Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 11

< Talk:Homosexuality

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.57.82.114 (talk) at 23:09, 19 August 2005 (→"Biology is destiny"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:09, 19 August 2005 by 70.57.82.114 (talk) (→"Biology is destiny")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

To-do list for Homosexuality/Archive 11: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Cite id

What are these things for? <cite id="fn_1"></cite> Hyacinth 04:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Irangay teens.jpg

We seem to have a bit of an edit war going on regarding this image. Edit wars are bad. So, let's discuss. Do note the that image is listed on WP:PUI. --Blu Aardvark | 11:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC) I'm 99% sure that this edit war is lame. I am simiarlly 99% sure we can solve it by finding the copyright information on the damne'd picture. It should be noted that theres a lead on its origin in the lower right hand corner. I'm sure those highly intrested in having the picture remain can find the damned thing.--Tznkai 14:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to revert, it is stupid, but do not make unsupportable accusations, Tzankai, this fellow has been removing not only the picture but also the links to the articles. I do not have time now to do this but the copyright belongs to the Iranian Student News Agency. 69.118.250.245 16:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Then put it on the damned picture page!--Tznkai 16:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Gave WP:FU a good readthrough, and while I'm not sure if I understand it all, fair use needs to be heavely justified. According to the ten step processes, it doesn't seem it is fair use. Can someone track down the copyright holders and ask for permission under GDFL? In the meantime, I think this is legitimate dispute. Can we find a replacement image in the meantime?--Tznkai 17:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have found the copyright holders: . The entire site, however, is in Arabic, and I therefore have no idea as how to contact the copyright holder. If anyone speaks / reads Arabic, please go to this site and attempt to contact the copyright holder. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 18:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That promises to be pain in the ass. Any chance of being able to pipeline the request through a larger news service by chance? --Tznkai 18:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they seem to have the only images of this... I've yet to see a single report with imags that are not the images from this site... that said, there are several web services with these pictures, including one that has removed the source from the bottom (it's the National Council of Resistance of Iran, may be a bit biased against Iranian media...). So yeah...doesn't look too good. On a side, very POV note, I am absolutely disgusted by this behavior. Looking for images, there are pics of what looks like them crying and of men seemingly calm and discussing their whipping or hanging ... Gods... -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 18:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As well you should. If we can atleast get the copy right information robust, and someone who understands copyright law better than I, and can explain it, we can restore it.--Tznkai 18:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at Image talk:Irangay teens.jpg. We're just about done here, so if someone could finish the taggging process with our specific fair use justifications, we can go ahead and stick it back in the article--Tznkai 14:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Spitzer edit

Spitzer's study did not show a 99.98% failure rate, and it is misleading to claim that as the result of the study. I'm not sure where the figure came from, but one source appears to be the analysis of the study on the religioustolerance.org page. These are back-of-the-envelope surmises and are not an appropriate way to summarize a scientific study. The study itself was a very limited one, and within the limits of the study---which is to say, 274 people referred to Spitzer who claimed to have changed their sexual orientation---66% had achieved good heterosexual functioning. The study itself is not online, but some of the ex-gay ministries have reasonably balanced summaries that can at least be relied on for numbers. See for instance

I am not sure where that figure came from either. I will remove it. And I also added some context to it that I found on GLAAD, let me know if you have any objections. 70.57.82.114 22:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

False dualism

The section called "Genetics, hormones, malleability and sexual orientation" posited an unfortunately common false choice about the "origin" of sexual orientation. That is, there's a nasty bout of biological reductionism running around in our culture; it posits that sexual orientation can either be: (a) Biologically determined; or (b) purely voluntary. After I tried to add a slight measure of subtlety here, editor 70.57.82.114, took it back out (demanding citations which are not present for any of the other explanatory frameworks presented.

There are other explanatory choices available (and indeed, probably largely correct). I tried—very compactly—to characterize another dimension as "formative childhood experiences" (though even that is a bit narrower than ideal). Basically, that stands for a whole range of possible pyschological or psychoanalytic ideas about the formation of sexual identities (and of sexual desires). Some of this is a nod to Freud, but it's not only Freudians who talk about these approaches.

