Talk:Biology and sexual orientation/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Page move 2 Sexual orientation in other species 3 What happened to environment? 4 Confounding 4.1 Confound 5 POV / original research cut 6 NPOV 7 Biological hypothesis confined to industrialized societies 8 alternate phenotypes 9 Bisexuality? 10 WWII hormonological experiments by the SS? 11 Chance events 12 Lead section 13 "Super-males" 14 What a mess 15 Religious views 16 Orientation and reproduction 17 Too many 'citation needed' tags 18 Evolution 19 Implausibly low number 20 Twin Studies: "Conclusions" 21 A related article? 22 Population Control 23 A Sentence in the opening paragraph 24 Political consequences of a biological connection 25 Merger with Environment, Choice, and Sexual Orientation 26 Original research moved from article page 27 Original research/non-sourced/non-encyclopedic tone material moved from article 28 Conflicting statements? 29 Even Insects and the 10%

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)

Sexual orientation in other species

Should the biology and sexual orientation page contain information on species besides humans? For example the fruit fly study and Georgetown's dolphins? Polisci 03:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

What happened to environment?

I see that Environment, choice, and sexual orientation has been renamed as Choice and sexual orientation, and that environment is now reduced (in this article) to only very early childhood; among other things, there seems to be no treatment of the differences in sexual norms in different societies. Am I missing something, or is there absolutely no discussion in either article of things like the norm of man/boy love in Ancient Greece, the widespread bisexuality in tribal Borneo, etc.? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

This was something I found very lacking - the two related articles, Choice and sexual orientation and Biology and sexual orientation have, between them, very little which deals with the social environment and context. Ancient Greece and tribal Borneo aside, the increase in liberal attitudes in modern societies has arguably allowed for more liberal personal attitudes to ones own sexuality to develop, with increased numbers who are (publicly at least) choosing to identify themselves as bi/pan/tri(etc.)sexual --81.107.19.168 01:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Confounding

A recent edit added the phrase "a possible confound of the research". Since "confound" is not a noun, I can only guess at what this might mean. Could the person who wrote this please try a different word to express this meaning? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:46, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Confound

Hrm,

Maybe it's an inappropriate use of jargon, but even just a cursory Google search of this phrasing yielded a similar usage of "confound."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22a+confound%22&btnG=Search

I certainly don't want to make it less readable, it just seemed more succinct to me.

Sorry =/ Varilux 11:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Varilux is certainly correct: "Counfound" is a widely used noun in scientific writing. It's roughly short for "counfounding factor". I have no opinion on whether the sentence where it occurs should be changed, but it should not be changed only because the word allegedly does not exist. Maybe lay audiences will not know the noun though (might wikify the word rather than change it). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:07, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the term as well, but I'd consider it jargon. Changed to "confounding factor", and wikified. Though actually, I'm fine with just "confound" so long as it's linked. Electrolite 07:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that anyone who has been introduced to the term "confounding variable" would also know that an alternative word for this is simply "confound". So yeah I don't think it matters which is used, as long as it is linked to make it clear for those who don't know what a confounding variable is. --Nzbassist 07:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

POV / original research cut

I cut the following

Active vs. Passive Philosophies about Sexual Choices

Certain conventional dialogue about sexual orientation can be seen as an example of a human tendency to use the passive voice when speaking of sexual choices they have made ("Hormones made me do it" ). While supporting self-definition, and taking no stand on the nature vs. nurture debate, some critics view this aspect of the debate as a way to mystify responsibility and another example of a cultural reluctance to view sexual choices as conscious choices. The portrayal of sexual choices as instinct forced by the brain structure, genetics, etc. is seen as a stylistic convention to avoid describing the role of the voluntary in sex, which would be culturally taboo. This is an accepting view, and a different position from maintaining that the sexual orientation of particular individuals is a choice that should be challenged or subject to change.

If citable, something like this may well belong in the article, but as it stands, this is a mix of POV and uncited claims and not much else. - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have some strong reservations about the inclusion of Neil and Briar Whitehead's reference on NPOV grounds. While Neil Whitehead is a microbiologist, he is not a geneticist, and the veracity of his relevant research expertise was challenged at a New Zealand Justice Select Committee submission hearing on civil unions. Moreover, he repeatedly cites Paul Cameron in his research bibliographies. Moreover, his "My Genes Made Me Do It" was not issued by a mainstream publishing house, but the conservative Christian and conspiratorial Huntington House, in Lafayette, Louisiana, instead of a mainstream university academic imprint.

I suggest that Whitehead's reference should be deleted.

User: Calibanu13:14, 28 March 2006.

That Whitehead is a microbiologist and not a geneticist is of no real consequence, and I'm not sure that the New Zealand Justice Select Committee matters much as a challenge to it's presence here (it might be more worthwhile to include the substance of the debate than to argue that it ought not be included). If the substance of Whitehead's thesis is to be challenged it should be done by presenting verifyable sources that come to an opposite conclusion. I deleted the reference because 1) it was listed in the biblographic sources but not cited in the text 2) it had two links, both of which were 404 so I can't judge anything but the title of the piece. The title appeared to deal with twin studies, its my understanding that there are a fair number of good twin studies examining sexual orientation in the peer reviewed literature that ought to serve as better references. Pete.Hurd 02:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I cut the following:

Many objections to the idea of an innate cause of homosexuality come from religious groups and conservatives who focus on a moral rather than medical interpretation of sexual orientation, and seeing an individual's sexuality as a matter of personal choice or upbringing.^{[citation needed]}

It's clearly opinion: there is conflicting data, there are also instances of data that is "bent" to fit with preferred interpretations. The medical interpretations of homosexual individuals is that there are a lot of health issues with it, while mental-health organizations vary broadly across a spectrum of possible conclusions, everywhere from the APA to NARTH, and everywhere in between.Infinitelink 10:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The opinion is relevant. No one knows what "causes" homosexual desire or orientation. Currently the most popular explanations are:

1. physical - i.e., something biological like genes
2. upbringing - i.e., child rearing, etc.
3. choices made - i.e., decisions to "try" sex with same gender

Wikipedia doesn't know whether the medical interpretation is correct, so it's better to list all the ideas. The whole point of this article is to explore the evidence for and against the medical model. --Uncle Ed 16:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, to call it the "medical" model implies a value-laden POV that sexual orientation is a disease. I'd rather we follow the psychological community's thinking and don't do that. I also think that to divide the options into "physical", "upbringing" and "choices made" is unwise. Scientific understanding of this topic has long since abandoned pitting nature and nurture against each other as dichotomous choices. Also, "choices" are presumably predicated on something, a "choice" try one thing or another has to have an explanation, it's a description of behaviour rather than an explanation of it's cause. IMHO this article strongly underplays the evidence supporting a biological basis of sexual orientation. That most phenotypic variation remains unexplained does not mean that the whole thing is a totally open question. 68.148.40.121 20:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Biological hypothesis confined to industrialized societies

Is the biological hypothesis of sexual orientation really restricted to industralized societies as this article suggests in its opening sentences? Could a citation be made? I'm sure there will be examples of homosexuality being considered a 'born not made' trait in non-industrialized and pre-industrial societies.

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end, even if you don't have an account. I dunno. It seems as if, in the West, preindustrialized cultures tended to view homosexuality as neither born nor made, but as a temptation for everyone. Talk of sin aside for a moment, in the West and elsewhere it doesn't seem to me as if people cared much about the why before the 19th century. But that's an interesting question - do you have any materials on the subject that provoked it? -Seth Mahoney 18:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

alternate phenotypes

If alternate adaptive phenotypes in suppressive societies are responsible for the persistence of genes that result in homosexuality in western society, then the modern culture of open tolerance may be the death knell of those genes. However, even in modern society the genes may be adaptive and more widespread than homosexuality. Heterosexuality may be the predominate phenotype of these genes, and homosexuality only slightly more likely than in those without the genes.--Poodleboy 10:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Bisexuality?

The discussion is almost solely centred on the possible Biological determinants for hetero or homosexuality, and where bisexuality is mentioned, it is treated as no more than an offshoot of, or simply an alternative word for, homosexuality. Is this a result of narrow scientific inquiry - as a genetic determinant seems to suggest an either/or situation? As an article on 'sexual orientation' - it seems to subscribe to the narrow bipolar understanding of sexuality. It would not only be interesting, but I think it is required for an article on 'sexual orientation' to consider how the argument for a biological determinant deals with/explains/explores those who fall between the two poles, or, if there is no exploration of this, than a mention of a lack of research in this area would be appropriate.--81.107.19.168 02:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! Please go ahead with your suggested additions to the article. :) ntennis 02:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Having recently done a review of research on the biological determinants of homosexuality, there is a shortage of research on bisexuality because the small numbers of people who identify as bisexual make it difficult for research carried out to have sufficient statistical power to make broad conclusions. Another issue is that the majority of past research has focused only on male homosexuality, and has largely ignored female homosexuality. --Nzbassist 07:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Another strong vote here for establishing in the article a clear distinction between exclusive homosexuality and same-sex components of bisexuality. Too much of this matter is obscured, severely affecting/confounding both scientific research and social convictions, by the fact many people can't tell the two apart and only acknowledge a dichotomous polarity of either heterosexuality OR homosexuality. --TlatoSMD 01:07, 24 June 2006 (CEST)

WWII hormonological experiments by the SS?

