Talk:Choice and sexual orientation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is covered by WikiProject LGBT studies, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to LGBT issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.

Contents

[edit] References for birth order section

The text in the birth order section is based on a quick web search and what I remember from reading about the subject in general. The best reference I found in a superficial search was:

  • Blanchard R, Zucker KJ, Siegelman M, Dickey R, Klassen P. The relation of birth order to sexual orientation in men and women. J Biosoc Sci. 1998 Oct;30(4):511-9. [1]

To bring this section up to a satisfactory standard of scholarship would require getting the full text of this and probably also any other relevant studies and criticisms, and evaluating how well-constructed and well-replicated the studies are, and whether or not we are accurately summarizing them. -- Beland 05:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] References for masculinization/feminization section

The text in the birth order section is based on a quick web search and what I remember from reading about the subject in general. The best (summary of a) literature review I found in a superficial search was:

Some other random links that might be useful leads:

  • Muscarella F. Preferred partner characteristics in homosexual men in relation to speculated patterns of brain differentiation. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2002 Aug;23(4):299-302. [3] Evidence for partial feminization theory based on preferences of homosexual men.
  • Dorner G, Gotz F, Docke WD. Prevention of demasculinization and feminization of the brain in prenatally stressed male rats by perinatal androgen treatment. Exp Clin Endocrinol. 1983 Jan;81(1):88-90. [4]
  • [5] Hypothesis proposed: (Feldman and MacCulloch, 1971). Research review: Ellis and Ames (1987)
  • [6]
  • [7]

To bring this section up to a satisfactory standard of scholarship would require getting the full text of this and probably also any other relevant studies and criticisms, and evaluating how well-constructed and well-replicated the studies are, and whether or not we are accurately summarizing them. -- Beland 05:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How's this? [8]

[edit] Cross-cultural stability

Moved here from Homosexuality:

It is conjectured by some, usually those outside of professional medical or research communities that imitation, a major mechanism of cultural transmission, may account for some homosexual behavior. Proponents of the idea suggest that as representations of homosexuality are presented through television and other mass media, and as society becomes more tolerant of public affection between gay couples, homosexuality may have a greater chance of being imitated or the exploration of homosexual tendencies which have been repressed in the past may become more viable. This idea is generally rejected by mainstream researchers in the field due to the fact that it conflicts with most studies done to date which indicate the incidence of homosexual identity remains surprisingly constant across history and cultures.

I would like to integrate this into the "Choice hypothesis" section, but the conclusion near the end conflicts with a (questionable) German study on Prevalence of homosexuality. Are there studies we can cite that lend credibility to the claim of cross-cultural stability? -- Beland 06:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Biology and sexual orientation & Choice and sexual orientation, both articles are poorly written and hardly readable. Could use some contributions, a possible source could be this week's eleven page Boston Globe article, "What makes people gay?". I recently renamed the two from "environment, choice, and sexual orientation" to "choice and sexual orientation" and "genetics and sexual orientation" to "biology and sexual orientation". Clearly the prenatal hormonal theories (which contradict the choice crowd) do not belong on the same page, the genetics and hormones are more appropriately pasted together under the umbrella of biology. I also suggest that all contributions from this point forward be required to have footnote citation similar to that seen on intelligent design. This would do wonders to improve transparency and accountability as well as provide a deterrent against original research. Polisci 03:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest unmoving this page. One objection I have to renaming this page is that there are environmental theories out there that don't assume orientation is a choice. For example:absence of a male role model/divorce/child abuse in early childhood leads to homosexuality, while breastfeeding leads to heterosexuality. These things are not chosen but may be seen as possible influencers of homosexual orientation. Not that wikipedia needs to push any given POV as 'the right one' but folk theories are out there and held by people as their stated opinion. If there is scientific evidence that says these theories are bogus then that should be stated and sourced. The notion that wikipedia should only list scientific theories is flawed in my mind; if we can document folklore and other non-scientific explanations of the universe, we can certainly document what large swaths of real people actually think and then substantiate their opinions(or not!) with hard scientific evidence. The bottom line is that we don't know the causes of sexual orientation and so everybody is theorizing at this point. MPS 23:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Why not merge these articles to Causes of sexual orientation, which currently redirects to Sexual orientation? It seems like having one comprehensive article on the various theories would be more useful than having to go to one article to read about biological theories and another to read about theories of choice, with alternate theories left out completely, when most people's desire will be to compare and contrast all the available theories. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 08:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur with a merge. Run with it. MPS 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge & move works for me, and "causes" is good. FT2 (Talk) 02:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a small problem with merging - the biology article is already 37k. Is there a better way to chop up the subject? Perhaps some of the scientific studies could be condensed into summaries, with the details spun off into subarticles? -- Beland 02:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review

I've tried to clean the article up a bit, give it a structure without editing much of whats in it. I've added information on the background, as well as a small section of what I know of the scientific consensus at present. It's also not very balanced and rather than guess at unsourced information I have left it that way "as is".

Hopefully the edit will encourage others to fix it up a bit and get the rest in order? FT2 (Talk) 02:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Editors here may have opinions on [[9]]. I voted to redirect that page here, but I'm fairly uniformed about it. JeffBurdges 17:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of external link?

Personally, I feel that the external link queerbychoice.com is merely a way for those who feel that being homosexual is a choice to express their views by seemingly providing an unbiased link. In reality the site has limited use (150 members) making its relevance minimal. The external links provided should link to well-supported articles on the subject rather than websites that do not increase Wikipedians' knowledge on the subject of Choice and Sexual Orientation. (Note: I, being predominantly straight, a 1 on Kinsey's scale :), don't know if homosexuality is a choice or isn't, but I certainly didn't learn anything new on the subject from that link)

[edit] Choice and Bisexuality?

The focus here seems to be on homosexuality - and depicts (somewhat unclearly) the most common debate - anti-homosexuality, and choice hypothesis vs. pro-homosexuality & gay rights and biological determinism. There is a brief mention of homosexuality by choice, but no mention of bisexuality. Something which is also somewhat lacking in the companion to this article - Biology and sexual orientation. I'm without references right now, but I hope to return with some. But there is some indication that the increased liberal attitudes in modern societies have resulted in more liberal personal attitudes to sexuality, with larger numbers of people labelling themselves bi/pan/tri(etc.)sexual (myself included), or to have 'experimented', through personal choice --81.107.19.168 01:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parity with Biology and sexual orientation

The introduction to Biology and sexual orientation is much better written, and sounds a lot more professional than the intro to this article. Any disagreements with borrowing the language from that page, to make this one more or less parallel? romarin [talk ] 21:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and modified the intro, trying to make the opening sentence sound a little bit more like the other article. There was also a bit of information that seemed vague and unhelpful; I may have removed more than others feel comfortable with, in which case I apologize, but I hope we can discuss it here. Any input would be apreciated. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 23:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the section on "Environmental Influence" ?!

I really don't think you can leave this out. Though I am admittedly a gay-rights advocate myself, in my own lifetime I have seen strong anecdotal evidence that a significant percentage (30%?) of gay women had episodes of rape and/or sexual abuse in the past. I believe this needs to be addressed.--Zaorish 21:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


That percentage is about right for women to get raped anyway. It only stands to reason that the same percentage of homosexual women would get raped as heterosexual women.

[edit] No scientific evidence?

The American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html) says: "[H]uman beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."

American Academy of Pediatrics (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3B113/6/1827) says: "The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual."


And also in the area about changing sexuality using therapy:

The American Psychiatric Association (http://healthyminds.org/glbissues.cfm) says: "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of “reparative therapy” as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation"

These seem like proper sources to be able to add them. This is my first ever Wiki entry and so I'm a little hesitant to make the change.

[edit] Meaning of choice

  • A small but substantial group of psychotherapeutic professionals, primarily but not entirely conservative Christians, Jews and Muslims (and in the larger cultural and political debate) view sexual orientation as a choice and something that can be challenged, changed or chosen in adolescence or adulthood in some individuals

I think it's obvious that there is a huge difference between something which "is a choice" and something "which can be challenged or changed". For example, I feel thirsty and want to drink. I didn't choose to become thirsty, it's hot out here on this liferaft! But I can choose whether to drink seawater or not. I'll choose not to drink it, since I'm convinced it will just make me more thirsty. But I can't choose not to "be thirsty".

Have other Wikipedia contributors seen statements by religious people and/or psychotherapeutic professionals specifically saying that someone might "choose to be gay"? If so, I wonder how in all my years I could have overlooked it.... --Uncle Ed 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well for one there's the whole "gay recruitment" moral panic, where people think that their children can be "recruited" to be gay whereas they otherwise wouldn't be. --Cyde Weys 15:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's some more interesting reading. --Cyde Weys 15:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, an excellent source. It's academic in tone:
  • Many people state that gays only have homosexual relations because they choose to do so. Others profess that homosexuality is not a choice ...
This source examines the element of choice rather neatly, although it does not quote anyone as saying that people choose to be gay.
I think the problem is still distinguishing between Desires and Behavior. For example, I might watch a movie about bank robbers and then fantasize about theft or embezzlement. OMG I have the desire to steal! But the decision whether to act upon this desire is entirely up to me.
Do I "choose" to have the desire to get rich quick through illicit means? I dunno. But I certainly can (and do) "choose" how I conduct my life.
Now is homosexuality "a choice"? In the sense that no one chooses to have homosexual desires, then the answer is NO. In the sense that every time one engages in gay sex with a particular partner at a particular time in place, it is a choice.
But this gets into the religious realm: "a time to embrace, a time to refrain from embracing" (Ecclesiastes) --Uncle Ed 16:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mind wanders. The academic source you cited quotes only the denial that "homosexuality is a choice" but not the affirmation that people choose to be gay or have homosexual desires. --Uncle Ed 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Now obviously this isn't a citable resource but if you just want to get a feel for what the average person thinks of this issue you might want to check out this forum thread. There's a whole continuum there, including those who think that gay people make a conscious choice to be gay. --Cyde Weys 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idea that people choose to be gay

I did some searching and could find not even one source who said that people have chosen (or can choose) to "be gay" or have homosexual desires. Not ever one source said that people choose to have a sexual orientation geared toward the same sex.

What I found instead was hundreds of claims that fundamentalists (e.g., the Religious Right) say this.

This claim is then used in arguments of the following form:

  1. Contrary to what 'they' say, we didn't choose to be gay.
  2. If we didn't choose it, they are wrong to brand it "immoral"

According to the pro-gay Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, the two viewpoints are:

  • that people are born with their orientation, i.e., they do not choose their desires
  • that people can choose their behavior

I think we'll need to clarify the "Choice hypothesis" section:

  • Do not report that "fundamentalists say people choose to be gay"
  • Instead, report that gay rights activists (or others) attribute this statement to fundamentalists.

Something like this:

According to Mr. X of (insert affiliation here), fundamentalists believe that people choose to be gay.

That would be true (and neutral, to boot). True that X said Y said Z.

(I'm still looking for a clarification from religious people, saying that orientation Is or Is Not a choice.) --Uncle Ed 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I've never heard these semantics before. So the fundamentalists are basically denying reality, saying that no one is actually oriented in any particular way, and that it's simply a choice of which gender someone wants to fuck on a case-by-case basis? You might want to check out this list of various churches' positions on homosexuality ... they're not saying what you're claiming. --Cyde Weys 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ontario Consultants describe the two chief positions as:
  1. liberal: it is fixed, unchosen, normal, natural, and morally neutral sexual orientation
  2. conservative: it is changeable, chosen, abnormal, unnatural and immoral behavior (emphasis supplied in original)
Their analysis makes it sound like the conservatives (fundamantalists, maybe?) are not denying orientation so much as side-stepping it. I will dig into this further.
I'm looking for sources which say something like any of the following:
  • There is no such thing as "sexual orientation".
  • No one is actually oriented in any particular way.
  • It's simply a choice of which gender someone wants to have sex with.
  • Homosexuality is not a "fixed" or "unchangeable" orientiation.
  • Sexual desise for one's own gender is something that develops in the pre-adolescent child, generally without his awareness of the process.
The semantics might be confusing, but with a little effort we can work them out. We just have to get beyond the political advocacy and locate materials written by a developmental psychologist or a theologian. --Uncle Ed 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influences other biological

Cut from article:

Non-voluntary environmental/cultural factors may, of course, also contribute to sexual orientation.

These factors should be identified. For example, Richard Cohen and others insist that early childhood experiences (including extreme events such as molestation) can influence sexuality. There are various theories about the "distant father" and "smothering mother", etc. These deserve more than a sentence. --Uncle Ed 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various approaches

Cut from intro:

Various approaches are commonly taken toward exploring this question. The scientific community largely approaches sexual orientation from the biological or genetic point of view, while some religious and political advocates posit that there is an element of choice in whether a person orientation homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual.

I think it's not just the scientific community. Isn't it also (or mainly) the gay rights movement? Also, we should mention that gay rights advocates are political advocates.

It seems to be the point of view of gay rights advocates that their viewpoint has scientific support. But does this mean that their advocacy is not "political" any more (assuming it is scientifically sound)? And to what extent have scientists asserted the "gay gene" theory? Last time I read the article on Causes of sexual orientation it pretty much demolished the credibility of the genetic hypothesis.

I think we should try two avenues:

  1. Discuss the science of the issue:
    • Some researchers say they've found a genetic basis, and that choice has no bearing
    • Some researchers say that they failed to find any genetic basis, and that environment, i.e., upbringing is a major (albeit inadequately studied) causative factor.
  2. Discuss the politics of the issue:
    • Some advocates say that choice has no bearing on orientation, and that therefore whoever identifies as "being gay" should be respected in their orientation, as it is (A) not chosen and (B) incapable of being changed by conscious effort. (Note that this overlaps a bit with "science" as major psych. organizations take this view!)
    • Some advocates say that choice does have a bearing on orientation, while conceding thath "no one chooses to be gay" (e.g., Richard Cohen). They posit (C) that childhood experiences are a causative factor (i.e., upbringing, schoolmates, teachers, encounters with relatives, etc.) and (D) that conscious effort can reverse the effects of these experiences and change sexual orientation.

It seems to me that politically (in the U.S. anyway), people are divided about 50-50 on the issue. Scientifically, it's less clear: Researchers apparently conceded that genes aren't much of an cause, yet psych. organizations are all but unanimous in asserting that genes are the chief (or sole) cause.

I hope someone who knows more about the facts and issues than I do, will help me rewrite this article, so that it addresses all controversial points fairly. --Uncle Ed 14:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/o/Talk%7EChoice_and_sexual_orientation_e3bc.html"