Just by way of a fairly pat motivating analogy, let me present my standard schtick. It's pretty damn clear that spoken language (as in which one) is darn near 100% environmental in cause. The only slight exceptions are the slice of people who don't develop in a way to acquire natural language at all (or to do so fully)—i.e. people with brain damage and the like. On the other hand, it is definitely not "voluntary" on my part not to wake up tomorrow speaking Mandarin. Formative experiences made me into a native English speaker. Likewise, I can equally little decide to wake up tomorrow with a whole different sexual orientation than the one I have today. Still, I might learn Mandarin eventually, and my sexual orientation might shift over the course of my life (in fact, it has, as has that of about everyone I've ever met or heard about).

Unfortunately, both homophobes and homophiles have developed something of a conformant ideological presupposition that makes it easier to think only about "biological destiny." For pro-gay folks biological reductionism means "It's not our choice, it's our genes/hormones/etc". For anti-gay bigots, biological reductionism means "They can be cured once we find the right drugs, gene treatment, etc." Both perspectives, while comforting in their childish simplicity, miss the diversity, historicity and complexity of human sexual behavior and desire. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:22, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

I'm totally behind you if you want to include more info on this sort of view. I can probably pull up some sources, too, if you need em. -Seth Mahoney 02:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

"Biology is destiny"

There is an anonymous editor (who seems to be at 70.57.82.114 consistently) who seems to feel very strongly that explanations of homosexuality involving pre-natal biological causation will win out. That's fine; such is a well known and widely held opinion that should be presented. However, s/he has taken this believe too far in really pushing a POV in the article. Specifically, each time I (or other editors) try to include some balanced language about the "nurture" side of causation explanations, 70.57.82.114 seems to insert rather hyperbolic language about how "discredited" nurture explanations are, and how "it is universally believed", and similar.

That sort of thing is really quite inappropriate. Especially since his/her textual support amounts to stuff like the APA writing ""considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality." "Significant role" is a very long way from the sort of complete determinism this editor wants to push. I don't deny that there are far-reaching determinists, but the APA position isn't like that.

One thing that always struck me as odd about the bio-reductionists is that they've always been convinced that it is conclusively proven that biological explanations are the right ones. And yet, they rarely agree on exactly which such explanations are actually true: Maybe it's a gene; maybe it's a virus; maybe it's a hormone level in utero; maybe it's an enlarged brain region; etc. Finding that any of a dozen biological explanations each have a modicum of supporting evidence isn't the same as "conclusively proven"... and WP should be more neutral. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:52, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

I don't feel I have been pushing a POV. In fact I thought you were by inserting extremely vague sentences which could lead users to erroneously believe that Kinsey thought sexual orientation was changeable. I was correcting errors, you said psychologist believe in nurture views in contrast to biologist. That's wrong. Psychologists have not believed in that for a few decades now. The APA says you cannot catch homosexuality from homosexual parents just like you cannot do it vice versa. And the APA quote I gave you is not the sole support and you generalizing it in that way is inappropriate. I never said it was conclusively proven, but that at the moment the prenatal hormones have the largest scientific backing out of any of the theories. Notices how all the results found in all those experiments you mention are tied into it, the virus, and the hormonal level, which then creates the brain differences. 70.57.82.114 23:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hormones

Note: I've moved some comments by 70.57.82.114 from my personal talk page to this article talk page. Let's get feedback from multiple editors. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:06, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

General comment: The fetal hormonal exposure stuff is interesting. But I tend to think it's rather tangential to this page. It's worth mentioning in a general way, but the detailed citations and discussion should go elsewhere (this page is already too long). Maybe some of this material can go at Sexual orientation or Homosexuality and medical science. Or perhaps a whole new page like Fetal hormones and sexual orientation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:06, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

The hormonal theory of homosexuality holds that, just as exposure to circulating sex hormones determines whether a fetus will be male or female, such exposure must also dictate sexual orientation.

After birth, there may be, physiologically-based differences present at birth that lead girls and boys to perceive the world or behave in slightly different ways. Some children exhibit childhood gender nonconformity (CGN) and research indicates that seventy five percent of these cases will be homosexual as adults.

Cornell psychologist Daryl Bem has proposed a theory called “the exotic becomes erotic”. In it he suggests children with CGN (a biologically caused attribute) are often ostracized by their own sex for their atypical behavior and this leads to physiological arousal of fear and anger in their presence, arousal that eventually is transformed from exotic to erotic.

William Reiner, a psychiatrist and urologist with the University of Oklahoma has evaluated more than a hundred cases of children born with sexual differentiation disorders. For decades, the standard medical response to boys born with severely inadequate penises was to castrate the boy and have his parents raise him as a girl. However this practice as come under attack because even though these boys were raised as girls they nearly all report as adults that they are sexually attracted to women, suggesting that their sexual orientation was determined at birth. The only cases he has found where children born with a X and Y chromosome are attracted to males as adults are those when the receptors were absent and prevented the male sex hormones from masculinizing the fetus.