The article mentions early 20th century research into biological causes for sexual orientation, so I wondered whether hormonological attempts of curing homosexuals with testosterone conducted by Danish SS doctor Carl Vaernet in Buchenwald should be mentioned as well. Here are some resources on Vaernet's experiments under direct supervision of Heinrich Himmler:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Vaernet
• http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/concentrationcamp.htm
• http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/dalembert/lgbt_history/biblio_vaernet.html
• http://www.petertatchell.net/international/vaernetbook.htm
• http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/hunt_for_danish_kz.htm

--TlatoSMD 01:22, 24 June 2006 (CEST)

Chance events

The "Chance events" section (near the end of the article) sounds an awful lot like original research and doesn't even seem to say much, at that. If no one disagrees, I am going to remove this section. romarin [talk ] 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can imagine an intelligent discussion about the nature of unshared environmental influences going here, but what's there is not even cohherent hand-waving. Pete.Hurd 22:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly; if someone has some valid sources and wants to write a good section about this, they should feel free. In the mean time, I'm deleting it. romarin [talk ] 22:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who may want to see what was removed, here is the edit that removed it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

I preferred User:Koavf's version:

An increasing number of studies have investigated the link between biology and sexual orientation, but no scientific consensus exists as to the specific biological factors, if any, that may play a role, nor to the precise nature of their influence on sexual orientation.

to the current version:

Biology and sexual orientation is the concept that there is, at least in part, a biological basis for sexual orientation. An increasing number of studies have investigated this link, but no scientific consensus exists as to the specific biological factors that may play a role, nor to the precise nature of their influence on sexual orientation.

The second definition is wrong in my opinion. For example, an assertion that "there is no link between biology and sexual orientation" would produce a logical contradiction according to the second definition. ntennis 02:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I had apparently mistaken the changes to be a simple statement order switch. The second statement order should be prefered, as the term is defined before any discussion (which helps readers know they are on the right article). I'm pretty certain there is a quick change that can be done to make the second ordering match the more correct meaning found in the first ordering. If you have any ideas, please try them. LinaMishima 03:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Super-males"

"Breedlove's study also suggests that homosexual men are 'super-males', as their ring-finger lengths were the longest among the four sexual orientations studied." Ring-finger lengths? Do I detect something like an revival of phrenology here? - Jmabel | Talk 03:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What a mess

A big section called "Note" in the middle of the article; a "references" section in the middle of the article; I can't tell what in here is extended quotation vs. what is our own text. Can someone (or several someones) who has been active on this possibly sort it out? I haven't been tracking enough to have much of a chance, it would take me hours just to get oriented, so to speak. - Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this article needs a good once-over, maybe a few times. I wish I had the time to do it properly, but I don't. I'll try poking around a bit over the next few days. Pete.Hurd 15:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that the note section should be deleted. The website http://www.trueorigin.org is widely accepted in the scientific community to be unscientific as it states on its website that it is an 'alternative' to evolution. The website does not seem like a "good" published source. Perhaps if a person wanted to include specific studies refuting others mentioned, or refuting a 'gay gene' hypothesis, they should be mentioned in the rest of the article. Greengirl11 06:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to have been dropped in without much attempt to work it into the rest of the article, or even format it from wherever it came from (e.g. "emph added" when there is no emph text), citations not referenced (the articles's references need fixing throughout anyway). I'd rather someone took the effort to fix the text and address the substantive issues raised (if that hasn't been done elsewhere on WP already) with proper sources. But I'm not opposed to deletion either. Pete.Hurd 07:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Imho, the text has been adjusted on the "Note..." section, but that bizarre parenthetical documentation exists, as well as a citation on a poor source. If nobody has an objection, I'm going to delete the paragraph.Greengirl11 07:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the text in the "Note" section for copyvio issues. It was cut and paste from http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp - a site that holds copyright to that text and states at the bottom of the page, "This document may be copied, on the condition that it will not be republished in print, on line (including reposting on other Web sites), or on computer media, and will not be used for any commercial purpose." Since all text on Wikipedia is released under GFDL, copying is certainly permitted for all uses, so the text had to go. I would suggest going over the whole article to see if anything was copied over from that site. --Rkitko 06:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious views

Among those religions or churches which teach that homosexuality is sinful, there is a diffenet model of sexuality and sexual identity than that advanced by gay rights proponents.

The anti-homosexuality religious view regards homosexual desires is sinful and thus to be resisted. However, it's rare for any religious leader to espouse the view that someone "chooses to have homosexual desires." These desires are seen as developing rather than consciously chosen.

According to this view, if homosexual desires are developed rather than being innate, then they are changeable. A person can, of course, choose not to change. But if they choose to change, they should be welcomed and aided.

