Talk:Biology and sexual orientation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Slywriter (talk | contribs) at 05:08, 26 March 2023 (→Undated Citation Needed tags: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:08, 26 March 2023 by Slywriter (talk | contribs) (→Undated Citation Needed tags: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biology and 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.

Article policies

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

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

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sexology and sexuality High‑importance

	Human sexuality portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-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.

Biology Mid‑importance

	Biology portal Biology and sexual orientation is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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.

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

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.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jackmccullar. Peer reviewers: Avacholakian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverts to lead

What are the reasons for revert of my edits User:Enlightenedstranger0 ? Saying "I oppose" is not a good reason to ignore the largest study regarding homosexuality to date published in Science. Please provide sufficient reasons for your opposition, otherwise it seems like just biased opinion and I will introduce edits again. Lpsspp (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

They reverted material very similar to what I reverted. Per WP:ONUS, you should not reintroduce this material (edit warring) without consensus for it.

The problem with this edit is that you remove material cited to academic literature reviews to replace it with material about a single study. That is not how Misplaced Pages works. See WP:PSTS. WP:MEDRS elaborates more on the relevant principles in a medical context, and does a good job of explaining why secondary sources are so important. The evidence for biological influence on sexual orientation comes from many lines of evidence, and is not merely related to studies of genetics, nor can it be rebutted by one such study. You should read this article. Reviews since then say basically the same things. Crossroads 03:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

But this new material does not rebut previous studies. It just elaborates on them and explains in what amount genetic factors drive homosexuality(8 to 25% of variance in population and < 1% in person). It didn't conclude that genetic factors don't play role at all. It just set the error bars(previous studies gave the same results, give or take and I'm surprised it's not mentioned tbh). Moreover environmental factors mentioned in the study are not necessarily sociocultural ones(but those are mentioned in the study as well as something that should definitely be considered) but it could also be enviroment of the womb for example. And third, it's the largest study to date and it's really strange to ignore it but reference smaller studies with methodological problems(it's mentioned there as well), specifically: all studies before that suffered from a small sample size.As a conclusion I don't see why you are saying that that the new study rebuts something, it just clarify and says that both genetic AND enviromental factors play role. Lpsspp (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Moreover APA states that "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." which is in direct conflict with what is put on the wiki page. There are also recent studies that show that sexual orientation might be seriously influenced by social factors(what people were told in this specific case). Lpsspp (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Crossroads my proposal is to write that there is no consensus of what exactly influences SSB and that evidence for genetic and environmental factors are considered. The statement that "Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation, however, are weak, especially for males." is just bias toward specific opinion as other academic paper including meta analysis of APA says the opposite. Lpsspp (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Reviews since then say basically the same things. - No. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You should read this article. Reviews since then say basically the same things. By the way I read that review and what you said is just not true. That's fact confirmed by APA. I don't understand why you're trying to deceive people. Waiting for your reply. Lpsspp (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

That is what the review says: No causal theory of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support. The most scientifically plausible causal hypotheses are difficult to test. However, there is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial causes of sexual orientation than social causes. This evidence includes the cross-culturally robust finding that adult homosexuality is strongly related to childhood gender nonconformity; moderate genetic influences demonstrated in well-sampled twin studies; the cross-culturally robust fraternal-birth-order effect on male sexual orientation; and the finding that when infant boys are surgically and socially “changed” into girls, their eventual sexual orientation is unchanged (i.e., they remain sexually attracted to females). In contrast, evidence for the most commonly hypothesized social causes of homosexuality—sexual recruitment by homosexual adults, patterns of disordered parenting, or the influence of homosexual parents—is generally weak in magnitude and distorted by numerous confounding factors....The most common meaningful controversy across time and place has concerned the extent to which homosexuality is socially influenced and, more specifically, whether or not it spreads as a result of contagion and social tolerance. There is no good evidence that either increases the rate of homosexual orientation, although tolerance may facilitate behavioral expression of homosexual desire. (Emphasis added.)

Your quote from the American Psychological Association contradicts none of this and in fact aligns with what the review says about "no specific causal theory". (It's also not a "meta-analysis".) APA is right that there is no consensus about the "exact reasons", but there is strong evidence favoring the biological class of explanations and only weak and confounded evidence regarding the socially-learned class. The single sociological study you link concludes by saying, We should stress that present findings do not support the contention that sexual orientation (the underlying compass that directs our sexual/romantic feelings) can be changed. Rather we show that how people understand and label their experiences can influenced by exposure to certain theories of sexual orientation, which arguably more accurately reflect their underlying feelings. So no, they don't believe that social influence actually changes people's underlying actual sexual orientation.

There is no good reason to remove any review article, and while that genetic study is an important scientific contribution, it is but one of many individual studies on genetic data. It is not WP:DUE to emphasize it so heavily in the WP:LEAD. Crossroads 05:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all you are trying to twist what is said at APA site. What they say is:Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.. (Emphasis added). They specifically state that nature AND nurture play role. Second, why at do you think that this one review should be considered as the source of last truth? Once again I gave you several links that contradict what you say and you continue to state that they should be discarded. Why is it so? It is the largest study so far, peer reviewed and accepted too one of the most famous and recognized science magazines. What authority do you have to say that it is not true? And yes, APA did meta-analysis and article on there site is the result of it. Your statement that "but there is strong evidence favoring the biological class of explanations and only weak and confounded evidence regarding the socially-learned class." is just not true as the largest study to date states and many other studies before that. All you have is one review which you try to make a single source of truth. Nobody has found a "gay gene" and never will as the study I presented shows. What kind of "biological class of explanations" is that exactly that explain it all? Even in your review they say that all the studies before struggle from methodological difficulties and now at last we have one with huge sample size and you want to discard it. Moreover, no previous studies have shown 100% concordance when studying identical twins which itself suggests that nurture plays huge role(75% at least specifically). The best what was shown is 52% concordance and it was poorly made, suffered from methodological difficulties and no other study ever shown anything similar. "So no, they don't believe that social influence actually changes people's underlying actual sexual orientation." - don't twist what they say, my friend. They didn't say that it is not nurture, they said that it which arguably more accurately reflect their underlying feelings.. You have to stress arguably here. If you are exposed to certain traditions in childhood it could be very hard to change your behavior but that doesn't mean those traditions are result of genetics. That's obvious. And also they included word arguably there which says that it is just their opinion at best. I can give you another hypothesis. Besides the topic is very sensitive and they might just be politically correct. And by the way, there are plenty of examples when people changed their sexual orientation with one of the most famous examples is Michael_Glatze. "There is no good reason to remove any review article," - ok, let's not remove it. Let's rephrase and present all of the opinions including APA's. Currently the article is heavily biased toward one specific opinion which is obviously not consensus and not representative. "it is but one of many individual studies on genetic data. " - once again it's not "one of many" it's the largest study to date with the sample size at lest 100 times more than any other. You can not just discard it. Currently WP:DUE is being violated by presenting review you mentioned before like it is the consensus but it is not. My statement is that currently the wiki article is heavily biased and doesn't include diversity of opinions of scientists and violates WP:DUE. Environmental factors play huge role in forming of homosexual behavior as shown by many peer reviewed papers including largest study to date(sample size at least 100 times more than any previous one) and it is just unfair and misleading to reject it. What we should do is to change the phrasing of what is written on the page to include diversity of opinions until scientific community reach the consensus. Lpsspp (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources that you have presented contradict the sources we have that scientists favor biological theories. The APA mentions "hormonal, developmental" alongside genetic before mentioning socio-cultural factors, and a lot of the confusion here seems to stem from the fact that there are many routes of explanation that are biological but non-genetic. Such things can also sometimes be referred to as "nurture" or "environmental" in contrast to genetics, but they are still biological. The hypothesized cause of the fraternal birth order effect illustrates this. Almost all, if not all, the ongoing research on the causes of one's actual, psychological sexual orientation focuses on biological routes of causation. While it is true that it is not definitely known that it is 100% biological, scientists do favor this class of explanations. Pointing to Michael Glatze, who became a conservative Christian, doesn't support your case. There is no good evidence that people who claim to be ex-gay have been able to change their sexual orientation, and conversion therapy does not work. Crossroads 15:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources that you have presented contradict the sources we have that scientists favor biological theories That is just not true. APA explicitly states that " Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.". The APA mentions "hormonal, developmental" alongside genetic before mentioning socio-cultural factors - ahhhh, and so what. Why did you decide that order there plays any role? Is it stated somewhere? Actually they state completely the opposite: no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Stop twisting what they say please. to stem from the fact that there are many routes of explanation that are biological but non-genetic - APA explicitly state that sociocultural factors play role as well. Stop cherry-picking. Such things can also sometimes be referred to as "nurture" or "environmental" in contrast to genetics, but they are still biological - that is just not true. Sociocultural factors are not biological, nurture is not biological, that's complete nonsense. Collins dictionary defines norture as "Nurture is care that is given to someone while they are growing and developing.". Cambrige dictionary defines it as "the way in which children are treated as they are growing, especially as compared with the characteristics they are born with". So clearly not "biological". "The hypothesized cause of the fraternal birth order effect illustrates this" - fraternal birth effect is not nurture. It's clear as a day. And it's not proven. "Almost all, if not all, the ongoing research on the causes of one's actual, psychological sexual orientation focuses on biological routes of causation" - that is not true. The paper(the largest study todate with two orders of magnitude more sample size than any other) I presented to you specifically states that sociocultural factors should be considered.I, once again, don't understand why you are trying to reject it, it is the most accurate study to date we have. It seems like a huge bias from you. While it is true that it is not definitely known that it is 100% biological, scientists do favor this class of explanations - you keep repeating this but it's not true. APA states this explicitly and you keep ignoring it. Do you have any related education to rebut what they say? ointing to Michael Glatze, who became a conservative Christian, doesn't support your case - it clearly supports the case that people cane change their sexuality. It doesn't matter how he did it and who he became. The fact is he changed his sexual behavior from being gay to being straight. Your personal bias towards Christianity is not relatable here. There is no good evidence that people who claim to be ex-gay have been able to change their sexual orientation, and conversion therapy does not work - I didn't say anything about conversion therapy and how exactly he did that. I just said that he changed his sexuality. Are you trying to say that you don't believe him and he is still gay? Please elaborate on that because your point here is unclear. And speaking of your statement that it "doesn't work" - it is not true once again. Actually APA states that There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation. not that it doesn't work. And Although there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., group membership and affiliation), behavior, and values (Nicolosi, Byrd, & Potts, 2000). They did so in a variety of ways and with varied and unpredictable outcomes, some of which were temporary (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). Again they never stated that it didn't work and actually say that some changed their sexual behavior. Also please answer why you suggest that the paper you're referring to should be the single source of truth where other sources suggest different things? Once again: APA statement clearly says that sociocultural environment considered as one of the factors. The paper I provided states that sociocultural environment should definitely be considered in future studies. This study for example says that The etiology of human same-sex romantic attraction is generally framed in terms of (1) social influences, (2) genetic influences, or (3) hormonal influences. In this article, we show that adolescent males who are opposite-sex twins are twice as likely as expected to report same-sex attraction; and that the pattern of concordance (similarity across pairs) of same-sex preference for sibling pairs does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context. Our data falsify the hormone transfer hypothesis by isolating a single condition that eliminates the opposite-sex twin effect we observe-the presence of an older same-sex sibling. We also consider and reject a speculative evolutionary theory that rests on observing birth-order effects on same-sex orientation. In contrast, our results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.. This study says Univariate analyses showed that familial factors were important for all traits, but were less successful in distinguishing genetic from shared environmental influences.. So I completely don't get why you're saying that environmental factors play any role here. Virtualy every study you take states that genes play some role but environmental(physical or sociocultural) play it as well. Lpsspp (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the very same Lisa Diamond who is co-autor of the article you are referring to seems to has changed her mind and says now that "born this way" argument is not scientifically accurate and that sexuality can change. Lpsspp (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, I propose you don't expend your energy on this rathe-ripe editor, who came here citing the little-known essay Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary and speaks of the possibility of sexual orientation change efforts working. If the editor wants to argue for sexual orientation change efforts/conversion therapy, they know where to find those articles and their talk pages. If the editor wants to continue to argue that we should remove the well-supported "Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation, however, are weak, especially for males.", I don't doubt that they also know where to find WP:DR. There's nothing to argue here. The evidence is much stronger for biological causes, including prenatal environment. Scientists haven't dismissed the role of non-biological factors, but neither have they given them as much weight as they've given biological factors. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Enlightenedstranger0 I suggest you read what other people write before you try to criticize them. Because your statements are full of fallacies and gross propaganda-like twisting of my words. the little-known essay Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary - what is exactly wrong with that page, except that you don't like it because it doesn't serve your purposes? {{and speaks of the possibility of sexual orientation change efforts working.}} - I never made any statement of conversion therapy working or not. All I did was citing APA which is respectful psychological organization which says that "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation". It is a scientific fact. If this fact doesn't fit into your picture of the world it's entirely your problem not the problem of the facts. If you have any arguments against what is said at APA site you should write them and express your concerns involving scientific facts. You have to learn how to convey a conversation without lying. If the editor wants to continue to argue that we should remove the well-supported "Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation, however, are weak, especially for males.", - first of all, we should rephrase it yes. Second of all once again as APA and other scientific papers state this hypothesis is not as "well-supported" as you wish to portray that. The only proof for that is paper which co-autor Lisa Diamond later gave speech and explicitly said that "born this way argument is not scientific". Once again if the facts contradict your worldview it's entirely your problem. There's nothing to argue here. The evidence is much stronger for biological causes, including prenatal environment - that is just false. The largest study suggests that environment plays huge role. Do you have education required to asses which scientific paper is correct and which is not? Scientists haven't dismissed the role of non-biological factors, but neither have they given them as much weight as they've given biological factors. - that is once again pure lying in favor of your world view. You have to read the latest papers on the topic and talk Lisa Diamond(lesbian by the way) gave on TED. Conclusion: please stop twisting my words and start presenting proofs of what you say instead of pure statements. You are not at a rally here. Lpsspp (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggested to Crossroads not to expend energy rebutting you. I don't want to expend energy doing so either. I realize you've been eager to talk with (to) me, but I'm not going to bite in the way you want me to. Obviously, by saying you're "a rathe-ripe editor, who came here citing the little-known essay Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary", I'm saying you're awfully familiar with Misplaced Pages for someone with as few edits as you have. I don't know what you think you know about my education, but whatever you think you know is a product of your imagination and not relevant to this discussion. Personal attacks such as "You have to learn how to convey a conversation without lying" and "Do you have education required to asses which scientific paper is correct and which is not?" won't help you. I will say I studied abroad before returning to the place I was raised. Then left again. Blah, blah, bah. And by the way, I'm sure you meant "assess" and not "asses."

But enough about me. No one here has twisted your words. You did argue for the possibility of sexual orientation change efforts working. They don't work. You've also misrepresented Diamond here. You appear to be under the impression that Crossroads and I are arguing for a gay gene or that sexual orientation is mostly due to genetics. We aren't. We're saying, like the review does, that there's much more evidence for biological causes. Non-biological causes don't appear to have no role, but the research so far indicates that they do not have a big role, especially when males are considered. We know scientists say "complex roles" in terms of biological and non-biological impacts on sexual orientation. This article says it in the first ~~sentence~~ paragraph. So you added information that is already there and not required. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You also appear to be neglecting other biological factors, such as prenatal environment and hormones. The study you're so happy to use focuses on genes. It is not a review of the literature on the causes of sexual orientation. According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:DUE, it should not be made a priority, used to trump a literature review, or given the same standing as a literature review. Certainly not when the literature review is only a few years old and regards a landscape that moves at a snail's pace. The APA statement is a much older statement, doesn't support what you argue here, and they've made other statements on the research since then. It also is not a review. WP:MEDORG says that the reliability of statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies "ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." You added, "Other possible factors proposed by authors included sociocultural environment." How does the underlying literature support sociocultural environment for the causes of sexual orientation as much as it supports biological causes? What is this "sociocultural environment" you're referring to? Crossroads may want to revisit this discussion and look at any others that have been had about this genes subject in the past. Lazy-restless seems to have been quite the character. You're similar to Lazy-restless, but not an exact match. I'm going to add an edit warring template to your talk page since you've reverted two editors and are trying to shoehorn your "it's social just as much as biological" misguided view into the article. I'll leave the next move after that up to Crossroads. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

but I'm not going to bite in the way you want me to - you can think whatever you want. The fact is not everything you think is true. I'm saying you're awfully familiar with Misplaced Pages for someone with as few edits as you have - is it good or bad? Why would you mention that at all? I don't know what you think you know about my education, but whatever you think you know is a product of your imagination and not relevant to this discussion - what I'm saying is that not having relevant education merely means that you can not properly assess information presented in those articles. That is it. And by the way, I'm sure you meant "assess" and not "asses." - oh, yes, you're completely right here. I'm happy that you can distinguish those two. You did argue for the possibility of sexual orientation change efforts working - that is not true. I argued that there are people who were homosexual and then became straight. How exactly they did it is a subject for a separate study obviously. But you can not deny that such people do exist. They don't work. - that statement is a lying. There are no scientific evidence that can conclude if they work or not. You've also misrepresented Diamond here. - oh, that's obviously not true. I merely cited what she said. You can go and check yourself. Non-biological causes don't appear to have no role, but the research so far indicates that they do not have a big role, especially when males are considered. - well, APA states the opposite. As other studies do as well. We know scientists say "complex roles" in terms of biological and non-biological impacts on sexual orientation. This article says it in the first sentence paragraph. So you added information that is already there and not required. - this article misrepresents the diversity of opinions on the topic and is biased towards one specific based on one review which is chosen to be "the gold standard" for some reason. The reason for that is unknown. You also appear to be neglecting other biological factors, such as prenatal environment and hormones - that is, once again not true, if you read what I wrote carefully you'll notice that environmental factors include hormones and other biological factors along with sociocultural ones. landscape that moves at a snail's pace - quite a controversial statement. The APA statement is a much older statement, doesn't support what you argue here - and what do you think I argue? I only argue that environmental factors including sociocultural ones play role in sexual orientation. And APA's statement perfectly supports that. and they've made other statements on the research since then. - like what? Do you have a link to those "other statements"? What is this "sociocultural environment" you're referring to? - sociocultural factors may be shared or individual. Shared factors are such things as political environment, cultural environment and so on. Individual factors are such things as illnesses people were exposed to, individual sexual experience, bullying, sexual abuse(homosexual people are more likely to have had sexual abuse experience in childhood for example). You can add whatever you want it's up to you. Lpsspp (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You know why it matters if you're awfully familiar with Misplaced Pages with only a few edits to your name. But feign ignorance. What you're doing by questioning my and Crossroads's education is trying to discredit our involvement with the article and comments. You're trying to prop yourself up as being more educated, in general or on this specific topic. You haven't shown that you are more educated. But regardless of who is more educated on the topic, it's irrelevant to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. You are defending and supporting sexual orientation change efforts, and you've done it again. Saying that I'm lying after I say they don't work is you defending and supporting those pseudoscientific methods. Denying that you are supporting them adds to the perception that you aren't serious here or you know not of what you speak. It also oversimplifies the research on that topic and strongly-worded statements against the methods. "How exactly they did it is a subject for a separate study obviously."? Obviously, it's the study of sexual orientation change efforts/conversion therapy. It's certainly not called sexual fluidity, so I don't know what name you've imagined for them to justify your support of them. I can and do deny that a person can change their sexual orientation from gay to heterosexual. There's no scientific evidence that Santa Claus (the one parents tell their children about) doesn't exist either. Or definitive scientific evidence, depending on who's debating it, that Bigfoot doesn't exist. If you're going to argue that I'm lying because there is "no scientific evidence that can conclude if they work or not", then why can't someone say you're lying since we apparently can't say one way or the other? I say Bigfoot doesn't exist? That means I'm lying. Sound logic there. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Environmental factors do include hormones, but you haven't focused on that. If you had, you wouldn't have made some of the comments you have, specifically dismissing the fact that researchers give more weighty attention to biological causes than they do to social causes. That doesn't mean they disregard social environment and its interplay. There's nothing "quite controversial" about acknowledging that the study of sexual orientation moves at a snail's pace. Where's all this speedy research? You "only argue that environmental factors including sociocultural ones play role in sexual orientation"? Well, we haven't said otherwise. So that doesn't matter. What matters is your argument that sociocultural factors play as big a role as biological factors. You didn't even say "social factors." You said "sociocultural." Oh, I was so hoping you would say "parenting." I guess you know to avoid that trap, huh? As for your other arguments, I would say you're lying, but that would be uncivil. Still, whatever you were hoping to accomplish here with your questionable science beliefs and rudeness, you've failed miserably. Don't expect further replies from me. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Enlightenedstranger0, please do not hesitate to revert material that does not improve the article and is being forced in without consensus. And thanks for the replies. I have other issues on Misplaced Pages that consume my limited time, so it helps.

Appealing to Lisa Diamond supports our case, not Lpsspp's. She has been researching sexual fluidity since at least 2008, yet she co-authored the 2016 review that, as I quoted above, shows that evidence for social causes is weak, and especially for males. Her research in no way contradicts that - fluidity for how some experience attraction does not mean that social causes made them that way.

And that genetic study that keeps being touted? Other researchers have criticized it for poorly measuring what it purported to. Quoting: The overly simplistic “ever or never” behavioral phenotype used by Ganna et al. led to widespread public confusion about the meaning of their study. Most accounts of the research, both in the scientific and mass media, focused on the research’s implications for “gay genes,” “sources of same-sex attraction,” and “causes of homosexuality,” even though the study did not in fact investigate attraction or sexual orientation. This is a perfect example of why we don't rely on single studies, even with a large sample size.

The bottom line is that no sources of equivalent or greater quality have been shown that contradict that evidence for social causes are weak. This isn't to say it's impossible - it hasn't been ruled out entirely - but that is where the scientific community is at. We do go by review articles and equally authoritative sources here per WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS. Crossroads 05:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, Crossroads. Thank you for the time you have to spare. I felt that if I undid Lpsspp's edit and then gave them an edit warring notice, or vice versa, Lpsspp would then slap one on my talk page and also probably claim I was being hypocritical. We can't all undo edits again and again. WP:AN/3 doesn't want the one reporting to also be edit warring, although the admins there do seem to make a kind of exception when one editor is edit warring against two or more editors. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The bottom line is that no sources of equivalent or greater quality have been shown that contradict that evidence for social causes are weak - it is just false. I presented several sources including APA statement and largest study to date that show that social causes are considered as one of the origins of social behavior. Bottom line here is that you just ignored them all saying that they are not significant which is once again false. Lisa Diamond at her TED talk explicitly stated that "born this way" argument is not scientific anymore and sexual orientation is not fixed and can change during person's life. Appealing ti Dean Hammer is just sheer nonsense - he quit his scientific carrier and became a filmmaker. He is trying to protect his Xq28 gene hypothesis which has never been robustly confirmed(refer to Xq28 "Subsequent studies"). And once again it's not one study. You can find at least three above. Open your eyes. Lpsspp (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

From the beginning, you've appeared so triggered by me. My, I wonder why. Your first edit after returning was to add an edit warring template to my talk page. In between that time, you commented here. Finally, you added one to Crossroads's talk page. Crossroads undid your edits multiple times, but your first action is to add the template to my talk page? Interesting. WP:EW says an edit war occurs "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." I didn't repeatedly override your contributions. I undid your changes one time. Undoing an editor's edit one time is not edit warring unless a WP:0RR restriction is placed on the article. If it were edit warring, undoing an editor's edit one time would be a serious breach of policy. WP:1RR would never be implemented. That you favor the WP:ONLYREVERT essay doesn't mean there's any such rule to not undo another's edit one time. I undid your changes once and then talked it out on the talk page. So not edit warring. The fact that you hurried to add the template to my talk page is funny because, unbeknownst to you, it reveals a lot. I'd thought about saying, "But Lpsspp might add it spitefully anyway." But I knew how this would sound, and I wanted to see if you'd do it. Thank you for showing me that my deductive powers remain intact. Never truly doubted them. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Homosexuality and sex

Articles on sexual orientation are filled with claims that male homosexuality is linked to "feminization" or "demasculinization"; Why so much insistence on these assumptions? It's almost like they're "proven facts". For example, maternal immunization theoretically affects all fetuses, including those who will be heterosexual in the future, so it is just as possible that antibodies against male antigens are responsible for heterosexuality as it is for homosexuality. Nobody knows how such antibodies interact with such antigens, how cells and molecules react, if the fetus itself does not operate some kind of defense against maternal immunization, but they already assume that male homosexuality is derived from a congenital sexual deficiency. I appeal to you all to treat the hypotheses raised by these studies with the greatest care and neutrality as possible, without inferring (or categorically stating) that homosexuality is originated from sexual defects. It is all very speculative, therefore homosexuals do not deserve to be seen in the academic environment nor for Misplaced Pages readers as intersex or as people who were not very well sexually differentiated. Grateful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.95.47.193 (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Undated Citation Needed tags

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)

Categories: