Talk:Innate bisexuality

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 September 2019. The result of the discussion was delete and redirect.

This redirect is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

VFD results

This article has survived a VFD nomination with the result of Keep. --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 03:17 (UTC)

So where the heck is the criticism section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.119.24 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720095359/http://www.psychoanalysis.net/IPPsa/Grossman/ThreeComm.htm to http://www.psychoanalysis.net/IPPsa/Grossman/ThreeComm.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent addition

Crossroads1, as I have already noted, the subject of this article is "Innate bisexuality". You added a paragraph reading, "Scientific researchers have not yet converged on a single causal theory, but say there is considerably more evidence supporting biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males. They also state that the vast majority of people are sexually predisposed exclusively to the other sex, with minorities being exclusively homosexual or experiencing varying degrees of bisexuality". Not a single word of your addition is specifically about "innate bisexuality", the article's actual subject, making the addition indirectly relevant at best. It thus fails the test of WP:PROPORTION.

Since you invoked WP:PSCI to claim that your addition supposedly "must" be here, I have to point out that while you are perfectly free to consider psychoanalysis pseudo-scientific, the arbitration committee has specifically ruled that psychoanalysis is not officially considered pseudo-science on Wikipedia. See the explanation of this subject in the notice at the top of Talk:Psychoanalysis, if you like. Or see the arbitration case itself here. If you disagree with the arbitration committee on this matter, you can take it up with them and try to persuade them to change their decision - though I wouldn't consider that worth it myself. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at any rate, it's probably moot now that this is at AfD. I agreed with you there that this should be deleted. Discussing Freud's views on the matter at the Bisexuality article works great, because there we have the context of all relevant views. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Innate bisexuality should be merged with gender fluidity, not bisexuality

As explained in Introducing Freud ^[1], the "innate bisexuality" is the bisexual and bigender state of a child between 0 and 2 years when it unconsciously converges to the decision that it is either a boy or a girl and is sexually attracted to men, women or both (father or mother).

Innate bisexuality is also the idea that the other sex or gender and the attraction to the other gender or same remains in the unconscious for the rest of your life and that one may develop psychosis due to a conflict between the unconscious identity and desire and the conscious manifestation of opposite identity or desire.

So please consider to merge Innate bisexuality rather with gender fluidity than with bisexuality.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jringoot (talk • contribs) 11:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-books/psychology/Introducing-Freud-Richard-Appignanesi-and-Oscar-Zarate-9781840468519

[1] ttps://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-books/psychology/Introducing-Freud-Richard-Appignanesi-and-Oscar-Zarate-9781840468519

[1]