How can the above view be incorporated into the article? --Uncle Ed 16:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'd tend to question the position that religious leaders don't espouse the view that someone "chooses to have homosexual desires." - that's where that whole "lifestyle choice" thing gets bandied about. I'd venture that it's a rather common view, actually - Alison^✍ 16:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The dichotomous innate/developed thing is a non-starter, to reflect current scientific views I think this false dichotomy has to be taken head-on. Pete.Hurd 17:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Alison, if there are religious leaders who have said explicitly that people choose to have homosexual desires, then we should quote them in the article. I did not mean to deny that such statements have been made. However, I wonder if your statement is based on actual quotes from religious leaders, or is an inference you've drawn from a quote.

What I've seen from religious leaders about "choice" and "homosexual desires" is the assertion that a person who realizes that they have homosexual desires has a choice to act in accordance with them or to resist them. For example, a person on a diet probably cannot decide to "feel hungry" but they can choose whether to eat pizza or celery.

Pete, I don't know what non-starter means, but everything I've read about the science of homosexuality has focussed on one main question: is homosexual desire innate or developed? As far as I know, science has not yet come out with a definitive Yes it's nature or No it's nurture. If I've missed something, please make sure it gets into the article. --Uncle Ed 18:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Vocabulary: A "non-starter" is an idea that, due either to internal contradiction or current circumstances, has no potential to develop productively. Also can be used of a person in terms of their potential for a role. Probably originates from horse racing. - Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"everything I've read about the science of homosexuality has focussed on one main question: is homosexual desire innate or developed?" yes, that's a very common question in the popular press, it's got a great deal of intuitive appeal, but ... "science has not yet come out with a definitive Yes it's nature or No it's nurture" Well, yes and no, there are clear answers, but they will never answer this question. Any 1st year undergrad psychology textbook will have a thick section on why "most modern psychologists consider the nature-nurture issue to be a relic of outdated knowledge about behaviour" (as the one closest to hand --Carlson et al2005, Psychology: the science of behaviour 3rd Canadian edition-- puts it). Phenotypic plasticity, heritability, Gene-environment interaction are all prerequisites for understanding current scientific views on this topic, and necessary to avoid pointless Nature versus nurture discussions. The science on sexual orientation is pretty clear, the heritability is fairly high, genetic variation has a lot to do with variation in sexual orientation (more so in men than women) there are also clear environmental effects (there are also large non-shared environmental effects) and maternal effects (but not necessarily in the sense described in the maternal effect article) due to things such as Fraternal birth order (which is an environmental effect --well depends whether broad-sense or narrow-sense-- but would probably fall under the broad unbrella of "nature" rather than "nurture" if one thinks that way, since it's on the "born that way" end of "environmental" effects). There is no "gay gene" because sexual orientation is a "complex trait" (Polygenic inheritance) in which many genes act. Search for genes via Quantitative trait locus studies (e.g. Mustanski et al.) will identify genes, their effects on sexual orientation will not necessarily be simple (and pleiotropic effects will make things all the more interesting) but they have significant effects. In conclusion, having an article which attempts to answer the nature v nurture question will notcome close to reflecting the scientific understanding of this topic, and should be discouraged in favor of more lucid treatment of the real story. This article would be greatly improved by purging naive nature vs nurture geared material, my 2c. Pete.Hurd 21:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That the question of whether sexual orientation is "innate or developed" (aside from the fact that it is neither, above) is framed in the context of "Religious views" shows how heavily this topic relies upon the naturalistic fallacy. We ought not to be forced into accepting the reasonableness of nature vs nurture debates here any more than we should be making the naturalistic fallacy just because it makes things simple or catchy. Pete.Hurd 03:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's very important not to see homosexuality as something that can be understood in simplistic terms. The debate is not about which one of the ten or so possible causes will ultimately "win," but rather, how the spectrum of causes work together to form the phenomenon of homosexuality we see today. To draw one distinction: it is important to analyze studies of homosexuality and genetics by the same standard we analyze other studies of genetics. In no other case would anyone claim that genetics can override a person's free will, and only in one portion of their lives (sexuality, relationships, identity).

Think of it this way. There are many genetic predispositions that allow certain people to be good basketball players. Some genes bestow height, athleticism, good muscle tone, and coordination. You might say these are "basketball genes." But that is not because they can somehow force a person to play basketball. There are plenty of people with all the right genetic traits for basketball who never develop the skill, and never play it at all. Their genes merely set them up to be in a good position to take up basketball. It might be helpful to think of genetics and homosexuality in the same way. While certain traits may possibly (in combination with other traits) make the situation somewhat conducive to a homosexual lifestyle, it has absolutely nothing to do--at any level--with the intellect and the will a person develops throughout their life.

Pianoman123 03:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Orientation and reproduction

"Non-heterosexual orientations significantly decrease the chances of successful reproduction..." What is the basis for this claim? Sounds like hogwash to me. I can't any prima facie reason to believe that bisexuality would reduce one's chances of reproduction. I can't see any reason why being a closeted gay person who carries on a marriage for "cover" would reduce one's chances of reproduction. The issue of reducing one's chances of reproduction is, presumably, entirely a matter of sexual behavior, not orientation or identity. - Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Having received no reply after a week, I will edit accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many 'citation needed' tags

There are too many citation requests in this article, and some of the requests are, in my view, senseless. Perhaps that should be changed. Witnwisdumb 07:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC) witnwisdumb

Evolution

Actually, evolution does not and can not take place at the individual level. The population is the smallest unit upon which evolution can act. This was stated with unambiguously in a university-level lecture last week. This section needs to be changed:

Another theory in support of positive adaptiveness of homosexuality and bisexuality is that these sexual orientations provide some benefit to the local community in general. Communities that are so supported would be stronger and more likely to survive in the future. [citation needed] The primary criticism of this theory is that genetic evolution works on the level of individuals, not communities. If heterosexuals have an individual reproductive advantage over homosexuals and bisexuals in a given community, after a very long period of time, the community should be composed solely of heterosexuals, regardless of how this affects the community as a whole.

I'm not sure whether that invalidates the criticism of the theory or not, but "genetic evolution" (which should be evolution. adding genetic is redundant) does not act on the individual - only on the population. Whoever wrote this must have intended to say population. A community involves several species, which is irrelevant here.

Mike.lifeguard 21:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Another theory in support of positive adaptiveness of homosexuality and bisexuality is that these sexual orientations provide some benefit to the local community in general. Communities that are so supported would be stronger and more likely to survive in the future. [citation needed]" this is a good example of naive group selection. I'd be interested to see if any one has proposed this in the scientific literature. I think the paragraph ought to be deleted as OR unless a reliable source is produced. Pete.Hurd 00:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Actually, evolution does not and can not take place at the individual level. The population is the smallest unit upon which evolution can act." yeh, sort of, because evolution is defined as changes in allele frequency in a gene pool over time. But that's quite different from saying that evolution does not act on traits born by individuals. It does. Natural selection acts via heritable difference in reproductive success between individuals. Pete.Hurd 03:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

76.237.219.54 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC) When the article text states: "The primary criticism of this theory.... This means that to be adaptive, a "gay uncle" would need to somehow assist an extra two nieces or nephews, on average, to reach adulthood for every one of their own offspring they give up. Critics of the theory find this trade-off to be unlikely to produce a net reproductive gain."

I note that net reproductive gain does not have to be assessed on a per-generation basis. Having gay uncles may mean reduced population pressure during times of economic stress, or it may mean having additional males on hand to fight a battle (or to till the field while others fight, no matter) -- the value of the gay uncle can also be as "buffer" or as "insurance / reserves" in handling population pressures. An analysis that focuses on single-generation advantage is too limited.

If every adult in a population has children to care for, either some children will be negleted, or some higher level population functions will be neglected. Non-reproductive adults put "ease" into a population.

Implausibly low number

"However, around 1% of men and 2% of women are homosexual exclusively or in part." This is implausible and uncited. It is perhaps one-fifth of the lowest number for men that I have ever seen in any decent source, and I doubt that number gave much latitude for "in part". Where (if anywhere) does this come from? Can't we find something reasonable to cite? - Jmabel | Talk 03:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

From Cantor et al 2002 "The overall prevalence of homosexuality in the adult male population is probably somewhere between 2 and 3% (e.g., ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy, Tanfer, Grady, & Klepinger, 1993; Fay, Turner, Klassen, & Gagnon, 1989; Johnson, Wadsworth, Wellings, Bradshaw, & Field, 1992; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994)..."

• ACSF Investigators. (1992). AIDS and sexual behaviour in France. Nature, 360, 407-­409.
• Billy, J. O. G., Tanfer, K., Grady, W. R., & Klepinger, D. H. (1993). The sexual behavior of men in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives, 25, 52-­60.
• Cantor, J. M., Blanchard, R., Paterson, A. D. & Bogaert, A. F. (2002). How many gay men owe their sexual orientation to fraternal birth order. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31:63-71.
• Fay, R. E., Turner, C. F., Klassen, A. D., & Gagnon, J. H. (1989). Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. Science, 243, 338-­348.
• Johnson, A. M., Wadsworth, J., Wellings, K., Bradshaw, S., & Field, J. (1992). Sexual lifestyles and HIV risk. Nature, 360, 410­-412.
• Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pete.Hurd 03:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The article didn't call for a prevalence estimate, so I removed it in my clean-up.ChrisTW 07:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Twin Studies: "Conclusions"

This section of the twin studies article is very very long. I suggest moving the best criticisms to the bottom of the twin studies section rather than presenting it as 'conclusions' which is a little NPOV. ChrisTW 07:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The conclusions don't seem to match the results of the twin studies. I'm a little confused where the chart came from, but it doesn't seem to correspond to the statements of the researchers or their data which didn't show a statistically significant genetic correlation. I would like to see this section cleaned up. I might do it myself if I have time and there are no objections. --Kraftlos 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A related article?

I just stumbled across Handedness and sexual orientation, which doesn't do much more than report three studies on the subject; it suggests there may be some correlation, but it appears two of the studies clearly disagree on the gender-specific results. Anyone more familiar with the general topic care to take a look at it? Shimgray | talk | 00:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Population Control

Has there ever been any academic suggestion that homosexuality, if as an inherent trait, could be a means of natural population control? If so please add and quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevrox (talk • contribs)

Such group selection explanations, that individuals sacrifice their reproduction for the benefit of other individuals, are not considered credible models for the evolution of (human) behaviour. How can a behaviour evolve when it's effect is to systematically remove itself from the genepool for the benefit of alternative behavioral strategies? Pete.Hurd 16:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A Sentence in the opening paragraph

I have a problem with this statement and I am wondering if others agree with me -

Yet homosexuality does not appear to be adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint because homosexual sex does not produce children. If there is a biological involvement, how could it be engineered by evolution?

I suppose one could argue that children are born homosexual for some evolutionary reason, inherited from their parents.

Whatever the case, this is a rather silly statement to have at the start of the article, since the article discusses scientific evidence, not opinions.....

Considering the sensitivity of the subject matter, I figured it should be discussed before it is taken out.

--Mrlopez2681 18:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a topic for a whole article in itself. There are arguments for and against "natural" origins or causes of homosexuality based on natural selection. --Uncle Ed 15:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. The current sentence, "Yet homosexuality does not appear to be adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint because homosexual sex does not produce children." Still seems a bit too certain, especially with the 2004 journal article from Camperio-Ciani backing up a link to female fecundity and a potential explanation of how it is explained through evolution. "...does not appear to be" sounds a bit too much like a judgement on the available sources--more prescriptive than descriptive, which is what our job really is here. The whole intro needs a good rewrite. --Rkitko 06:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should find a statement by a researcher that is somewhat along these lines and cite it. Cause you really can't make original conclusions on wikipedia, everything has to be sourced. --Kraftlos (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Political consequences of a biological connection

Cut from end of article:

Seeing homosexuality as a "medical" rather than a "moral" issue does not guarantee better treatment for homosexuals. Indeed, many medical explanations of the innateness of sexual orientation have pathologised homosexuality and bisexuality as a kind of disability, and if a "gay gene" was discovered, parents might choose to screen and terminate embryos that carry the gene.

I happen to agree with this opinion, but I think it should be a citation or reference, rather than being asserted as fact. Can someone help me find a source, please? --Uncle Ed 15:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find one. Raystorm 21:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Maybe Michel Foucault's History of Sexuality, this seemed a thesis of his. Also, Sartre's Portrait of the Anti-Semite (sometimes "Antisemite and Jew?") has a discussion of homosexuality along these lines. Thomas B 21:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Merger with Environment, Choice, and Sexual Orientation

I see that the heading Environment, choice, and sexual orientation now redirects to this one, and I see that it has supposedly been merged into this one. However, vast amounts of information that used to be in the other article do not appear here, and have simply been deleted from Wikipedia entirely by the deletion of the other article. Can we please review the merger and reconsider how to make available the information that was in the Environment, choice, and sexual orientation article?

As it stands currently, the effect of the deletion and so-called merger is just to remove the vast majority of the information that had previously served to counter-balance this article. This article treats the causes of sexual orientation as something that can be studied only or overwhelmingly primarily by looking at genetic research for and against. But the Environment, choice, and sexual orientation article provided a very different approach which focused primarily on social science research and social identity-development theories. Most of the information on the relevant social science appears to have disappeared completely rather than being merged into any other Wikipedia article.

Original research moved from article page

Sorry folks, this type of thoughtful musing (while interesting) is not appropriate for the main article - see No Original Research. It has been moved here for further discussion, and invitation for any editors to supply existing references that meet Wikipedia's standards.GiveItSomeThought 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This criticism is flawed. First off it assumes that the trait was selected for the current conditions. Most traits we have are the result of past selection. For example, we have many traits that allow us to easily gain weight and store fat. This is most likely the result of past selection for surviving famines. In today's society, packing on the fat may be maladaptive, but selective forces often play "catch up."

If there are times when resources are extremely limited (as has, not infrequently, been the case historically), then you can have situations where relatives are competing with each other for resources. This is particularly true if relatives live near each other. In such cases of limited resources and high competition, it can be adaptive for relatives to pool their resources. Your reproductive fitness is not increased simply by the number of offspring you have, but the number of related individuals, that survive, flourish, and have children of their own. If resources are high, you may be better off to have your own children, but if they are low then it would be best to pool resources.

Now this works well if the environment consistently has high or low resource levels, but what if it varies?

Ideally, a species would flourish if it can switch between the two options of raising ones own children and pooling resources. One solution fo this may be the evolution not of homosexuality, but of bisexuality. In the previous versions of this article, the writers appear to have fallen into the trap of assuming sexual orientation is dichotomous, despite evidence that it seems to exhibit a range of behavior. It may well be that, in a variable environment, bisexuality is more adaptive than either pure heterosexuality or pure homosexuality. A bisexual orientation would seem theoretically more capable of dealing with a variable environment such that one can shift strategies depending on resource availability. (Koneval, T. (2007) Speculation on my part based on evolutionary theory but without any experimental data to support it.)

One thing we need to keep in mind is that the sex drive can be a very powerful one. In resource-rich environments, this is an adaptive feature since it helps encourage reproduction,a nd in primates, social bonding which is important for raising children. If resources are limited (whether the resources be mates or food or shelter) then a strong sex drive might interfere with switching to a more cooperative environment. One way to avoid this is to re-direct the sex drive in such a way that you are not competing for resources. Homosexual activity would allow the sex drive to be satisfied while still allowing relatives to pool resources.

Now one might object that these days we have plenty of resources, but, again, we need to keep in mind that we are the result of past selective regimes. Even though same-sex attraction may appear at first glance to be maladaptive, this is based on very simple models, models that have already been found to be incapable of explaining mroe advanced concepts scuch as altruism.

I am not sure what is being considered original research here. The first paragraph is commonly accepted. I will go to my office to get references if needed but it is hardly an original thought.

Profarmadillo, right now this first paragraph appears to advocate a point of view, and Wikipedia articles don't use the "you" and "we" format. If you'd like to see how I'd re-write this first paragraph, here's a sample:

"Some researchers in the field have criticized this point of view. (please add specific citations here to their published criticisms). These researchers point out that traits found in humans are selected at an earlier time in evolution, not for the present time. An example given by this line of criticism is that while the body's ability to store fat had evolutionary value in times of lean resources, that same ability can be counter-productive if it leads to excess weight in times of ample resources. (again, please add specific citations to where this criticism has been published)."

The second paragraph deals with kin selection (which I already cited in the earlier paragraph)I was just explaining ki selection in more detail, but once again I can get references from my office. The third paragraph is speculative (and labeled as such) but it would seem to fall within the bounds of the speculation present in the whole article. The following paragraph that is currently considered acceptable has no citation or for it: "Some have suggested that homosexuality is adaptive in a non-obvious way. By way of analogy, the allele (a particular version of a gene) which causes sickle-cell anemia when two copies are present may also confer resistance to malaria with no anemia when one copy is present."

I agree that there are parts of this article that also need to be brought up to "more modern" Wikipedia standards (which have tightened over the years). However, just because some parts of the article are currently below standards does not allow new additions to also be below standards. We're all trying to upgrade the content here, by insisting on new material meeting the newer standards, and going back and upgrading the older material as we can.

The paragraph after that also hads no citation until I added the one on kin selection and yet it was seen as acceptable. I am unclear therefore why noting that bisexuality might allow one to adapt to changing evnvironment is considered less acceptable.

If this is referring to the "Koneval 2007" citation - the citation needs to be to a published "reliable source" (which this doesn't appear to be). If this is a reference to your own speculative thoughts, I'm afraid that doesn't count as a valid citation! Do you have a reference for this thought to an article/book that's been published in a "reliable source."

Likewise I do not see anything extraordinatry about reminding readers that the sex drive is strong or that homsexual activity might satisfy that drive.

If given more direct feedback, I can provide the citations.

As an aside, I mentioned in another psot that I had re-posted that with typos corrected. I believe my contribution here is useful and corrects the misimpression given by the original which suggested that the kin selective hypothesis was dubious.

Profarmadillo 20:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)profarmadillo

I hope that these few suggestions are helpful, also, please see your talk page for additional suggestions. GiveItSomeThought 01:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research/non-sourced/non-encyclopedic tone material moved from article

The following material is being moved here, so that other editors can comment/correct/improve/add references, etc. I have left an extended welcome, and suggestions for new contributor Profarmadillo on his talk page to thank him for his thoughtful writing, and to make suggestions about bringing this writing closer to Wikipedia standards. If any other editor has ideas about editing the following material so that it can be included in the article, please feel free to do so! GiveItSomeThought 01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This criticism is flawed. First off it assumes that the trait was selected for the current conditions. Most traits we have are the result of past selection. For example, we have many traits that allow us to easily gain weight and store fat. This is most likely the result of past selection for surviving famines. In today's society, packing on the fat may be maladaptive, but selective forces often play "catch up."

If there are times when resources are extremely limited (as has, not infrequently, been the case historically), then you can have situations where relatives are competing with each other for resources. This is particularly true if relatives live near each other. In such cases of limited resources and high competition, it can be adaptive for relatives to pool their resources. Your reproductive fitness is not increased simply by the number of offspring you have, but the number of related individuals, that survive, flourish, and have children of their own. If resources are high, you may be better off to have your own children, but if they are low then it would be best to pool resources. There has been a study that suggests this is at times the case with young male cheetahs. (citation needed)

Now this works well if the environment consistently has high or low resource levels, but what if it varies?

Ideally, a species would flourish if it can switch between the two options of raising ones own children and pooling resources. One solution of this may be the evolution not of homosexuality, but of bisexuality. In the previous versions of this article, the writers appear to have fallen into the trap of assuming sexual orientation is dichotomous, despite evidence that it seems to exhibit a range of behavior. It may well be that, in a variable environment, bisexuality is more adaptive than either pure heterosexuality or pure homosexuality. A bisexual orientation would seem theoretically more capable of dealing with a variable environment such that one can shift strategies depending on resource availability.(ref name="Koneval 2007")Koneval, T. (2007). Personal speculation based on evolutionary theory without experimental support. (/ref)

One thing we need to keep in mind is that the sex drive can be a very powerful one. In resource-rich environments, this is an adaptive feature since it helps encourage reproduction and, in primates, social bonding which is important for raising children. If resources are limited (whether the resources be mates or food or shelter) then a strong sex drive might interfere with switching to a more cooperative environment. One way to avoid this is to re-direct the sex drive in such a way that you are not competing for resources. Homosexual activity would allow the sex drive to be satisfied while still allowing relatives to pool resources.

Now one might object that these days we have plenty of resources, but, again, we need to keep in mind that we are the result of past selective regimes. Even though same-sex attraction may appear at first glance to be maladaptive, this is based on very simple models, models that have already been found to be incapable of explaining more advanced concepts such as altruism.

It has recently been suggested that male homosexuality may represent an excess of genes coding for female-like traits which tip gay males over a 'liability threshold' into homosexuality. Females selecting 'gay-enabled' men may have increased the viability of their offspring. (ref name="Wilson and Rahman 2005") Wilson, G. and Rahman, Q., (2005). Born Gay. London: Peter Owen Publishers. p64. (/ref)

Can someone put a article about the link between the counterclockwise and clockwise hair line pattern that relates to being homosexual? And the index finger vs. ring finger part as seen on The Colbert Report, known as the Science of Gaydar? http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/

Have you actually read that NY Mag article? And I mean, all six pages of it. 'Hints' are not the same as scientific proof. Besides, none of it applies to lesbians, so... Raystorm (¿Sí?) 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting statements?

The opening sentence of this article says, "Sexuality researchers are often interested in homosexuality because there is evidence from twin studies that there is a biological involvement in its determination." This is a strange statement on two counts. Firstly, why would they not be interested, with or without twin studies? Secondly, the article cited in support of the sentence states that twin studies have been inconclusive. Further in the article the section on twins studies says," A recent large-scale twin study, done by researchers at Yale University and Columbia University, concludes that "there is no evidence for strong genetic influence on same-sex preference in this sample." Later statements suggest that any genetic theory is tenuous. A large scale recent study carries more weight, so the very significant opening sentence seems unjustifiable POV. --81.129.138.173 15:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence should probably be reworked. It does seem to conflict with the rest of the article (and other articles for that matter). —Mears man 17:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Even Insects and the 10%

The "Out in Nature" documentary, reflection on the nature of Kinsey's extremely meticulous work and in particular observation of the phenomenon in insects finally turned the light on for me in a final level of understanding. Some mention of the "8-12% observed across many species" quote though is what my comment is about. The animal studies show the phenomenon for what it is: the natural in-born error rate in nature which in general does not produce heterosexual animals with anything like 100% efficiency. The interesting thing is how, presumably by an application of the central limit theorem or other applicable mathematical and empirical truths, and with a range of species from fruit flies to dolphins and humans the mean 10% figure emerges. Something more on that would be great. Lycurgus 14:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I believe that it's 10% (see #Implausibly low number) However, there really aren't any really good statistics on this so it would be difficult for anyone to make such a claim at this point in time as to any correlation between humans and other species. --Kraftlos (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.