Talk:Environment and sexual orientation/Archive 1

Some significant omissions

The article reads, 'Other researchers have also provided evidence that gay men report having had less loving and more rejecting fathers, and closer relationships with their mothers, than non-gay men.[12] Whether this phenomenon is a cause of homosexuality, or whether parents behave this way in response to gender-variant traits in a child, is unclear.'

This theory of sexual orientation mentioned in the first sentence is largely due to Freud; it's absurd that Freud should not be mentioned here. Also, I think the sourcing for the second sentence is bad. Isay is clearly of the view that the parental behaviour is as a response to the children's homosexuality/gender variance, rather than the other way around. Michael Ruse's book Homosexuality might be a better source for this statement (which should be modified to mention that both possibilities might be true in different cases, something Ruse has pointed out).Skoojal (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with Ruse. I think that would be great changes to this article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruse is a philosopher of biology. He only wrote one book on homosexuality. It's not a famous or particularly well known book, but it is quite good, and probably a better source than Isay for the statement in the article. Skoojal (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Lede issues

I have two items. Firstly, I suggest explaing a bit what "environment" refers in this context as it may mean different things to different people and we need to ensure that when we're comparing research they were researching and commenting on similar things. Which brings me to the second issue; the sentence "Many think both play complex roles." with cites and quotes to the American Psychological Association (APA) and Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics (AGLP). The APA quote is likely fine depending on how the article is using "environment" The AGLP quote, however, only concerns biological etiologies. Banjeboi 07:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The full quote talks about family dynamics too[1], but mo matter, that quote isn't needed. The problem with environment is that not all the sources are themselves clear what they mean. I think prenatal hormones is included in environment, but I don't know if every source considers it as such. I worry that trying to figure out what everyone means by environment would amount to original research. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We need to include something as it's a pretty vague concept and the article hinges on it. Banjeboi 08:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've included my understanding of environment, but marked that as fact needed, since I am not sure whether my analysis is correct or not. I have also tried to make the sources that do make the distinction clear. Let me know if I missed something. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Futher about definition of "environment"

From the abstract to the Långström paper: "Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34-.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61-.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18-.19 for genetic factors, .16-.17 for shared environmental, and 64-.66 for unique environmental factors." I think it is really very misleading to not report the shared environment results (especially since this is going in the lede). If the thesis of this article is that things like parenting style, or social influences during childhood, play a significant effect in determining sexual orientation, then 0.00 for males and 0.16-0.17 for females is the far more relevant number, and not terribly supportive to the article's thesis. Pete.Hurd (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The thesis is to report what effects the environment may have on sexual orientation. The thesis is not to take sides. I have changed the wording to reflect the conclusion the authors made. The authors do not distinguish social environmental influences from biological environmental influences. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The authors might not distinguish between "social environmental influences from biological environmental" (and I could argue that such a distinction doesn't exist) but they do distinguish "shared environment" from "unique environment" and I really don't think a full informative, accurate article on the topic of "environmental influences on sexual orientation" can present the scientific research without addressing that distinction prominently, directly and explicitly. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)\

The distinction between unique environment and shared environment only applies to twin studies, which isn't a prominent theme in this article. In all honesty, I don't know what all the differences are. I'm not that versed on twin studies. I've copied exactly what the conclusion at the end of the article says to make sure I'm not biasing it any way. I think the conclusion in the paper makes clear that the non-shared environment includes both biological and social influences. Since I am unaware of the exact differences, I think your knowledge of the distinction would make a great contribution to the article. Other authors do make a distinction between hormonal and environmental influences, just not in the context of twin studies. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference doesn't apply only to twin studies. In practice, on humans you can only tell the difference between the two from twin studies. The two types of influence have their effect regardless of whether or not the subjects are twins, and the difference between the two makes a *huge* difference if you are going to talk about "environmental effects" on behaviour in terms of things like parenting style and family. Basically you can think of it this way: unique, or non-shared, environment is whatever makes identical twins raised together grow up to be so different from each other. It's not whatever they have in common, such as parenting style, ambient social mores, whatever is in the drinking water, what they get exposed to in school, church etc it's what they don't share, the compounded effects of accident, illness, and all the whimsical effects of chance. Shared environmental influences is the stuff that amounts to "sensible" environmental variation, all the things that aren't unique. Behavioural genetic studies consistently show that environmental influences are predominantly non-shared. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a few short comments. I think that the distintion between "biological" factors and environment made above is fallacious. A simple example from mice: they are social animals and housing them singly per cage constitutes quite a stress for them. The result is an increased HPA axis activity, increased levels of stress hormones, etc. It's not any different for humans. All kind of environmental influences will affect levels of hormones, neurotransmitters in the brain, etc. Concerning unique/shared environment, I agree with Pete Hurd that this not a distinction limited to twins. For instance, the socioeconomic status of parents is an important environmental factor shared by all children in a family. Regardles of whether they are twins or not. In fact, even if there is only one single child, this factor would still be part of the "shared environment"... Hope this helps... --Crusio (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

properly representing sources?

A sentence in the article reads:"A 2000 American twin study also showed that familial factors influence sexual orientation.[9]" Compare this statement to the abstract from the article itself "Biometrical twin modeling suggested that sexual orientation was substantially influenced by genetic factors, but family environment may also play a role. [...] CONCLUSIONS: Familial factors, which are at least partly genetic, influence sexual orientation." I think the article does not honestly represent the source. Pete.Hurd (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I have updated the article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, see also my comments at Talk:Biology_and_sexual_orientation#.22Karolinska.22_ref. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Absent fathers?

The article mentions the hypothesis of homosexuality being caused by absence of the parent of the same gender during upbringing. Has it not been disproven by the fact that gays are not overrepresented amongst men with physically absent fathers? I think I have read it somewhere but I don't remember where.

2009-06-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Contraception

I've read that some researchers had made ties between prenatal hormones and contraception, suggesting that things like the birth control pill could have an impact on male sexual orientation. ADM (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why call it Sexual Orientation?

Calling Heterosexual and Homosexual dispositions an "Orientation" presents a problem, I think, because "Orientation" clearly implies that it is learned behavior and not apart of one's nature. I don't think I have an "Orientation," but rather one of the many aspects of the Human Condition. I know that isn't a better term to call it, but it'll have to do until I find one better. Avazina 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Orientation means pointed toward, and has no implication of learned behaviour. In fact, i would say the opposite: a rock can be orientated towards the sun, which means neither that the rock learned to do that or even that an outside agency placed it so.YobMod 10:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That is what it is called, whether we agree with what it is called or not, that is what is it is called. There is nothing to discuss. Mish (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yobmod while I can appreciate your point I must state that it can easily be inferred that when someone is pointed toward something, are they not being shown, which is to say being taught, which further implies that they may have learned something? I known this is all academic, but I'm just interested in stirring some healthy discussion on this matter. Avazina 02:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mish NO OFFENSE INTENDED, but there is never anything wrong with a little healthy discussion of different ideas. So, yes there is something worth discussing here and if you have a problem with this, then don't get involved. Avazina 02:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, although this is not meant for discussion of ideas - I thought you were questioning why the article uses 'sexual orientation'. As long as this discussion is not about replacing 'sexual orientation' with some other term (because that is what sexual orientation is called), then discuss away. If it does become about replacing 'sexual orientation', rather than about ideas, then I will become involved. Thanks for clarifying, I have no desire to be involved in a discussion about whether the term 'sexual orientation' is the best way to describe sexual orientation, only whether it is the best term to use in the article to describe sexual orientation. Mish (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion explanation

Explanation for this editation is fully compliant with Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Use up-to-date evidence Putting it back is obviously in contradiction with Wikipedia rules. --Destinero (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary was unclear. What is AGLP? Please explain your revision here and obtain consensus. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, AGLP dealt with another article. But you put back "No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental." into article, where I provide highly credible references (clinical reports in spite of informational/educational page without references as is the present case) but primarily biological factors. --Destinero (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Pediatrics clinical report says, "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." That seems to be inconsistent with your edit and with your talk (above paragraph). ThinkinAnglicans is not a reliable source for scientific research. It seems that you are stating that biology (genetics and prenatal hormones) determine sexual orientation, not evironment. Please clarify if I misunderstand you; otherwise, please show me that I misunderstans the Pediatrics source (a quote would be very helpful). Thanks. --Dr.enh (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ThinkigAnglicans contains exactly the same version of text as the official PDF: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf That report is from 2007, even more up-to-date than Pediatrics clinical report. The point of my editation was that sexual orientation is mainly biological issue than environmental and that environmental factors are connected with very early childhood and not with parenting or sexual abuse and thus rejecting possibility of choice. This facts is back up by credible enough sources and thus it is useful to present it rather than only general statement about mix influential factors. --Destinero (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see this explanation. You said the APA removed their info. They replaced it, but they left that section pretty much untouched. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Pediatric Neuroendocrinology: Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation

I find essential the following study and it's conclusion to be mentioned in the article: "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=262525 --Destinero (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of APA section

The APA currently states on their web site:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.[2]

This was removed saying it was outdated. If the APA thinks it is outdated, they can remove it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests it is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, other adverse life events, or early childhood experiences influence sexual orientation." Is sufficient information in lede focusing on key points. It doesn't contradict APA statement. --Destinero (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The APA statement says many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. The lead says it is primarily nurture. I think the APA's view is an important enough to be included in the lead. Just because one organization disagrees doesn't mean the APA's view shouldn't be represented at all. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Joshuajohanson. Destinero's text seems to be inconsistent with and directly contradict the rest of the article, no offense. Here is the current form of the text:

"Research suggests it is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, other adverse life events, or early childhood experiences influence sexual orientation."

Later in the article there are citations for evidence regarding early childhood experiences and even for abnormal parenting. But even in a more general sense this text is saying that environmental factors are not relevent, which contradicts the rest of the lead and the whole article for that matter. I think it should be removed. --LogicDesigner (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The American Psychiatric Association stated in 2010: "Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality." http://www.healthyminds.org/More-Info-For/GayLesbianBisexuals.aspx

The American Academy of Pediatrics in 2004 stated in Pediatrics, an official peer-reviewed journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (Pediatrics is among the top 2% most-cited scientific and medical journals. Pediatrics is the most-cited journal in the field of pediatrics.*2009 Thompson Reuters: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/misc/about.dtl): "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. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood."

The Royal College of Psychiatrists in 2007 stated: "Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice." http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf

Dr Michael King, Professor of Primary Care Psychiatry at the Royal Free and University College Medical School, University College, London (the author of http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf): "The conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of sexual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change. All theological, philosophical, and moral debates about how lesbian and gay people should lead their lives and follow their religious beliefs need to take account of these premises." http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=60752

Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF, endocrionologists stated in peer-reviewed joudnal Pediatric Neuroendocrinology in 2010: "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation."

http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000262525&typ=pdf

These are pretty clear statements of the most credible scientific and expert sources on the World that hopefully even you can understand them and respect them. WP:MEDRS requires to use up-to-date evidence, respect secondary sources and summarize scientific consensus. WP:NPOV tell us "Viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Thus, this article need to be updated and edited to reflect fundamental Wikipedia policies and recommendations as soon as possible. --Destinero (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

the 'Fraternal Birth Order' Section

It should be made clear that (as on the page concerning fraternal birth order) the researchers who did the work supporting fraternal birth effect found: "The effect has been found even in males not raised with their biological brothers, suggesting an in-utero environmental causation." which is why they support that it is biological, rather than environmental. I'm not saying fraternal birth order shouldn't be mentioned here, in the environment article --this is still up for debate-- it should just be made clear that there is data to support the effect being in-utero and therefore "biological" in nature.

Unless we are actually considering prenatal environment to be purely environmental, rather than biological? If the two articles were called 'genetics and sexual orientation' and 'environment and sexual orientation' there might be reason to put it here, but the other article is entitled 'biology and sexual orientation'. It is not even mentioned in that article, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.128.222 (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality undergoing revision

The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.

I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.

Thank you,

Pdorion (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Environment and sexual orientation - Family influences

There is a dispute whether to observe the rules of Wikipedia recommendations such as WP:MEDRS requiring to respect secondary sources, summarize scientific consensus, use up-to-date evidence. These recommendations are undisputed by owerhelming majority of Wikipedians and I see now reason why need to wait for editorial consensus on Talk page on self-evident issue just because there are intentional POV of one or two editors. Destinero (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous citation?

The first sentence of section 2 ("Family Issues"), "Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting, early childhood experiences, sexual abuse, or other adverse life play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation," is not original to Wikipedia but is taken verbatim from source 9 from the same page (Royal College of Psychiatrists: "Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality"). The sentence quoted here can be found in the original source material on p.2; it is the first sentence of the source's Section 2, "The Origins of Homosexuality".

Other sentences from the original source material can be found interspersed in the Wikipedia article. They appear to be followed with citation markers directing the reader to the source material, but without proper quotation the sentences appear to be the creation of the author(s) of the Wikipedia article and not of the authors of the source material.

65.6.139.251 (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)eni

Cultural Influences

This whole section is riddled with problems. For example:

• "Anthropologists had observed that relatively uncompetitive primitive cultures such as those that do not distinguish or reward the best hunters in distinction to the other men in the tribe have virtually no homosexuality.[29]"

Firstly the paper is quite old (1978) and it cites even older studies, but secondly, 'primitive cultures' is an offensive term and is no longer used in anthropology circles (who says what is primitive and what isn't?)

• "In the US, there has been an increase number of women developing an attraction for other women."

Only reference is CNN and a highly dubious statement. How could that even be studied? No credible study could ever demonstrate that.

• "Binnie Klein has stated that "It's clear that a change in sexual orientation is imaginable to more people than ever before, and there's more opportunity – and acceptance – to cross over the line."[31]"

Who is this Binnie Klein and why is she relevant? The general consensus is that sexuality is not a choice, as seems to be implied by this quote.

Also, what's with the Sotadic zone— an extremely old hypothesis? Wouldn't that better fit in LGBT history?

And what's with the Miron Baron quote suggesting that homosexuality is genetic? The cause of homosexuality is unknown, but research is moving more in the direction if it being related to fetal exposure to hormones, and possibly some other factors such as genetics, but there is no proof that homosexuality is entirely genetic that I'm aware of.

122.107.72.12 (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Heterosexism in the article

It's a common and heterosexist view that there are two sexual orientations, namely a male sexual orientation and a female sexual orientation and that these sexual orientations are homosexual or heterosexual depending on the sex of the individual they occur in. Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab aren't entirely right saying there is "no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." (Quoted in the first paragraph of the Family influences section.) But they are entirely hypocritical as there is even less indication that a male homosexual's sexual orientation is necessarily the result of feminization. This is a heterosexist view and results from an extremely simplistic conception of human sexuality and sexuality's role in evolution. I would like to see the quote removed and ideally replaced with another source stating the same conclusion without propagating a simplistic, unsupported and offensive hypothesis of sexual orientation development.

Another problem is that the section on childhood gender non-conformity doesn't make clear that many (or most) homosexual men were gender-conforming children, being distinct from other boys only in sexuality and only in adolescence or in prepubescent sexual attraction. 75.132.142.26 (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

History of Abuse

It is well known that several studies have shown a correlation between sexual preference and a history of sexual abuse. I added a section that quoted directly from two academic journals, which was promptly removed, with a flimsy explanation. This is no place for intellectual dishonesty and censorship. To remove direct quotes from journal articles because they don't support one's POV is a dispicable act, and should not be tolerated. Here is the passage for posterity, please enlighten me as to a) a passage that is all quotes can constitute a "mischaracterization", and b) the lead-off sentence could have been any more neutral? I said "they have not established causation"! What more do you want?

Here is my paragraph:

Several studies have shown a correlation between homosexuality and a history of sexual abuse, although they have not established causation. For instance, one study found that "Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused." Another found that "Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation." Academic studies also exist that deny and correlation between sexual orientation and a history of abuse.

Ragazz (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You are giving WP:UNDUE weight to 2 studies, while only mentioning that "academic studies also exist that deny and correlation between sexual orientation and a history of abuse".--В и к и T 07:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

In my view, this content is cherry picked and a virtual copy-paste from Conservapedia. It does not belong in serious article on this subject. Consider that lack of causation is strongly indicative of junk science, or at least fallacious reasoning as worded in the proposed content. It would by like editing Human evolution and adding a section that states "Several researchers believe that the Egyptian pyramids are evidence of ancient alien astronauts who populated the earth in prehistory. There are scientists who disagree with this theory". - MrX 12:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikiwind, if you want to add the other studies, then add them. That would be more responsible editing then simply censoring info that doesn't agree with your hypothesis.

Mr.X: It is extremely difficult to show causation in the field of psychology. By your reasoning, all psychology is "junk science". Further, its a good thing that your opinion of what constitutes "junk science" doesn't really matter. It's pretty clear what is meant by "academic journal article". Contrary to what you will have others believe, a significant body of research points to non-biological roots of sexual orientation. I have never read "Conservapedia", but I just looked at the article about "Causes of Sexuality", and neither of these academic articles were mentioned. FYI, I can almost guarantee that my politics are to the left of yours, and contrary to what about half of the gay white male population is about to do, I will not sell-out and turn Republican the minute gays get the right to marry. Where, in your Enlightenment ideals, does the notion of censoring academic research from encyclopedias come into play?Ragazz (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not how we play this game. We will not use individual studies as a primary sources. We need to find authoritative secondary reviews of published studies and positions of major proffesional organizations. For example, here is the position of American Psychiatric Association:

"No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual." (emphasis mine)

--В и к и T 10:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned the Conservapedia article, is because the content that you added seemed very similar to Conservapedia's fair and balanced article about Sexual abuse being a contributing factor for homosexuality. Wikiwind is exactly right. We shouldn't add content to the article that represents a fringe hypothesis. Notably, the JAMA article is not an article about the causes of sexual orientation. From this article, you apparently found something that agrees with you viewpoint and inserted it into this article. Specifically, "Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused." In reality, the JAMA article concluded that " Sexual abuse of boys appears to be common, underreported, underrecognized, and undertreated." Not a word about discovering the cause of homosexuality.

The sources that you identified are not a reliable for adding a section called History of sexual abuse to an article about Environment and sexual orientation. They may, however, be be reliable for the article Sexual abuse of homosexual children.

I suggest we leave politics out of this discussion. It has no relevance to the subject at hand. - MrX 13:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct on all points. And I think I'll leave it at that. Rivertorch (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Mr. X, et al, it is not my viewpoint that sexual abuse is a contributing factor in the development of one's sexual orientation. It is only my view that some respectable peer-reviewed academic sources have shown a correlation. How is this even controversial? The studies clearly exist, they should at least be mentioned. I never intended for the section to be any more in depth than it is now.

Also, as far as this being a "fringe hypothesis", that still wouldn't preclude it from being mentioned in the article, as long as there wasn't undue weight given to it. One really can't argue with the sentence from the Archives of Sexual Behavior article: "Much has been written about a possible connection between abuse in childhood and sexual orientation in adulthood". Do any of you disagree with that statement?Ragazz (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Rothman and Deinera

Article by Rothman and Deinera The prevalence of sexual assault against people who identify as Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual in the United States: A systematic review reviewed the prevalence of "lifetime sexual assault victimization" and where available, childhood sexual assault (CSA), adult sexual assault (ASA), intimate partner sexual assault (IPSA), and hate crime-related sexual assault (HC) among gay or bisexual (GB) men, and lesbian or bisexual (LB) women. How is this relevant to development of sexual orientation?--В и к и T 10:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

General lack of balance and clarity

The entire article is unbalanced. Even if one presupposes that the sole orientations are the binary heterosexual or homosexual, something that has been shown to be incorrect, the article discusses nothing other than why some people, usually men, are homosexual.

Even if we remain in the binary arena, nothing seems to discuss why many people are heterosexual. I presume this is because such a declared orientation is assumed to be a given, but Wikipedia articles around that assumption are, generally, not valid.

The entire article appears to me to be based upon studies of why people are or become homosexual, and not about any environmental factors affecting sexual orientation. There is substantial other material required in this article to make it worthy of a place here.

The title is also assumptive. Environment and sexual orientation is a grand title, but does not appear to encompass any observed or studied sexual orientation in non human creatures. I believe it requires the addition of the word human or the addition of segments on the environment and its effect or otherwise on non human sexual orientation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I want to make it clear, though. This is not a proposal to change the name of the article. This is a suggestion that the article be expanded to meet its title. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Timtrent (Fiddle Faddle), like you touched on above, and like I stated elsewhere on Wikipedia, many people consider heterosexuality to be natural/normal due to the reproductive factor, but view homosexuality as a choice, as something that happens due to some early childhood experience or how the child was raised, or as a biological defect. It's the reproductive factor that also has the scientific community generally focusing more on what causes homosexuality than on what causes heterosexuality when studying possible causes for sexual orientation. That's why you see this article, the Biology and sexual orientation article, and those similar to these, focusing more on what causes someone to be gay/lesbian/bisexual (which is all homosexuality) significantly more than what causes sexual orientation in general. Further, most scientists do not assign sexual orientation labels to non-human animals, except for when describing the behavior of those animals. See, for example, the "Applying the term homosexual to animals" section in the Homosexual behavior in animals article. Most scientists do not do this (except for, as I stated, describing behavior) because non-humans animals cannot communicate with humans in the same in-depth way that humans can, and most non-human animals cannot communicate with humans in any in-depth way at all. Therefore, assessing their sexual orientation, what goes on in their minds as opposed to their behavior (considering that sexual behavior does not always match up with one's sexual orientation), is very difficult. None of the big scientific organizations, such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, define sexual orientation as applying to non-human animals; see here and here. So, to stress again, that is why these articles are human-focused. Flyer22 (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right about non-human animals, which generally are described in terms of behavior, not orientation per se. I'm not sure what you're getting at when you talk about what how "many people" view heterosexuality versus homosexuality. That many people see homosexuality as either a "choice" or a "defect" is a given, but those are loaded terms that have everything to do with personal convictions and precious little to do with the scientific consensus that should inform this article. I do think Fiddle Faddle raises a couple of interesting points: the scope of the article is indeed more limited than its title would indicate, and there is a presupposition towards a binary model. My answer would be that the article reflects (more or less) the real-world situation. Research into the determinants of sexual orientation has typically been framed in terms of "what causes homosexuality"—unfortunate, perhaps, but if that's the way the researchers do it, then it is appropriate for the article to reflect that. Rivertorch (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Rivertorch, I'm not sure how I was not clear by my "many people" line; what I meant by that line is what I stated in the next line about the reproductive factor. The "many people" aspect includes many scientists, except that most of them don't believe that homosexuality is a choice or is something that is caused by how the child was raised; most of them likely don't think that it's caused by some biological malfunction either, but they often do specifically look for a gene and/or some other biological component that can explain the cause of homosexuality. They are significantly more perplexed by why people are gay/lesbian/bisexual than they are about why people are heterosexual. The reproductive factor is the reason for that, as shown in the "Sexual orientation and evolution" section of the Biology and sexual orientation article. The majority of research I have read and studied on the topic of sexual orientation is concerned with why people are gay/lesbian/bisexual; again, that is why this article, the Biology and sexual orientation article, and those similar to these, focus significantly more on what causes someone to be gay/lesbian/bisexual than what causes sexual orientation in general. The American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association links I provided above also show that scientists are significantly more interested in why people are gay/lesbian/bisexual than they are about why people are heterosexual.

As for the title of this article, I'm not sure how the title is a problem or what title would be better for it, any more than the title Biology and sexual orientation. Given what I stated above about non-human animals, it's not as though the title of this article should include the word human in it. The title also doesn't speak of anything about a binary view -- what Timtrent called "the binary heterosexual or homosexual." I'm not sure if Timtrent is relating this to the gender binary and is implying something about third gender or that there is a lack of focus on bisexuality in this article, but homosexuality includes bisexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not implying anything at all. I have used very clear words. I am relating my words to my observation of the article and its contents. It appears to presuppose homosexuality or heterosexuality. Adding bisexuality into the discussion feels more like passing a sop to the critic than addressing the issue of binary bias. If we are using wordplay, heterosexuality includes bisexuality. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Because this article focuses more on homosexuality than heterosexuality, and researchers use "homosexual," as in "homosexual sexual activity," to describe any same-sex sexual contact, I stated "homosexuality includes bisexuality." Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

And there you have stated as have I, the problem with the article. It does not focus on sexual orientation. It focuses on homosexuality, pretty much to the exclusion of heterosexuality. Thus the article cannot have a neutral point of view as it stands right now. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Timtrent, I explained above why this article is like this. And Rivertorch also stated: "Research into the determinants of sexual orientation has typically been framed in terms of 'what causes homosexuality'—unfortunate, perhaps, but if that's the way the researchers do it, then it is appropriate for the article to reflect that."

So I don't know what to state to you other than what I have on this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

At risk of becoming repetitive, and I am most assuredly not being combative, it seems to me that the things you have stated and the things Rivertorch has stated excuse the article for being the way it is. Knowing RT slightly having collaborated on an entirely unrelated topic, and you not at all, I suspect that neither of you would dream of excusing an article for being the way it is, nor using some sort of societally preconceived norm to excuse it. So, now we all know why it is the way it is, the question is, what needs to be done about it?

You see I feel that sexual orientation in all its many facets and the effect of the environment (or not) upon it is not being recorded in the article, and I do see it as being confined to humans by arguments which are, themselves, not NPOV, but are historic and societal.

I don't want anything at all stated to me. I'm not important. What I hope for is that the shortfall in the article is recognised and addressed in a substantive manner. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Timtrent, WP:Neutral covers this. You view what I and Rivertorch have stated as an excuse. I view it as the reality of things. We cannot give equal space when no equal space exists; sexual orientation is not studied to the same degree with regard to heterosexuality as it is with regard to homosexuality. Once again, it's not just this Wikipedia article that is like this. Look at the Biology and sexual orientation article, for example. We should follow the scholarly sources on this, and most scholarly sources focusing on the cause of sexual orientation are primarily focusing on what causes homosexuality. Do I believe that more about heterosexuality, and specifically bisexuality, should be in this article? Yes. But we should not create false balance. To give this article the type of balance you want, we would need to remove a lot of information from this article and agree to keep most such information out of it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not into equine necrophilia, so I will give this one more try, and limit myself to that. I had no thoughts about removal of data. Instead my thoughts are towards documenting any notable and verifiable data that increases the sum total of knowledge of studies n heterosexuality. I'm also unsure why the article is limited to these two 'ualities' with the minor inclusion of an 'iality'. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean why doesn't the article cover all sexualities? If so, the answer is that not all sexualities are considered sexual orientations; the way that sexual orientation is defined by most scholarly sources, as also evident by the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association links I provided above, is by sexual and/or romantic attraction to males and/or females, men and/or women, not by things such as sexual interest focusing exclusively on a body part. Paraphilias, such as necrophilia, are not considered sexual orientations by most scientists. They sometimes use the term sexual orientation loosely, even to refer to paraphilias, but they usually don't. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

And, in case you think I'm being dense, I know what you mean by "equine necrophilia." I felt that I might as well mention [real] necrophilia, however, since you mentioned the word and noted 'ualities.' Perhaps, by 'iality,' you were stating that sexual orientation with regard to behavior needs to be documented more in this article? Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I was being more straightforward, but got my spelling wrong by being too clever by half! How about that! I am obviously wearing my freudian slip and the hem is showing below the hem of my frock. I did promise not to keep banging this drum, you know :) Unless others choose to join in I can see that I am not forming a consensus. I do feel the article is too narrow, but there is no point in harping ion about it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean you got something wrong about "equine necrophilia." The reason that I stated that I know what you mean by it is because I thought you meant "beating a dead horse" (being repetitive), but now I'm not sure what you meant by it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

o. m. f. g. The things that await me when I log in to this place. I also took "equine necrophilia" to be an oblique reference to WP:HORSE WP:STICK, but now that I think about it there would have to be an S&M component as well. Or an 'S' component, anyway—maybe not an 'M', since dead horses can't exactly appreciate being beaten. Wait, are we really having this discussion? Fwiw, I think you both make perfect sense. I understand what you're getting at, Fiddle Faddle, and I sympathize with what you're saying. However, I think Flyer22 is right about following the sources. If the preponderance of the most reliable secondary sources (such as the APA) frame the topic in terms of "what causes homosexuality", then the article needs to reflect that, even if it's illogical. Is there room to expand the article in the way you've suggested? I have no idea. This is pretty far from my bailiwick, and Flyer22 has a much better idea of what sources are out there than I do. I will say I think we need to be very cautious about sourcing and attempts at balance; undue weight has been a major concern with both this and a related article. (Btw, Flyer, I did get what you meant; I just thought that throwing the choice concept and the word "defect" in there were distracting and easy to misconstrue.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed I was not for flogging a dead horse. It was elsewhere i was too clever by half, so clever I can't even remember what on earth I failed to spell correctly. It certainly was not that iality, which seems to me to be more a diversion for some, not an orientation. I am not concerned about a faux-balance, but, where it is possible to ensure that the article is better aligned with its title, or the title is better aligned with the article, there I see improvements that can be made and should be. One particular thing that strikes me is whether the concept of being asexual is an orientation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As a parenthetical issue, which may be outside the scope of this talk page, I do find it rather odd that people seek to find out by science why a perfectly normal sexual behaviour, that of taking a same sex partner for sex, is imbued with such (searching for the right word) 'distaste' that a 'cause' has to be found. The environmental and societal conditioning is to take an opposite sex partner for sex and to deprecate the taking of a same sex one. It seems to me that a very great deal of the written work in this area, while making no reference to the history, has a basis in its outlook in the religious control of the masses by the few, something I find ironic after the various industrial scale sexual abuses revealed of late by clergy. It strikes me that the tone of this and other articles reflects that historic and religious fervour against anything but male/female coupling in the missionary position. I make no comment, on purpose, about the concept of long term, committed partnerships heterosexual or homosexual, because I see those as out of scope with regards to orientation. [evidence: many people who are homosexual are in heterosexual long term partnerships, thus the topics are linked, but separate] Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, asexuality is debated as a sexual orientation (the asexuality topic is another sexuality topic that I have thoroughly studied, and I am currently the main editor of the Asexuality article).

Even though most heterosexual people usually don't engage in sexual activity to reproduce, I think that it's human nature that people want to understand why same-sex sexual behavior happens...or rather why some people and some non-human animals are hard-wired to only sexually desire, or predominantly sexually desire, sexual activity with the same sex...given that it doesn't lead to offspring. We all know why opposite-sex sexual behavior came about; the reproductive system is the answer to that, an aspect that is also observed by most non-human mammals only mating during the female's estrous cycle, or many other non-human animals mating at some point when the female is most capable of producing offspring. Just about all of my gay and lesbian friends have wondered why people are gay or lesbian, but never why people are heterosexual, and they didn't seem to think that their line of thinking was due to heteronormativity or heterosexism. Rather, they seemed to only apply it to the fact that they can't have biological children with their romantic partners. Flyer22 (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a given, by assumption, that all children are raised in the assumption of their heterosexuality. I hesitate to use the term 'normativity', thus it is reasonable to see that people would question their homosexuality, and that people will not question their heterosexuality. But what is reasonable does not form the basis of good research, otherwise much good research would not have been undertaken in so many areas. Religion and society blocked many prior areas of research. Galileo's research was condemned by the clergy, for example.

Human nature ought not to be the main driver of what I fear may be opinion-led-research in the area of sexual orientation, despite the seeming paradox that sexual orientation, while not limited to humans in my view (Bonobos, for example?), is human nature.

Equally, is it human nature to be heterosexual, homosexual, asexual or bisexual, or is it, asexuality probably apart, human nature to be simply sexual?

With this in mind, and absolutely without original research, and bearing in mind my wholly inexpert status, I still do have doubts that the article should remain as narrow as it is. I feel unsuited to the task of identifying appropriate research as commented upon in reliable sources, though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Article is scientifically illiterate

First sentence: "Environment and sexual orientation is research into possible environmental influences on the development of human sexual orientation."

And then we have correlates in most of the article such as childhood gender non-conformity and how people have more same-sex marriages in Copenhagen.

One of the most basic principles in science is that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Cavann (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's also grammatically "illiterate". It should read "Environment and sexual orientation research has been conducted on the possible environmental influences...", or something similar. - MrX 00:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

Well Flyer22, I think this change I made has been my shortest lived ever. See that I added nothing that it was not already there. The object of the rearrangement was to eliminate the sentence "Environment and sexual orientation is research into possible environmental influences on the development of human sexual orientation" that I, and some other, consider not very fortunate. Notice that I bolded environment, and did not bold sexual orientation because it was linked, and recommendations suggest not to bold them. Of course other approaches are possible, for instance the proposal of MrX.--Auró (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey again, Auró. I'm not sure how I should feel about having reverted you faster than anyone else on a matter. As you've seen, this edit and this edit show reasons I reverted you with regard to the lead. That second one also makes clear that with regard to my criticism about "research has shown," that the text was already there and that you did not add it. To elaborate on the bolding aspect, see WP:MOSBOLD and WP:LEADSENTENCE if you are not already familiar with those guidelines. However, considering that the title of this article is merely descriptive, you are correct (if you were not only speaking of bolding the link) that the title does not need to be bolded (though WP:LEADSENTENCE does not state not to bold it). WP:LEADSENTENCE states that it "does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." To elaborate on the other reason I reverted you, here is why: The first sentence you added did not tell readers what "sexual orientation and environment" is, meaning "what it is about." Instead, it talked about research that has been done with regard to the topic of sexual orientation. WP:LEADSENTENCE is clear that "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is." And like I stated in the aforementioned edit summaries, research has not shown the matter that was stated in the "research has shown" text; instead, researchers suggest that sexual orientation may be a combination of all three of those things. Thus, your lead-in sentence was a theory about what causes sexual orientation instead of a statement about what the topic of "sexual orientation and environment" means. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I tweaked the lead-in sentence, using the "relationship between" type of wording that the Biology and sexual orientation article does. I thought about leaving out the "into possible environmental influences on the development of human sexual orientation." part because I'm not sure if it's grammatically fine as is/flows that well with the rest of the sentence. I also thought about using "with regard to" as a replacement for "into." Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better. - MrX 23:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It was grammatically awkward before. Now it's fine. Rivertorch (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree, it is correct now.--Auró (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The Sociological Theory

There is no genetic evidence of a homosexual gene despite many millions spent over many years in search of a genetic factor. It is a sociological issue despite the many politically based claims designed to elicit sympathy for the homosexual/alternative lifestyle political movement. This hypothesis is understood among sociologists who study cultures over time. Repeating and referencing outdated theories that have been found to be unsupportive by modern genetics is unproductive. A reference must be credible and those claiming a possible biological factor are outdated based on modern genetic studies. It does however serve a political purpose designed to garner sympathy as a "condition someone is born with." There is clearly no genetic evidence to support such claims. The possibility of a genetic mutation from the mother's diet/medicines are also unsupported in genetic studies. The most credible theory that has not been disproven by hard science is that it is a sociological condition. Homosexuality may also have an psychological factor but stating that theory is often met with hostile replies by those promoting political views and not science. There is evidence to support that theory as well which has gained new adherents due to a lack of a genetic basis. The problem with the psychological theory is that it is more of a descriptive science of conditions than a hard science supported by empirical evidence. The psychology of the human mind is still among the least understood areas of the human body so that theory faces many more hurdles to prove or disprove. The Sociological condition is supported with evidence when one studies various cultures throughout history. This theory has been promoted in recent sociological texts. When one considers the lack of genetic evidence and difficulties with the psychological theory this becomes the most scientifically supported theory. 172.56.11.83 (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This section is incredibly biased. Where are the studies that completely contradict these nonsense claims? How desperate can you be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.11.98 (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe you are seriously putting anything by deregistered psychologist and anti-gay crusader Paul Cameron on this page. Do some fact checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.11.98 (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Have researchers found childhood gender nonconformity to be a factor of homosexuality in adulthood?

Have researchers found childhood gender nonconformity to be a factor of homosexuality in adulthood?

Not according to our sources, which seem to say "the possibility [exists] that factors causing people to differ in sexual orientation as adults are already influential in childhood and contribute to a corresponding difference in gender nonconformity." Please let me know if I'm missing something.- MrX 00:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

According to "Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction" by Bearman (Columbia University) and Bruckner (Yale University) published on American Journal of Sociology Vol 107 No 5, 2002.

"In contrast, our results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.102.76 (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have provided the published evidence. In addition, I have updated the article with other supporting evidences on social and parenting influences. I am going to update this nonconformity unless there is a valid objection.76.88.102.76 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I fear I am failing to understand the sentence you have quoted. I understand all of the words, just not the way they have been deployed. I am an ordinary reader, and we must write for the ordinary reader, even when we introduced learned papers. We also need to be careful that interpreting that paper is not WP:OR. I'm not sure what to suggest, here. Fiddle Faddle 18:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

IP, disregarding the childhood gender nonconformity material, all that you are doing is adding WP:Fringe material to the article, and I don't yet have the patience to take up full interaction with you regarding that. I have too many other things to deal with these days, and I'm sure that the article will eventually give its WP:Due weight to scientific consensus. The WP:Fringe matters that you are adding is that sexual orientation can change and that parenting plays any significant role in sexual orientation. The vast majority of scientists do not at all believe that sexual orientation can change, and they are clear about that on matters such as sexual orientation change efforts. Do they believe that sexual orientation identity changes? Yes, of course. But very few of them believe that sexual orientation actually changes. So your addition of "Centre for Addiction and Mental Health of Canada states, 'For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time." to the lead is WP:Undue weight, and the source is likely talking about sexual orientation identity anyway (which is what some scientists mean when they state that sexual orientation can change). If we are to include it, it should instead be included lower in the article with WP:Due weight (meaning in the context of scientific consensus on the matter of sexual orientation changing). When it comes to parenting, the vast majority of scientists believe that it plays no role at all or rather a minor role, and that troubled or otherwise faulty parenting especially is not the cause; for example, the American Psychiatric Association stated, "Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice." When scientists do believe that environmental or social factors cause sexual orientation, they usually mean the womb environment and/or non-womb environment/non-parental interactions.

You should also try to stay away from adding WP:Primary sources, such as what you did with this and this edit. While the study of sexual orientation is not as progressive as other medical fields, and thus, per this section of the WP:MEDRS up-to-date evidence guideline, the expectation of non-WP:Primary sources needs to be relaxed in this area, we should stay away from WP:Primary sources when possible for this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding childhood gender nonconformity: MrX, see its Wikipedia article (the references more so) if you have not already. Yes, there is evidence that childhood gender nonconformity factors into homosexuality, though this notion/some aspects of the studies has been criticized. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is some level of consensus about correlation, but a lack of consensus about causation. Is that a reasonable summary of the current science?- MrX 19:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean childhood gender nonconformity? Yes, I think that's a valid statement about the current science on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry, I wasn't very clear.- MrX 20:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I think that it was clear enough what you meant; I simply wanted to make 100% sure. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. A lot of topics have been introduced in this discussion.

• First off, let us be clear - there is no scientific consensus on what causes sexual orientation. There are two main schools: nature (biology) vs nurture (environment). Those who support nature has their own Wiki page, Biology and sexual orientation, to present their side. This Wiki page is dedicated for those who support nurture.
• Those who support nature claim that it is not possible for sexual orientation to change, only sexual identity can change. However, there are many research studies that have refuted them and support that the environment does indeed influence the orientation. This Wiki page is for presenting this side of the debate, and it is my wish that we allow the fair representation.
• Child gender nonconformity (CGN) leading to homosexuality is not a fringe theory. Bearman and Bruckner are distinguished professors of Sociology from prestigious universities. And they have published their paper on a respected peer-reviewed journal of the field. (I am not sure if you ever tried to publish a fringe paper, but trust me - no respected journal would publish a fringe theory.) And even if it is considered to be fringe, the proposed edit is not going to make it "appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is" because this Wiki page is, again, for representing such environment theories, and the edit is only letting the readers aware of the valid finding of their research.
• In addition, their CGN theory is not new. Daryl Bem of Cornell University had already published the similar concept in his well-known "exotic becomes erotic" theory, where "similarity of temperament that determines the degree of childhood gender nonconformity and that childhood gender nonconformity then leads to a homosexual orientation."

76.88.102.76 (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I never stated that there is scientific consensus on what causes sexual orientation; the aforementioned Wikipedia sexual orientation articles are clear that there is not, and I've stated similarly. I also never stated that childhood gender nonconformity leading to homosexuality is a fringe theory. But there is scientific consensus on certain things that do not cause sexual orientation; troubled or otherwise faulty parenting is one of those things. And as for their being "two main schools: nature (biology) vs nurture (environment)"... You are making things very black and white on that matter, and it is one reason that I am not interested in debating this topic with you; this might be my last reply to you on this topic. The overwhelming majority of scientists these days do not believe that sexual orientation is only caused by biology or only caused by environment; in fact, this is the case for almost anything that concerns the way that a person thinks and behaves, as made clear at the Nature versus nurture article, and the lead of the Biology and sexual orientation article makes clear that "scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors determine sexual orientation," while the lead of the Environment and sexual orientation article states "Sexual orientation is theorized as possibly being a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences... ...no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles." I've stated this before on Wikipedia in more than one place and I'll state it again here: While scientists do not know what causes sexual orientation, the vast majority of them support biological models of sexual orientation as being the more likely cause of it; some of these biological models, such as the exotic becomes erotic theory, include social factors.

As for fringe theories, like the WP:Fringe guideline states: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." Again, there are definitely WP:Fringe beliefs among scientists when it comes to the topic of sexual orientation; that sexual orientation can change is one of those beliefs (I am well versed in the topic of sexual orientation, and I have not come across "many research studies that have refuted [the argument that sexual orientation cannot change] and support that the environment does indeed influence the orientation"...except for when citing womb environment or the environment as a combination with biology). That troubled or otherwise faulty parenting influences sexual orientation development is another WP:Fringe belief, which I of course already noted. And as for "This Wiki page is dedicated for those who support nurture"... Like the WP:Due weight policy states, a WP:Fringe view should be made clear that it's a WP:Fringe view regardless of what page it is on, whether that is by explicitly calling it a significant minority view among scientists or calling another matter the significant majority view among scientists. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, I think there's been a misunderstanding. I've never said that sexual orientation is either nature or nurture. I also believe that it is a combination of the both. However, this Wiki page is about the environment side of the orientation, and thus it should focus on the environment factors, not biological. And I have already cited 4 studies on CGN (Bearman, Bem) and parenting (Cameron, Schumm) that describe how these social factors would influence sexual orientation.

Please try to read the CGN section of this article as an ordinary reader who has no scientific background. The first sentence of the section states that CGN is only the "predictor" (with no mention of being a factor). It would give the reader a false impression that CGN does not influence the orientation at all. However, the very same section goes about to describe how CGN is indeed an influence, not just a predictor. But, these statements are not presented in a clear manner that an ordinary reader would understand, but are buried deep in the paragraphs and worded unclearly.

All I am saying is that we should make the sentence reflect these studies in a way that even an ordinary reader can understand. I have no problem wording it in a way to indicate that it is in a combination with biology. But, I don't think it should be omitted on the Wiki page that supposed to present the environmental factors.

76.88.102.76 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I have provided another recent publication and added "a factor" to the sentence. Please feel free to re-word it to include a biological combination if you'd like. Thank you. 24.25.206.220 (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You guys need to do some fact checking on Paul Cameron and on Schumm. Seriously? Try the reviews on Dr Warren Throckmortons blog where he takes those so-called "studies" completely apart and exposes them for what they are. Anti-gay idealogical pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.11.98 (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Royal College of Psychiatrists statement

Flyer22, You undid my revision 645627489 which added the statement by Royal College of Psychiatrists, which states: "sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors."

Your reason for the undo is "Not needed. Overkill".

But, it is not an overkill for the following reasons.

• American Psychological Association reference is a statement of uncertain factors for sexual orientation. It states: "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

• Royal College of Psychiatrists reference is, on the other hand, a statement of affirmed factors for sexual orientation. Unlike APA statement, RCP statement acknowledges the definite roles of both biological and postnatal environmental factors.

Thus, they are two very different statements. APA basically states that they don't know; RCP basically states that they do know. How can RCP statement be an overkill? I believe the public has a right to know about their statement that positively acknowledges postnatal environmental factors.

205.241.40.253 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you bringing up the Royal College of Psychiatrists source simply because I pointed to disputing use of that source on my talk page when referring to an editor who loved to use that source to make it seem that sexual orientation is only biological?

Not only is the content you added overkill (see WP:Lead), it is at conflict with the statement that "sexual orientation is theorized as possibly being a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, or simply a complex combination of nature and nurture." Your source is not a "For example" matter. That source -- the "sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors" sentence -- is not about nature and nurture or anything to do with social factors. The "a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" sentence is about nature and nurture/the inclusion of social factors. The Royal College of Psychiatrists source is about genetics and hormones determining sexual orientation, which is a biology topic. This is not the Biology and sexual orientation article, and even the lead of that article makes sure to mention the fact that scientists think that social factors are involved in determining sexual orientation. The theorized causes of sexual orientation are already covered at the Sexual orientation article. Just as the Biology and sexual orientation article mostly focuses on biology, including hormones, the Environment and sexual orientation article is mostly supposed to focus on non-biological factors; the term environment in this case includes "prenatal environment," of course, and the lead is already clear about that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I struck my post above because I see that the text you used from the Royal College of Psychiatrists states "postnatal"; I read that text wrong, to mean "womb environment" (prenatal), since I am so used to the aforementioned editor having used the source that way. I reverted myself, though I still think that the material is overkill. Once again, the lead, per WP:Lead, is for summarizing and ideally should not have material not addressed lower in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

How much more summarizing a statement can get than "sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors"?

And what do you mean the RPC statement does not have "material not addressed lower in the article"? The lower article is full of examples of postnatal environmental factors.

If you think it's an overkill, then it is the APA statement that should be moved to a lower section. Again, the APA says that they don't know and they say this in a very lengthy manner. the RPC says that they know and they say this in a very concise manner.

Furthermore, the APA source is more of an FAQ web page. But, the RPC source is an official statement approved by the policy committee.

Thus the RPC source is much more reliable than the APA source.

205.241.40.253 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not state that "the RPC statement does not have 'material not addressed lower in the article.'" And your assertion that "the RPC source is much more reliable than the APA source" is false. The American Psychological Association, which is the world's largest association of psychologists, is authoritative on the matter of sexual orientation; the Royal College of Psychiatrists is less authoritative on the matter of sexual orientation or is not authoritative on it at all. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is not as thoroughly cited or deferred to in the literature on the topic of sexual orientation as the American Psychological Association is. Feel free to ask at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) about this matter.

Also, the American Psychological Association source does acknowledge biological and postnatal environmental factors; it states, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." The nature and nurture part is already mentioned in the lead, so there is no need to quote the American Psychological Association on that; the important thing to quote from that source in the lead is that scientists are not certain what causes sexual orientation (you know, other than the fact that they think that both biology and social factors are involved, and that sexual orientation is unlikely to be a choice). There is no need to drive home the point in the way that you have done with the Royal College of Psychiatrists source, especially since the way you worded the quote states the matter definitively. I have tweaked the content, though I am still tempted to pull the Royal College of Psychiatrists source from the lead.

By the way: Every time you dodge my questions, I take the answer as a "Yes." Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for putting back the RCP statement. Goodbye.

P.S. I am not sure what you mean by dodging your questions, but I am sure you know what they say about making assumptions.

205.241.40.253 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

By "questions," you surely know that I mean the "inquiries" I recently made on my talk page regarding the fact that you've edited this article and my talk page as a different IP, and that you remind me of a certain registered account that was recently indefinitely blocked. And then there's what I stated above about you suddenly using the Royal College of Psychiatrists source. While you likely are not that recently indefinitely blocked account, you are that previous IP, so... And, no, I don't know "what they say about making assumptions." Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No homosexuality in uncompetative cultures?

The first line of the section titled 'Cultural influences' states: "Anthropologists had observed that relatively uncompetitive primitive cultures such as those that do not distinguish or reward the best hunters in distinction to the other men in the tribe have virtually no homosexuality." The statement is rather peculiar. The source given is a website that quotes a brief excerpt from a 1978 article by Herbert Hendin. The excerpt does not specify how the author defined 'homosexuality' nor whether he distinguished between homosexual desire, behavior, and identity. The primary sources the author used to come to his conclusion are also unavailable. While I have found the article the excerpt is taken from, I have been unsuccessful in accessing it (it requires a fee I cannot afford). Is it possible for someone to read the actual article and specify what the author meant in addition to seeing whether the study is reliable or not? To my knowledge, studies have not been able to rule out the existence of people with homosexual desires in communities even if said communities do not have a concept of sexual orientation identity or overt expressions of same-sex desire.

Regarding the reliability of the cited article and Mr. Hendin's expertise in the field of sexual orientation, I have some doubts. The only other article by Mr. Hendin I could find on the topic of sexual orientation is a 1963 article titled Psychotherapy of Male Homosexuality which had "the narrow but definitive therapeutic goal of establishing and maintaining pleasurable heterosexual behavior in a homosexual patient" (basically conversion therapy). In the article, Mr. Hendin and his peers have stated they are unaware of any genetic factors underlying sexual orientation (excusable, considering it was the 60s) and went on to say that "Adaptationally, homosexuality is seen as a deviant form of sexual behavior into which a person is driven by the intrusion of fear into the normal heterosexual function. The fear takes its origin from excessive parental discipline in the formative years of child[hood]..." According to PubMed, Mr. Hendin has not done any more work on sexual orientation (almost all of his subsequent articles have been on the topic of suicide). Our knowledge of sexual orientation, and specifically homosexuality, has grown significantly since he had his last article on such a topic published. I think a better source (preferably a relatively recent one) is needed to back up a claim as consequential as 'uncompetative cultures have no homosexuality'. If a better source is not found I think the first line of the 'Cultural influences' section should be removed. Human10.0 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

proposal of change to American Psychological Association statement in Lead section

The lead section of this article has a statement from American Psychological Association which states: "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. [..] Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

It is odd that the statement is edited to use [...] instead of its original sentence: "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles;"

Without the "nature and nurture" sentence, the APA statement sounds incomplete. Without it, the statement sounds like saying, "we don't know. period." However, with it, the statement takes on a different tone of "we don't know for certain, but we think nature and nurture."

Thus, I propose that we put back the "nature and nurture" sentence instead of displaying, [...]

If the reason for the omission was to make the statement concise, then why is the following sentence even there? "Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." What does the "sense of choice" have to do with this article about Environment and sexual orientation? The "nature and nurture" sentence is more pertinent to the subject of Environment than the "sense of choice". (The "sense of choice" is more suited for Sexual Orientation article than here, but I don't mind it being here.)

Please let me know your thoughts.

205.241.40.253 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Like I stated in the #Royal College of Psychiatrists statement section above, where you should have made your proposal instead of starting a new section, the "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles" sentence is redundant to the first part of that paragraph; that first part already makes that matter clear. So, in this case, it is not odd that the statement is edited to use "[...]" instead of its original sentence; that type of editing is allowed by MOS:QUOTE. And per WP:Blockquote, quotes are supposed to be a certain length before being turned into a blockquote. The American Psychological Association quote that you want substantially crosses that length; there ideally should not be a blockquote in the lead. The "nature and nurture" part fits better where I placed it, not within the American Psychological Association quote, where we, per what MOS:QUOTE's subsection states about linking within quotes, ideally should not link to the Nature versus nurture article. And, of course, the matter of choice has to do with the Environment and sexual orientation article, as is clear by the lead of the article after the American Psychological Association quote, the "Sexual orientation compared with sexual orientation identity" section and other parts of the article. Sources in the article discuss the topic of choice; same goes for sources in the Biology and sexual orientation article. Obviously because so much of society thinks that sexual orientation is a choice (when it comes to being gay/lesbian or bisexual, that is), which is in direct conflict with what the vast majority of scientists today believe about sexual orientation. (Note: I would have mentioned the topic of being asexual alongside the topic of being gay/lesbian or bisexual, but asexuality is too debated with regard to whether it is a sexual orientation.) Flyer22 (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Any argument you make to include the full quote will not be convincing to me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Before you added the Royal College of Psychiatrists source to the lead, the American Psychological Association quote was right beside the "nature and nurture" part to indicate that the American Psychological Association is a part of that view. I tweaked the matter moments ago for better flow. Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Tweaked further here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It does sound better. Thanks you.

One minor thing about the new paragraph that bothers me is "scientists' beliefs". Although it reflects APA statement, RCP statement is more affirmative as though they are acknowledging scientific research instead of "scientists' beliefs".

Could we replace "scientists' beliefs" with "scientific research" or "scientific studies" (or some other wording that you may prefer which reflects more than belief)?

The sentence is followed by an additional description of APA statement by saying, "but the American Psychological Association adds ... no findings have emerged ...", so the readers would know that APA has no affirmative conclusions on the factors.

205.241.40.253 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I figured that you might have a problem with "beliefs," but "beliefs" is accurate; there absolutely is no proof that sexual orientation is a combination of biology and social factors. It is a theory, no matter that it is a theory that the vast majority of scientists today believe. I pointed out in the Royal College of Psychiatrists statement discussion above that part of the reason that the Royal College of Psychiatrists quote, the way you worded it, should not be used is because it states the matter definitively. The Royal College of Psychiatrists source points to no studies that make the matter definitive. It would not be accurate to state "The American Psychological Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists acknowledge scientific studies that state sexual orientation is caused by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors," and such a comment is not needed. The American Psychological Association is clear that "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors." That's not an opinion; it is a fact (well, unless one wants to state that studies' conclusions on the matter serve as findings that show otherwise). Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. I think we should present to the public exactly what these organizations state without adding our interpretations or rewording their statement away from the original intent. I understand that you disagree with RCP, but RCP is not a small unprofessional organization, and thus we should respect their public stance and convey their original intent accordingly.

205.241.40.253 (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that the Royal College of Psychiatrists source begins by stating, "The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors." Yes, it points to sources 1–3 to support that statement, but that statement is clearly the Royal College of Psychiatrists's opinion. As is clear by the discussions I have had with you on my talk page and above, I obviously don't disagree with the Royal College of Psychiatrists that sexual orientation is a combination of biological and social factors, if social factors is what they mean by "postnatal environmental factors," but it is a scientific opinion; not yet a scientific fact. And the Royal College of Psychiatrists is clear to attribute it as their opinion. Therefore, I have presented their statement accurately by stating "The American Psychological Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists acknowledge scientists' beliefs that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors"; that is not me interpreting their statement differently than what they have presented. You are the one who excluded the fact that they state "The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers." You presented their statement definitively; they do not. Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If BCP believed that the aforementioned statement was an opinion, then they would have said something like "sexual orientation may be determined by ...". But, they said, "sexual orientation is", to indicate that it is not an opinion. For example, APA used the words such as "no consensus", "no findings ... that permit scientists to conclude", "Many think" to express that their statement is indeed an opinion. But, again, BCP did not use any of such hedging vocabularies. Thus BCP is not stating that can be construed as a belief.

You may be objecting to the way they stated by saying how their organization "considers" and interpret it as if it is their opinion. If this is the case, then there is practically no scientific fact because, e.g. NASA may say something like "NASA considers that Earth is a planet" and you take that as if they are expressing their opinion.

How about this? Let's remove our interpretation altogether and make the article say, "The American Psychological Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists consider that sexual orientation is caused by ..."

Since you interpret the word, "consider" as expressing an opinion, it would simply mean that APA and RCP are expressing their opinions that sexual orientation is caused by ..., correct?

205.241.40.253 (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It is the Royal College of Psychiatrists's opinion since not only do they state that "The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors", there is no, as I've already been very clear about above, definitive proof that sexual orientation is a combination of biology and social factors. Are you familiar with the studies that the Royal College of Psychiatrists points to for the "biological and postnatal environmental factors" statement? I am. And those studies do not make it so that it is okay to definitively state that sexual orientation is a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors. If it were a definitive matter, we would state that in the Sexual orientation, Biology and sexual orientation and Environment and sexual orientation articles, but we don't. My wording is accurate for the reasons I noted above. In the case of the American Psychological Association, they are stating that many scientists think that nature and nurture both play complex roles with regard to sexual orientation; in the case of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, they are stating that their scientists consider "that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors."

Your "If BCP believed" argument makes no sense to me. It can be argued that if they think that the "biological and postnatal environmental factors" aspect is definitive, they would not have worded the matter so strictly -- as something that they believe; they would have stated it as a scientific fact; they, however, did not state it as a scientific fact. And NASA would never state something like "NASA considers that Earth is a planet"; they would never state something like for the same reason that Wikipedia should not; see what WP:In-text attribution states about relaying factual matters as though they are only the opinions of the sources. Your "The American Psychological Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists consider" proposal is not accurate since the American Psychological Association is not stating that it is their scientists who think that way; they state "many." The wording I've used is fine. You need to stop trying to make it sound like it is a scientific fact that sexual orientation is a combination of biological and social factors; it isn't, and I reiterate that the Royal College of Psychiatrists source doesn't state that it is a fact. Even if it did, WP:Due weight is a policy that we should adhere to in that case. I'm not debating this semantics issue any longer. If you want more opinions on the matter, then I suggest you wait for MrX, who watches this article, to comment, wait for others watching this article to comment, and/or start a WP:RfC on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22 about not using "consider" which doesn't accurately reflect what the source says. It's too definitive. However, I think 205.241.40.253 raises a reasonable concern about the split quote. I suggest a compromise:

Current version:

"The American Psychological Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists acknowledge scientists' beliefs that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors, but the American Psychological Association adds that despite much research into the genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. [..] Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

205.241.40.253's version:

"The American Psychological Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists acknowledge scientists' beliefs that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors, but the American Psychological Association adds that despite much research into the genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

Possible compromise version:

"The American Psychological Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists acknowledge scientists' beliefs that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors, but the American Psychological Association adds that despite much research into the genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

This addresses Flyer22's concern that "the "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles" sentence is redundant to the first part of that paragraph;". It eliminates the redundancy with the sentence about choice that immediately follows. It keeps the content concise and on point. We should omit the nature/nurture phrase if for no other reason than it's weasel-y. 'Many' is an unknown number of people of unknown qualifications.- MrX 01:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind using the word consider if it were only referring to what the Royal College of Psychiatrists states; after all, I noted above that the Royal College of Psychiatrists uses the word considers, which makes it clear that it's not definitive. But, for reasons noted in my "02:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)" post above, I object to consider for the "American Psychological Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists" combination. And I don't think that those pieces should be separated like they were before I combined them.

I'm not completely sure what you are proposing, MrX, since the lead currently does not use the "Although much research" wording, or the word many. This is what the paragraph states:

"Sexual orientation is theorized as possibly being a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, or simply a complex combination of nature and nurture. The American Psychological Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists acknowledge scientists' beliefs that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors, but the American Psychological Association adds that despite much research into the genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. [..] Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." Scientific consensus is that sexual orientation, unlike sexual orientation identity, is not a choice, as there has been no strong evidence to validate it as a lifestyle choice."

I prefer the lead that way. However, I wouldn't mind much if we got rid of the "Most people experience" sentence, since the sentence after that addresses the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice, but the text flows better to me with both sentences being included; the first of the two helps transition into the topic of choice. Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional comment: The "genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" matter is nature and nurture; that's why I included "or simply a complex combination of nature and nurture" after that. Whether we use many or not with regard to the nature and nurture bit, I think the nature and nurture aspect should be mentioned/linked in the lead to clarify the "genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" piece -- how these factors work together. Also, many is referring to scientists; I take the matter that way anyway...since right before the American Psychological Association states "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles," they state "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors." I don't think that, by using the word many, the American Psychological Association was talking about average peoples' beliefs right after talking about scientists' beliefs. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I copied from the top of the thread instead of the article. I've corrected it. I will comment on the rest of your comment after I carefully read it.- MrX 02:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I suggest that the wording introduced by this edit is unnecessarily complicated and over-elaborate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

How is it any more unnecessarily complicated and over-elaborate than what was there before I made that edit? Before I made that edit, the content stated:

"Sexual orientation is theorized as possibly being a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, or simply a complex combination of nature and nurture. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, for example, states, "sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors." The American Psychological Association states, "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. [..] Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." Scientific consensus is that sexual orientation, unlike sexual orientation identity, is not a choice, as there has been no strong evidence to validate it as a lifestyle choice."

I don't see how the previous wording is better in the least. Not only are the American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists aspects needlessly divided in that paragraph, there is the long quote matter, and the matter of the Royal College of Psychiatrists piece being misleading (all of this I already noted above). Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

MrX,

• According to Flyer22, the word "considers" is not definitive. In light of this, could you reconsider using the word, "consider"?
• If not, how about the other compromise of replacing "scientists' beliefs" with "scientific studies" or "scientific research"?

Even APA statement is more than a belief. Using the word, "beliefs", places the both APA and RCP statements to the same level as those totally unsubstantiated wanton guesswork -- there are scientists who believe in ghosts and psychics, too. No, they based their statements on scientific studies with data to back them up. Just because they do not have a consensus or strong conclusive evidence does not equate it to a "belief". If you read their research papers, they have statistical data, not belief, to back up their conclusions.

• I agree with you and Flyer22 on "Most people experience" sentence being redundant. As Flyer22 pointed out, not only does the very next sentence addresses the same topic, but the very next lower section is about the same topic.

205.241.40.253 (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ] IP, how does my stating that "the Royal College of Psychiatrists uses the word considers, which makes it clear that it's not definitive" help your case? You were essentially arguing with me above that the Royal College of Psychiatrists statement is definitive; you were arguing that they have proof that those factors are the cause of sexual orientation and that it's not merely an opinion. You were acting like we shouldn't present it as the theory that it is. I argued that there is no definitive proof that sexual orientation is a combination of biology and social factors. I asked you: Are you familiar with the studies that the Royal College of Psychiatrists points to for the "biological and postnatal environmental factors" statement? I stated that I am familiar with them, and that those studies do not make it so that it is okay to definitively state that sexual orientation is a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors. Going by your lack of response to me on that, and the way you edit the Environment and sexual orientation article, you are not familiar with those studies. MrX has read what I stated above (my "02:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)" post) about why it's best that we not use "scientific studies" or "scientific research" in the way that you want us to use them for the "acknowledge scientists' beliefs" part; you have offered no convincing reasons for why we should. I reiterate that it is scientists' beliefs that "sexual orientation is caused by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors." We even start out the paragraph stating, "Sexual orientation is theorized as possibly being a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, or simply a complex combination of nature and nurture." It is a theory, no matter that it is a theory that has resulted after various studies of looking into the cause(s) of sexual orientation. I stated to you above, "You need to stop trying to make it sound like it is a scientific fact that sexual orientation is a combination of biological and social factors; it isn't."

Oh, and as you've surely seen, two minutes before you popped back up at this talk page, I went ahead and removed the "Most people experience" sentence as unneeded. When I was typing that at this talk page, I got a WP:Edit conflict because of your "17:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I changed "beliefs" to "theories." I don't see why you should not be able to accept "theories." Even in the Big Bang article, about a theory that the vast majority of scientists believe to be true, we start that article out by calling the Big Bang a theory. And unlike the theories concerning the cause(s) of sexual orientation, there is overwhelming evidence that the Big Bang is a fact. Flyer22 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I changed "scientists" to "scientific" for better flow. Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Much better than beliefs. Thank you very much. 205.241.40.253 (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead could be worse overall, Flyer22. I don't think the version before your edit was necessarily better. My problem with the part of the lead concerning the views of various professional organizations ("The American Psychological Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists acknowledge scientific theories that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors, but the American Psychological Association adds that despite much research into the genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors") is that if indeed the views of the American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists are distinct, it seems perhaps undesirable to include them together in the same sentence. Ideally each organization's view should be presented in a separate sentence if their views are not the same. I also have to say that the article's initial sentence ("The relationship between environment and sexual orientation is a subject of research into possible environmental influences on the development of human sexual orientation") is almost unintelligible. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

But as has been noted already, they both acknowledge scientific theories that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors. The American Psychological Association states, "Many [scientists] think that nature and nurture both play complex roles." And the Royal College of Psychiatrists states, "The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors." That's agreement when it comes to acknowledgement, as both of those statements concern nature and nurture. I added "scientists" to that quote in this post because, like I noted in my "02:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)" post above, many is referring to scientists; right before the American Psychological Association states "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles," they state "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors." I don't think that, by using the word many, the American Psychological Association was talking about average peoples' beliefs right after talking about scientists' beliefs. All that I have done with the lead on this matter is present the fact that both organizations acknowledge scientific theories that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors. That is better than having redundancy in the lead (by that, I mean I was clear that the "nature and nurture" part is already in the first sentence of the second paragraph, and I think it fits better there; we should not repeat it via the American Psychological Association quote; if we want to link to that Wikipedia article, which we should, it ideally should not be in a quote, but it would be in a quote if mentioning it for the first time via the American Psychological Association quote). And what I have done with the lead is certainly better than misrepresenting the Royal College of Psychiatrists as definitively stating that "sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors.", when they instead state, "The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors." And including the full American Psychological Association quote in the lead is not good lead material.

If this debate continues, I will simply remove any mention of the American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists from the lead. If the lead of the Biology and sexual orientation article can do without mention of them, so can the lead of the Environment and sexual orientation article. I will instead have the beginning of the second paragraph state "Sexual orientation is theorized as possibly being a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, or simply a complex combination of nature and nurture.," like it already does, and add on to that, "but the cause of sexual orientation has not yet been conclusively determined." After that, the sentence that is already in the lead will follow: "Scientific consensus is that sexual orientation, unlike sexual orientation identity, is not a choice, as there has been no strong evidence to validate it as a lifestyle choice." But I would add the word however in between "Scientific consensus" and "is" for better flow. Minutes ago, I thought about changing the American Psychological Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists bit to the following: "For example, the American Psychological Association acknowledges scientific theories that sexual orientation is a combination of nature and nurture, while the Royal College of Psychiatrists acknowledges the combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors; the American Psychological Association adds, however, that despite much research into the genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, 'no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.'" But adding that would be unnecessarily redundant.

As for the article's initial sentence, I have tweaked it. Per WP:Lead sentence, the lead sentence should attempt to define the subject. The Environment and sexual orientation article's lead sentence does a better job at that than the current lead of the Biology and sexual orientation article does. Of course, WP:Lead sentence also states "If its subject is definable," to indicate that some topics are not easily definable. Flyer22 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for rewriting the article's initial sentence. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: Changed paragraph. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)