Talk:Homosexuality

Source required

The discrimination section claims that "Negative stereotypes characterize LGB people as less romantically stable and more likely to abuse children, but there is no scientific basis to such assertions.", however this claim is not accompanied by a source. I've seen people show data relating child abuse or pedophilia to homosexuality, and I believe that a source would help make this claim more sound. Aimarekin (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Changing lead to reflect actual definition of homosexuality

There is an extremely obvious consensus against the starting user’s interpretation here Dronebogus (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear overwhelming scholarly consensus that homosexuality is exclusive to sex (including by the APA, which contradicts the message planted in the "edit" section). Gender is irrelevant when coming to the determination of whether someone or something is homosexual or not. Words have definitions, let us use them correctly. Homosexuality refers to same-sex attraction only. Including sources from several major dictionaries and scholarly articles below. https://www.britannica.com/topic/homosexuality https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/homosexual https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/homosexual https://dictionary.apa.org/homosexuality https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/homosexuality https://study.com/learn/lesson/homosexuality-concept-history.html BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Most of those are poor sources for this topic. We do not use dictionaries for complex topics. The other difficulty is varying nomenclature between disciplines. Whereas sociology might adhere to the sex and gender distinction, genomics does not. Gender studies folks would go further to say male/men (or female/woman) can be roughly synonymous, but sex assignment vs gender identity are not. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Except they are not "poor", they are widely reputable and respected definitions of the term, the distinction is often made even within academic psychological circles. If anything the article seems to selectively use sources that are not representative of consensus to justify the inclusion of "...or gender" in the lead. For example homosexuality is defined in the Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (published by Elsevier Academic Press) by the following quote: "The term 'homosexuality' refers to the experience of exclusive or nearly exclusive erotic preference for others of the same sex in fantasy and, characteristically, through realization of sexual intimacy with others of the same sex." There is no mention of gender, furthermore the overwhelming consensus on this talk page seems to be in favor of removing the term "gender" form the lead. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Brittannica, Cambridge Dictionary, Collins Dictionary, Merriam Websters, and Study.com are not "widely reputable and respected definitions of the term" by any stretch of the imagination. And I see no "overwhelming consensus" on this talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Whether you want to respect the definitions to which the vast majority of the English speaking world defers is your business, however those sources are absolutely reputable and reliable, especially sources like Encyclopedia Britannica. I also provided more academic sources well, such the Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology for good measure. As for consensus, literally every other non-archived topic except one has been about making the aforementioned change. What is that if not consensus? BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC) I agree with EvergreenFir. I'd also note that within the text that BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 removed was a hidden note for editors that homosexuality is defined by both sex and gender is well sourced in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC) If by "well sourced" you mean "cited a source that agreed with that perspective", then yes, it was well sourced. Fortunately I provided plenty of other good sources which contradict the "homosexuality is based on both sex and gender" argument. Homosexuality is the state of being attracted to opposite sex; gender is irrelevant, assuming one even subscribes to the belief that sex and gender are not synonymous. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Dictionaries are not even close to being optimal sources for anything but the simplest concepts, and even then you'd want a secondary source instead. Find a relevant, authoritative source within the field in question to make your point (e.g. academic papers or textbooks).--Megaman en m (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC) "The term 'homosexuality' refers to the experience of exclusive or nearly exclusive erotic preference for others of the same sex in fantasy and, characteristically, through realization of sexual intimacy with others of the same sex." - Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (published by Elsevier Academic Press) What about this source is not relevant, authoritative, or academic? I referenced it both earlier in discussion and cited it when making my edit. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Why is that source more relevant than Cross-Cultural Psychology: Critical Thinking and Contemporary Applications which states Homosexuality is a romantic or sexual attraction between persons of the same sex or gender. and The Equal Curriculum: The Student and Educator Guide to LGBTQ Health which states Homosexual, literally meaning "same sex", is used as an adjective to describe same-sex or same-gender attraction., both of which are used in the article in support of the text you removed? And both of which were published more recently than the Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (2004 vs 2016 and 2019)? Homosexual, like every other sexuality, has multiple definitions. Some definitions, usually older describe it solely in terms of sex, and others usually more recent describe it as applying to sex or gender. The current consensus is that it the word defines sexual attraction to both sex or gender. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Gender is separate to sex. Homosexuality is uniquely defined by same sex attraction, it always has been and always will be. The overwhelming evidence, except for a few institutions captured by homophobic gender identity ideology, supports this view. If homosexuality was defined by gender, it would include heterosexual acts such as males having vaginal sex with females. The reason that this is important is because sexuality is an objective fact while gender is subjective. We cannot define things properly with subjectivity. The sources above citing your point are biased, literally 99% of other sources available define it by sex. Wikipedia is meant to be a source of information, not a repository for extremist activists talking points.--Colevasquez (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Absolutely agree. Language and terminology is important. 2A02:C7F:5843:A300:5D2E:F26D:382F:D0D2 (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

We need a FAQ for this

We’re getting incessant redundant requests complaining about the definition including gender. Therefore a FAQ is in order. It should obviously include “why does it describe the sex/gender thing etc.” (in more formal terminology of course) but what should the answer be? Dronebogus (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Gender refers exclusively to psychological phenomenon. Sex refers exclusively to biological phenomenon. Sexual attraction refers exclusively to physiological (bodily) attraction. One is not attracted someone based on their psychological state of being (mind). One is sexually attracted to someone else, only through their physiology(body). Homosexaulity refers to sexual attraction of a member of the same sex. Homosexual attraction, therefore, refers exclusively to physiological (bodily) attraction.

I could also reference how some (mainly ideologically driven people) attempts to conflate "sex" to "gender", by stating that "one can [choose] to identify as the opposite [sex], of their physiology", even though that would be the equivalent of "subjectifying" an objective reality. However, i would prefer not to explain further, since some, might perceive such a line of inquiry/reasoning as inherently politcal, and attempting to explain such thoughts would only create a needless debate.

In reference to the above, aformentioned statement, i wish to declare, that i declare; even the mere existence of anything being political / controversial / subjective / personal; to not exist. Logical OverLord (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure everybody would necessarily agree with all of those statements.

Certainly a distinction between the meanings of "sex" and "gender" is pretty new in the English language and it's only in the last few years where trans rights and issues have become a more politically polarised conversation that the distinction has become more prominent.

To quote from the Oxford English Dictionary entry for "gender, n.":

3a. gen. Males or females viewed as a group; = sex n.1 1. Also: the property or fact of belonging to one of these groups.
Originally extended from the grammatical use at sense 1 (sometimes humorously), as also in Anglo-Norman and Old French. In the 20th cent., as sex came increasingly to mean sexual intercourse (see sex n.1 4b), gender began to replace it (in early use euphemistically) as the usual word for the biological grouping of males and females. It is now often merged with or coloured by sense 3b.

3b. Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.

While meaning 3b confirms @Logical OverLord's opening claim, meaning 3a contradicts it and continually arguing over semantics is, frankly, not especially helpful towards building an encyclopædia.

The opening sentence of the lead reads Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. and has 3 different references for including both words. I don't think that the RECENT politicisation of trans people (personal declarations notwithstanding) is something that needs reflection in the lead. I do fear that wording an FAQ item or hatnote for this talk page would end up being no less controversial, however. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 11:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the key questions to ask ourselves are:

• Would a FAQ be helpful to a significant number of people coming here in good faith?
• Would a FAQ discourage trolls?
• Would a FAQ make it easier for us to deal with trolls?
• Would creating a FAQ cost more effort than it saves?

I fear the answers here are maybe, definitely not, maybe and maybe. So, I'm not against a FAQ, if anybody can come up with a good one, but I think it will be of limited use because the trolls are only here to be disruptive and a FAQ only helps those who actually want to be helped. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Agreed. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

How do you define the word "troll"? I have literally been called a left wing "troll", and a right wing "bot", and even a "nazi" online before, and all on the same day. Though in fairness, i am mostly called those things on twitter.

Also, i only, actually, found this page, while trying to find where to propose a change to the "Homosexuality" article. Wikipedia is very confusing when trying to understand how to do things. Logical OverLord (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• In my personal lexicon, 'troll' is a gadfly with malice aforethought. Typically, the term on WP is used to denote people who edit purely to disrupt or provoke with no intention of improving Wikipedia, whereas you (from the edits I've seen) genuinely do want to improve this resource. Me, I'm just here for the popcorn. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Daniel is right that trolls will be undeterred (witness the perennial trolling on Talk:Fascism), but like on other articles that see similar sealioning and trolling, it can still be helpful to have a basic FAQ ("Q: why does the article define this as X? A: because that's how reliable sources define it"). For one thing, it makes it slightly more obvious that certain perennial re-requests are trolling, but for another it's also just less typing to write {{FAQ}} and just transclude it in response to perennial edit requests (then hatting them if necessary). -sche (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Trolls be trolls; imho, attempts to deter them are like deterring the tide. If they’re girded for culture combat, they’ll never read an FAQ. However, an FAQ might be a great resource for actual humans. The article is long -- very long -- and the (extremely well-crafted) lede is pretty dense. Do we have enough valid questions to support an FAQ? Do we have concise answers for those we have? I’ve never contributed to one on WP, but would be happy to volunteer time to work on it if someone can provide some guidance. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I would certainly agree a FAQ to explain how this decision has been reached would be helpful.

I understand the argument that gender can also = sex in day to day language. However when specifically discussing sexual orientation, gender is more frequently used to indicate a self conception and/or adherence to male/female stereotypes.

So either the article erases gender as a meaningful identify marker (as only sex matters), or it erases homosexuality, by including heterosexual attraction as homosexuality. It is either inconsiderately worded, or just wrong.

Alternatively the article is going to need to explain that gender is being used as a synonym for sex, rather than gender identity. 2.29.49.7 (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

History section and social constructionism

Currently, the history section reads: "Some scholars argue that the term "homosexuality" is problematic when applied to ancient cultures since, for example, neither Greeks or Romans possessed any one word covering the same semantic range as the modern concept of "homosexuality""

This seems incorrect. Bailey writes: "The historian John Boswell documented the existence of obviously heterosexual or homosexual characters in Greek literature.... The Romans, just a few centuries later, had a word to describe feminine, exclusively homosexual men: cinaedi" p. 128. So, the citing of social constructionists probably needs revision. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

We probably have to include their views with proper attribution, but well-sourced scholarly arguments to the contrary - which Boswell certainly count as - should also be included. I would suggest citing Boswell directly for this. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Noting that there are characters in Greek literature that we would now classify as homosexual does not mean that the Greeks possessed any one word covering the same semantic range. Many suffragettes fought to outlaw drag in theatres. That does not mean they had the concept of TERFs at the start of the last century. The point of the sentence is important: The modern homo/hetero dichotomy is not universal in the historical record, and many (perhaps most) ancient and classical cultures would be baffled by our current classifications. I believe that the sources clearly support the current phrasing. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It would be more reasonable to present both a constructionist and an essentialist view. I don't think the constructionists have strong enough evidence to claim that ancient cultures would be "baffled" by our current classifications. More importantly, it's probably a good idea to tidy up the history section to actually focus on history, instead of large paragraphs dedicated to social constructionist thought at the top. We can probably put constructionist vs essentialist arguments underneath another sub-heading. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment

Octanvui – this is improper. Wikipedia is based upon secondary sources, not primary source studies. You've also inserted your own improper conclusions from a GWAS study.

A modest 'genetic' influence on a trait is irrelevant to the cause. It does not prove the influence of social environment or nurture, as you assert. For example, the genetic influence on left handedness is low, but we know the environmental influence on left handedness is due to non-social mechanisms, such as hormones in the womb, or randomness in how the brain grows.

As the Bailey review clarifies, the non-social environment is the important part here, especially for males.

Examples of non-social environment include the prenatal hormones that differentiate male and female brains, as well as maternal immune responses which have been implicated. Alternatively, things might be trace back to an an entirely different biological mechanism outside of genes interacting with prenatal hormones. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Octanvui OK, I will add this link about this studies [1], they said “ This means that non-genetic factors - such as environment, upbringing, personality, nurture - are far more significant in influencing a person's choice of sexual partner, just as with most other personality, behavioral and physical human traits”. Is this ok?Octanvui (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

No, a journalist’s article (which is a misinterpretation of the Ganna study) isn’t sufficient for a complex topic like this. I’ve already linked you the academic Bailey review clarifying the point. A genetic study does not tell you what type of environment affects a trait. As I've already said, plenty of traits present from birth (left handedness, cleft lip) show weak genetic effects. It would be illogical to conclude that these are due to upbringing simply because of a modest genetic effect. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Octanvui Ok, this is new link - (Nature journal [2]) - "Ganna and his colleagues also used the analysis to estimate that up to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors". They only wrote "the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors", I think this is okOctanvui (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't cite news articles just because they are published in Nature. But to clarify, the Ganna team never say this proves social influence on sexual orientation. They do note how social acceptance would allow those with same-sex attractions to engage in same sex behaviour. This is because the GWAS is not a study of homosexual orientation, it is a GWAS of people who engaged in one same-sex act in their life. So no, that isn't suitable and lacks context. But it does seem like you are potentially engaging in bad faith here. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Octanvui is an obvious bad faith LTA sock. SPI report will be filed. Bennv123 (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)