Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Xenoestrogens and the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) guideline

I reverted 7157.118.25a here on his xenoestrogen addition, pointing him to the WP:MEDRS guideline. He re-added the xenoestrogen material, and with what is not much of an improvement. Jytdog, as a fellow WP:Med editor who has also recently mentioned/interacted with 7157.118.25a (as seen here and here), do you mind weighing in on this matter? Flyer22 (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Followup note here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, from what I can tell of the first source for that section, going by the abstracts, it is about human females (women), not non-human females. Flyer22 (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: 7157.118.25a changed the content to this. Flyer22 (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this, this, this, this, this, this and this, the section still has poor sourcing. Then again, other parts of the article have poor sourcing. I don't feel like debating this matter or trying to make an editor understand WP:MEDRS, so I'm dropping this topic for now. If you add more sources to the section in question, oh well. But do be aware of WP:Citation overkill (that's simply an essay, though), and try to improve your understanding of WP:MEDRS before you edit any more Wikipedia content dealing with biomedical information. Flyer22 (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Final editing should be here.[1] I am not prone to making careless claims. That is a well-backed, well-sourced, thoroughly defensible section supported by the scientific/medical literature and the information has been mentioned in the news as well. Just from looking at the rest of the page, I would venture to say this has better sourcing from medicine/science than any other section on the page. --7157.118.25a (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You started off the section by being careless; this was by having the initial sentence supported by sources that are about human females. Like I stated, "try to improve your understanding of WP:MEDRS before you edit any more Wikipedia content dealing with biomedical information." On your user page, for example, you currently focus on news coverage when it comes to sourcing. With few exceptions, news coverage is not the type of sourcing you should be relying on for scientific information. Same goes for WP:Primary sources in most instances. WP:MEDRS is clear why that is the case, and so is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Breaking news. Flyer22 (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

As you can see here, Dominus Vobisdu removed some of what you added. Flyer22 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose National Geographic wouldn't be accepted as a source in this instance then?[2] I believe this would count as a Secondary Source since it mentions multiple studies.[3] --7157.118.25a (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe this would count as a secondary source also since it's a textbook.[4] --7157.118.25a (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This should count as secondary also since it cites multiple studies.[5] Also, I notice that the Scientific American article --7157.118.25a (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrongly Removed Material

The following material is being reinserted because User:Dominus Vobisdu wrongly removed secondary sources[6], contrary to WP:MEDRS.

2009 studies of fish reveal a link between estrogen exposure and intersex characteristics.

Reason: U.S. government reports from major scientific bodies count as secondary reports, and a release by the U.S. Geological Survey would certainly seem to meet that criteria.[7] Furthermore, WP:MEDRS specifically mentions Scientific American articles can be acceptable sources depending on content.[8]

Furthermore, studies reveal that those taking the most well-known xenoestrogen, diethylstilbestrol, have increased likelihood of homosexuality.

Reason: Springer textbooks are specifically mentioned as good secondary sources.[9]

Xenoandrogens, artificial male hormones, may produce similar effects per Androgen insensitivity syndrome. According to MedLine Plus and the Michigan Institute of Urology, intersex characteristics can be caused by "Male hormones (such as testosterone) taken or encountered by the mother during pregnancy."

Reason: Medline articles are specifically mentioned as ideal secondary sources.[10]

None of that should have been removed. --7157.118.25a (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

section as of today

I went through the section as it stood today. Content there was either focused on intersex physiology, which is not the same as homosexuality, or was supported by news stories hyping primary sources or primary sources themselves, neither of which is OK per MEDRS - see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources. In a controversial article nobody should be using low quality sourcing. There are three fairly recent reviews in Pubmed on estrogen and sexual orientation/homosexuality - see here, if anybody wants to build content based on them. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jytdog. I truly do mean that; I appreciate your help when I can get it. This article would benefit from having you watch it, if it's not already on your WP:Watchlist, but I can also understand why you or anyone else wouldn't want to WP:Watchlist this highly contentious article. Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And I'm back. Jytdog, a list of disagreements:

• This removal was unjustified, as the paper does clearly mention the chemical genistein produces demasculinizing effects in males, i.e. homosexuality. "When genistein was examined for its effects on the AVPV, a sexually dimorphic brain region that is larger in females than males, it did not mimic the effect of estradiol in females and exerted a demasculinizing effect on males, counter to what would be expected of an estrogen-mimicking compound."[11]
• Concerning your contention here[12] if you'd prefer a book source then I will provide the following as the main sources.[13][14][15]
• Disagreed with this removal also.[16] The first source alone clearly mentions that estrogens feminizes male fish. "Exposure to estrogens can have various detrimental effects in fish. It can reduce general viability, induce gonadal malformations or feminization of genetic males, or lead to sterilization." Reverting this also.[17] --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I will say though that some of the Xenoandrogen and Diethylstilbestrol references were more relevant to humans than nature though so I will leave them out for now and consider them later for a different section instead. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Will wait 24 hours for discussion on talk page to occur about edits, and give Jytdog time to explain reverts. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I am at work now and cannot respond in detail now, but will later this evening. But in general, you keep confusing sexual orientation and physiological intersex changes; they are not the same. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The cases involved had both sexual orientation and intersex changes. In the first example it was brain regions being affected with the result being homosexual activity.[18] The entire paper was about the impacts of estradiol/estrogen on brain development, specifically sex differences, e.g. Chapter IV, "IV. Estradiol and the Establishment of Sex Differences in the Brain." The paper is about how to use chemicals, estrogen and androgen, to make males in nature act homosexually towards other males, and vice versa. "Moreover, if as an adult she is treated with male levels of androgen, she will exhibit the male pattern of sexual behavior when presented with a sexually receptive female (26, 238). In other words, the brain sex of a female is converted to that of a male by administration of exogenous steroids during a critical perinatal window (Fig. 2)... Adding to the confusion was the observation that injections of estradiol increased masculine sexual behavior in males, yet it was so clearly a female hormone. In fact, giving estradiol to females also resulted in female sexual behavior." The article even specifically mentions the subject involves same-sex marriage, stating, "The issue of human brain sexual differentiation is one fraught with political, religious, and cultural bear traps. Debates on the biological basis of partner preference, same-sex marriage, and the scientific aptitudes of men versus women continue to rage..." This article was definitely applicable and there was no basis for its removal.

The same goes for the fish reference, the final case addressed.[19] Source 1 referred to how estrogen byproducts cause gender changes in nature. "Concentrations... have been demonstrated to cause sex reversal in the laboratory (for example, 10 ng/L [7]). Indeed, exposure to effluents of wastewater treatment plants has led to all-female populations in field experiments [8]. Sex reversal is possible in many fishes where sex is genetically determined, that is, treatment of fish with hormones can functionally override the genetic sex. Estrogens or androgens are therefore widely used in aquaculture to manipulate gender (for example, if one sex is preferred for economic reasons), but as pollutants they can be serious threats to natural populations (see below)."[20] Source 2 specifically sources the paper, "Guppy sexual behavior as an effect biomarker of estrogen mimics in Exotoxicol by Bayley, Nielsen, et. al. (pg. 995) These papers are not just referring to change in physical organs, but actual sexual behavior and gender brain preference. The second source furthermore mentions that scientists widely use estrogens and androgens to change gender preference in wildlife.

As such, I still see no basis for the reverting of that material. --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If the cases only involved changes in genitalia from estrogen/androgen, and not actual sexual behavior, your point would be valid. However, the material clearly involved changes in behavior as well, with males engaging in homosexual behavior when treated with estrogen and females engaging in it when treated with androgen. This is why the first paper dealt with changes on brain development from these steroid/hormone products, because it's not just genitals being affected but actual brain gender preference by these artificial chemicals. So all of the research is valid and should not have been removed. You seem to be trying to equate intersex changes with changes in sexual behavior, both of which are involved when addressing estrogen/androgen effects. It's not an either/or scenario. --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, ignoring the word salad issues. Let's take this step by step, starting with sources. Would you please identify the sources you actually want to use? Please make sure they are recent secondary sources per MEDRS. Once we agree on the sources, we can work out what content is OK based on them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. The single strongest source is I believe the following, which addresses chemical effects on the developing brain's gender preferences. Nor does it just address humans either, but summarizes a broad swath of research. "The majority of what we know about the impact of estradiol on brain development comes from rodent models, predominantly rat and mouse but including hamsters, voles, and guinea pigs. Birds, in particular zebra finches and Japanese quail, have also provided novel insights into the myriad of ways estradiol can alter brain development. In primates, both human and otherwise, we know a great deal more about what estradiol is not doing than what it is doing. There is a clear need for more information about this potent steroid and how it affects the developing primate brain."

http://physrev.physiology.org/content/88/1/91

These are relevant news sources, although they should be used in conjunction with other sources, as mentioned at WP:MEDRS#Popular_press, which states "A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the laysummary= parameter of cite journal." So they will need to be used in conjunction with their respective scientific papers.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46354343/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/estrogen-turns-male-snakes-same-sex-charmers/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094541.htm

I will add more sources to these as well in the upcoming hours, as some of the others mentioned were very good as well. Just need to go through the revisions again and check. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

please bring secondary sources per MEDRS. The only good source you bring is Phys Rev. Please do not bring newsmedia; they do not clarify difficult issues - they pick some simple thing and hype it, and that is not what we need here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, a few things. First of all, no 24 hour limit, for now I just want to defend it as a valid addition.

Secondly, sorry about the delayed response, I just wanted to be careful in posting this reply given your concern about the exactness of the sources. I couldn't rush this response and still be as exacting with these sources as you are asking.

Thirdly, aside from the PhysRev source we both agree on, I will provide more secondary sources according to WP:MEDRS. Each and every one of these has been carefully checked and is thoroughly defensible, meaning it is specifically a secondary source that adheres perfectly to WP:MEDRS, and addresses chemical change in gender preference; not just changes to external organs (intersex) but to behavior and thought processes specifically.

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458140/ This is another very strong source as far as I am concerned, a systematic review of the literature on neurotoxicology (e.g. estrogen and androgen) and how it affects both wildlife and humans. As laid out in the opening paragraph, the content matter involves sex steroids and how they alter brain sexual differentiation. "They stemmed from the principle that sex differences in behavior are primarily the outcomes of differences in how the brain is sexually differentiated during early development by gonadal hormones (the Organizational Hypothesis). We also now understand that environmental chemicals are capable of altering these underlying events and processes. Among those chemicals, the group labeled as endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) offers the clearest evidence of such selectivity, a consequence of their actions on the endogenous sex steroids, androgens and estrogens." The author specifically focuses on chemical effects that change sexual behavior, mentioning in the introduction, "a statement by Richard Sharpe (2008) frames the context in an engaging way: 'The difference between becoming a male rather than a female is about as fundamental as you can get, as it will alter that individual’s place in society, transform the shape of his body, reshape his inherent abilities, his thought processes and his behaviors [my italics].'" See the section, Molding the Sexual Brain, which covers research on rodents and songbirds in addressing how chemicals alter gender preference in the brain. My point is that this is arguably as strong a source as the PhysRev one, maybe stronger. It does NOT just address intersex changes to external physiology, but to the brain's, sexual preference, and behavior. Furthermore, because it addresses estrogen and androgen while reviewing a large number of studies (100 in all) it is an invaluable critique on the subject.

• http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7167/full/nature06335.html Here is a good review covering the history of scientific research on how to make fruit flies and mice homosexuals. In the section, "fruitless and its power to shape sexual behaviour", for example, the following is mentioned: "Benzer's trainees Hall and Yoshiki Hotta (Box 2) used genetic mosaic analysis to define portions of the central nervous system required for male courtship behaviour19, 20 and genes that governed heterosexual behaviour... Mutant fru males show homosexual courtship behaviour in which large groups form chains of males courting each other. In a remarkable experiment, Barry Dickson showed recently that male courtship behaviour directed at females can be induced in chromosomally female flies simply by expressing the male-specific isoform of fru in the female brain24. Recent work in the mouse from Catherine Dulac's group suggests a similar underlying latency in the female mouse to exhibit male behaviours on manipulation of a single gene28. A major goal in this field is to define the molecular targets of fru and define the neural circuits that drive both male and female sexual behaviours." This appears to be a thorough article detailing the history of research in producing homosexual behavior through gene regulation.

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1457099 This is a systematic review which references 129 sources. It examines estrogen effects on the brain's "neural sex differences" and the resulting "social and reproductive behaviors", i.e. homosexuality as well. As such the opening paragraph mentions the following: "Vasopressin neurons in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis and amygdala and vasotocin neurons in homologous areas in non-mammalian vertebrates show some of the most consistently found neural sex differences, with males having more cells and denser projections than females. These projections have been implicated in social and reproductive behaviors but also in autonomic functions. The sex differences in these projections may cause as well as prevent sex differences in these functions. This paper discusses the anatomy, steroid dependency, and sexual differentiation of these neurons. Although the final steps in sexual differentiation of vasopressin/vasotocin expression may be similar across vertebrate species, what triggers differentiation may vary dramatically. For example, during development, estrogen masculinizes vasopressin expression in rats but feminizes its counterpart in Japanese quail." This is also summarized in the ending section, 'A Unique Opportunity': "There are at least two reasons to be enthusiastic about the sex difference in AVP and AVT systems, or for that matter about any sex difference in the brain. First, the possibility of hormonal manipulation provides a unique perspective for studying how specific neural systems develop. Second, sex differences allow one to study how differences in brain structure translate into differences in function." Furthermore, this review examines not only quail but rodents and newts as well, and thus provides a good overview of estrogen effects on wildlife in general.

As a side note, while I suppose it would classify as popular press, this Scientific American article does interestingly mention that homosexuality is more common in captivity than the wild, while also mentioning the fruit fly study.[21] The fruit fly study I mentioned earlier involved switching a 'Genderblind' gene on and off, and that is referenced in this article. The Genderblind study about the fruit flies is here. [22]

Also, I did find a review mentioning the 2007 fruit fly Genderblind study but it doesn't really give detail about the impact on gender preference that I saw, just on altering of brain behavior in general. I figured I'd mention it since it's a high-quality secondary source that addresses the study in question.[23]

I will add more secondary sources as I find time but these are three more solid sources in my opinion. --7157.118.25a (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is another good secondary source on mice.

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4145994 This review involves estrogen specifically and how it alters mice brain patterns on sexual preference, stating "The sexually dimorphic nucleus is a highly tractable feature that can be studied as a model system regarding how sex differences in brain function arise and are maintained. This is highly clinically relevant for understanding the origins of sex biases in psychiatric syndromes and for iden-tifying novel clinical targets." There is also a very useful quotation in the Introduction section, "Sex hormone-like compounds can be found throughout the environment, occurring in natural and processed foods, food and drink containers, and medical devices. Many of these are capable of altering normal development and exerting pathophysiological effects on the central nervous system, most noticeably in sexually dimorphic brain structures. Hundreds of synthetic compounds are estrogen-like compounds that have at least some affinity for estrogen receptors and can affect gene transcription."

There seems to be quite a bit of research when it comes to changing sexual preference in mice. Just last month a study was completed for example, although the following is a primary, not secondary source.[24]

--7157.118.25a (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I just now noticed you gave a link to an NCBI search earlier, I had just skimmed over the mention until now because it was mentioned as an optional aside. That really is a good search though, and it did help in finding that last study on mice. I tweaked the search slightly though to include search terms on 'homophilic' and 'gender preference.'[25]

That resulted in 26 returned results. But I just added another term, 'sexual differentiation', which resulted in search results skyrocketing to 212 results, so it seems that is the popular term being used.[26]

Good job with that search creation though, I didn't realize you'd designed such an in-depth search until now. --7157.118.25a (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

i'll have a look at these this evening. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

just looked at them briefly. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1457099 is from 2006. This is too old per WP:MEDDATE. Will look more in depth at the others this evening. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure that it would be too old? I notice that MedDate specifically mentions that reviews which are of high quality should be included, giving as an example, "Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high-quality and are routinely maintained even if their initial publication dates fall outside the above window." The section furthermore mentions that the standard can be relaxed in areas of research with fewer reviews, stating "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." MedDate appears to be more of an optimal guideline on preferring newer research than a set-in-stone exclusion of all older reviews. --7157.118.25a (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

this is a field where there has been plenty of work and reviews; we don't need to reach for old ones. Per Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Raise_source_quality we should be reaching for the best sources we can. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I suppose you are right, though I hate to see perfectly good sources go to waste because they fall within a 10-year time limit rather than a 5-year time limit. That means there are now 2 high-quality secondary sources remaining.

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458140/

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4145994

If articles can be found in Cochrane Library, would you support allowing them, or is a 5-year limit being strictly adhered to here? --7157.118.25a (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

there is nothing privileged about Cochrane. The key thing is that we gather the most recent reviews and see what they have to say on the topic of homosexuality. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, there are some decent sources. Now what content are you proposing based on them? I will leave it for you to define the subtopic within the topic of "homosexuality" - please make sure that the content reads on the topic. Please do not do WP:SYN to get there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Just with those two sources for now I favor as close a reading as possible to the sources, I'm still unclear on whether the American Physiological Review source is acceptable as a third source given that it's from 2008, and would seem to fall outside the 5-year limit. If not I can look for a replacement source, a few more quality sources would probably be better. Given those two sources though, I would propose the following edit to the page in a subsection like before, perhaps titled Estrogens and Androgens: --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In my experience of studying sexual orientation, there generally are not as many reviews for it as there are for many other scientific topics. But that is especially regarding the theorized causes of sexual orientation, which is where the aforementioned "may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published" aspect of WP:MEDDATE particularly comes in. Homosexuality, like the topic of sexual orientation in general, also concerns behavior...not only sexual orientation as it applies to the mind. So different aspects of the topic sexual orientation have more reviews than others.

As for the five-year rule, as recently stated at the WP:MEDRS talk page, it is the general rule of thumb; we don't have to be, and should not be, strict with it. Jytdog means that we should use newer sources when we can and when the newer sources are better than the older ones. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

Proposed edit is as follows:

---

Environmental chemicals, specifically sex steroids such as xenoestrogens and xenoandrogens, are produced in quantities of billions of kg. per year, and are used prominently in cosmetics and pesticides such as diethylstilbestrol and DDT while appearing also in food and dust particles. When in the form of phthalates they can be widely used in plastics including children's toys, food and drink containers, and medical devices. These chemicals alter the brain's sexual differentiation in a number of different species, including gulls, primates, and rodents, resulting in the masculinization of female brains/behavior (e.g. 'lesbian gulls') and feminization of male brains/behavior. Due to concern over environmental health risks including cancer, thinning of bald eagle eggshells, and reduced species reproduction, endocrine disruption was the primary theme of the 27th International Neurotoxicology Conference.

---

This seems like a fair representation of the papers that remains true to the language and facts mentioned in them. Ideally I'd like to find a few more sources for the section, but this content is all I would propose based on those sources for now. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not even sure if that stuff has anything to do with homosexuality, per se, rather than with overall disturbances in sexual development and behavior. Homosexuality has nothing to do with "masculinization" or "feminization". That's a different phenomenon. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That first source very definitely identifies homosexuality, and specifically states in the Introduction section, "When George and Molly Hunt (1977) observed the presence of female–female pairings of western gulls on Santa Barbara Island, California, they invoked the term 'lesbian gulls.' Michael Fry (1995) attributed such pairings to both a reduced male population and anomalies in male reproductive structures and behavior. He proposed DDT and other 'estrogenic' contaminants in the environment as causes." I was using the same wording the article used, and did not just use the term 'lesbian gulls' carelessly. That phrase is straight from the article itself. As seen from reference 90, the paper's author, Bernard Weiss, includes among his citations his own previous research which includes a paper titled "Same sex, no, sex, unaware sex in neurotoxicology." See also the section, 'The Translation Step', which states "This conjunction brings neurotoxicology into an arena fraught with vocal disagreements aired in public statements by proponents from different cultural milieus. These disagreements arise partly from arguments about the roots of homosexuality, and about questions of gender identity and others that at one time would have seemed quite remote from neurotoxicology."[27]

The second paper meanwhile cites in its 12th Reference a paper titled 'A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men.'[28] The 9th reference cited is a paper titled 'A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity.' The content of both papers does center around homosexuality. --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice that "lesbian seagulls" is in scare quotes. Not without good reason. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you assume it is "scare quotes"? Is there any basis for that assumption? Any logic or reasoning process behind that? It seems like a jump in logic to me. --7157.118.25a (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you assume that they are not scare quotes? Do you have a more plausible explanation. They're not just there for decoration. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

To suggest a professional scientist would resort to "scare quotes" in a grant-funded publication, and resort to tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, seems unbelievable. Nothing in the entire rest of the paragraph, section, or paper that I can see would suggest any use of such sarcasm in writing. The context appears to show simple reporting on other papers to systematically review the subject matter. Indeed there would be no reason for bringing up subject matter the author didn't believe in, in a systematic review article, given the paper's context. Your accusation of it being "scare quotes" seems groundless.

It appears to be a phrase the writer found interesting and just put it in quotes to show it was an exact phrase being quoted, as a way of naming the subject matter. The entire paragraph in context does not indicate any use of such sarcasm or derision at work as you imply; which again would be absurd in a professional publication like this. Your argument is ridiculous in the context of the paper. Full paragraph context is as follows. Needless to say, the phrase "lesbian sea gulls" is no more a use of scare quotes than the phrase "estrogenic" which is also in quotes immediately after it.

"The publication of Our Stolen Future (Colborn et al., 1996) firmly placed endocrine disruption on the agenda of neurotoxicology. Theo Colborn, honored at the 27th conference, had the insight to foresee this development. Many of the observations that created the book’s thesis, that environmental chemicals had been fomenting turbulence in hormonal function, arose from puzzling instances of animal behavior. When George and Molly Hunt (1977) observed the presence of female–female pairings of western gulls on Santa Barbara Island, California, they invoked the term 'lesbian gulls.' Michael Fry (1995) attributed such pairings to both a reduced male population and anomalies in male reproductive structures and behavior. He proposed DDT and other 'estrogenic' contaminants in the environment as causes. Because behavior is a reflection of events and processes in the brain, it became necessary to explain the coupling between aberrant behavior and endocrine disruption by determining how such environmental agents alter brain anatomy and function. In particular, to borrow Sharpe’s term, how they proceed to alter the events that 'make' a male. A succinct review of this sequence follows to help provide a context for the topics discussed at the conference."[29]--7157.118.25a (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The second to last sentence in the paragraph is key, "In particular, to borrow Sharpe’s term, how they proceed to alter the events that 'make' a male." The author is just putting quote marks around terms they like, to "borrow" them as it were. Nothing in the paragraph remotely suggests that "scare quotes" are being used. Indeed, mentioning the material for reference purposes, as is being done here, to support Weiss' argument would make no sense in your scenario. --7157.118.25a (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm far from convinced that this paper has anything whatsoever to do with homosexuality, versus changes in general sexual development and behavior. Yes, scientists do indeed use scare quotes in reference with non-scientific, popular terminology, as seems to be the case here. And there's no "accusation" in pointing that out. For what it's worth, I'm a scientist and scientific writer, editor and translator with 30 years experience, and I've used them myself and have often seen other writers do so as well.

Again, masculinity and femininity are very different topics than homosexuality, and any overlap is coincidental, at best. I'm afraid you are reading something into this article that the authors did not intend to say. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If scare quotes were what was intended, then the quoted material would be presented only in disagreement for rebuttal purposes, but nothing in the review indicates that. Indeed, nowhere in the paper does Weiss even cite other papers for purpose of disputing them or disagreeing with them. Every time he cites a source, it is to reinforce his original argument, namely that "sex differences in behavior are primarily the outcomes of differences in how the brain is sexually differentiated during early development by gonadal hormones" and "environmental chemicals are capable of altering these underlying events and processes."

If Weiss was quoting the material derisively as you suggest, he would indicate disagreement with it or attempt to rebut it afterward, which does not occur. Rather he cites Fry in support of his original argument. It should be abundantly clear from reading the context that scare quotes aren't being used. In the Epilogue section, the author states, "What the 27th Conference, and the terse summary here of findings based on bisphenol A and phthalate exposures most notably reveals, is how misleading it is to expect EDCs to produce profiles of effects, such as sexually dimorphic behaviors, as literal copies of those produced by native hormones." The reference to sexually dimorphic behaviors, i.e. differences in gender sexual behavior, is clearly reference to changing sexual behavior in gender. I think you are trying to read something into the paper it doesn't say to deny material that you don't like. --7157.118.25a (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Weiss even specifically states in the paper, "These disagreements arise partly from arguments about the roots of homosexuality, and about questions of gender identity and others that at one time would have seemed quite remote from neurotoxicology." --7157.118.25a (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I remain unconvinced, and have said all I have to say about this. Let's see what other editors have to say. And please watch your tone. It's a bit antagonistic, and needlessly so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

7157.118.25a, it seems that Dominus Vobisdu is stating that, if your content ties to homosexuality, you need to be clearer on how it does. Perhaps point to content from WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that specifically use the term homosexual, homosexuality, gay or lesbian and are direct in their comments on how these behaviors tie to homosexuality? We have to be mindful of WP:Synthesis and WP:Editorializing. There are researchers who tie masculinity or femininity to homosexuality, as is clear by the Gender variance and Childhood gender nonconformity articles, whether it's humans and/or non-human animals, but, if such content is reported on Wikipedia, the sources should be very direct on the matter so that debates like the one you are having with Dominus Vobisdu don't happen. Flyer22 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the article uses the terms "lesbian", "homosexuality", "gender identity", and "same sex" so it takes some serious interpretation to claim it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Furthermore, I would point out that Dominus was the first to make the accusation of reading into the article. I simply pointed out that applies better to his claim than mine. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In my view the proposed content is mostly about concerns about chemicals in the environment; that content doesn't belong in an article about homosexuality. Also, the sentence, "Environmental chemicals... are produced in quantities of billions of kg. per year." doesn't make sense to me - I don't know what "environmental chemicals" are. Most importantly, the content doesn't provide any actual information on the possible effect of endocrine disruptors on sexual orientation. I note that the endocrine disruptor hypothesis is controversial - it is far from being settled science, as described in our article on that. And the first source in the proposed content above emphasizes that (which was already quoted in part by the proposer - emphasis added here and next sentences included): "What the 27th Conference, and the terse summary here of findings based on bisphenol A and phthalate exposures most notably reveals, is how misleading it is to expect EDCs to produce profiles of effects, such as sexually dimorphic behaviors, as literal copies of those produced by native hormones. Such agents are not hormones. They should not be expected to act precisely as hormones. The term disruptor is a far more accurate depiction of our current depth of understanding." In other words, there is a lot that is unknown and right now we cannot make many (if any) definitive statements. The proposed content is more definitive than the sources allow. and ditto what Flyer said about SYN - I noted the risk of SYN in my comments asking for proposed content. Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can use CTRL+F in the paper to see that the terms "homosexuality", "lesbian", "gender identity", and "same sex" are all used; despite the fact that when addressing homosexuality in scientific papers, terms like sexually dimorphic behavior or sexual differentiation are typically used as alternatives.

To me it just seems incredible that in an article which concludes with the statement, "These disagreements arise partly from arguments about the roots of homosexuality, and about questions of gender identity", it is being claimed that homosexuality is unrelated to the article's topic. You don't conclude an article like that if homosexuality has nothing to do with the content. Let alone the reference to lesbian gulls or citing of a paper in the article, by the paper's author no less, about same sex.

I react strongly because it seems as plain as day the article's content is on homosexuality, there is no way to avoid it from a direct reading. I just don't think Dominus has a leg to stand on with that claim. There is way too much evidence in the paper that contradicts that argument. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

My comments were about the proposed content, not about what the source itself says. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, true. The proposed edit should probably be worded a bit differently I suppose. I will work on writing an alternate proposal that incorporates the two new sources. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "despite the fact that when addressing homosexuality in scientific papers, terms like sexually dimorphic behavior or sexual differentiation are typically used as alternatives"? Scientific papers commonly use the terms homosexual and lesbian, but scientists generally do not assign a sexual orientation to non-human animals and instead focus on the behavior. The terms sexually dimorphic behavior and sexual differentiation are not used as synonyms for homosexuality and similar. They are far from synonyms. Flyer22 (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I mean that when reading papers on the subject, the term homosexuality often seems to get deliberately avoided in favor of alternate language/phrasing. Take for example the Physiological Review article earlier. It explicitly described homosexual behavior in the article repeatedly, but never used the term "homosexual" to describe this behavior.[30] See for example section 'B. The Organizational/Activational Hypothesis of Brain Sex Differentiation.' It clearly describes homosexual behavior but never uses the term homosexual. "Moreover, if as an adult she is treated with male levels of androgen, she will exhibit the male pattern of sexual behavior when presented with a sexually receptive female (26, 238). In other words, the brain sex of a female is converted to that of a male by administration of exogenous steroids during a critical perinatal window (Fig. 2)."

Similarly in section 'G. Behavioral Masculinization, Defeminization, and Feminization', clearly homosexual behavior is described but the term homosexual is never used once in the entire paper. "Moreover, newborn female pups treated with PGE2 for 2 days have permanently elevated POA dendritic spines compared with normal females, and most importantly, as adults, if provided with exogenous testosterone, will behave as if they are males towards receptive females. These PGE2 masculinized females will pursue and engage in vigorous mounting of receptive females and appear exactly as normal males. Thus PGE2 is both necessary and sufficient for full masculinization of sex behavior. This surprising finding also provided a new tool for investigation of sex differentiation of the brain, since it allowed for the first time the ability to masculinize the brain without steroids. This in turn allowed for asking the question, Are the processes of masculinization and defeminization two sides of the same coin? In other words, if a brain is masculinized, is defeminization an irrevocable byproduct? Or, alternatively, are masculinization and defeminization two separate processes that can be manipulated independently of each other?"

I've noticed this pattern across multiple papers, new phrasing is found in order to avoid use of the word "homosexuality." Now, why that is, I'm not sure. Maybe you can tell me? --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

More Sources

I found a few more high-quality secondary sources for additional backing:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211403/ An October 2014 systematic review that is very explicit in how estrogen can be used to alter "sociosexual behaviors" in rats. In the section Female Social Behavior it is mentioned, "Gonadectomized and steroid-primed ERαKO females placed in the home cage of males that showed sexual behavior to wild type females showed extreme rejection of male mounts, whereas gonadally intact ERαKO females were vigorously attacked by the males (Ogawa et al., 1996, 1998a). Similarly, ERα gene silencing in the VMH caused steroid-primed females to reject males (Spiteri et al., 2010a,b)."
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3901882/ This is a 2014 systematic review that begins with "During the past few decades, scientific evidence has been accumulated concerning the possible adverse effects of the exposure to environmental chemicals on the well-being of wildlife and human populations. One large and growing group of such compounds of anthropogenic or natural origin is referred to as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), due to their deleterious action on the endocrine system. This concern was first focused on the control of reproductive function particularly in males, but has later been expanded to include all possible endocrine functions. The present review describes the underlying physiology behind the cascade of developmental events that occur during sexual differentiation of males and the specific role of androgen in the masculinization process and proper organogenesis of the external male genitalia." The article does focus more on external than behavioral changes, however.

--7157.118.25a (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I found an EXTREMELY clear source to use prominently in the next edit proposal:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/ This narrative review focuses primarily on the effects of androgen and estrogen in causing human homosexual behavior, but does mention experiments on rats as well. This study is invaluable as support for the others previously mentioned, because it clearly states the subject matter is about homosexuality, using the word "homosexuality" 68 times, as well addressing the effects of androgen and estrogen in causing brain sex differentiation.

--7157.118.25a (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, issues within the Frontiers series of journals are guest-edited, and the guest-editor generally uses the issue to promote whatever theory they are a big fan of. The review articles tend to notrepresent the solid, down-the-middle mainstream of any given field. I generally steer clear of reviews from Frontiers, especially in any area that is controversial. You are of course free to use it but please treat its claims gently. fwiw, I would have greater respect for you if you didn't use it at all. (this is part of the kind of thing, that makes it hard for everyday people to just jump in and edit health-related content in WP. It is not impossible of course but it takes a lot of time to learn all of these kinds of pitfalls. A lot of competence is required to do well, and it takes time to acquire if you don't already have it.) Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Just in looking at the credentials of Hines though, it appears she is most definitely a leading expert in the field.[31] She is Director of the Hormones and Behaviour Research Lab at the University of Cambridge and was a Postdoctoral Fellow in Neuroendocrinology and Neuroscience at the UCLA Brain Research Institute and a Visiting Scientist, at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Primate Research Centre. "She is a Past-President of the International Academy of Sex Research and a recipient of the Shephard Ivory Franz Award for Distinguished Teaching at UCLA."

If her credentials were at all in doubt I would agree with you, and would quickly remove the citation of her material, but actually it appears she has some of the best credentialing of any writers on the topic. I was particularly impressed that she is a former president of the International Academy of Sex Research. --7157.118.25a (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

this is not the kind of discussion that interests me. not responding. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I did remove the second Frontiers source, but I still feel that first Frontiers source is credible. --7157.118.25a (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

New Proposed Edit

collapse former proposal, see below for newer proposal
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Environmental chemicals, specifically sex steroids such as xenoestrogens and xenoandrogens, change the brain's gender preference resulting in homosexuality in nature. According to Melissa Hines, "This article reviews the evidence regarding prenatal influences of gonadal steroids on human sexual orientation, as well as sex-typed childhood behaviors that predict subsequent sexual orientation. The evidence supports a role for prenatal testosterone exposure in the development of sex-typed interests in childhood, as well as in sexual orientation in later life, at least for some individuals... The empirical record generally supports this model for a wide range of brain regions and behaviors that differ on the average for male and female animals. For example, treating female rodents with testosterone early in life decreases their female-typical behavior in adulthood, and increases their male-typical behavior." These chemicals are produced in quantities of billions of kg. per year, and are used prominently in cosmetics and pesticides such as diethylstilbestrol (DES) and DDT while appearing also in food and dust particles. When in the form of phthalates they can be widely used in plastics including children's toys, food and drink containers, and medical devices. Xenoestrogens and xenoandrogens alter the brain's sexual differentiation in a number of species, including rams, ferrets, zebra finches, gulls, primates, and rodents, resulting in the masculinization of female brains/behavior (e.g. 'lesbian gulls') and feminization of male brains/behavior. According to Bernard Weiss, "disagreements arise partly from arguments about the roots of homosexuality, and about questions of gender identity and others that at one time would have seemed quite remote from neurotoxicology." Due to concern over environmental health risks including cancer, thinning of bald eagle eggshells, and reduced species reproduction, endocrine disruption was the primary theme of the 27th International Neurotoxicology Conference.

(proposed by — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7157.118.25a (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 January 2015‎ (UTC))

first sentence is way too strong - you make it sound like if i walk outside all i will see is gay sex in the animal kingdom. most of this work is done in the laboratory. and there is still way too much off-topic content about environmental chemicals. Please see WP:OFFTOPIC. It also relies on two Frontiers sources, which is very suboptimal. The long quote in the first paragraph from a Frontiers source is definitely WP:UNDUE with regard to where the field stands. The way we do health content in WP (like all content) is that you read all the sources and try to summarize what they say - you don't look for the killer quote that makes some point that interests you. This is not well done. more comments to come. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I made it strong intentionally and quoted the article itself because when I used softer wording in my previous proposal, it drew concerns about whether it related to homosexuality. I am fine with removing the article quote by Hines, just leaving the source, and changing the wording of the first sentence though. Could you propose an alternative to that first paragraph? I only made that first paragraph so strong because I wanted to avoid any claims the subject matter was unrelated to homosexuality; the previous contention. I'm perfectly willing to see that first paragraph changed though, just let me know what wording you think would be best. --7157.118.25a (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

you are free to improve it. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, what about the following version?

-------------------

Environmental chemicals, specifically sex steroids such as xenoestrogens and xenoandrogens, cause effects on the brain's gender preference and can result in homosexuality in nature. Xenoestrogens and xenoandrogens alter the brain's sexual differentiation in a number of species, including rams, ferrets, zebra finches, gulls, primates, and rodents, resulting in the masculinization of female brains/behavior (e.g. 'lesbian gulls') and feminization of male brains/behavior. Due to concern over environmental health risks endocrine disruption was the primary theme of the 27th International Neurotoxicology Conference.

This reduces to one paragraph, changes the wording of the first sentence so it is less definitive, and removes the Hines quote. (EDIT: Removed detail about plastics, Weiss quote, and second Frontiers source also.)--7157.118.25a (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am just going to hold off on adding the material to the page until someone else shows interest in it being added. I do think it would add some valuable context to the page but I'm not going to be insistent on it. I just wanted to defend the claim that it is sufficiently defensible from the scientific literature. Whether it is added is something for the community to decide. I just wanted to help source it and make the case for its possible addition. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

are you still intending this to be in the animal part? it is still too definitive. Once I understand where you intend it to go i would be willing to work on it directly. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I had intended it for the animal section originally, although because it is applicable to humans as well, it's tough to determine where exactly it should go. What about changing the first sentence to "Environmental chemicals, specifically sex steroids such as xenoestrogens and xenoandrogens, alter the brain's sexual differentiation"? This would be a merge of the wording from both proposed edits. --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've addd some content here: Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation#Endocrine_disruptors. That article is not in great shape. I spent some time on it this evening, but that is where this content belongs; not here. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine. I'll abide by your judgment on the matter, I notice you made a good cleanup on the Gallup section also. --7157.118.25a (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

great, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

7157.118.25a is currently indefinitely blocked. There is a new IP that reminds me of him. I think that the person using that IP has used different IPs at Epigenetic theories of homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flyer22 (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Likely origin of the word is Greek.

The origin of the word is likely Greek. "Homosexual", (< Gk: homos, same + oios, sort). A person who prefers physical intimacy with the same gender as them self. Research888 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Research888: And your source? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Relationship between homosexuality and pedo-philia

A strong link has been established between homosexuality and pedo-philia. See for example: 1. Cameron, P. Homosexual molestation of children: sexual interaction of teacher and pupil. Psychological Reports 1985;57:1227-1236. 2. Blanchard R, Barbaree HE, Bogaert AF, Dicky R, Klassen P, Kuban ME, Zucker KJ. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedo-philes. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000;29:463-478. 3. Sandfort TGM, Graaf R, Bijl RV, Schnabel P. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry 2001;58:85-91. 4. Cameron P, Cameron K, Playfair WL. Does homosexual activity shorten life? Psychological Reports 1998;83:847-866. 5. Freund K, Watson RJ. The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedo-philes among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 1992;18:34-43. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.40.2 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Cameron's work in this area has been discredited by the APA and others. See [32], [33] and Paul_Cameron#Criticism. I can't comment on the other sources at the moment.- MrX 21:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's main article about homosexuality and pedophilia also discusses some common misconceptions about this issue. Jarble (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What Jarble has linked to is a section about homosexuality and pedophilia, not an article about it; we don't need an article about it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Gender stereotype model contradicts itself

1. Claims of men's sexuality being determined before birth and women's not contradicts the claim of (exclusively) gay men having "feminine" brains.

1. Not only gay men but also lesbians can be found in vastly different (including extremely homophobic) cultures as well as in vastly different historical epochs. Cultural universality gives no support for male-specific biological determinism.

1. Claims of phallometry being a more accurate measure of sexual arousal than vaginal plectography are based exclusively on what test subjects claim to feel, and thus no more reliable than any subjective claims.

1. If phallometry was truly accurate, that would mean all impotent men were asexual.

1. Different phallometric studies contradict each other, e.g. "Homophobic men most aroused by gay male porn" implies bisexuality in all homophobic men identifying as heterosexual, while some other phallometric studies claim that bisexual men do not exist.

1. Identical twins with different sexual orientations exist and usually look identical, without physical difference in masculinity/femininity.

1. Ecotoxicology shows placentas are totally permeable to hormones, so twins cannot get different prenatal hormone levels.

1. The mother's immune system rejecting the chemistry of the fetus is a very common cause of miscarriage, while too much male sex hormones is a much rarer cause of female infertility. So maintaining an unusually low level of male sex hormones by the immune system rejecting the masculine chemistry of boy fetuses would make women less fertile, not more.

1. Using biological determinism as if it was an argument for homosexual rights is to promote the same "only natural is okay" philosophy as is used by homophobes.

1. Lesbians are more persecuted in the world than gay men (e.g. so-called "conversion therapy" against lesbians often involves rape which that against gay men does not), so using male-specific biological determinism as an argument for homosexual rights is extremely counterproductive.

1. The nazis believed homosexuality to be innate, but that did not reduce their homophobia. Instead, it made them sterilize heterosexual people with homosexual relatives.

1. Christian fundamentalists believe in free will while islamic fundamentalists believe in kismet, yet both categories of fundamentalists are equally homophobic.2.68.39.253 (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How does your comment relate to improving the Homosexuality article? Just to pick one statement you gave, let's take your "Lesbians are more persecuted in the world than gay men." line. That statement is not true. People are far more threatened and uncomfortable by male homosexuality than by female homosexuality, as is documented in many WP:Reliable sources (religious and non-religious), and as is clear from seeing things like the lesbian kiss episode and other things relating to homosexuality in the media. Before there was the Brokeback Mountain film, there was the Bound film, and I guarantee that the vast majority of heterosexual men, and perhaps the general public, would choose to watch Bound over Brokeback Mountain. Flyer22 (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If you had read the article "lesbian kiss episode" properly, you would have seen that the article clearly states that a one-occasion kiss is not generally considered lesbian at all. Thus, your example is not appliceable. And preference for one film over another is influenced by so many other factors than feeling threatened. When I wrote "persecution" I was referring to things such as murder, incarceration and forcible "conversion", not avoiding to watch a film. Also, I counted the risk of persecution for open homosexuals as one post and private ones as another. Persecution to openness ratio is the accurate measure of homophobia.2.68.39.253 (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No matter what you meant, your "lesbians are more persecuted in the world than gay men" statement is false for the reasons that I stated above. If I hadn't read the Lesbian kiss episode article properly, I would not have referred you to it. It is applicable for the very reason that it documents the marketability of female homosexuality. Never has male homosexuality been as marketable, and this is because society is generally, like I noted above, far more threatened and uncomfortable by male homosexuality than by female homosexuality. A female same-sex kiss in the context of a lesbian kiss episode is still female homosexuality; the term homosexuality, as is made clear by the Homosexuality article, refers to any same-sex sexual attraction or same-sex sexual behavior. And if you understood the word lesbian, you would know that a female same-sex kiss in the context of a lesbian kiss episode is indeed lesbian; that's why it's called a lesbian kiss episode. But to get more serious, your "lesbians are subject to murder and incarceration more than gay men are" assertion is false. Whether it's noting how people have treated sodomy throughout history, including persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, or homosexuality in Iran or some other country, men have been and still are far more persecuted than women are. And it's men who have received the harsher punishments. When studying the history of homosexuality, it's easy to see that society has always focused more on male homosexuality than on female homosexuality, except for the instances where female homosexuality has been exploited as a popular ratings ploy or other marketability aspect. You are correct, however, that corrective rape is far more about women than it is about men. Either way, this discussion is off-topic, per WP:Talk. Flyer22 (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That gay men are more visible in society only means that they are usually more open about it, which menas that the persecution to openness ratio is certainly not better for lesbians than it is for gay men.2.68.39.253 (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm done with this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

fwiw, I would have just responded to the post with WP:NOTFORUM. IP-address user, this is a Talk page for improving the article, based on what reliable sources say. If you want to make arguments about how to improve the article content, you must support your claims with reliable sources - WP is not a place for people to discuss their personal opinions or original research. Please see WP:TPG for information about how to use the Talk page. I'll delete further postings you make that are just statements of your opinion about the topic. Jytdog (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead

There is a sentence in the lead reading, "While some religious people hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural, scientific research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects". I find that to be misleading for several reasons. In the first place, it implies that only "religious people" believe that homosexuality is unnatural, which is incorrect. The philosopher Michael Levin, who is not religious, has argued that homosexuality is unnatural; his article "Why Homosexuality Is Abnormal" is well-known and quite notorious. Steven Goldberg is someone with similar views. In the second place, I think it is clear that the sources used - both part of religioustolerance.org, which is not always accepted as a reliable source - do not back up the lead's implied claim that only religious people view homosexuality as unnatural. The second of the two sources used is especially weak, as the term "unnatural" is not even mentioned, and it does not discuss the views of "religious people" generally - only those of Laura Schlessinger. I would recommend simply removing the words "while some religious people hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural" from the lead. They are neither accurate, necessary, nor well-sourced. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That part of the lead was extensively discussed before, but it was different at the time: Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 21#Religion POV in intro (RFC). As seen in that discussion, which had subsections and lasted from 2011 to 2012, I and others argued that religious views should be covered in the lead; this is standard WP:Lead practice. I still feel that way today.

Since you brought up the lead in 2013 (Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 23#Lead), and did not object to the "homosexual activity is unnatural" part at that time, I take it that this edit by Engineering Guy is what made you focus on that part of the lead today. Well, as you may have seen, it was Engineering Guy who added "religious people" to the lead, on November 6, 2014. Before he made that edit because he thought he was making the text "unambiguous," the text was "While some people hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural, research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects." I was tempted to revert him, but I did not feel like debating his "religious" addition. Then again, I never feel like debating anything at this talk page. Furthermore, opposition to homosexuality is usually religion-driven, as many WP:Reliable sources are clear about. If we are going to note that "homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects," it should be clear why we are noting that. So while I do not object to "religious" being re-removed, I do object to not making it clear that many people consider homosexuality unnatural/abnormal. After all, the American Psychological Association states in its "Is homosexuality a mental disorder?" section, "Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience." That people commonly consider homosexuality unnatural/abnormal/a mental disorder is clearly significantly addressed lower in the Homosexuality article (past the lead); so I reiterate that it should be noted in the lead as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with mentioning religious views in the lead, but if they are going to be mentioned, then surely the lead should make it clear that many religious people opposed to homosexuality view it as sinful rather than "unnatural"; it is the sinfulness of that is their key objection to it. I don't doubt that many people do indeed regard homosexuality as abnormal and/or unnatural, but that needs to be properly sourced, and I don't think the religious tolerance.org sources used are good. Finally, I honestly cannot imagine why you would think it relevant that I discussed the lead well over a year ago. I cannot even remember doing so, or what I said at that time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

We can obviously remove "religious." We can also obviously add "sinful" in place of "unnatural." Either way, most of the content in question should be in the lead, including the unnatural/abnormal aspect (whether we state "unnatural," "abnormal" or "mental disorder"). And it is very easy to source the material. WP:Burden states, "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." I'm also certain that, from what I know on the subject, religious people's opposition to homosexuality is based on their belief that homosexuality is unnatural just as much as it is based on their belief that it is sinful, if not more so. As for linking to your discussion from 2013, well, I remember most things that happen at this article/talk page, and I mentioned/linked to it to give this matter context; you clearly disagree with that, but the context is that you did not object to the material before, and suddenly you do, and this objection seems to be because of Engineering Guy having added "religious" to the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked through the talk page archives, and the last time I discussed the article was about a year and a half ago. Does it really seem surprising or unusual that someone might change their mind about something that they last discussed a year and a half ago? The change I would like to make is simply to remove, "While some religious people hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural". Do you object to that? I'm sure that there would be many possible replacements that would better deal with opposition to or negative views of homosexuality. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Changing one's mind is obviously normal; so is wondering why someone changed their mind. The other point is that the current text is different than it was in 2013. It now includes the word religious. I already answered your proposal above, stating, "If we are going to note that 'homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects,' it should be clear why we are noting that. So while I do not object to 'religious' being re-removed, I do object to not making it clear that many people consider homosexuality unnatural/abnormal." I don't see it as good form to have the "homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects" part in the lead without noting what that piece is in response to. It is obviously in response to the fact that many people consider homosexuality unnatural/abnormal/a mental disorder. So, yes, except for removing the "religious" part, I object to removing the portion of the sentence you want gone. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning. I'm afraid it doesn't alter the fact that the claim the lead makes is misleading, or that the sources used to back up that claim are poor. I simply don't believe that the concerns you raise are a good basis for keeping misleading and poorly-sourced text (I doubt that any concerns would ever be a good basis for keeping misleading and poorly-sourced text). You might want to ask other editors interested in the page for their views. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You have removed "religious." There is nothing misleading by stating "While some people hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural.", and you have not shown at all why such a true statement needs to be removed. In fact, "some" should be "many." Furthermore, I already cited what WP:Burden states about sourcing. That bit can most assuredly be WP:Reliably sourced, and, if I "have to" source it myself, I will. The lead should summarize. And that paragraph is big enough as it is without going into details about the "unnatural" aspect. If you have a problem with the "scientific research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects" part, you should explain why, including why we should not have a similar statement in the lead if we remove that bit. As noted above, it was also Engineering Guy who added "scientific." Others are watching this discussion. If they want to weigh in on it, they likely will. Flyer22 (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, my key objections to the material sourced to the religious tolerance website are firstly, that religious tolerance.org is a poor source, and secondly, that one of the two religious tolerance pages is simply about Dr. Laura. Doesn't it seem rather strange to source a statement about some people holding the view that homosexuality is unnatural to a page about one person in particular, Laura Schlessinger, who apparently holds that view? Despite what you seem to assume, I am not contesting the "scientific research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation..." part of the lead. Why did you think I had some objection to it? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You stated that "the claim the lead makes is misleading." Given that the text is a statement of fact and not simply a claim, it wasn't easy to know what your problem is with it other than the fact that "religious" had been added to it and the sources used for it, which I reiterate is easily solvable. WP:Burden is clear that if you have a problem with the sources, you should try and fix the matter; that does not simply mean taking the matter to the talk page. It is very simple to replace the sources, just like it was very simple to remove "religious." With regard to the "scientific research" part, I stated "If you have a problem [with it]," not that you do have a problem with it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

My view would be that if the sources are poor then they should simply be removed, regardless of whether alternative sources have been provided. The article could be improved simply by removing the irrelevant source discussing Dr. Laura; it's in no way necessary to the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the sources you dispute then; I agree that they are poor sources for this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Please balance this statement.

Scientific research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.[1][7]

However, some LGBTQ youth are twice likely than their heterosexual peers to commit suicide. [34]

Also due to new laws such as ban on gay conversion therapy,[35] prevents homosexual abuse victims from seeking help even though they may have conflicting views on what has happened to them. They never being homosexual where made to forcible to enjoy a sexual act they would have never thought of, thus being their 1 st sexual encounter they want it more and more. Any doctor willing to help them understand that maybe they where not gay could be unlicensed in some states. Even though some conversion therapy has shown to work on younger victims of sexual assault with a linear line of success and age. LGBT are forcible forbidding this without thought to the long term effects of children that where never meant to be homosexual. [36]

Personal opinion follows..(Removed by (Jadean Brooks (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you I left the factual references that need correct a misleading statement, for change and remove Personal Opinion. Please balance article in summary. TWICE AS LIKELY TO COMMIT SUICIDE IS VERY RELEVANT TO "no negative psychological effects."(Jadean Brooks (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

The first sentence has a decent source and may be incorporated into the Gay and lesbian youth section. The rest is synthesized junk. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but it is referenced and is a valid topic while your opinion about synthesized junk may have merit, it deserves a closer look for balance. Quote: Rich Pedroncelli “To say to them, we’re not willing to walk alongside you in your journey feels to me as cruel as the other extremes we used to be at, when people were hurt for saying, ‘I’m gay, and I’m OK with that,’” Pruden said. “In a sense it’s a pro-choice movement – people should have the right to deal with this[37] Is very relevant to have a balance outlook to the subject of what is truly happening. You can not say to a child of abuse from homosexuality suffered no damage then ban any treatment for them even the kind of treatment that is just talking to them about what happen. It is like a backwards kind of abuse where they get hurt twice. Being a former homosexual I think I can speak of this and I think if most homosexual I know where abuse victims. Banning any science for ones that are seeking help is cruel. This article does not due it justice for balance reason and whitewashes a very true subject.(Jadean Brooks (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

Jadean Brooks (talk · contribs), the "is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects" part that is currently in the second paragraph of the WP:Lead concerns the sexual orientation itself; that's why it states "in and of itself." Yes, there are WP:Reliable sources that state that LGBT youth are significantly more likely than their heterosexual peers to commit suicide; we have the Suicide among LGBT youth article that makes clear that the suicide rate is higher for LGBT youth than it is for heterosexual youth. But this higher suicide rate is generally believed to be due to heteronormativity/heterosexism, not due to simply being LGBT. So the sentence you challenge is not misleading if the "in and of itself" part is comprehended in the way that it is supposed to be comprehended. We could move the "is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects" part to the third paragraph, to be combined with the homophobia/heterosexist wording so that it reads as :"The number of people who identify as gay or lesbian and the proportion of people who have same-sex sexual experiences are difficult for researchers to estimate reliably for a variety of reasons, including many gay or lesbian people not openly identifying as such due to homophobia and heterosexist discrimination. While homosexuality is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects, LGBT people commonly face discrimination that may result in [certain psychological effects]." Or something like that. I added the bracket text to indicate that what we can list as the psychological effects is open to suggestion for this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and well said but I still think misleading due to my other referenced material above. From it you get a since of abuse victims are being told their conflicting ideas are ok, that something that should have never happen to them was ok, and now their dreams of a heterosexual life is shattered there is no long term psychological effect is underscored by stating in and of itself... because for some it is what causes it, as referenced. There is also a certain amount of physical damaged that is due to anal intercourse saying this has no long term effect in and of itself would be a lie.[38] There is hundreds of links but this one seems to state through information.(Jadean Brooks (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

Now saying a balance article I do not want to take away from what some have said but simple saying it is always "in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects". its not really true giving the topic and references.(Jadean Brooks (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

I will do more research and I may I add a few sentences with the intention of being on the current topic about what is being whitewashed as according to sourced material. Even though it may not be accepted or popular you cannot deny it is still a part of the topic. For balance, it will take some time for me from a good summary of it. Would this be ok or allowed for a new user? All help and view points would be appreciated once I submit it in talk.(Jadean Brooks (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

News article is a referenced source also I said very clearly I was doing more research. Please actually read before making comments. Thank you for your view point. (Jadean Brooks (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.115 (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the above, your text is not referenced. You're attempting to use a few anecdotes to state a finding. Please actually read WP:SYNTHESIS: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If you want to add to the article, you should ideally be looking at mainstream academic studies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As I have already stated that is what I am doing unless doing more research has a different meaning to you. Simple fact the news article are valid or else half this wikipedia article is not valid, for a balance view you cannot cherry pick only one side by stating any all Matt does not con from to you expressed views is not allowed or should I cite what you just cited me? Did you even read the articles would be the next question?(Jadean Brooks (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC))

Please provide the exact text in the article (which I have read) which sources these rather poorly written statements:

• Also due to new laws such as ban on gay conversion therapy, prevents homosexual abuse victims from seeking help even though they may have conflicting views on what has happened to them.

• • Opponents argued that the ban infringes on rights to free speech and freedom of religion, while supporters defended the ban as an extension of the conditions for providing licenses to counselors in the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadean Brooks (talk • contribs) 05:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• They never being homosexual where made to forcible to enjoy a sexual act they would have never thought of, thus being their 1 st sexual encounter they want it more and more.
• Any doctor willing to help them understand that maybe they where not gay could be unlicensed in some states.
• Even though some conversion therapy has shown to work on younger victims of sexual assault with a linear line of success and age.
• LGBT are forcible forbidding this without thought to the long term effects of children that where never meant to be homosexual.

You can add the text after each statement if you wish. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood something again that is not what I want to add but I am given light that the above statement about the on going topic of homosexuality, needs a little balance because discrimination is not the only thing some suffer such as abuse victims. (Jadean Brooks (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC))

Then I suggest you refrain from stating your personal unsourced opinions about the subject on this talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I thought this was a talk page and the use of illustrated examples about a topic is allowed. Your limited debate seems extremely one sided, are none bias Russian sources Allowed(Jadean Brooks (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC))

The research done by APA Is just eye opening. It has been insightful to learn a great number of things about this organization. It is going to take some serious research to show children that suffer homosexual assault that some may actually suffer mentally from those attacks. I also like to cross reference the increase in suicide rates but doubtfully there numbers relating the two. I'll submit my questions to APA for clarity. I'll submit my findings once I'm done. Sorry I'm talking again about doing research I hope this is allowed. May be awhile before I find the answers. I know common sense is not a source I must get a source from APA. (Jadean Brooks (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC))

Original research is not allowed. Article content relies on reliable, published sources. I concur with NeilN. Please don't post personal commentary or original research here. Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX. This page is for discussion of specific proposed edits backed with reliable sources. Also, please proofread your comments before posting them here; some of your comments are nearly incomprehensible.- MrX 11:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Change to RCP statement under Causes / General

The article quotes the The Royal College of Psychiatrists from a statement dating 2007 stating "It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment." The RCP has recently changed it's stance here and the latest document states "The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors." . I would suggest the wikipedia article changed to keep up to date with the current RCP documentation and remain accurate. Curiousplace (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)curiousplace

Updated, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

new content on HIV

This content was introduced today by Tetriminos in this dif. The first link is broken; the second doesn't mention the word "homosexuality" and the third paragraph reports data from 2001-2005 - a random (?) time period that was ten years ago....

to save space as we have a new versionJytdog (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In many developed countries, HIV is more commonly transmitted by men who have sex with men than by any other routes such as syringe drug users, or blood transfusions. In the UK, there were approximately 107,800 people living with HIV, of which 43,500 consider themselves bisexual or homosexual - 40.3%. It is estimated another 25,000 do not know they are infected. Because there is no official statistic for the number of men who identify as homosexual or bisexual, it is difficult to tell what the exact percentage of HIV prevalence among them is. But as a result of the above statistic, if 1% of the population is homosexual, the number of men with HIV would be appromimately 1 out of every 12 people. Alternatively, if 4% of the population is homosexual, the number of men with HIV would be approximately 1 out of every 50 people. The official NHS statistic is 1 out of every 17 people. In the United States from 2001–2005, the highest transmission risk behaviors were sex between men (40–49% of new cases) and high risk heterosexual sex (32–35% of new cases). HIV infection is increasing at a rate of 12% annually among 13–24-year-old American men who have sex with men. HIV infection is predicted to be increasing at a rate of 12% annually among 13–24-year-old American men who have sex with men. In the United States, "men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population". References

I cut this from the article and pasted here for discussion. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Worldwide, HIV is overwhelmingly found in heterosexuals: it occurs predominantly among gay men only in North America, which accounts for only about 4.5% of global HIV cases. Mention of HIV really has no place in this article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

To cut all information about HIV among homosexuals is seriously lacking confrontation of a serious issue..... I actually suspect a fear of confrontation is a reflex response to the reality, and is the real reason it was removed. In the *English speaking world* which most of the readers of the English Wikipedia will be from, it is commonly causing damage to the lives of homosexual men. Dissemination of this kind of infomation could literally save someone's life from being damaged badly. It's an issue that will only ever be solved if awareness of the current situation is brought to it. The fact that homosexuals are the most common demographic of this disease means that it very reasonable for it to be mentioned on this page, with an appropriate section. The statistics in the first and third paragraph were pulled from other Wikipedia pages, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_and_men_who_have_sex_with_men and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men which proves how out of date Wikipedia is on this issue. I only copied the references from the above two articles that appeared to be from reputable sources such as the New York Times and ".gov" websites - there were a bunch of references on the above two Wikipedia pages that reference news sources that no one would have heard of, and therefore I cannot vouch for their accuracy. Nonetheless, they remain on the above Wikipedia articles. I will revise the paragraphs mentioned above and do a little new research for new references, then re-add parts of what has been deleted. Tetriminos (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• There is some original research in that UK data. "if 1% of the population is homosexual, the number of men with HIV would be appromimately 1 out of every 12 people." Well, first of all I presume that figure is meant to read "1 out of 12 homosexual men". Big difference. But there's more. "If 1% of the population is homosexual...", well given the population of the UK is approximately 60m, that's 600,000 people. Not 600,000 men. For the 43,500 men to be 1 in 12 of the homosexual male population, the total population would have to be 522,000. Which would indicate there are only 78,000 homosexual women in the country. Clearly wrong. If it has no be mentioned at all, the only thing you can quote are the NHS's actual figures. The rest is simply made up. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well it was a typo! I started on this and then had to go to someone's birthday. Now the 1 in 12 number is original research, yes, that's true, and it's a number I crunched and put on my blog in August 2014. It is possible that the number may have changed on the NHS website since then or something, I don't know. Nonetheless, with the current numbers of UK population at 64.1million from here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/compendiums/compendium-of-uk-statistics/population-and-migration/index.html and the NHS number of 43500, that's 6.7% or 1 in 15, which remains pretty close to the original number posted. The other problem is that the NHS website says 43500 is for the number of people who identify as homosexual OR bisexual. So then it's a massive grey area to say how many of the 43500 are homosexual and how many are bisexual, which also changes things - neither of these stats are requested on *any* national census yet, but that will eventually happen in a decade or two or three. So yes, OK lets just go with the official statistics of approximately 1 in 20. Still concerning though, still needs attention brought to it before it will become lower. Tetriminos (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

please don't be in such a rush. i am not seeing consensus to add this content to this article, much less this much WEIGHT. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

OK I've spend a few hours doing research, collaborating information, formatting. It is very statistic heavy and objective. I feel I have completed what I set out to do, I leave it in the hands of others now. I did not add any information on how rate of infection varies among different races, despite there being *alot* of it, such as on PubMed, nor did I add anything on the history of the pandemic, which of course was far worse back in the eras of lower levels of awareness. I wanted to keep it simple so that it would be read. There are a few things that could be added, such as the fact that the rate of infection is higher among older ages, and lower among younger ages, but given the ambiguity and lack of consistency of the statistics around this fact (such as a spike among younger populations, and a leveling off around older populations) it could be misleading to simply write it like that. Perhaps a graph would better illustrate this fact. But again it's a fact based on statistics that are complex, and so probably doesn't belong in the simple synopsis I have written. I also wanted to write something along the lines of "Female homosexuals have a lower rate of HIV than female heterosexuals" as I suspect this is the reality, but I couldn't find official sources that definitively say this, and so I did not add that. Tetriminos (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not to include this in this article is still under debate. You called for a discussion, so please wait until that discussion has been concluded. You can start off by making your case about why extensive information about HIV should be included. And please, indent your responses properly: it will make it much easier for the rest of us to follow the discussion. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Tetriminos, as seen with this edit, I told you that "if you start crowding this article with material better left addressed in the Men who have sex with men article, I will be reverting per WP:Summary style and this article being big enough as it is." Should HIV content be included in this article? Yes. But not as much as you've included, either time. We already have a summary style section that addresses HIV; if we are to expand the HIV mention, the most expansion it should have is a paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

new version

as mentioned above, new version added by Tetriminos much improved, for sure - then reverted by TechBear for further discussion. Here it is... Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

In the Anglosphere countries, the male homosexual and bisexual demographics are the worst affected by HIV.

In 2013, Public Health England published statistics stating that HIV transmission occurred 95% of the time through sexual contact, in both heterosexuals and homosexuals, in the UK. In Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada reported that 63% of new HIV transmissions in males, occurred among men who have sex with men, in 2012. The sexual act that causes the large majority of HIV cases is anal sex without a condom.

In the USA, in 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated 877231 people have been diagnosed with HIV, of which 500022 are homosexual and bisexual men - approximately 57%. In this same year, the largest number of new infections occurred in men between the ages of 13 to 34.

In the UK, the National Health Service reports that there are approximately 107800 people living with HIV. 103000 of which were infected through sexual intercourse. 43500 of these infections are among homosexuals and bisexuals - approximately 40.5%.

Because there is no national census that requests infomation on sexuality yet, the percentage of the population that identifies as homosexual/bisexual is ambiguous. However the majority of estimations range somewhere under 5% of the population.

Therefore, in the Anglosphere, HIV is a problem that disproportionately affects homosexual/bisexual men.

Official statistics suggest that the number of homosexual and bisexual men living with HIV could be approximately 1 in 20, in the UK.

In Australia, the the Kirby Institute for Infection and Immunity in Society publishes statistics of number of new cases per demographic. For men who have sex with men, the number of new diagnoses per year was: 816 in 2013, 883 in 2012, 807 in 2011, 701 in 2010, 688 in 2009, 656 in 2008, 715 in 2007.

In 2011, The National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System conducted blood tests on 9253 men who have sex with men, in 20 major cities in the USA, and found that 18% of men tested positive for HIV. These tests also found that 51% of people aged 18-24 were unaware they had HIV.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, by the end of 2011, 311087 men who identified as homosexual or bisexual had died since the beginning of the epidemic, making up 47% of all deaths of people with AIDS.

A study of HIV blood tests from 960000 females found that 144 women tested positive, and 106 women were interviewed for further infomation. 102 identified as heterosexual. 3 had a history of sex with both men and women. Zero females tested positive for HIV who reported exclusively having female to female sexual relationships, and having reported no other risk factors. HIV transmission among female homosexuals is especially uncommon.

References

Thoughts on this? seems mostly OK to me, a bit of SYN. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Like I stated above, "Should HIV content be included in this article? Yes. But not as much as [Tetriminos has] included, either time. We already have a summary style section that addresses HIV; if we are to expand the HIV mention, the most expansion it should have is a paragraph." Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

so a good update to the men who have sex with men article, then. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The name of this article is not Men who have sex with men in the Anglosphere. Regardless of content, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why such extensive information on HIV, which on a global scale is a heterosexual disease, should be added to an article about homosexuality in general? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well because the people reading the English Wikipedia page will predominantly be from English speaking countries, so that is it's target audience. As for the size, in comparison to the entire size of the article, it is not particularly long. Based on the logic of "why should there be a mention of an issue that affects approximately 5% or under of the homosexual demographic," you could equally say "why should there be an article on a demographic that makes up approximately 5% or under" of the population. So in that sense it is contradictory. Also if we do a full word count of the whole Wikipedia page, it comes in at approximately 12000 words, and this (just now slightly adjusted) section on HIV is approximately 450 words. So this section on HIV is actually approximately 4% of the entire Wikipedia article. I have made small adjustments such as: the origins of the study with the 18% statistic here: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6247a4.htm?s_cid=mm6247a4_w as it seemed disproportionately high compared to other statistics, and so have edited the piece on this page to adjust for that - it was a study of ~9000. I was also surprised by new information on this map: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m6247a4f1.gif But again adding in depth information on location, ethnicity, and age is against the idea of a summary, which seemed to me to be what's absent from the Wikipedia page at present. There is also a lack of statistics from Canada and Australia, but research such as this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=black+MSM+canada+UK+USA suggests that the situation may not differ alot from country to country. An official Canadian publication found here is pretty ambiguous, and provides worded conclusions as oppose to numbered data: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/survreport/2012/dec/index-eng.php But an Australian spreadsheet found here: http://kirby.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/hiv/resources/Table%201.1.1%20Characteristics%20of%20cases%20of%20newly%20diagnosed%20HIV%20infection%20by%20year.xlsx http://kirby.unsw.edu.au/surveillance/2014-annual-surveillance-report-hiv-viral-hepatitis-stis does show all the numbers, per demographic, making it useful, so I have added two sentences for Australia with the relevant numbers. I removed two sentences about intravenous drug users as they are not relevant. Also the NHS statistic wording was changed to "could be" because, as I said earlier on this talk page, it's speculation as we don't have a definite number of people who classify as homosexual, so it could be lower or higher depending on that unknown number. Also clarification on how anal sex is the most at risk sexual act. All I'm interested in is researching and sharing statistics, and Wikipedia is a good platform to do so. Obviously the main intention of this whole thing is harm reduction, and I think the most objective way to do so is just to give people statistics. I dislike the idea that oversimplifying the section will lead people away from drawing their own conclusions - I think it is possible to get closer to realities with statistics, as oppose to more ambiguous generalisations. The reason I think it needs to be on this Wikipedia page is because it's relevant information to this/our demographic, and because it will be found by people who may not have initially been looking for it. And these same people may be more likely to be affected by their own level of awareness. If it is put on a page that's specifically about STDs, it will only be found by people who are already looking for STD specific information, which requires a different level of awareness to begin with.

Tetriminos (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2015

The United States of America has legalized gay and lesbian marriage on June 30, 2015. The whole of the United States should be the color for legalized. 64.121.255.73 (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

 Already done the map was updated on 26 June, following the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges - please see the history of the updates to this map here - Arjayay (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Britons are not the same as the British.

Britons were pre Roman, duh. Call them British as any sane would do. Dickhead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.109.92.105 (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Not so. Briton = 1. a native or inhabitant of Britain 2. a citizen of the United Kingdom (Collins English Dictionary, 1985). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is: Britons were the people that inhabited Britain before the Roman invasion. Today's poeple of Britain are made of Britons, Anglos-Saxons, Vikings and Normans. So it would be more adaquate to call them British - as anyone does. If the Wikipedia quotes the direct usage of the word "Britons", that's not how it should be, adapt it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.109.92.105 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Truth vs sourcing

This article represents a number of socially, morally and politically controversial statements as true on the grounds that psychologists say they are true. This is not valid grounds to establish any controversial fact-claim as true. Actual research should be cited, not a mere consensus of opinion among experts --BenMcLean (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:SECONDARY (compared to WP:PRIMARY). We report what secondary or even tertiary sources say, as well as notable opinions from professional organizations on the topics. We don't usually site primary research. Also the essay at WP:TRUTH might be helpful. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Homosexual

The word homosexual was not used in German because this ending is impossible when forming German adjectives. It was homosexuell. According to http://www.belleslettres.eu/blog/etymologien-bei-wikipedia.php, it was first translated by American neurologist Charles Gilbert Chad­dock (can someone explain why this link doesn't work when the article does exist) in 1887. --2.245.173.181 (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Narcissism and Homosexuality

On September 29th i added the following paragraph:

 Removed

Also adding the proper reference: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/Narcissism/narcissism.pdf

The following day, it was errassed. Why?

Barak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barakpick (talk • contribs) 05:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Women's sexuality

Might this study be relevant for this article?: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34744903

It's a better arousal-based study than another one that is mentioned on the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.104.115 (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Crimes against lesbians, bisexuals and homosexuals

I have significantly expanded the Rape article and it now contains information on the sexual assault statistics against all sexually orientations. Feel free to use this content since I did go to a lot of work to put it in; it really belongs here, too. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081023155659/http://archives.chicagotribune.com:80/2007/aug/12/news/chi-gaygene_bd12aug12 to http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2007/aug/12/news/chi-gaygene_bd12aug12
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090717121843/http://www.psychology.org.au:80/publications/tip_sheets/orientation to http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/orientation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"All" Roman Emperors except one were, without fail, sexually active with men?

"All the emperors with the exception of Claudius took male lovers."

ALL?! In spite of decades of study on the subject, this "fact" I've never heard. Perhaps this locked page could provide some citations for this citation-less (but insistent and sweeping) claim that each and every one of the hundred plus Roman Emperors who reigned for several centuries without interruption were, without exception (except Claudius, of course) ALL homosexual?

I'm going to guess that you can't. But I'll be thankful for your response (with either citation, or modification of the spurious claim.) Thanks153.229.105.43 (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It should have a source, but it is under the header of Classical period so i'm guessing the statement only applies to that period. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence, "All the emperors with the exception of Claudius took male lovers", which is apparently meant to apply to the entire history of the Roman Empire. It damages Wikipedia's credibility to include that kind of statement without a reliable source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Good call FreeKnowledgeCreator. Frankly, we do not know that much on the sex lives of several emperors, because the primary sources are silent. With examples like Gordian I, there is no way to tell. We know the names of his children and grandchild, we have some questionable information on his wife, but we have nothing about his possible lovers of either sex. And this is the norm for many of them.

With examples like Julian, we know even less. There is an abundance of primary sources on his life, both by his own hand and by those of his contemporaries. They speak of everything except his sex life, assuming he had any. We know he was married, but due to a personal belief in chastity, he might never have consummated the marriage. The article on his wife Helena includes the following primary text on his chastity: "This was the pleasure our emperor reaped from the length of the nights, whilst others were following the business of Venus. But he was so far from inquiring where there was a fair daughter, or wife, that had he not once been tied by Juno with the bond of marriage, he would have ended his days knowing nothing of sexual intercourse but by name. But as it was he regretted his wife, yet did not touch another woman, either before or after her". Dimadick (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There needs to be under "Psychology" specifications on the reasons behind the APA removing homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM-III

In this rather silly section, there's a quote saying that the APA accepted the "scientific evidence", citing a JAMA article which itself is political rather than scientific or medical. I point you to the citation I'd like to use, or one of many to include the fact that homosexuality was largely removed due to political pressure, and there really is no scientific evidence which would preclude homosexuality from being a disorder as it's a maladaptive deviant personality charactersitic. https://books.google.com/books?id=-LNxb_yVY4gC&lpg=PR7&ots=hFOeIrBO6t&dq=homosexuality%20political%20DSM%20removal&lr&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q=political&f=false

Page 39 of that book itself. "In 1973, as the result of three years of challenge on part of gay activists and their allies within the [APA], homosexuality was deleted from the nomenclature.Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis

By Ronald Bayer

Which itself of course has citations which I may use. So as this article has the silver lock, partially protected, who can edit it? Let's have a discussion about the inclusion of this truth, rather than painting a picture for the reader which is simply untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkVinerMD (talk • contribs) 01:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120320001221/http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/dataimport/pub/briefingnote/2006/20060801_policy_brief_msm_en.pdf to http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/dataimport/pub/briefingnote/2006/20060801_policy_brief_msm_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130603131046/http://www.apa.org/about/policy/gay-marriage.pdf to http://www.apa.org/about/policy/gay-marriage.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100406055257/http://www.churchtimes.co.uk:80/content.asp?id=60752 to http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=60752
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100527055029/http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk:80/press/pressreleasearchives/2009/statement.aspx to http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/press/pressreleasearchives/2009/statement.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060927063228/http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/std-mts/std511_e.html to http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/std-mts/std511_e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070311233920/http://www.apa.org:80/journals/features/ccp733477.pdf to http://www.apa.org/journals/features/ccp733477.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080601155703/http://www.nationalreview.com:80/comment/brownback200407090921.asp to http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/brownback200407090921.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080605082143/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/calgary/story/2007/11/28/chandler-meeting.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2007/11/28/chandler-meeting.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100215235251/http://www.apa.org:80/about/governance/council/policy/military.aspx to http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/military.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120414144851/http://www.nmha.org:80/go/information/get-info/children-s-mental-health/bullying-and-gay-youth to http://www.nmha.org/go/information/get-info/children-s-mental-health/bullying-and-gay-youth
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120729131204/http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/19990201/26501-gay-lib-for-the-animals-a-new-look-at-homosexuality-in-nature-.html to http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/19990201/26501-gay-lib-for-the-animals-a-new-look-at-homosexuality-in-nature-.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060928195316/http://www.press.uchicago.edu:80/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/231.ctl to http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/231.ctl

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2016

203.124.57.59 (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Note #140 problem.

In order to have a note that reads: "140. McConaghy et al., 2006", you need to either have a full note/citation entered before #140 or this note/citation needs to be fully expanded. As-is, this note is useless. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726144306/http://healthyminds.org/More-Info-For/GayLesbianBisexuals.aspx to http://healthyminds.org/More-Info-For/GayLesbianBisexuals.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140628094701/http://www.psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation to http://www.psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-herek.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610164736/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF to http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713125016/http://www.aidsportal.org:80/News_Details.aspx?ID=5208 to http://www.aidsportal.org/News_Details.aspx?id=5208&nex=5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618190907/http://www.unaids.org:80/en/PolicyAndPractice/KeyPopulations/MenSexMen/default.asp to http://www.unaids.org/en/PolicyAndPractice/KeyPopulations/MenSexMen/default.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601193325/http://www.deseretnews.com:80/article/1,5143,700226242,00.html to http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700226242,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Madharchodiet Network

No relevance to improving article. Wikipedia is not a forum.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It may be imortant to know that the madharchodiet network (mostly from the 1970s in Suriname) have organized all over the world, inspired by the military regime of bouterse. At the time in the korps politie suriname there were recruits from miranda lyceum that had a believe that eating male smegma (dick cheese) would get them in the police corpse. Many of the police in Suriname may have shown homosexual tendencies at the time and many have psychological problems as they were uneducated and may have been influenced by a small group of people to organize their corpse. In july 2013 many of these people who were part of this cohort have ended up destroying their lives and are seeking terrorist activities and may be out there to make homosexuality their cause. Mostly sexuality has been a concern of women and the more this topic is discussed men who have experienced psychological problems are unable to deal with their homosexuality. The custom was also to check and see if teenage boys had poison (sperm) and then they would be able to join the police as many believed that erections were develish and sperm made you into a devil many of the children in Suriname came from a few parents (the one producing babies). Babies were exchanged to experiment with multiculturalism inspired by soviet communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.192.200 (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2017

This assertion, in the second paragraph, needs to be supported. There are no references cited for it: "scientific research has shown that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation in human sexuality" 2601:803:8600:2025:511B:F59:3ADA:449A (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Already done There already exists two citations at the end of the sentence in question that support that part of the sentence. One of those citations is found here. The part in question is supported by the text under the header "Is homosexuality a mental disorder?" in that link. The second reference ([39]) supports it as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/67xKQyixE?url=http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D6803%26Itemid%3D1926 with https://web.archive.org/web/20120523040848/http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6803&Itemid=1926 on http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6803&Itemid=1926
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102132531/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/mexico.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/mexico.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141228033920/http://knowledgex.camh.net/amhspecialists/Screening_Assessment/assessment/ARQ2/Pages/arq2_question_a2.aspx to http://knowledgex.camh.net/amhspecialists/Screening_Assessment/assessment/ARQ2/Pages/arq2_question_a2.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pressparliament/pressreleases2008/pr14.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aidsportal.org/News_Details.aspx?ID=5208
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unaids.org/en/PolicyAndPractice/KeyPopulations/MenSexMen/default.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hrc.org/13699.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1%2C5143%2C700226242%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110210172226/http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx to http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717123400/http://www.startribune.com/local/125537288.html to http://www.startribune.com/local/125537288.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727052503/http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2011/jul/15/spike-number-same-sex-couples-city/ to http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2011/jul/15/spike-number-same-sex-couples-city/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927020758/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/kertbeny_km.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/kertbeny_km.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120409220543/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/krafft_ebing_r.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/krafft_ebing_r.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004223140/http://www.kino.com/psychopathia/history.html to http://www.kino.com/psychopathia/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211012339/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/latin_america_colonial.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/latin_america_colonial.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091029185853/http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileID=1111&ZoneID=7&FileCategory=50 to http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileID=1111&ZoneID=7&FileCategory=50
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609220520/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/outing.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/outing.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091216054340/http://www.click2houston.com/politics/21933862/detail.html to http://www.click2houston.com/politics/21933862/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090111215816/http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/duberman.html to http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/duberman.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091030051630/http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileCategory=50&FileID=546 to http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileCategory=50&FileID=546
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910171338/http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/African_American_Transgenders_and_HIV.ppt to http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/African_American_Transgenders_and_HIV.ppt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925203515/http://www.ilga.org/statehomophobia/World_legal_wrap_up_survey_November2006.pdf to http://www.ilga.org/statehomophobia/World_legal_wrap_up_survey_November2006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614124916/http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/state_hate_crime_laws.pdf to http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/state_hate_crime_laws.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305210524/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_1_68/ai_n24944645/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_1_68/ai_n24944645

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Worth of the term:

Homosexual:

An individual whom only takes their own species in consideration when considering cyclic convolutional affectors (multi complex conjugate pairings beyound its own particular species, region, and/or environment).

Should be added, due this form of describtor being a defacto relational pertinence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.72.229 (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't add gibberish to articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Either that's a very suspect dictionary definition, or he's trying to claim we're selfish... Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about you all, but I'll take affectional convolutors over convolutional affectors any day. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

I wish to nominate this article for deletion, only because there is not yet any credible evidence from the psychology field showing homosexuality is not based solely or in part on individual or group delusion. I could discuss but, do not think that this is the relevant forum for such discussion. KING (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to know better. If you wish to nominate it, go right ahead. If not, please refrain from wasting precious bytes on forum-type comments. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The editor is a sporadic editor, with significant gaps in editing from 2007/2009 to 2015. The editor is essentially a newbie, and likely doesn't know better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've struck that bit. It was also a bit chiding, for which I apologize. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that information. I probably could have worded my introduction better. I suppose I feel that there is unlikely to be a consensus for deletion and, that it would be better to improve the article since it is a real phenomenon. Unfortunately I do not find myself to be quite the competent editor that I would like to be. There is some supporting material for the thesis, however, most that I can locate are in some un-referenced, indirect attributed quotes in the midst of bile and ranting (which I ignored) and I have been unable to locate the original sources for the quotations, for example attributed to Dr. Camille Paglia. I suggest it would take the work of an expert in the psychology field to put together available material into something suitable in an encyclopedic form. The article truely is lacking. KING (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

We have specific rules for dealing with fringe theories. (Here's the guideline.) In a nutshell, they are mentioned only if there are reliable sources documenting their existence, and they are covered proportionally to their prominence (e.g., if their prominence is nil, we don't cover them at all). You're correct that there's "unlikely to be a consensus for deletion" (congratulations, you won the understatement of the week award). What you should also be aware of is that propounding fringe theories on article talk pages is really not a good idea. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I would not think that Dr. Camille Paglia is too obscure and, her field seems to be in psychology however, point taken - it is does not seem to be the sauce of psychologists everywhere. KING (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017

Please, include the following paragraph in "History" section:

"In ethnography, although some studies label same-sex behaviors simply as "homossexual", further disctinctions are needed, for example, gender-stratified (or pathic), age-stratified, and adult egalitarian same-sex practices. At least for male same-sex behavior, the first type, found in Ancient Rome, is the most common cross-culturally, while the second and third can be exemplified by common practices in Ancient Greece (pederasty) and in contemporary Western cultures, respectivelly." Zeroeum (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Zeroeum, I sense WP:Synthesis in your proposal. For example, I'm sure that "further distinctions are needed" is pure WP:Editorializing. There are also a few misspellings in your proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

____

References

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, (1) "further disctinctions are needed" could be changed to "further disctinctions can be made" or "are useful"; (2) as I'm not an English native speaker, I'd be grateful if you could correct them; (3) the typologies and terminologies usually employed in ethnography are variable (it would be too extensive and desnecessary to cite them all), but the three cited categories are relatively common - other sources are provided in the Same-sex relationship article. Zeroeum (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this. Your proposed wording refers to "some studies". How many studies label either same-sex relationships or "same-sex behavior" [sic] (you piped the link, but relationships and behavior are two different things) using anything other than those terms? Of those that do, how many use the term "homosexual" versus anything else? One brand-new study doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot. And are these "further distinctions" exclusive to same-sex relationships or are they also there for opposite-sex relationships? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Rivertorch, I must agree with you, "relationship" and "behavior" are not the same ("same-sex behavior" would deserve a proper article, maybe). Other studies with similar typologies and terminologies about the thematic:

• Burton, Richard Francis (1930 [1886]). The Sotadic Zone. New York: Panurge Press. (Reprinted, Boston: Longwood Press, 1977.) [Original in: Burton, R. F. (1886). Terminal Essay: D. Pederasty. In: The book of the thousand nights and a night. Vol. X., p. 205-54. The Burton Club. [40].]
• Gorer, Geoffrey (1966). The Danger of Equality. London: Cresset. [41].
• Trumbach, R. (1977). London’s sodomites: Homosexual behavior and western culture in the 18th Century. Journal of Social History, 11(1), 1–33. [42].
• Adam, Barry D. (1979). Reply. Sociologists' Gay Caucus Newsletter 18:8.
• Adam, B. D. (1986). Age, structure, and sexuality: Reflections on the anthropological evidence on homosexual relations. Journal of Homosexuality, 11(3–4), 19–33. [43].
• Greenberg, D. (1988). The construction of homosexualities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [44].
• Crapo, R. (1995). Factors in the cross-cultural patterning of male homosexual behavior: A reappraisal of the literature. CrossCultural Research, 95, 178–202. [45].
• Gregersen, E. (1996). The world of human sexuality: Behaviors, customs, and beliefs. New York: Ardent Media.
• Murray, S. O. (2000). Homosexualities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [46].
• Murray, S. O. (2002). The comparative sociology of homosexualities. In: D. Richardson & S. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies (pp. 83-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. [47].
• Janssen, D. F. (2017). Age-stratifying homosexualities in the social sciences. Sexuality & Culture, 21(1), 300-322. [48].

Zeroeum (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

"Same-sex behavior" is literally a meaningless phrase. Perhaps you mean "same-sex sexual behavior"? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, implicitly. Zeroeum (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The more and more I look at your content, the more it looks mostly like WP:Synthesis to me. For example, this "Factors in the cross-cultural patterning of male homosexual behavior: A reappraisal of the literature" source you cited is not really stating what your proposal does. This digitalcommons.unl.edu source states, "The cross-cultural ethnographic literature has traditionally used the label male 'homosexuality' to describe sexual relationships between biological males without considering whether or not the concept encompasses primary sexual attraction to adult males." And the source, which is titled "Is Male Androphilia a Context-Dependent Cross-Cultural Universal?", is about male androphilia. Androphilia is one of the non-binary concepts of sexual orientation. The sources are clearer about what they are stating than your proposed paragraph is. It looks like you grabbed a bunch of sources and then editorialized a narrative from them. What would help is if you can show that any of the sources you've cited explicitly support the wording in your proposed paragraph. See WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. But either way, your paragraph needs to be reworded so that what it is stating is clearer.

As for "same-sex behavior," it usually refers to "same-sex sexual behavior," like it does in this 2009 "Same-Sex Behavior Found in Nearly All Animals" Live Science source. I see that the term did redirect to the Homosexuality article before you redirected it to the Same-sex relationship article. This is probably better than it redirecting to the Homosexuality article since the term is missing "sexual" and since the Same-sex relationship article does currently note that a same-sex relationship can be platonic. Per WP:Redundant fork, "same-sex behavior" should not get its own Wikipedia article. Since the term mostly refers to homosexuality, it's not really notable outside of that context. We have the Friendship, Platonic love and similar articles for platonic relationships. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

And by "similar articles," I am including the Womance and Bromance articles in that, although the notability of these two articles have been questioned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Per Nihlus Kryik's reason below SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 03:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn, now I see that my proposed statement is somewhat wrong, or at least not consensual in the academic environment. In my opinion, the article of Janssen (2017) is very elucidative about the thematic. The kind of historical narrative that emanates from my paragraph, with three types of homosexuality, in a concatenated order, was present in 1980's (but not in the more recent) works of Murray, and also in the book of Gregersen that I have consulted. However, as Jansen says, there are many discussions about the inclusion of the "age-stratified" type of "same-sex sexual behaviors" (e.g., Greek pederasty, modern Sambia people initiation practices) in the concept of homosexuality. Originally, in the emergence of the concept in the 19th century, theorists rejected that inclusion, while in the mid of the 20th century other authors defended it. Well, I think that my proposed paragraph (at least in the words above) really doesn't deserve to be included in the article, but maybe it would be worth for historical purposes to cite the existence of these discussions (in the Homosexuality article, or maybe in History of homosexuality - by the way, the latter has very few citations, take a look at it). Zeroeum (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If the discussions have been widespread enough to have themselves been discussed, then their existence might be appropriate for History of homosexuality. But the construct you're describing isn't exclusive to homosexuality; it exists across different orientations. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC) @Zeroeum: Please don't keep reopening this request, which has now been closed three times by three different editors. Discussion can continue without its being open. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"Choosing"?

«Typically this individual was recognized early in life, given a choice by the parents to follow the path and, if the child accepted the role, raised in the appropriate manner, learning the customs of the gender it had chosen.» so what does this mean exactly? They got to choose whether to be a homosexual or not? Can someone please explain this?—‎Lost Whispers _talk 14:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the paragraph is unreferenced, so it's impossible to tell what the sources that the wording is based on have to say. From our Two-Spirit article:

"Two Spirit" is not interchangeable with "LGBT Native American" or "Gay Indian"; this title differs from most western, mainstream definitions of sexuality and gender identity in that it is not so much about whom one is sexually interested in, or how one personally identifies; rather, it is a sacred, spiritual and ceremonial role that is recognized and confirmed by the Elders of the Two Spirit's ceremonial community.

The preceding is referenced, and I think we might do well to adjust the wording here per the wording there. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: that would be really appreciated, because I'm translating it into my language and I got really confused at that part, because in the lead it has been stated that scientists don't think homosexuality is a choice, but that part is basically saying that parents gave the choice to be a homosexual or not. Am I wrong? plus, unrefrenced statements is not encouraged in Wikipedia as far as I am aware.—‎Lost Whispers _talk 15:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

are we seriously ignoring the fact that this article contradicts itself?◂ ‎épine _talk♬ 23:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225193923/http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf to http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419022239/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html to http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The danger of autoimmune infertility due to antisperm antibodies due to unprotected anal sex

• It is concluded that there is a high incidence of antisperm antibodies among homosexual men, probably because of contact of spermatozoa with the immune system by passive anal intercourse.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4054346

• As a singular phenomenon, unprotected anal intercourse of men having sex with men appears to be a significant risk factor.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-01379-9_8

• These preliminary findings lend support to the hypothesis that antigen presentation in the lower gut may be a source of sensitization against sperm.

They further suggest a possible role for antisperm antibodies as a marker of receptive anal intercourse. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2312123

• Oral and rectal administration of semen triggers the production of antibodies in serum of homosexual men and in genital secretions in rodents.

http://www.elsevier.es/en-revista-actas-urologicas-espanolas-english-392-articulo-antisperm-antibodies-fertility-association-S2173578613001728

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8174713
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8049027

Are you suggesting that this be added here? Because I'm not convinced it fit within this article, specifically. My suggestion would be to look at other related articles. PureRED | talk to me | 19:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. it is necessary to create an article Аntisperm antibodies, it seems it is not. But it is better to add here, this text as a danger to health. Путеец (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the article. Additionally, Wikipedia does not give medical advice WP:NOMEDICAL. – Nihlus (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Statistical usage of the insula

Homosexuals use more their insula during sexual activities, because their hypothalamus doesn't function neither looks as of any "ideal" gender, and even if it looks, during childhood it didn't, and most people carry memories of their experiences. A higher percentage of homosexuals use dildos, the homosexuals statistically use huger dildos (that causes pain, and if we activate the insula we can deal with pain) than the heterosexual users. Homosexuals statistically like fetish. Fetish that involves pain activates the insula in order the negative emotions are inhibited. Also fantasy is used, but without pain usually activates different brain region more. In general even heterosexual people who have statistical differences, when they don't have enough usual means to activate during sex, they prefer to activate other brain regions also, to support the unclear hypothalamic activity. Please add links. This isn't only about homosexuals, but as I said a generic means to activate "some other brain regions one has". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:8215:5b00:8898:9be:75d1:c9b1 (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)‎

At Wikipedia, we don't accept original research. Not even when it's actual research, which the above isn't. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Homosexualism

Homosexualism redirects to this article, but a definition of the term appears nowhere in the article. --Shiggerino (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

’’Homosexualism’’ is a dated synonym for ‘’homosexuality’’. Per WP:R#PLA, it isn’t necessary to mention redirects that are either obvious close variants or of minor importance.--Trystan (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for adding Photo

This officially released photo shows two lesbian females (the official description of photo mentions that they are lesbians) belonging to US Navy kissing on meeting after a long time. It needs to be put in this article to show -firstly, how US Govt is becoming acceptable to idea of Homosexual relations, even in a rigid organization like military, and secondly, to show public display of affection done by Homosexuals can be considered acceptable in Western societies. 106.219.95.180 (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You've added this request at several articles. Do you suppose that such a scattershot approach will ensure that the image winds up getting added? It's already used on four articles, which is probably overkill. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Ancient Sumer

I wonder if this addition (added by Katolophyromai) might constitute undue weight. Some of it seems unnecessary, in any event: androgyny, hermaphrodism, and cross-dressing aren't particularly relevant, and it's not until the third sentence that there's anything mentioned about homosexuality. And even then, it's "appear to have"—and, later, "may have"—which seems rather uncertain. It all seems a bit tenuous for this very broad article. It occurs to me that History of homosexuality#Middle East might be a more appropriate place to put it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. I originally wrote it for the article Inanna; I only added it here because I thought it might be relevant. Feel free to tweak, tailor it, or move it all you want. On the other hand, the sources that I cite in the passage actually contain a great deal of discussion regarding the evidence for homosexual activity among the gala, including one proverb quoted by Roscoe and Murray on page 65, which reads "When the gala wiped off his ass [sic] [he said], 'I must not arouse that which belongs to my mistress [i.e. Inanna].'" On the same page, Roscoe and Murray mention that the Sumerian sign for gala is actually a ligature of "penis + anus". It may be a good idea to remove the parts about cross-dressing and androgyny and insert these pieces of information, which would seem to be more relevant to this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I have made a few updates to the paragraph I added to try to make it more focused and deal more exclusively with the gala's possible homosexuality and not their androgyny or hermaphroditism. Feel free to express your thoughts on the changes I have made. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Better, but I wonder if it's too detailed for this article. I'd be curious to know what other watchers think. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070419234733/http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-1496.html to http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-1496.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111201212113/http://community.expatica.com/forums/topic/2993/half-of-young-dutch-people-reject-homosexuality to http://community.expatica.com/forums/topic/2993/half-of-young-dutch-people-reject-homosexuality

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest edits: WP:Editorializing

Vodka lemon lime, regarding this and this, do stop adding your personal commentary to the article. And per WP:Minor edit, stop marking non-minor edits as minor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Vodka lemon lime's addition is not helpful and have removed it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree also. Changing sourced content without explanation is unacceptable. So is marking edits as minor when they're not, and so is edit warring. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The latest edits have been unacceptable (classifying homosexuality as a mental disease without empirical/scientific sources)... Alexsimion (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alexsimion: I've removed that and indefinitely blocked the editor who added it based on this and past edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070419234733/http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-1496.html to http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-1496.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111201212113/http://community.expatica.com/forums/topic/2993/half-of-young-dutch-people-reject-homosexuality to http://community.expatica.com/forums/topic/2993/half-of-young-dutch-people-reject-homosexuality

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest edits: WP:Editorializing

Vodka lemon lime, regarding this and this, do stop adding your personal commentary to the article. And per WP:Minor edit, stop marking non-minor edits as minor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Vodka lemon lime's addition is not helpful and have removed it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree also. Changing sourced content without explanation is unacceptable. So is marking edits as minor when they're not, and so is edit warring. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The latest edits have been unacceptable (classifying homosexuality as a mental disease without empirical/scientific sources)... Alexsimion (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alexsimion: I've removed that and indefinitely blocked the editor who added it based on this and past edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hard to comprehend grammar

The following sentence uses so many negatives that it becomes hard to understand: "On October 29, 2014 Singapore High Court dismissed a constitutional challenge against a statute against sodomy. The statute provides a sentence of up to 2 years in jail.[62]" Could it simply be changed to something along the lines of "In 2014 the Singapore High Court upheld a law that criminalises sodomy with a sentence of up to two years' imprisonment." I realise there is a subtle difference between dismissing a constitutional challenge and upholding a law, but for all intents and purposes, the effect is the same. Happy for it to be replaced by a better example if someone can think of one— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbe46 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

primary use of the term "gay"

the article currently states that the primary use of "gay" is to refer solely to homosexual males. this feels outdated at best and simply wrong at worst.

"gay" has long referred to homosexuality as a whole. lesbians have been calling themselves "gay" for decades. when someone says "gay people", it's very rare that they're only referring to men.

whilst the use of "gay" solely for men has a place in the article, since that was its original definition (as a sexuality descriptor, anyway—I know it meant "happy" at first), I find the sentence "the most common terms for homosexual people are lesbian for women and gay for men" to be misleading. —mountainhead / ? 12:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

also, I believe lesbian is mostly used as a noun and rarely as an adjective; compare "she's gay" and "she's a lesbian". these terms have different uses. when using an adjective for a homosexual woman, people will almost always use "gay". this in my opinion makes both words equally important. —mountainhead / ? 12:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see your posts here on the talk page until hours ago. The lead doesn't state that "the primary use of 'gay' is to refer solely to homosexual males." It states, "The most common terms for homosexual people are lesbian for females and gay for males, but gay also commonly refers to both homosexual females and males." And that statement in the lead is true. We all know that gay commonly refers to women as well; I and two others recently had a discussion about that. The fact that gay commonly refers to women is why the lead notes it. The lead is not stating that if someone is talking about a gay woman, then gay is unlikely to be used for that woman. It's noting what the most common terms for homosexual people are. Gay men these days are most commonly called "gay," rather than "homosexual" (unless it's a matter concerning scientific research, which still often states "homosexual"). Gay women, at least in the literature, are most commonly called lesbians or lesbian women. It's why our Wikipedia article is titled "Lesbian" rather than "Gay woman." For LGBT organizations, the G is more commonly seen as representing men. The L is for women. Regardless of what we think about application of the term gay, there are sources like this Oxforddictionaries.com source used in the lead of the Gay article; it states, "Gay meaning 'homosexual' became established in the 1960s as the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. [...] Gay in its modern sense typically refers to men (lesbian being the standard term for homosexual women) but in some contexts it can be used of both men and women."

Since gay and lesbian may refer to boys and girls in addition to adults, I understand why you were reverted on "males and females." I also understand that some people have an issue with "females." At the Lesbian article, we used to state "female" and "females" in the lead paragraph; this was to cover girls as well. But an editor took issue with the word, calling it "inappropriate/dehumanizing." And so now, except for "female homosexuality," the first paragraph of that article uses "woman." I stated there on the talk page: "I'm sure that people know that it can refer to girls as well. At least the vast majority of people know that. And for the few who will think that we only mean that the term applies to adult women, the lead does state the following as well: 'The term lesbian is also used to express sexual identity or sexual behavior regardless of sexual orientation, or as an adjective to characterize or associate nouns with female homosexuality or same-sex attraction.' So, yeah, people should know that 'girls' is included somewhere in that. There's enough in the media these days about teenage lesbians for them to have a clue." Further, when sources are speaking of gay boys and girls, they are more commonly referring to teenagers than to young children. The terms man and woman don't have to be interpreted strictly (as also currently noted in the leads of their Wikipedia articles). Teenage boys and teenage girls may also be considered men and women, especially if age 18 or 19. This is the case in some sources on teenage pregnancy, for example, where girls 15 and up may be referred to as teenage women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

that first bit is definitely not how I read the sentence. whilst I agree that what it states is correct having read your clarification, I still think the wording is pretty unclear, making it a bad line. I'd rewrite it e.g. like this:

A common term for homosexual people is gay, though homosexual women are more commonly referred to as lesbians.

as for the second point, whilst you understand why I was reverted, do you actually agree? I'm not sure I can infer what your opinion is from that comment. I definitely take issue with "males" and "females" being there, because:

• trans women aren't technically female. they can still be lesbians
• intersex people who identify as women also aren't technically female, but can also still be lesbians
• trans men are technically female. they can't

I don't think anyone would actually take "women" in this context as only adults. —mountainhead / ? 18:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that the current wording is fine. I'm not someone who objects to use of "females" (such as in the aforementioned case at the Lesbian article) on the grounds that it's dehumanizing or sexist. And I state that as a woman. As for "trans women aren't technically female," as seen during the recent big debate that took place at Talk:Trans woman, some people would disagree with you on that. Similarly, some would disagree with you on trans men not technically being male. You'd also find disagreements about intersex people, but, like the Intersex article makes clear, most intersex people identify with the sex they were assigned at birth. I do think that people would take "women" to mean adults; I don't think they will be thinking of children (or teenagers). And, really, definitions of "gay" and "lesbian," and background information on the terms, focus on men and women rather than children and teenagers anyway, as seen with the Oxforddictionaries.com source. I doubt that the Oxforddictionaries.com source is using "men" and "women" to include children and teenagers. But, regardless, common sense tells people that children and teenagers can be gay as well. After all, neither this Wikipedia article nor the literature on sexual orientation (or even the media) states that people are not gay until they become adults. As for considering trans issues when wording our Wikipedia articles, like I recently stated, WP:Advocacy has "taken place at our anatomy/biology articles, where some editors have insisted on using the word 'people' (or similar) when a topic is overwhelmingly about males/men or females/women. We can see that here, here, and here (for just a few examples)." I noted that we do consider trans people in some cases, but we are often going to mention sex/gender without broadening language to encompass transgender people and non-binary people. To bring up pregnancy again, pregnancy is something that the vast majority of reliable sources attribute to females/women. So we use gendered language in the Pregnancy article. Similar goes for the Teenage pregnancy article. We do have a Male pregnancy article and a Transgender pregnancy article, though. In this aforementioned discussion, I noted that "we should be following what the literature states with WP:Due weight. No editor should be letting advocacy get in the way of their editing here."

All that stated, I'm not strongly opposed to your suggested wording (and would change "though" to "although"). But I think that if we add "A common term for homosexual people" wording, editors will be tempted to add other terms like queer. And as made clear in the Queer article (and in previous discussions on its talk page), queer is still contentious. This is why I think it's best to note what the most common terms are instead. Not just "a common term."

Since FreeKnowledgeCreator also reverted you, maybe FreeKnowledgeCreator is willing to weigh in on this as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to weigh in regarding the supposition about lesbian being used exclusively or primarily as a noun, rather than as an adjective. Actually, it appears to be the reverse: it is six times more frequent as an adjective. The top ten book results are all adjectives: ~ Studies, ~ Histories, ~ Gender, ~ Studies, ~ Theories, ~ Movement, ~ Couples, ~ Psychology, ~ Health, and ~ Partners; it isn't until result #12 that it appears as a noun. Mathglot (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Genes linked to homosexuality discovered by scientists

Genes linked to homosexuality discovered by scientists - [49]. Its a good article and source. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This is behind a paywall. If we could link to the actual published study, it might merit a brief mention, but I wouldn't get too excited at this stage. One study is but one study. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

So try to find that study. I dont think it is hard. 46.70.113.190 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, IP, genes fall under the WP:MEDRS guideline. Read that guideline's WP:MEDPRI and WP:MEDASSESS sections. Per those sections, we should not be adding the material you are citing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned, not only is this behind a paywall but it is a single source. I would not suggest weighing in on a controversial topic based on a single news article, whose conclusions are potentially subjective. Citing the study itself is insufficient since we always favour reliable secondary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). PhysicsSean (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The paper being discussed in scientific american is PMID 29217827; it is a primary source and we will not be generating content based on it. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The quality of such studies can vary.[50] 92.40.156.85 (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Studies of abuse

On the matter of scientific studies of causal factors such as sexual abuse in youth?

"Adolescent boys, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual than peers who had not been abused." -William C. Holmes, M.D. and Gail B. Slap, M.D., Journal of the American Medical Association 1998.ref

Also should be noted are non-sexual forms of abuse such as violence in the home as contributing to homosexuality, not just sexual abuse.-Inowen (nlfte) 23:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Inowen: Conservapedia is not a reliable source. Moreover, there is a causal order issue; do queer children get abuse more because of their queerness, or does the abuse contribute to their queerness? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Conservapedia has a page to document the simple idea of sex abuse as related to homosexuality, something that should have also been explored here (there is some treatment on a subpage which is sort of buried); the argument that the typical Conservapedian would say is that gay activists are in force on Wikipedia, and act as a lobby, and for political reasons brush away theories connecting homosexuality to sexual abuse, physical violence, and other environmental factors. To Conservapedia's credit, they've published a little page and it cites JAMA; to Conservapedia's discredit they have not yet developed a document, even as an outline, on the connection between physical violence and homosexuality; certainly there must be some anecdotal corroboration. Inowen (nlfte) 04:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Inowen: The idea that sexual abuse causes homosexuality is not widely held and WP:FRINGE from what I can tell. As such, it does not get included as doing so would be WP:UNDUE.

As for the cabal of queer activists, I can neither confirm not deny our existence. But suggesting that other editors are against you for political purposes is not looked kindly upon here. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: The idea that abuse is a factor is not fringe; the few studies show a deep correlation. The other side proposes the idea that God made gays gay in the genetic code which is actual fringe. If the idea is that there is no God anyway, then that's injecting atheism into the argument and connecting homosexual politics with atheism. -Inowen (nlfte) 21:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Inowen: I don't follow. The mainstream view of homosexuality is that it is not a lifestyle choice, but rather a more fundamental way of being and that it is unclear why some people are gay. One hypothesis is the "gay gene(s)" hypothesis. There's the birth order hypothesis and hormone hypothesis. No mention of any gods as scientific hypothesis cannot address non-empirical claims. But, as far as I understand it, the idea that sexual abuse is a primary (or even significant) causal factor in homosexuality is not a widely held view (i.e., fringe). The WP:BURDEN is on you to show otherwise. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

But these are all fringe theories cloaked in science-like theorizing and jargon. Abuse is a more likely "mainstream" "empirical" "widely-held" cause.-Inowen (nlfte) 21:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

No, they are not all fringe theories. These are the theories reliable sources talk about and that we talk about per WP:WEIGHT. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You say they are not fringe theories. You say these theories have reliable sources. Has there been some check on whether these theories are not fringe, and are from reliable sources? There are credentialled researchers who propose outlandish ideas as theoretical fact all the time, ideas like gay genes are real and there is no God and homosexuality is normal are two of them.-Inowen (nlfte) 01:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say. This can indeed be frustrating when You Alone know The Truth™ that the sources are wrong...but alas, Wikipedia can only say what reliable sources verify. -sche (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to question a particular source, do so. But POV pushing is a waste of everyone's time EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Your accusal of POV pushing is a kind of attack. Please don't take the rules in your own hands, report me to authorities. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Inowen: The term POV pushing here is not an attack, it's merely a description of Talk page behavior by an editor (you) who exhibits a pattern of adhering to a certain point of view, rather than discussing what the sources say. Everyone has biases of some sort, some more on certain issues than others. Wikipedia editors are expected ignore their own biases where they exist, and hew closely to what reliable sources have to say on a topic. Where reliable sources are not in agreement, we report that, with attribution to differing viewpoints, in proportion to the support of each. You can read about Neutral Point of View (one of Wikipedia's core policies) here. POV pushing is a type of tendentious editing, and you can read about that here.

Finally, editors are expected to be here to improve the encyclopedia, and when using the Talk page, to be discussing specific improvements to the article. Some of your comments on Talk pages make it sound like you may be just wanting to talk about the topic in general; for example, when you said, "ideas like gay genes are real and there is no God and homosexuality is normal are two of them." That just sounds like a general rant about what you consider outlandish or unacceptable in the world, and while it gives a pretty clear indication on where you stand on certain things, it's hard to discern any specific suggestion you are making for how to improve this article. If you have a concrete suggestion to make about improving it, let's hear it. But if you just want to ask questions, or make points about what you believe about Homosexuality, you can do that at the Wikipedia Reference Desk, but not here. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: The specific comment for the improvement of the article is that there seems to be undue weight given toward evolutionary ideas of gayness rather than environmental. I see there is a separate article on environmental and that it can use some work, one of the things it needs is the unburying of the section on abuse. I appreciate the tone you are taking, but consider the possibility that the one who self identifies as a genderqueer atheist/agnostic just called you to intervene here on his behalf; that would completely invalidate everything you have said here above, (even though it paraphrases standard reference to policy) as you are acting as an agent for the other party. The comment you quote "ideas like 'gay genes are real' and 'there is no God and homosexuality is normal' are two of them" would be better written with quotes around the elements as I have just done. What I was saying is that the idea that 'any unusual behavior such as x must have a genetic origin' is outlandish and should be called "fringe." Also any idea where 'behavior x is permissable because there is no God' is injecting atheism and demanding that all articles honor atheist point of view. You might say 'atheist point of view is great' and you might want to disclose that you feel that way here. "POV pushing" is an accusation and seems like a kind of attack; it naturally goes both ways, and it would be a shame if Wikipedia honored one form of POV pushing over the other. Inowen (nlfte) 02:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Inowen: I guess I wasn't clear, sorry; by "specific improvement", I meant a clear and specific description so that one can see exactly what change you are proposing, word-for-word. So, either paired BEFORE and AFTER snippets, or else something like: "In Section 'Section name' paragraph <number>, remove the text that says, 'Text to remove...' and add 'Some replacement text...' instead, followed by these references: 'citation one, citation two' ."

I understand very well what you believe is outlandish or fringe, you stated it quite clearly in your "The other side proposes..." statement, above. I'll say this one more time, but after this we really have to get back to specific ways to improve the article. What we believe as editors about a topic does not count and has no place in Wikipedia articles. Everything that is added to a Wikipedia article must be verifiable in reliable sources which we provide in citations with author, title, page number and more, so that anyone who reads the article can go to the exact page of the reference we cite, to verify that the assertion made in the article is not just the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, but in fact backed up by that particular source on that particular page. In a nutshell, that's how everything works here, and to be a successful editor, you have to understand that paradigm, and work within it.

If you believe that someone is "injecting atheism and demanding that all articles honor atheist point of view" that would indeed be POV pushing, and may be raised on the User talk page of the editor concerned; you're welcome to raise that on my Talk page if you think that is an issue with me. But article Talk pages are dedicated to how to improve the article, and this discussion has already strayed too long on aspects of user behavior, which, if that topic needs to continue, should be confined to User talk pages.

Can we now please get back to what this Talk page is about? If you can make a concrete suggestion of how to improve this article, I'm happy to respond and take part. If you have general questions or comments about Homosexuality, please raise that at the Reference desk. If you want to ask general questions about editing Wikipedia, try the Teahouse. If you think there are groups of activists at Wikipedia with an agenda to push on any topic and have evidence to back it up, try the Teahouse to start, and they will advise you further. However, all further comments on this page should be about improving this article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019

Legend for image File:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality 2013.svg has incorrect colors. Therefore change [[File:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality 2013.svg|thumb|right|2013 Pew Global Research Poll: Should homosexuality be accepted in society? Percentage of responders that answered ''accept'': {{legend|#b90080|81% – 90%}} {{legend|#640091|71% – 80%}} {{legend|#6400ff|61% – 70%}} {{legend|#419bb9|51% – 60%}} {{legend|#005a00|41% – 50%}} {{legend|#007d55|31% – 40%}} {{legend|#7d7d55|21% – 30%}} {{legend|#7d5555|11% – 20%}} {{legend|#4b001d|1% – 10%}} {{legend|#c0c0c0|No data}}]]
to
[[File:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality 2013.svg|thumb|right|2013 Pew Global Research Poll: Should homosexuality be accepted in society? Percentage of responders that answered ''accept'': {{legend|#005075|81% - 90%}} {{legend|#009AE1|71% - 80%}} {{legend|#72C3ED|61% - 70%}} {{legend|#A3D7F4|51% - 60%}} {{legend|#FFB4AF|41% - 50%}} {{legend|#FF8E86|31% - 40%}} {{legend|#FF584C|21% - 30%}} {{legend|#FF1100|11% - 20%}} {{legend|#AD0C00|1% - 10%}} {{legend|#E0E0E0|No data}}]] Then the legend should be correct 86.136.211.157 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! – Þjarkur (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Homosexuality is not romantic attraction

The article here states that homosexuality is the romantic and sexual attraction to the same sex. This is incorrect. Homosexuality is only the sexual attraction to the same sex, romantic attraction to the same sex is homoromanticism. Being that you don't have to be homosexual to be homoromantic, this is not an accurate definition of the word. Let's fix it. 4/5/2019 Flower333Bed (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid the APA disagrees with you.- MrX 🖋 16:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

"Homoromantic" or "homoromanticism" is a term mainly used by asexual people and in reference to asexual people. And it's used by asexual people and in reference to asexual people to express same-sex attraction without an emphasis on sexual attraction. Also, romantic attraction is usually intertwined with sexual attraction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

And either way, "homoromantic" or "homoromanticism" is a neologism. See WP:NEO and MOS:NEO. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

People forget Homosexual is a neologism also, the word is a greek / latin hybrid. see https://www.etymonline.com/word/homosexual — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.96.44 (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The Neologism article currently states "is a relatively recent or isolated term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been fully accepted into mainstream language." WP:NEO and MOS:NEO echo this. In what way do you think that "homosexual" fits that criteria after all these years? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I suppose. Perhaps "romantic attraction" should not be stated first in the opening sentence, or as if homosexuality could be that alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.96.44 (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The opening sentence does not reflect the definition as defined in the cited articles

Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.

The bold part of this sentence is not supported by the cited articles. These articles both define homosexuality only as same sex attraction and not same gender attraction and this does not appear to be because of a lack of the distinction between sex and gender because the articles discuss both.

As basically every other definition of homosexuality I've seen does not include gender I think or gender should be removed unless a different citation can be provided of a similar level of authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apophis82 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2019

I want to add in the goals and objectives of the Healthy People 2020 campaign pertaining to homosexual health under the "Health" heading Kmiller22 (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 20:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 5b goals

Tranhtruong (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please update with actual goals for review--thanks. Health policy (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

At WP:Med, Helaine (Wiki Ed) stated, "Hi, I've been in touch with the instructor - Health policy to discuss your concerns. Students in the course will not be editing articles with discretionary tags, those that are in the process of being brought to Good or Featured Article status, or otherwise overly controversial. We usually support medical courses with no more than 35-40 students, but made an exception to this course due to our longstanding relationship with UCSF and its medical student Wikipedia editing initiatives. The course will overall be working on fewer articles as well, and of course we'll be helping them with their contributions. Thank you."

Homosexuality is a very controversial topic. So, after reevaluating what the students should edit, is this one of the articles the students will not be editing? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Epigenetics/"gay gene" material

Legendiii, regarding this and this, please try to stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing for epigenetics/"gay gene" material. Read WP:MEDRS for what I mean. WP:MEDRS does apply to such material. Basically, for such material as that, we should stick to review articles published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers, and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used. WP:SCHOLARSHIP also notes the importance of using secondary rather than primary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Hi, yes this merely a collation of the primary sources in which the links were initially found and is not meant to serve alone, instead alongside secondary material embedded in text. I have included some secondary sources where appropriate - though primary sources here though include Cambridge University Press, Nature and Hum Gent., all considered reliable and peer-reviewed. If you would prefer, I can expand the table to provide further secondary sources, but I feel keeping the primary sources which have linked loci to sexual phenotype is relevant and useful in the article (for the readers' information). Afraid to say, I haven't edited but only moved the epigenetics information but I would happy to review those sources to help out. Hope this helps. Legendiii (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Is this part fit to add in Middle east#Pre-Islamic period section: The ancient Law of Moses (the Torah) forbids men from lying with men (i.e., from having intercourse) in Leviticus 18 and gives a story of attempted homosexual rape in Genesis 19, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, after which the cities were soon destroyed with "brimstone and fire, from the Lord" and the death penalty was prescribed to its inhabitants and to Lot's wife who was tuned into a pillar of salt because she turned back to watch the cities' destruction. In Deuteronomy 22:5, cross-dressing is condemned as "abominable".

References

- Lazy-restless (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

For one thing, this appears to be copied from LGBT history with references added (not sure if you added the refs first here or there), so that should be stated when copying in the edit summary. This article's section on history is already overly long and redundant with other articles, so I don't think it should be added. I haven't looked super closely at what you have there above, but the two references to centuries old sermons are not WP:RS. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If reliable source is added, will it be allowed to add it in this article with edit history mentioned copying? The part is importany because in case of the history of homosexuality, the event of lot and sodom and gomorrah comes first almost all around the world. Lazy-restless (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

And please, describe what are the lacks in the above references according to WP:RS. Lazy-restless (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Crossroads1. Pinging Freeknowledgecreator for his thoughts, if any, on this matter. As you know, Freeknowledgecreator did comment above on other material you added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added here because the history section is already too long. But, I would like others, especially Flyer22 Reborn and Freeknowledgecreator, to comment on if we should reduce it or not. As for the sources, 1, 2, 5, and 6 look okay to me because they are by academic publishers, but be sure to watch out for undue weight on certain ideas and synthesis (original research). As for the sermons, see WP:RS AGE. The Bible obviously hasn't changed in centuries, but scholars' understanding of it has, very much. Your first two sources probably mention that material anyway, but be sure to check, and adding page numbers is ideal when citing books. One way to do that, if you wanted to cite p. 50 let's say, is by adding {{rp|50}} (without the nowiki tags) after the closing ref tag. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If the history part is reduced, still then this part will be at first to be worthy of mention, because as previously I said, the story of the lot comes first all around the world while discussing the history of homosexuality. And the second point is, there are other sections in this article, which are also too long in discussion, if history section is reduced, then it can be claimed to reduce this-like other lengthy sections also. Lazy-restless (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

And see this video till to the end, here it has been too much smartly credited and claimed that, according to christian texts and interpretations, the cause of destruction of sodom and gomorrah by god was homosexuality. This video is only a single example, but many more referencial mainstream examples can be found to cite this, if you have a truely and honestly neutral wish. I don't know why, the articles, either theoritical or informative, about homosexuality in English wikipedia tend to be too much influenced by homosexuality-friendly western notion's point of view, tend to tecnically ignore the references or explanations which goes against homosexuality, and thus fail to show a neutral point of view. Lazy-restless (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Now please tell me, will you both allow me to add Sodom gomorrah and religion part on the article or not? Lazy-restless (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Our WP:NPOV is based on what reliable sources state. Homophobia is WP:FRINGE amongst these sources, so it is proper that, as you say, we tend to be too much influenced by homosexuality-friendly western notion's point of view. We do not represent opposition to homosexuality in proportion to what the world population thinks, just as with creationism and the like. There is no good reason to oppose homosexuality. It is proper for a historical article to mention cultures that were homophobic in due proportion, but this article is already too in detail on history. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Why are you using the words phobia and fringe, there is nothing about phobia or fringe, this is the urge for making balance of all point of views to balance neutrality, not rejecting any single. Lazy-restless (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

And how could you say such to make the homosexuality article as promotional or advertizing rather than neutral? Lazy-restless (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Spectroscopic photos and spectroscopic art are sometimes confused with non-cis sexuality

If one uploads spectroscopic art, photos (rainbows of any kind) on social media he/she/it might be interpreded as a non-cis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8266:AA00:5C0B:9760:A9DF:FF6D (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2019

Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex. Marcas mac (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2019

Without reproductive intent the activity under this heading might more suitably be described as erotic, for example "Homo Erotic". Let it be noted that it has (unusually) become commonplace to see the suffix "sexual" employed where in fact no sexual (meaning "reproductive") behaviour is involved. Until the/a culture decides to adopt the appropriate usage, however (and perhaps it may never), the following article sets out to describe the word "Homosexual" as we accept it popularly today. In no way does this popular current of use in any way represent a correct biological or proper scientific nomenclature and its social placement is dubious although culturally accepted and habitually unquestioned. Additionally note that it is redundant to refer to "heterosexuality" when only the term "sexuality" (less the prefix "Hetero") suffices/applies in mating (reproductive behaviour) that the popular prefix is common bastardization of terminology, and that "Hetero Erotic" would be proper when such a coupling employs birth control methods (abstinent behaviour) effectively desexualizing the act. Real Meanings (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform to campaign for new terminology or to introduce novel interpretations. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

How should we treat China on the world map?

There is a discussion on Commons, on the talk page of File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg, as to whether China should be colored tan like Russia etc. This is primarily re. the latest TV/cinema censorship rules, which (if upheld) single out homosexuality for the first time, mentioned alongside sexual perversion. On the other hand, the govt states that LGBT people need to be respected. There's also periodic purging of LGBT material online, which if quickly reverted in the face of protest is also a recurring problem. Is this egregious enough for us to put China in the same category / color them on the map the same as those other countries? If so, are there additional countries that should be treated this way? — kwami (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:I think China should be colored tan like Russia (Laws restricting freedom of expression and association).

China's LGBT community treads cautiously amid intolerance — "Award-winning gay romance “Call Me By Your Name” was pulled from the Beijing film festival in March, while a blacklist of banned audiovisual online content last year also controversially included homosexuality."

China’s pornography laws are a backdoor for censorship — "LGBT content is specifically subject to censorship in Chinese media. In 2016, the government ordered the removal from the internet of China’s first online gay-themed TV series. And in June 2017, under the government’s direction, the China Netcasting Service Association issued new guidelines that require removing all videos featuring same-sex relationship content from the internet – a vital forum for networking and communication for LGBT people."

Fewer rainbows, less social media for China’s LGBT community — "China’s LGBT community has had a tough year: censors have shut down social media forums, news media have curbed coverage of gay issues, and online shops have removed rainbow-themed products."

Woman Receives 10-Year Prison Sentence in China For Writing Boys-Love Novels — "The woman, named Liu ... was arrested under China's obscenity laws for "obscenely describing male and female homosexuals" and for "violence, abuse, vulgarity, and other behaviors related to sexual perversion." -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tobby. Yeah, we had several long discussions about this in various places, and agreed that China should be tan for such things, even if they're inconsistent, as well as lt blue for minimal rec. — kwami (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Disputed recent changes

@Lazy-restless:, I have already noted my objections to some of your recent changes here. It is rude of you to continue making the same changes, without explanation, after an objection to them has been stated. Part of your recent addition reads, "Some including Orthodox Judaism, Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and Zoroastrianism teach that homosexual desire itself is sinful". That addition is not acceptable. It must be either removed entirely or properly modified and qualified. It is blatantly false to claim that Christianity uniformly teaches "that homosexual desire itself is sinful"; there is no single Christian body with any ability to promulgate such a teaching (I also believe that your addition misrepresents the position of the Catholic Church). This is a highly complex subject, and per WP:NPOV we cannot responsibly present the opinion of a single source as unqualified fact. Your addition is an embarrassment and the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a poor reputation. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, that unacceptable addition is cited to this, which appears to be part of a legal briefing. It is bizarre to think that it is acceptable to use such a source in this manner. The source in any case makes no claims of any kind about what Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism teach about homosexual desire; it is obvious that the addition by Lazy-restless is not properly cited, represents personal opinion, and must be removed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I took all that my edit informations from Religion and homosexuality article. You can cross-check it there. - Lazy-restless (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Look, you just aren't seeing the problem here. I don't know why, given that it is perfectly simple. It is a basic and fundamental principle of properly citing article content that a citation that follows a statement has to support the statement. Your addition adds a set of claims about how various religions view homosexuality, and immediately following that added material is a citation to a legal brief that does not support those claims. Is that acceptable? No. For perfectly obvious reasons, that just isn't how things are done here. It confuses things and undermines the integrity, reliability, and quality of the project. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Lazy-restless It is worth noting that WP:Reliable sources explicitly states that a Wikipedia article may not be used as a source in an article; you need to go back and use the original references.Finney1234 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Freeknowledgecreator:: I'm not sure what this was about, but in your first comment it says "Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity, which are two very specific denominations of Christianity that set their own rules.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 07:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Historically discouraged by many religions

@MrX: You reverted my edit to the lead, but I still think it is appropriate to mention religious opposition to homosexuality in the lead. The goal of the article is to summarize cultural attitudes as well, not just scientific findings. While I should say by religions, I mean Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; I don't know of other religions that have historically opposed homosexual behavior. Although you said it's not an accurate summary of the article, this is mentioned several times. From history: "In cultures influenced by Abrahamic religions, the law and the church established sodomy as a transgression against divine law or a crime against nature." From Middle East: "Homosexuality is illegal in almost all Muslim countries." If you think it should be worded differently, that's fine, but it's definitely relevant. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 07:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Naddruf: We should reflect a global view, not just the view of Abrahamic religions. Even within Christianity, there is wide variation among its constituent churches. Assuming that the Religion section of the article is a faithful summary of sources about the subject, the lead should reflect it. Something like:

"Religious views about homosexuality vary. Some teach that homosexual desire itself is sinful, some believe that only the sexual act is a sin, others are completely accepting of gays and lesbians, and some encourage homosexuality.

Admittedly, this is not a subject that I have researched a great deal, so we may want to seek input from WP:WikiProject LGBT studies. - MrX 🖋 11:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: Yes, that is perfectly fine. I didn't say all Christianity, or are Judaism or Islam were opposed to homosexuality now. I just made a general statement about the past. When you say the article should refelect a global view, that is true, but there is no reason not to mention particular attitudes like this, specifically as followers of Abrahamic religions are more than half of the world population.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

-Furthermore, I agree with you that this sentence doesn't belong in the article: "Current authoritative bodies and doctrines of the world's largest religions view homosexual behaviour negatively."—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

TheeFactChecker (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Should a criticism section be added?

No. Johnuniq (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

Citation [154] does not support the proposition in the previous phrase. The article cited is a discussion of the politics surrounding the declassification of homosexuality in The DSM. A better source should be found, or this citation should be removed. Parriswashere (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Equivamp - talk 01:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Add this paragraph after the statement that many believe homosexuality is not caused by social influences.  : "Many psychological sources and studies, show models of parent and child social interactions, which greatly influence learning homosexual behavior and orientations (no matter how early in life it is learned) are abundant. Beyond the old Freudian Oedipus and Electra complexes are men and boys, who do not know a caring and loving father, yet who yearn for him, the helicopter mother, loving her son in the place of romantic relationship with her spouse or other, the boy who is labelled "gay" by his peers in a particularly vulnerable time in puberty or preadolesence. These are just a few of the many extremely influential factors, which may make a child or man think they were born gay. There are a lack of scientific methods in claims that individuals cannot change this largely learned behavior and orientation of homosexuality. Such traditional treatment since the 1970's has trapped (and "defined") many, who need to be freed from the traditional psychological definitions of the 1970's that there are scientifically proven inborn or largely natural causes of the very complex social human behaviors and psychological orientations labelled "homosexualty" or "being gay." Signed, Stephen Hoskins 2601:480:4081:C2D0:2C2E:3D57:B7A:938A (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Introduction. Sex vs Gender

Both sources for the introduction do not support the addition of gender. I point to Merriam-Webster and Oxford personally for the definition. Not to mention sex is in the word but that's beside the point

Thanks, (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverted here and sourced here. This matter had a long discussion years ago. Other than the big discussion at Talk:Sexual orientation#Definition and misinformation (permalink here), I am not getting into another big debate about it years later, in a time where a new discourse on the matter has developed. But I will alert WP:LGBT to this section you started. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

And fix your signature. Currently, people can't see what your username is unless they see you in the edit history or use the mouse to hover over your signature. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, mentioning both is the right and due thing to do; plenty of sources can be found for both; to pluck one out of the multitude that define homosexuality as same-gender attraction:  . -sche (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I'll take your word on it mate I don't want to touch this. Thanks, (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)