There is substantial evidence showing correlation between sexual orientation and traits that are set when a baby is in the womb. Breedlove in 2000 found that finger length, a characteristic controlled by prenatal hormones, is different in people of distinct sexual orientations. Another study by McFadden in 1998 found that auditory systems in the brain, another physical trait influenced by prenatal hormones is different in those of differing orientations. Homosexual men were found to have more older brothers in 1993 and the greater the number of older male siblings the higher the level of androgen exposed to fetuses. In 1991 a study by Simon LeVay discovered that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus – which is believed to control sexual behavior and linked to prenatal hormones – was on average more than twice the size in heterosexual men when contrasted to homosexual men. Initially he could not rule out that this may be due to AIDS since all of his homosexual male subjects had died from it before the autopsies were performed. However in 2003 scientists at Oregon State University announced that it replicated his findings in homosexual sheep. Other studies regarding pheromones, penis sizes, circulating androgen levels, number of sex partners over a lifetime and MRI brain scans also found differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals all related to prenatal hormones. In freemartins it has been detected that a clearly casual relationship exists between sexuality and prenatal hormones.

The evolutionary disadvantage of homosexuality as led Amherst College biologist Paul Ewald to argue that it might be caused by a as of yet undetected virus working in the utero that triggers the hormonal responses. In response to recent findings the National Institute of Health in 2005 announced a 2.5 million dollar five year study of sexual orientation. One prominent evangelical leader, Rev. Rob Schenck, who used to advocate reparative therapy was quoted after speaking with scientists about homosexuality as saying that homosexuality is not a choice and that to continue opposing homosexual sex conservative Christians need to drop the choice argument, "If it's inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don't have one, we won't have any credibility."

The sources are WEBMD: Pointing the Finger at Androgen as a Cause of Homosexuality and [Boston Globe: "What makes people gay?"

I suggest we add it under the three sexual orientations section. Do you have any corrections? Or input? This theory certainly has more scientific backing than the nurture and reparative therapy schools of thought. 70.57.82.114 01:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Reduce "reparative therapy" discussion

The material on the conversionists is way too much for this article. It's a tangential group (quite apart from being rather offensive). I think the articles on reparative therapy, Exodus International, and the like contain all the concepts (and criticisms). But I put the deletiae below to enable a more careful comparison of what was here to what is already in the linked pages (I'll try to get to it; but other editors please feel welcome). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:18, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

Conversionists

Attempts to modify sexual orientation (known as "conversion therapies" or “reparative therapies” and so far targeted only at LGB-identified individuals) have been condemned by numerous professional organizations in the scientific field for causing depression (sometimes leading to suicide) and for being ineffective. Indeed, the largest "reparative" therapy organization, a ministry called Exodus International, was started by two formerly homosexual men who several years later ended up leaving the ministry, denouncing it, and living as a homosexual couple themselves. The American Psychological Association in 1997 passed a resolution declaring therapists in these groups engaged in such conversion therapies to be following unethical and unhealthy practices.

In May 2001, Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University published the findings of a short-term study of "reparative" therapy. Based on telephone interviews with a convenience sample of 200 persons, Spitzer concluded that some "highly motivated" gay people could change their sexual orientation through therapy or other means.

Many in the scientific community have dismissed Spitzer's study because of its serious methodological flaws, among them: Spitzer recruited most of his subjects through Exodus (an organization that says homosexuality is a sin) and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

Furthermore Spitzer excluded from his study anybody whose experiences with reparative therapy were not successful. And Spitzer's research did not mention or account for the existence of bisexuality on the continuum of sexual orientation. In response many believe that what he called a "highly motivated gay person" is merely a bisexual person. Indeed, in his study he uses the phrase "predominantly homosexual", indicating that the subjects also had heterosexual attractions.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association developed and endorsed the following statement in 1999:

"The most important fact about "reparative therapy," also sometimes known as "conversion therapy," is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. , together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.' ...health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through 'reparative therapy' and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm."

WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

Someone added a tag for this WikiProject (I think it's been reverted). This is a prime example of overreach (excuse me? you think an article on homosexuality and bisexuality are inherently indecent? Here comes the censorship!). Anybody reading this might find the VfD page here interesting Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. · Katefan0 22:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Categories: