Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarionTheLibrarian (talk | contribs) at 14:42, 28 June 2008 (→POV subsection based solely on Kinsey: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The good article status of this article is being reassessed by an individual editor to determine if the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page, but the decision to list the article as a good article should be left to the editor initiating this reassessment.

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.

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. 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. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Homosexuality has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 5, 2006 Good article nominee Listed

Archives

Index July 2003-August 2003 August 2003-April 2004 April 2004 April 2004-July 2004 August 2004-October 2004 October 2004-March 2005 March 2005-June 2005 June 2005-July 2005 August 2005-December 2005 January 2006-August 2006 September 2006-July 2007 September 2007-May 2008

Use of the term 'LGBT' in this article distorts history

This article contains sentences such as this, 'With the outbreak of AIDS in the early 1980s, many LGBT groups and individuals organized campaigns to promote efforts in AIDS education, prevention, research, patient support, and community outreach, as well as to demand government support for these programs.'

This misrepresents history in two ways - first, the term 'LGBT' was not used in the early 1980s and thus there were no 'LGBT' groups then, second, I'm not sure that there is any evidence that transsexuals as a group had anything to do with organizing AIDS education (the T in LGBT stands for transsexuals). The use of terms like 'LGBT' should be cut back to the few cases where they are appropriate. Skoojal (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's common in scholarly work to refer to the LGBT population in the 1980s using the term "LGBT." See, e.g., . And trans-rights activists/trans-inclusive organizations certainly were involved in responding to the HIV/AIDS crisis in the 1980s! (See, e.g., ). Fireplace (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that something is 'common in scholarly work' does not mean that it is correct. There is a serious misrepresentation of history involved here - one cannot refer to 'LGBT' groups for periods when the term was not used. It's wrong for the same reason that that it's wrong to say Stonewall began an 'LGBT' movement. Skoojal (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's propaganda to talk about the 'LGBT' community, as the article sometimes does. There is no such thing. Skoojal (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

About your last point, the Oxford American Dictionary defines "community" in various ways, among them these three:

"A group of people having . . . a particular characteristic in common the scientific community";
"a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals";
"a similarity or identity".

Each of these is arguably applicable to the term "LGBT community". I'm not sure what your specific objection is or why you think the wording is "propaganda", but I looked at each instance where it appears in the article and couldn't see a particular problem.

I'm really unclear on your earlier point. Are you saying that something doesn't exist until it's named? Was there no intelligence or justice in the world before those terms entered the language? How about quasars or DNA? Rivertorch (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not at all obvious that there is a 'feeling of fellowship with others' that would justify use of 'LGBT.' Far from it - bisexuals are not necessarily welcome to people in the gay community, lesbian women and gay men are not necessarily welcome in each other's communities, and transsexuals are not necessarily welcome among non-transsexuals. There is a lot of mutual hostility and no all embracing 'community.' Hence my use of the word propaganda. Skoojal (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As for 'similarity or identity', this is also not applicable. It seems that one of the purposes of 'LGBT' is to suggest an equivalence between homosexuality and transsexualism, which are distinct conditions. 'A group of people having a particular characteristic in common' is wrong for the same reason. Skoojal (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means that it's wrong to retroactively label people who may never have applied that label to themselves; especially one that didn't even exist at the time. --G2bambino (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely what I mean. It's obviously wrong to try to re-write the past to try to make it conform to a current agenda. Skoojal (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but we use retroactive labeling all the time. To label a community "LGBT" isn't to say its members necessarily self-identify or self-identified as such. As human knowledge increases and is more widely disseminated, we apply lots of terms to past people, events, and phenomena that wouldn't have been applied in their day, it seems to me. Rivertorch (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That the idea that people can be meaningfully or usefully characterized as 'LGBT' is knowledge, rather than say belief or opinion, is something that needs to be argued. It certainly is not obviously true; nor does the assumption of one group of scholars that it is true make it true. Skoojal (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe people do use retroactive labeling all the time, but that doesn't make it scholarly or correct. It gives the impression that the acronym 'LGBT' existed in the 80s, and that the associated cooperation between groups of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people was already established. I can't say I'm particularly knowledgable about the subject, but were there even transgender and bisexual groups organising campaigns to promote efforts in AIDS education, prevention, research, patient support, and community outreach in the 80s? --G2bambino (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For responses to each of these two points, see the citations I provided in my initial response to Skoojal. Fireplace (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems you searched for the terms "transgender activism AIDS 1980s." That may confirm there were transgender activists against AIDS in the 80s, but still no mention of bisexually identified people, any organised cooperation amongst the four groups, or any mention of the acronym "LGBT." --G2bambino (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For bisexuals, see . Regarding use of the term LGBT, it's uncontroversial that activists from those four groups have been politically aligned (with occasional schisms) since Stonewall. The term is commonly used to describe the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender population in the 1980s in scholarly work. For coordination, see . It's just shorthand -- it's not imposing a new conceptual framework (cf. using 'homosexual' to describe Socrates, which is problematic for that reason). Now, obviously there's room for a lot more to be said, including about the exclusion of bi and trans people from the mainstream gay and lesbian political agenda, the dominance within the gay and lesbian political agenda of issues disproportionately affecting white upper-middle class gay men, the impact of AIDS on various LGBT subcultures (trans sex workers, e.g.), etc. All that is well-documented, and just needs an impassioned editor to take up its cause. But this issue is making a mountain out of a molehill -- it's just shorthand, and it's widely used by the scholarly community. Fireplace (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaving wishful thinking aside, 'with occasional schisms' is just not correct. In particular, it is not correct where transsexuals are concerned. There has been long-standing hostility between male-to-female transsexuals and lesbians, for instance; these groups are generally not allies at all, but enemies. Thus one can't honestly talk about an 'LGBT' community - it is an aspiration, not a reality. And to repeat myself, the use of a term in scholarly work does not prove that it is correct. Skoojal (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not really qualified to comment on how coherent the LGBT community was (or whether it was a community at all), but if consensus determines that it is, how about adding a footnote saying something like "although the term LGBT was not coined / did not come into widespread use until "? That prevents the article from giving the impression that the acronym 'LGBT' existed in the 80s as G2bambino says. Given that clarification I see no problem in retroactive relabelling in itself: shall we cease referring to the "Ancient Greeks" since they never called themselves that? Olaf Davis | Talk 20:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

'Consensus' can say what it likes, but in reality there is no such thing as the 'LGBT community'. Refering to the 'LGBT community' for periods when that term was not used has nothing in common with refering in English to 'the ancient Greeks.' There is no other term that can be used in English to describe the Greeks; there are other English terms that can be used to describe the so-called LGBT community. Skoojal (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't it be used as a backdated, general term? Obviously, if there were other elements such as SexRadical or SexRef which have since departed the LGBT movement, it needs noting. forestPIG 10:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse, the content of Misplaced Pages articles is decided by consensus, so if consensus 'says what it likes' then that's what we get.

What term do you propose instead of 'LGBT communties', Skoojal? Olaf Davis | Talk 15:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The article could use any term that was actually used at the time to describe any phase of the gay movement. 'Gay and lesbian' would probably do just fine. If any particular phase of the movement involved transsexuals, then mention them, preferably with a cite to show their involvement. Skoojal (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion strikes me a bit pointless. From my outside perspective I have to say that the term to be used is what can be attributed to reliable sources. Despite assertions that it is incorrect, the criteria for inclusion in Misplaced Pages appears to be verifiability not truth. If, as Fireplace says, the common term in scholarly literature is LGBT, then that is the term to be used unless reliable sources can be produced that state otherwise, likewise if a footnote disclaimer is to be included about use of the term in the 1980s, it too must be reliably sourced, otherwise it's a no-go. Since Skoojal has not produced a single source to back up his/her assertions, I'd say it's a moot point. Just my input based on what I have read of policy.--Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The assumption that terms used commonly in scholarly literary must be correct is odd. Scholarly literature can be as tendentious as any other kind of literature. I'm not rushing to change the use of 'LGBT' in this article, but will probably be doing so in future, as the term is an anachronism as applied to the 1980s. Skoojal (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source to cite that agrees with you that it's an anachronism, that may well be worth mentioning in the article. But I don't think you've quite made the case that the usage is inappropriate here. I concur with Aujourd'hui re verifiability. Rivertorch (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, you said "The assumption that terms used commonly in scholarly literary must be correct is odd" in response to Aujourd'hui, but Aujourd'hui had just pointed out that it's not correctness we have to determine but verifiability. Since we're a tertiary source, if scholarly publications use a particular term then it's appropriate for us to repeat it. If those scholars are wrong then we have to wait for other reliable sources to point that out. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the term LGBT wasn't used until the 1990s. I will find a source for this. Using the term for what happened before then is an anachronism, which isn't justified even if scholars do it. Skoojal (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Africa and Azande society

I'm reverting the good-faith edit by Haiduc for two reasons. First, the paragraph was already sourced and mentioned husbands, not wives. If someone (Haiduc?) has the work in question or can access it, perhaps we can know for sure which term, if either, Evans-Pritchard used. (If not, how about "spouses"?) Second, the precise nature of the sexual acts and Azande attitudes toward other acts seem excessively detailed for this article; nowhere else in the History section is there anywhere near that level of detail, so it's inconsistent and breaks the flow. IMHO. Rivertorch (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the text of Evans-Pritchard's report is online here. Since the source mentions how they related I would accept that formulation (i.e. "intercrural"), and leave the further details for the Azande article. Haiduc (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong with the text

Currently there is a sentence in the part about American Indian practices that must be a mistake:

Their sexual life would be with the ordinary tribe members of the opposite sex. Male two-spirit people were prized as wives because of their greater strength and ability to work.

This says that individuals with male primary sexual characteristics had their "sexual live" with ordinary tribe members having female primary sexual characteristics, and that these same individuals with male primary sexual characteristics were prizes as wives -- by whom? Surely not by individuals with female primary sexual characteristics. So "opposite" above ought to be "same," no?

Someone with the ability to temporarily unlock this page, please fix this part. P0M (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I second the motion. I saw that sentence and wondered about it, too. Textorus (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the article's only semi-protected so any auto-confirmed user can edit it. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

GA reassessment

This article is currently listed as a GA, but there are several problems with it. Here are some things to fix:

• There are entire sections and paragraphs with few to no citations.
• The lead defines homosexuality more than it summarizes the main points of the article, which is the purpose of the lead. See WP:LEAD.
• Some of the citations are misplaced. They need to be after punctuation with no space between the punctuation and the number.
• The issues brought up in the cleanup tags (worldview or citations needed) need to be addressed.
• Some of the websites used as references need to be formatted with Template:cite web.
• The book sources used in the references need page numbers.

I'll give the editors of this article a week to address these issues, at which time I may refer the article to Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment. Good luck, and happy editing! Nikki311 19:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the misplaced citations. (I think I caught them all. Context demands that citation 114 appear before the ellipsis.) A thorough copyedit—or two or three—is also indicated; I saw some other issues. Can we really rewrite the lead in one week(!)? Rivertorch (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I find that the easiest way to rewrite the lead is to include one sentence from every first level header. I don't mind helping, if need be. Nikki311 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Another issue I would like to bring up for GA reassessment is the lack of information on HIV and other STDs. Only a brief mention is given in the political section, while this seems to have played a major contribution to bringing homosexuality to the mainstream and other changes in the gay culture. There is a large number of homosexuals who are struggle from this dreaded disease, and ignoring it doesn't help their cause. Joshuajohanson (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and also this article lacks much depth in religious views on homosexuality (such as in the Biblical Book of Leviticus and in the Koran and wherever). Additionally, the section on Mideast/South/Central Asia history is totally unsourced, even containing those dreaded "citation needed" tags! Furthermore, "sexual orientation and the law" section is limited to an Americentric view. Although I live in the U.S. I'd like editors to add how other countries approach that subject. Ditto with the section "parenting". And finally, I think this article is skewed in favor of homosexuality as it lacks much information about the numerous anti-gay organizations in the world. I'm sorry if i'm being homophobic right there, but that's the spirit of NPOV. Of course once these problems (and maybe some others) are resolved then this article can be GA again. But for now I motion to delist this article please.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a complete separate article about Religion and homosexuality, which is linked from the corresponding section in this article. It was split out so that the topic could be given more in-depth discussion than is appropriate in an encyclopedic summary of homosexuality. FCYTravis (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment about the lead... it does need work per WP:LEAD, but WP:LEAD notwithstanding, it is standard practice in encyclopedic-like treatments of homosexuality to begin with the information contained in the first three paragraphs, and I feel strongly that they should stay, even if they are longer relative to the other content in the lead. Fireplace (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Andrewlp1991's comment above, homophobia has nothing whatsoever to do with "the spirit of NPOV". Neither does racism, sexism, or any other form of prejudice. Regarding the alleged lack of info on anti-gay organizations, the fact that there is organized bigotry in the world doesn't need to be noted in detail in every potentially relevant article. Rivertorch (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-gay isn't the right word. Many of these organizations have started to reach out to gays while still denouncing gay sex. Pro-family might be the better choice. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What does reaching out to gays but denouncing gay sex mean? Is that the old and tired "hate the sin, love the sinner"? That's still anti-gay. Gay people aren't that gay without the sex, which is the focus of most anti-gay groups. --Moni3 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not the place for euphemisms. "Pro-family" is utterly bereft of meaning in most cases and certainly should not be used in an encyclopedia article to cloak the intentions of political organizations who seek to dehumanize and discriminate against groups of human beings. Gay people have families, too, after all. Moni is correct about ""hate the sin, love the sinner": in practice, that phrase can be translated as "We tolerate you as long as you stay in your place, i.e., invisible". Rivertorch (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And who says all gays have gay sex? Love the sinner may not even apply in many cases. Anyhow, it isn't for us Wikipedians to make those types of decisions. We simply report their position and then let the facts speak for themselves. Excluding them because we disagree with them is not acceptable for a GA level article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me this has little to do with personal disagreements and everything to do with creating a clearly-written, neutral article. You cite section 3.3 of WP:NPOV—let the facts speak for themselves—but what are the facts, anyway? Reporting a political organization's position does not necessarily equate with presenting its stated position as fact. Calling political organizations with anti-gay agendas "pro-family" makes about as much sense as calling the Nazi Party of the 1930s "pro-Germany"; it is euphemistic and obfuscatory, and it carries the deeply offensive implication that there is something "anti-family" about gay people. To answer your question, nobody here, to my knowledge, said or even implied that "all gays have gay sex" any more than anyone said that all straights have straight sex, so it's unclear what your point is. I agree with you that excluding facts because we disagree with them is not acceptable for a GA-level article—assuming they're verifiably facts, relevant to the subject at hand, and can be incorporated into the article in a structured, logical way. Actually, I'd go further: excluding them is not acceptable for any article. What does it mean to disagree with a fact, anyway? Rivertorch (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then let's include the facts. Let's include in the political section some opposition to gay rights movements. Let's include in the religious section that these religions say they are reaching out to gays. Let's present the history sections fairly and not shade the truth to make it seem like every culture in the existence of the world has always accepted gay relationships. Let's talk openly about AIDS and some other negative consequences of gay sex. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that many stories should be told about cultural and historical values, ones that value homosexuality, ones that take no notice of it any different than heterosexuality, and those that condemn it with force. However, I still think you need to clarify what "reaching out to gays" means. Does that mean accepting them as they are and welcoming them as the United Church of Christ, Society of Friends, and Metropolitan Community Church does, or does that mean inviting them in to tell them the beauty of God's word, which also includes gentle admonishments to stop having sex and deny who they are? --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In order to stop having sex, they need to be having sex. Again I ask, who says gays have gay sex? Also, I've never seen any church teach that gays need to deny anything. Many gays live either a celibate or heterosexual lifestyle and are happy with their church which teaches against gay sex. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, understood that there are as many types of sexualities as there are people and labels are deficient. However, you didn't answer the request to clarify what "reaching out to gays" means. --Moni3 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First, acknowledge their existence, express love for them, speak positively about them, teach there is no sin in the orientation, dispel myths about them, set up groups and program that help them accomplish their goals, train clergy on how to minister to them compassionately. Stuff like that. All that can be done without accepting sex outside of a heterosexual marriage. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(reset) So, and I am genuinely curious, how would the members of such an outreach program react to two men or two women holding hands during Bible Study, or kissing each other after taking communion? Not anything hot or heavy, just on the mouth pecking? --Moni3 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that depends on the congregation. I know Melissa Fryrear goes around the country and shares her story in the Love Won Out conference of showing up at a conservative Christian congregation with her girlfriend and being warmly accepted. Of course, Love Won Out is probably more accepting of that type of stuff than a regular conservative church. I would imagine that there are several extremely conservative churches that are chalk full of homophobes that wouldn't take too kindly to that. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm looking elsewhere on the talk page and I think that the stability for this article is slipping, in addition to claims of POV disputes within sections. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Joshua, two different paragraphs in the article discuss AIDS. Work needs to be done there because the context isn't well defined and the information provided is skimpy. But suggestions such as "Let's talk openly about AIDS and some other negative consequences of gay sex" are really not constructive at all. If we're going for increased factuality in the article, we probably should try to not to spout glaring factual errors on the talk page, either. And no matter how you slice it, AIDS is not a consequence of gay sex. For the record, AIDS is a complex medical syndrome associated with a long-term immune deficiency, which scientific consensus has affirmed is a consequence of HIV infection, which is communicated by a transfer of some types of bodily fluids. The majority of HIV infections worldwide, and a sizable minority of them in the developed world, are not associated with same-sex intercourse. I don't know—and at this point am frankly afraid to hear—the "other negative consequences of gay sex" to which you refer, but I think you'll find, if you look into it, that negative consequences can and do result from lots of forms of sex, regardless of the gender or genders of the participants. In any case, this article isn't about sex or disease or negative consequence, it's about homosexuality, and we should take care not to introduce too much tangential information into an already long article.

One other point. It may well be true that certain religious bodies are beginning to take small steps away from previously hate-based attitudes toward gay people. If this can be verified through a reliable source, and the number is sizable enough to indicate a trend, then it probably merits a brief mention in the article. It's important we not overstate the situation, however; the absence of open hostility isn't the same thing as acceptance, after all, and the religious bodies in question are holding gay members to a vastly different standard than straight members. Rivertorch (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Marriage and civil unions

Same sex marriage is now be legal in California as of June 17, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.105.213 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is actually legal now, the court has until 17 June to stay its ruling in anticipation of a proposed discrimination amendment to the California constitution. I've updated the text ... map already reflects California's new status.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Mental Health

"Negative societal attitudes toward homosexuality contribute to stress and related mental disorders, and even suicide, in the LGBT community. However, there is evidence that the liberalization of these attitudes over the past few decades has resulted in a decrease in such mental health risks among younger LGBT people" This statement shows clear bias towards the LGBT community and encourages people not to discriminate. That is not the job of wikipedia. Mattjones17 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not "bias" to say that certain actions have certain consequences. If you want to perform those actions, and to live with the consequences, then who's stopping you? No one's telling anyone what to do. The section doesn't say, "Don't do X because Y will happen." It's saying, "If X happens, then Y will happen." It's stating facts, not values. Are you aware of information that conflicts with what the section already says? If so, then feel free to add it. If not, then I'm not quite sure what you're expecting to accomplish. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the first sentence Mattjones refers to is not cited. (The source at the end of that paragraph only supports the second sentence) It would be good if someone interested in the subject would get a source for this. Although, I have to say, I wonder if we should do a reality check here, since we are asking for a source to support the assertion that "negative societal attitudes" against a person are likely to make them feel bad. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

ForesticPig's change of wording to denote correlation rather than causation seems reasonable. I did change "some evidence" to "evidence", since the former is essentially meaningless in literal terms but possibly implies less than ample evidence. What's really weaselly is the "are said to" phrase. Either we find something worthwhile to cite and return to the former wording or the whole sentence should go. Rivertorch (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My own modification should suffice, no? forestPIG 17:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the first sentence of the section is problematic. The phrase "are said to" is an example of weasel words. We need to either state it as fact and provide a citation to back it up or else discard it entirely. I am dealing with several deadlines today and can't possibly do any research until tomorrow at the earliest, but I'll begin by looking for a study regarding suicide and gay youth conducted in Massachusetts in the late '80s or early '90s (unless somebody beats me to it). Rivertorch (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Refusal to use the term "Gay" as an alternative to "male homosexuality" (or more recently, "homosexuality" in general).

My refusal to use "Gay" as a quasi-euphemism for "male homosexuality" has nothing to do with homophobia. Gore Vidal, at least as renowned for defending homosexuality as normal as he is as a man of letters, also refuses to use Gay in that context for the same reason: its origin. “Gay” was used as a code-word by New York “flamers”: grossly effeminate homosexuals whose sexuality was all-too-obvious. In 1969 came the famous incident of the patrons of one of New York’s homosexual pubs, rather than meekly enduring another raid, fought back, lobbing bottles of liquor, like hand grenades, forcing the NYCPD to hide for protection and beat a hasty exit. (It was so routine, no one bothered to bring a phone to call for reinforcements.) The sight of Gotham’s Finest fleeing for their lives from the Fluffy Sweater SWAT Squad was the No. 1 media event of that and several evenings running. So as to make it truly a media event, the most outrageous queen around was selected as the “Spokesman for the ‘Community’.” He/she/it objected to “homosexual”; it sounded too “medicinal”; instead, the media should use the word the insiders used: GAY!

So as the result of the ukase of an “authority” chosen for being a Standing Embarrassment, the word meaning “carefree, fun-loving, & jolly” was now also to mean “male homosexual”. Also? Actually, the original meaning of the word seems to be lost. Now, “gay” means only “male homosexual”. Increasingly, the “male” is being dropped. If Lesbian works for females, how about Spartan for males? There’s stronger evidence that same-sex bonding took place among the Spartans (and in Thebes), than that Sappho was a muff-diver.

= But GAY, NO WAY! = 71.105.197.135 (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC) G. J. Lehmann 13 June 2008

Errr... that's nice, but it's a personal opinion. I'm glad you want to reform the English language for your own personal reasons, but, uh, this isn't the place to do it. This is an encyclopedia.

Also, ukase? Seriously? em zilch (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction: having older brothers leads to higher/lower probabilities of homosexuality, according to two different sections of this article

In Section "Fraternal birth order":

There is evidence from numerous studies that homosexual men tend to have more older brothers than do heterosexual men, known as the "fraternal birth order effect." One reported that each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33%.

In Section "Environment": Having an older brother decreases the rate of homosexuality. Bearman explains that an older brother establishes gendersocializing mechanisms for the younger brother to follow, which allows him to compensate for unisex treatment. 88.218.80.131 (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire "Environment" section is quite dubious anyway... the cited "sources" and research are not in line with overwhelming accepted science. The source to a "Comprehensive Psychiatry" journal even says it provides highly divergent viewpoints. This whole section should either be eliminated or reduced with an appropriate disclaimer such as in the "pathological" section.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no evidence whatsoever to support this "maternal immune hypothesis" bullshit. I know I put such a disclaimer in the text, but I don't think it has any place in this article if there is no scientific study to support it. Propose removing entire second paragraph, except for the sentence

Interestingly, this relation seems to hold only for right-handed males. There has been no observed equivalent for women.

which can be inserted into the middle of the 1st paragraph. Hypotheticals can be discussed on the fraternal birth order page itself.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That statement from the Bearman study only applies to men with a female twin. The Comprehensive Psychiatry journal is in line with accepted science. Every major medical organization points to environmental factors in combination with biological factors. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that environmental factors don't exist. I'm saying that the conjectures about over-involved father, mother, maladjustment pathologies, etc. in this specific citation don't match with accepted science. This falls under WP:QS. "Every major medical organization" probably doesn't have an opinion on origins of human sexuality, but if you have references, please bring them to this page.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Comprehensive Psychiatry journal doesn't talk about over-involved father, mother, maladjustment pathologies, etc. It talks about "paternal protection and maternal care" and "paternal attachment, introversion, and neurotic characteristics." I think parents play a huge role in the environment you grow up in. The main pages says that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." What environmental influences are those if they aren't the parents? The biology and sexual orientation page states "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles." The journal seems to be inline with what science is saying. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your first sentence is six of one, half-dozen of the other. Let's not get caught up on semantics. Your following sentences are simply restating what you said in your previous post, with which I said I agree, this is what accepted science says. However, despite the fact that the environment hypothesis is easily citable, and possibly "accepted science", the "paternal..." or however you want to call it is certainly NOT in line with accepted mainstream research. Like I said (now I'm restating), even the journal itself states: "for clinicians and investigators of markedly divergent concepts, methods and orientations." No matter your POV, it's not really appropriate to include single studies which have not held up to peer review and repetition. As far environment, this can include in-utero conditions, what the child is fed, if he's breast-fed, his peers at school, his siblings, extra-curricular activities... innumerable things besides just parental personalities.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said environment was JUST parental personalities. You say "it is certainly NOT in line with accepted mainstream research". Why do you say that? Environmental influences is one of the things that determines sexual orientation, apart from hormonal influences such as in-utero conditions. You said it hasn't been held up to peer review and repetition. It was printed in a peer-reviewed journal and has been repeated by numerous studiesstudies. I don't know where you are coming from. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It is an unforunate mess, from an encyclopedia's point of view. The science has lots of good evidence for a biological basis of male sexual orientation, no good evidence for a non-biological basis for male sexual orientation, and some mediocre evidence for both influences on female sexual orientation. So, although it is true that major professional organizations have statements saying that sexual orientation is a mix, they are really talking about sexual orientation broadly (both male and female), rather than making more precise and accurate statements. There is even some very good (but new) evidence that sexual orientation in females is organized entirely differently from sexual orientation in males.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

People seem to have different ideas about what does and does not count as good evidence. If you're saying that the evidence available thus far shows that male sexual orientation is inborn and not affected by post-natal factors, I totally disagree. The article has to present such controversies neutrally. Skoojal (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Prevalence

First off, Marion is almost certainly right that 2% to 4% is the best estimate. That does not mean that this estimate can simply be presented as fact, without a qualifier about how making a reliable estimate is difficult. Also, as I pointed out, estimates do vary widely, up to about 10%. I don't for one moment think that that high estimate is correct, but that does not stop people from making it, and the article needs to reflect that. Skoojal (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be qualified that this estimate is the percentage of people who answer affirmatively over an anonymous phone poll. Most people agree that it's a low estimate because many are not even out of the closet, and many more, although otherwise out, would not say so over the phone to someone they didn't know. It also really depends on how the question is phrased ... Kinsey found 37% of males had at least one homosexual experience. Does this mean they could be considered homosexual? What about one who knows he's homosexual but has never had an experience? It's very complex.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I can say only what the research literature says, which has been roughly 2-4% in every representative poll ever conducted. There are people who say it's low (those people almost always being activists, or students of activists, who benefit from higher estimates), but there is little scientific basis for saying so: Although 2-4% say that are homosexual, higher proportions will say that they ever sexually experimented or had a same-sex fantasy and so on. So, although it seems intuitive to say that not everyone would answer yes to being in a stigmatized group, it is much harder to make the case that people hide some stigmatized characteristics and not others. Moreover, 2-4% is pretty constant across countries, despite the differences in stimga between those countries. If stigma greatly affected the estimates, then one would expect the rates to differ by country, and they do not seem to.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Marion, you wrote, 'it is much harder to make the case that people hide some stigmatized characteristics and not others.' To the contrary, it is quite easy to make that case. Some stigmatized characteristics are more stigmatized than others. People may feel especially sensitive about homosexuality, for whatever reason. Skoojal (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is also something that has been fairly universally stigmatized, only less so in recent decades in some cultures (of course there are exceptional cultures who have long accepted homosexual behavior as normal). I am not sure you're being unbiased here yourself: "every representative poll ever conducted" is a pretty strong statement. Usually people that make such absolute remarks have an activist agenda of their own. I think the reason the figure is disputed is because of the very fact that different polls and assessments arrive at different numbers. Perhaps this article lacks citations to reflect that. Once again, the 2-4% figures in the research you mention (hardly every study ever done) are self-reported openly gay, which is not the same as innately homosexual, hence the demographic discrepancies. I would also take exception to the rates not varying across cultures. Wasn't it the president of Iran who said they had no homosexuals in his country? Almost every male member of certain tribes in Papua New Guinea has sexual relations with other males, which would be at the opposite extreme of the range. There is scientific basis for saying so, which is why there is disagreement over the figure.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In saying "every representative poll ever conducted," I meant it literally. The list of studies I put in the header is exhaustive; at least, if I have missed a study in that list, it was by accident. Neither of the above counter examples disagrees with my statement: The claim by the President of Iran was not, of course, on the basis of a representative study, and the New Guinea tribe (I think Gil Herdt was the researcher who studied them) was never about being homosexual as a sexual orientation. The variablity among results is a characteristic only of the non-representative studies; the studies that used representative sampling have been remarkably consistent in their results...2-4%. If you want to divide the claims into prevalence of homosexual behavior vs. prevalence of homosexual identity and so on, it would certainly be useful to readers, as would dividing estimates based on whether the researchers used a convenience sample (like Kinsey) versus a more sophisticated method.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether we might be taking an overly restrictive view. We should not limit ourselves to orientation, as opposed to practice. We should also recognize that prevalence varies by age group, country, and historical period. Haiduc (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think each approach has merits; the important part (to me) is to be clear about when one is discussing behavior vs. discussing identity etc. It would be an error to take statements about behavior and treat them as if they were statements about orientation, for example.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps, under "demographics," we should treat the two in parallel, mentioning that in modern societies orientation seems to be whatever the surveys indicate, but that practice can vary by culture and age. I will look for references. Haiduc (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as no figures are stated as fact. forestPIG 22:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. But, I still disagree that the figures would be an absolute descriptor of orientation, even apart from practice. Self-identity, perhaps. Some would also argue that a western idea of sexual orientation is a social construct anyway (for the very reason of behavior versus identity versus culture). I haven't had time to research the citations, but I know Bogaert's methods have been criticized. Also, if it's so universally 2-4%, why does the lead say "2-7%"? If and when I have time to find reliable studies other than the ones already cited, I'll bring them here for discussion.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy-sounding quotes from Catholics and Mormons

Josh, you know quite well that the quotes you've just added are misleading. In the context of religious groups that have moved toward greater acceptance, it is misleading to place first quotes from groups that have reiterated their unchanging opposition to homosexuality, including one that has just become less accepting by adding a new prohibition against men of homosexual orientation in its priesthood. The quotes could be made less misleading by the addition of greater context, but that would not be to the purpose in what is meant to be a short summary of something extensively covered in the main article linked at the top of the section.

This is a problem I see all over the place in articles on LGBT topics. There is a main article about a subtopic, but the link to it in the main article is accompanied by a section almost as long as the article itself. Over at Conversion therapy the subsection on the Ex-gay movement is longer than the main Ex-gay article.

It makes the articles unwieldy to read and navigate, and much more difficult to maintain consistently, leading to all sorts of sloppiness.

Anyway, rant over. The out-of-context quotes you've added are misleading as they stand, and the addition of context would only add to an existing structural problem with LGBT articles. In a short summary about a general movement toward greater acceptance, it most clear to mention as a single example a denomination that has moved dramatically from opposition to acceptance. Reform Judaism fits the bill. Catholicism and Mormonism, two denominations that have moved to softer language while maintaining condemnatory doctrine, are poor examples. So, I'm cutting your additions.

Dybryd (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not know quite well. The quotes are not misleading. They teach reaching out with love and compassion regardless of whether or not they are having gay sex. It is POV pushing to portray that the only way a church can be accepting towards people with a homosexual orientation is to be supportive of gay sex. It's like giving a list of here are the good guys and here are the bad guys. I do not think the doctrine is condemnatory, but regardless, what we think does not belong in wikipedia. It is significant these churches are reaching out towards gays, and they are both larger than Reform Judaism. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What was the prior position of the Catholics and Mormons on the best way to reach out to gay men and women? Your quotes were added as examples of denominations that were part of a trend towards greater acceptance among religions -- as part of a change in religious practice.

If previous editions of the catechism said "Not only is gay sex bad, but gay people ought to be treated with disrespect and unkindness," then you are correct that the new, softer language would make the two churches examples of this change in a broad sense, although still not the best examples of it (particularly given the Catholics having just now forbidden celibate gay men the priesthood).

Dybryd (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There's an excellent point here. There are a number of articles related to homosexuality on Misplaced Pages; see Homosexuality#See also, which I've just expanded. I think it's a mistake to give a "taste" of something in this particular article that isn't accurate, and you can't say anything in just a paragraph about, say, the interaction between Roman Catholic Church and homosexuals (normally I say LGBT, but this particular article is on homosexuality) that isn't misleading in some way. The subject just requires a lot more attention than that, which is why we have articles on it. If we want to say something as bland and noncontroversial as possible, that would be okay with me, but anything difficult should be spun off into one of the articles specifically involving religion, IMO. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the prior position was silence. The title from the Oakland Tribune was "Mormon church changes stance on homosexuality." That is where I got the fact that they changed their stance. What I didn't like is that somehow "greater acceptance of gay men and women" implies a changing of doctrine to include homosexual relationships, and look, here are some people who are doing it the "right way". Maybe the whole section should be reworded to not imply either the Catholics, Mormons or Reformed Jews are more accepting of gay men and women. How about:

• Several churches teach love and compassion towards gay people, while still teaching against gay sex. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states they "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." The LDS Church denounced gay-bashing and has officially stated they "reach out with understanding and respect". Other churches have changed their doctrine to accommodate homosexual relationships. Reform Judaism, the largest branch of Judaism outside Israel ... Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's better, yes. I think an alien just landing from Mars would say, "Love and compassion, except when they have sex? Whaaaa?" But this position is both the official position and where many heads are at (or at least, where a lot of people say their heads are at...I can't quite make sense of it), and that's as good a way as any to report it in this article...if we try to make sense of it in one short section of this article, we'll get stuck in a quagmire. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

free speech of Christians

I have to add that that the new edits about gay rights inhibiting Christians' freedom of speech needs to be expanded because I don't get that at all. In fact, simple drawings with stick figures may have to be included. --Moni3 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The LGBT rights opposition and Homosexuality_and_Christianity#Conflicts have more detailed descriptions. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are indeed working toward a GA (and I use "we" loosely, since I haven't edited the article), concepts should be explained independently from other articles. I think describing exactly how gay rights conflicts with some Christians' freedom of speech is worth explaining. Gays aren't synonymous with government and power and can't arrest people for saying anything, so technically it's a fallacy. What do these Christians mean by this issue? --Moni3 (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What are these diffs? The article is so sprawling that I'm missing the parts you're referring to.

Dybryd (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Here. Under the Politics section. --Moni3 (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Dybryd (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

POV subsection based solely on Kinsey

The subsection "Homosexuality vs. bisexuality" is based solely on a mostly superseded and extremely controversial writer, and includes his discredited "10%" number without commentary. It's so POV that I'm inclined to just cut, rather than trying to fix it. The "vs" in the title is pretty biased all by itself!

Dybryd (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and cut it, but here is the text in case anyone else feels moved to try to improve it. I don't think there's anything to be salvaged from it, though.

Homosexuality versus bisexuality

According to Alfred Kinsey's study on human male sexuality in the mid-20th century, males do not fall into only two categories of heterosexual and homosexual. Among the sample group:

• 10 percent of surveyed males were "predominantly homosexual" between ages 16 to 55.
• 8 percent were "exclusively homosexual for at least three years" between ages 16 and 55.
• 4 percent of white men had been "exclusively homosexual" since the beginning of puberty up to the time of the study.

Kinsey's studies, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, found that many people have had homosexual experiences or sensations. The Kinsey Reports found that approximately four percent of adult Americans were predominantly gay or lesbian for their entire lives, and approximately 10 percent were predominantly gay or lesbian for some portion of their lives. Some studies have disputed Kinsey's methodology and have suggested that these reports overstated the occurrence of bisexuality and homosexuality in human populations.</ref> Some posit that "sexual orientation ranges along a continuum from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual," homosexuality is often contrasted with heterosexuality (primary or exclusive opposite-sex attraction) and bisexuality (a significant degree of attraction to both sexes) nonetheless.

Dybryd (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that people confuse Kinsey's cultural importance (high) with the accuracy of his actual findings (low). Personally, I have no problem acknowleding the former, but his stats frequently get highly undue weight.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the issue could be resolved simply by 1) beginning with the Kinsey findings (certainly WP:N despite the methodological issues); 2) adding a transition sentence or two into a discussion of later findings; and 3) discussing the later findings. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that that would be appropriate for a "homosexuality vs. bisexuality" section -- or that a section with this title can be made NPOV. "vs"? What the heck?

In a section about the history of 20th-century American attitudes, the cultural impact of Kinsey's work would take a central place. But, in a section with the dubious aim of defining homo- and bisexuality against each other, Kinsey's old data is just ... old.

Dybryd (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not that familiar with modern vies of Kinsey, but I have read material that confirms the validity of his findings and methods. How can you corroborate your opinion that his work has been superseded? Haiduc (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there are definitely some methodological issues with Kinsey's work. For instance, his sample certainly wasn't representative of a very large population, and I believe he engaged in some snowball sampling. The problem with relegating Kinsey (entirely) to some "history" section, though (as if anything occurs outside of history in the first place!), is that his contributions were so significant that they give a necessary context to later work. For example, I believe Kinsey was the first to conceptualize sexual orientation along a continuum. (On that note, I agree that the "homosexuality vs. bisexuality" title was misleading; Kinsey's whole discovery--which still, I believe, holds true in general today--is that there is no meaningful "vs." in this regard.) So if we simply refer to later studies that assume continuity, then we ignore the fact that such continuity hasn't been self-evident for ages and that it was an idea that germinated, blossomed, and continues to grow from a seed that Kinsey planted. Sure, the 10% figure may be off--even way off--but it, too, gives context to later acknowledgements--namely that homosexuality isn't some esoteric idea. I agree that the section needs more content, and that the title needs to be redone. But methodological problems don't necessarily equate to contemporary irrelevance. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Haiduc asked for evidence that Kinsey's work has been superceded. These are already provided in the header: The references in the header identify just about every modern, representative study of the prevelance of sexual orientation. They all disconfirm Kinsey's results (with regard to this issue, anyway).
• It is untrue that Kinsey discovered that sexual orientation is a continuum rather than a dichotomy. Rather, he decided to ask people on the basis of a scale rather than with a yes/no question. Because his questions (which are not outlined clearly in his book) combined behavior, fantasy, and identity, it has never been clear what exactly it was that he measured. Subsequent research has shown that male sexual orientation is quite dichotomous (except for some paraphilias and other uncommon features), whereas female sexual orientation is much less specific. (There exist rumors that Kinsey wanted to show the existance of bisexuality so as to justify his being gay with having a wife.)
• Although Kinsey's data on this topic are clearly non-representative (he over-sampled gay bar, jails, and other places where homosexual behavior was more likely to be reported), I don't think he can be faulted with having only a small sample.
• I do not believe it is accurate to say that Kinsey is responsible for showing that homosexuality isn't some esoteric idea. Previous researchers, such as Havelock Ellis and Magnus Hircshfeld did much more than Kinsey. Those characters have been replaced by Kinsey in fame, however, because WWII happened, wiping out much memory of the European researchers and leaving a knowledge-vaccuum in the U.S. for Kinsey to fill. My personal opinion is that an encyclopedia like this is precisely the right place to give a better balanced review of this history rather than merely to recapitulate a history based mainly on Kinsey's U.S. celebrity.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

1. ^ Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
2. Alfred C. Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, 1953, ISBN 0-7216-5450-9(o.p.), ISBN 0-671-78615-6(o.p. pbk.), ISBN 0-253-33411-X(reprint).
3. Duberman, Martin (1997-11-03), "Kinsey's Urethra", The Nation, p. 40-43, retrieved 2007-09-08 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
4. Ericksen, Julia A. (May, 1998), "With enough cases, why do you need statistics? Revisiting Kinsey's methodology", Journal of Sex Research {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. Cite error: The named reference brief was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Good article reassessment nominees
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• GA-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• GA-Class ethics articles
• Mid-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• GA-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• GA-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles