic as controversial as this. As for not being able to find reviews, they are better reviewed and criticized in text books. |
|
|
::{{tq|"Kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy are the two main evolutionary hypotheses for homosexuality.. there does not appear to be a consensus about whether either is true"}} – they're both largely ruled out by GWAS, especially exclusive male homosexuality. There's still plausibility for antagonistic maintenance of the trait through other mechanisms such as however. |
|
|
::I'm not saying they should not be covered, the does indeed refer to both of them. I just think the coverage should be trimmed down, similar to the extent it is covered in that review. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::] (]) 04:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
<!-- snippet for later inclusion |
|
|
|
:::{{tq|As for not being able to find reviews, they are better reviewed and criticized in text books. ... I'm not saying they should not be covered, the Bailey review does indeed refer to both of them.}} Was not aware {{strikethrough|of}} the Bailey article is a review. What textbooks refer to them? I certainly agree that reviews would be better than the primary sources cited for the reasons that you've cited. Are there reviews of GWAS research that contradicts the kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy hypotheses? -- ] (]) 13:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Material to incorporate when I have time== |
|
|
|
::::{{u|CommonKnowledgeCreator}}, alongside the Bailey review you could refer to textbook with various chapters, or , or ] also has some discussion of evolutionary hypotheses. There are more I can find if need be. Hope this helps! ] (]) 03:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
Research efforts to identify psychosocial factors in the development of sexual orientation have turned up virtually nothing. In fact, the ‘research’ is often not actually research in the scientific sense such views of the origins of human sexual orientation are just plain wrong” (p. 30) Wilson, G. & Rahman Q. (2005). Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation. Peter Owen Publishers, London. ISBN:0720612233 |
|
|
|
:::::I'm sure that textbook would be great. Unfortunately, it has a paywall so I cannot access it. -- ] (]) 11:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
--> |
|
|
|
::::::{{u|CommonKnowledgeCreator}} – oh, just start using , which you qualify for. You get access to paywalled content from all the leading publishers. Access to the Springer collection is probably the best, as you get all their papers ''and'' books. I recommend using the 'access collection' button on each publisher and then conducting your search, rather than using the search box at the top of Misplaced Pages Library (which accesses papers in a clunky format, with poor search capability). Hope this helps. ] (]) 09:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
There are 3 undated Citation needed tags. One of them is from March 2007, so if someone more familiar can take a look and see whether they are still needed. Thanks Slywriter (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
PMCID: PMC10757681 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51346
The disparity in sexual identity in monozygous twins may relate to the time of splitting of the zygote– twins resulting from splitting on or before day 5 after fertilisation are free to develop their own sexual identity; twins splitting after day five have the same identity.
.svg){kind=small}
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): C.ler2022 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bcruz-cisneros.