This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peculiar Light (talk | contribs) at 00:13, 12 July 2008 (→McConaghy (2006): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:13, 12 July 2008 by Peculiar Light (talk | contribs) (→McConaghy (2006): new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | LGBTQ+ studies Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Citations needed
Theres a lot of material being presented as hard facts in this stub. The references are listed but exactly what were they used for? Articles in Misplaced Pages are constantly updated and edited so everything needs to be directly cited.
Is Ray Blanchard's 1997 paper the earliest?
Could use some discussion of Histocompatibility-Y (H-Y) antigen hypothesis
No, there were papers in 1995 (also by Blanchard I believe) and 1996. I will locate the references and insert at least the earliest. Aftermath 00:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if these properly identify older brothers in specific...
- BLANCHARD, R. & SHERIDAN, P. M. (1992) Sibship size, sibling sex ratio, birth order, and parental age in homosexual and nonhomosexual gender dysphorics. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 180, 40-47.
- BLANCHARD, R. & ZUCKER, K. J. (1994) Reanalysis of Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith's data on birth order, sibling sex ratio, and parental age in homosexual men. Am. J. Psychiat. 151, 1375-1376.
Pete.Hurd 05:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
homosexuality a pathology?
There is an underlying problem with this article in that it is premised on the assumption that homosexuality is a disorder of some kind. While 'fraternal birth order theory' may seek explanations for homosexuality or predictions of homosexuality - this theory is based on the premise that homosexuality is a disorder (consider the opposite notion of a theory that would seek to predict or explain heterosexuality). This wikipedia entry inadvertently (?) sides with this assumption. This was reflected first in the term 'observation' being used in the initial sentence rather than the more neutral and detached term 'theory' - i subsequently replaced it. There, however, remains several other sentences that are less easy to tweak into shape. such as: "The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known predictor of sexual orientation..." It is the 'fraternal birth order effect theory' that seeks to predict sexual orientation - general society (and the medical establishment) no longer seeks this as there is no longer the assumption of homosexuality as abnormal. The problems in this article are a consequence of the premise of homosexuality as abnormality. Can anyone assist in tweaking the language so it more accurately reflects the neutrality of encyclopedic entries? p.s. this is my first discussion contribution - thanks for giving me material to inspire me enough! Piginmud 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
no engagement with my point?
Hi, I am curious as to why my alteration from 'observation' to 'theory' was re-changed without any discussion, or perhaps even refutation, of the issues i raised... isn't that the point of the discussion page/wikipedia? Piginmud 05:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- In the sentence "In psychology the "fraternal birth order" effect is the name given to the observation that the more older brothers a man has, the greater the probability is that he will have a homosexual sexual orientation." Observation is the proper descriptor. A theory would require a theoretical framework to explain the why the observation exists. Note that the HY-antigen hypothesis, is just that a hypothesis, rather than a theory or observation. Pete.Hurd 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Title
I think that the title "Fraternal birth order" is ambiguous, in that it could be understood as refering to the general relationship between brothers, and not specifically to the effect that the number of older brothers a man has is suggested to have on his sexual orientation. Similarily, I think that the title "Fraternal birth order effect" would be ambiguous, as birth order has long been proposed to have an influence on what a person is like, so the title "Fraternal birth order effect" would not reveal that the specific effect of birth order which this article discusses is upon a man's sexual orientation. Thus, I will retitle this article "Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation," which will reflect its scope better, as well as maintain consistency with the titling of a related article, Handedness and sexual orientation. -Severa (!!!) 00:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Maternal Immune Hypothesis assumes Homosexuality as Abberation
This is somewhat related to the thread above. The Blanchard "studies" propose an immune reaction by the mother against the fetus, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this. If you read the original article, which by the way is in the Journal of THEORETICAL Biology, it gives no data support to this hypothesis. What little evidence they do present about the H-Y protein complex was done in mice. It can't possibly be extrapolated to human sexuality. I have a real problem with this "theory" because it suggests homosexuality comes about because the mother's body is trying to attack the fetus, in essence an abberation of what the "ideal" should be (heterosexual)... if there were any empirical evidence to support this I would take more heed, but I feel like this "researcher" is trying to spread his own agenda with no basis whatsoever. At least it doesn't say the fetus is "feminized", which I corrected on another page. The last sentence in this article is confusing - I'm not sure if the effect holds true for right-handed or non-right-handed men.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so as there's been no discussion, and as Pigmund has also found the same fault with this article and its non-science, I'm reducing the paragraph about maternal immune hypothesis to only mention it as that.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, so let me see if I understand this. You deleted the sentence "It is hypothesized that the fraternal birth order effect may be caused by increasing levels of antibodies produced by the mother to the histocompatibility Y-antigen with each son." because the hypothesis was proposed in a paper published in a scientific journal whose title contains the word "theoretical" and may be construed to provide support for a point of view with which you disagree? Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pete.Hurd. Hy-antigen is a theory to explain an observation, and it's described only as a theory. Gimmethoseshoes can disagree with the theory, of course, but the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present as much information as is necessary for readers to come to their own decision, not to come to the editors' opinion. I think the fuller description should remain.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
McConaghy (2006)
In 2006, the Journal of Homosexuality printed an article entitled Fraternal birth order and ratio of heterosexual/homosexual feelings in women and men. In the article, McConaghy ran some experiments, the result of which he said "suggests the influence of birth order on homosexual feelings was not due to a biological, but a social process in the subjects studied." After I inserted the results from this study into the article, it was reversed saying "Anyone can fail to find evidence by just using bad methods." The Journal of Homosexuality decided that his paper was good enough to print. I have not seen any evidence that his methods were flawed. Can you please be more specific as to why you believe McConaghy's methods were flawed enough were they don't even deserve mention in this article? Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Categories: