Jump to content

Talk:Biology and sexual orientation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Freeknowledgecreator (talk | contribs) at 20:42, 26 March 2016 (→‎Wording: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Heterosexual vs. gay material, and poor sourcing

Rafe87 (talk · contribs), regarding this, this, this, this and this, which all looks to be pushing a "gay people are better" angle, we should be going by WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Read that guideline carefully. From what I've seen, you never follow it. We should not be relying so heavily on WP:Primary sources, and especially not to make sweeping claims about the intelligence level of heterosexual or gay people. Also, inductivist.blogspot.com is not a WP:Reliable source, let alone a WP:MEDRS-compliant source. I realize that research on sexual orientation isn't as active as various other scientific fields (I've noted that above on this talk page), and therefore the relaxed approached noted at WP:MEDDATE comes into play at this article, but that doesn't mean we should accept any and every study on sexual orientation. KateWishing and CFCF, any opinions on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should use higher quality (secondary) sources when discussing the intelligence of groups of people. And we might want to note, like this source does in the limitations section, that the IQ differences may simply result from more intelligent gay people being more open about/accepting of their homosexuality. KateWishing (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"gay people are better" angle

That's an absurd accusation, seeing that it was me who inserted the paragraph about gay men's disadvantage on spatial intelligence tests. Prior to my edits, all differences being mentioned made reference to gay people's advantages only. I'm not going to argue about the distinction between primary and secondary sources, which I don't understand, but all sources included by me on this entry are exactly like the ones that inserted by other editors — peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals. If the sources being used on this entry were appropriate before my edits, then they still are. The Inductivist source, by the way, was on this entry there before any of my edits. I have nothing to do with it. It's funny how you only started to have a problem with it after you (mistakenly) associated it with me.

If you have an objection to any of my edits, articulate them more with more precision, without making reference to guidelines whose relevance to this discussion. How are my sources inappropriate for this entry? Are they being misrepresented? Etc. Start from there. Don't just say you dislike what is being told by those studies — your feelings are irrelevant, those studies are valid regardless of what emotions they arouse from you. Also, refrain from bringing to this debate any resentments you may have nurtured in discussions on other entries, User:Flyer22 Reborn. Much obliged. 177.40.231.23 (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC) (Rafe87)[reply]

I don't find it absurd at all; it's exactly what the latest types of edits seem to be pushing. And if you want to understand what I mean about the way you should be editing, then read the policies and guidelines I point to; that's what they are there for. I shouldn't need to reiterate them. Furthermore, bad or poor sourcing in an article does not give you a license to add more bad or poor sourcing to the article. And if you are Rafe87, then sign in. If you are not Rafe87, sign in. Your "It's funny how you only started to have a problem with it after you (mistakenly) associated with me." comment makes it seem like you are Rafe87. For the record, though, nowhere did I state that all those edits were made by the same person. As for your "refrain from bringing to this debate any resentments you may have nurtured in discussions on other entries" comment, which also makes it sound like you are Rafe87 because of our other recent disagreement, that disagreement has nothing to do with this article. Your poor editing does. I bring my experiences to articles, as does every other editor at this site, but I don't let my personal experiences get in the way of how the Wikipedia article should be edited. I've been very clear about disliking WP:Activism editing; I don't care what your cause is, and if you view me as heterosexual, lesbian or bisexual. Various editors have had ideas about what my sexual orientation is (ranging from me being lesbian, heterosexual, asexual, or bisexual) and what my personal views are. And they can keep wondering for all I care, since I keep all of that off Wikipedia. Unlike various others, I don't wear all of that on my sleeve. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And since you followed me to the Domestic violence article and made this sloppy edit (which I previously reverted when you were an IP), yeah, it's clear you're Rafe87. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound like I was hiding this was me. You caught me! But <redact>, I intentionally added my name to the signature to the post above so that it was clear IP was me. Can we stop pretending you're exposing me for a change?
I'm going to re-add the cognitive difference subsection. The gay male advantage on verbal intelligence and disadvantage on spatial intelligence are well-established and uncontroversial. The study showing gay advantage on general intelligence was sourced to a peer-reviewed paper, and is good enough for the entry, and nothing you said show otherwise. Rafe87 (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:ILLEGIT and keep scrolling down. Expecting editors to know who you are when you are using multiple IPs is problematic. Editing from multiple IPs instead of logging in is problematic because editors will not know it's you unless you are using the same IP ranges and they are familiar with those IP ranges. That is what I mean by you not logging in. As for "The gay male advantage on verbal intelligence and disadvantage on spatial intelligence are well-established and uncontroversial.", your proof for that is where? Also, peer review by itself is not the same thing as literature review or systematic review; WP:MEDRS prefers the latter two. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You look autistic with this tendency of relying on guidelines over context. <redact>, it's not unreasonable to expect editors to know I'm editing from an IP when I ID with my username every fucking time. Stop obsessing about this issue, you're clearly trying to push this notion that I'm editing Wikipedia using sockpuppets even though I've identified myself every single time I did that (which happened because I was unable to log in, by the way!). Stop being so fucking hostile.

your proof for that is where?

In the studies you and your buddy keep removing. In any case, I never claimed in my edits that the finding was universal - only that some studies had found it. In relation to verbal intelligence measures, I did nothing but add references to the text, which was already there before me. You're removing my edits because I keep inserting more sources. Can you understand how deranged you look? Talk about poor editing! My most substantive edits - including not only sources but also text - was on the spatial intelligence difference, which doesn't preclude the genius here from accusing me of pushing a narrative of gay superiority. Un-fucking-believable. And hostile.
And <redact>, if you dislike Activism editing, stop practicing yourself - stop removing sources just because they don't please your feelz. In the entry on gay male sex practices, you did the fucking same, even going so far as to delete SOURCED RFERENCES (which I've now decided to add back) about the frequency of anal sex among gay men, because, in your own words, you "liked" it better when the entry focused on how anal sex is not the only form of sexual activity among gay men. 177.133.124.33 (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, seems I accidentally posted without logging in. And so another chapter to how I'm using sockpuppets will be added by super sleuth Flyer here. Rafe87 (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could get you WP:Blocked for the entirety of this mess, since it consists of severe WP:Personal attacks (that stated, even though you clearly meant your autistic commentary to be an attack, it isn't to me). And yet you are calling me hostile. What I have stated above is not hostile in the least, especially compared to how you have behaved in this section. You calling me "honey" is also problematic. You have not "identified [yourself] every single time"; your IP ranges show that. And, in this case, you only identified yourself after I reverted you. Editing while logged out is not necessarily WP:Socking, but it can be problematic; I've already addressed why. I have not removed your edits "because [you] keep inserting more sources." As for the Gay sexual practices article, you are wrong on that as well (as anyone can see), and one editor there thus far has agreed with me on the order of the section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have been maniacally hostile this entire fucking time. In your very first contribution to this conversation, you accused me of pushing biased activist editing right away, failing to assume good faith, and failing also to consider my arguments otherwise. You set the tone in this conversation, and I'm responding in kind. Consider not bringing the fire next time if you can't stand the heat. Rafe87 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Noting what your editing is and the problems with it is not being hostile. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully with the statement "bad or poor sourcing in an article does not give you a license to add more bad or poor sourcing to the article." When it comes to anything as controversial as homosexuality and intelligence we need to stick to the best possible sources. Satoshi Kanazawa has published extensively on the topic, but has pretty much seen all-round criticism from his peers (example from Intelligence 2013, The Savanna-IQ interaction hypothesis: A critical examination) - which goes to show that it is a very controversial field. Whenever Wikipedia touches upon something controversial we need to work hard to apply a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and to only use the best evidence as directed by our policies and guidelines.
Also Rafe87, 177.40.231.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - you must show some interest in applying Wikipedia's directives when writing on Wikipedia, and if you are either unwilling or incapable of grasping what a secondary source is (Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources) – then you must also accept that your edits will be reverted indiscriminately. CFCF 💌 📧 10:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That the theory explaining the difference is controversial doesn't mean that the difference itself is controversial. The difference was found in THREE nationally representative surveys. It is going to be re-added. Rafe87 (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then finding better source won't be an issue, will it? CFCF 💌 📧 19:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
<redact>, you're no one to say which peer-reviewed sources are good for this entry or not. My edit doesn't mention the Savannah theory at all - the one aspect of the study you mentioned that is controversial. It mentioned only the EMPIRICALLY VERIFIED phenomenon of better IQs among gay people. The source will be inserted back. 177.133.124.33 (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I suppose you are? Just follow the sourcing guidelines or your edits will be reverted pretty much instantly. CFCF 💌 📧 09:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to show that "the guidelines" require removal of that study. I don't have to make your arguments for you. Rafe87 (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been shown (see the absolutely first comment by Flyer22 Reborn), and multiple editors agree, you are being WP:disruptive – which may be grounds for a block. CFCF 💌 📧 13:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been shown by that person. She only vaguely mentioned the guidelines - she failed to point where they show the studies are problematic. And so have you. Rafe87 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as seen here and here, JJMC89 is the latest editor to revert Rafe87 thus far. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because of this, it's time to report Rafe87 at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. Let's talk about your obsession with reverting content because it displeases your feelings. And I'm still reverting. Rafe87 (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Griffith-Jones, why did you make this revert of an IP? See above, and this report, for why the IP is justified. All of this is why I reverted you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a spell on Wikipedia:STiki which indicated the removal of references without an explanation other than the unhelpful, "(Stop edit warring; wait until a consensus is reached on the talk page)". Being naturally suspicious of non-registered editors, I followed my instincts. The article is of no interest to me in any way. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 07:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth Griffith-Jones If it does not interest you then it is clearly advisable to see how other editors have reasoned. Seeing the term edit-war in the summary should have given you enough indication that you ought to at least have checked the history page. CFCF 💌 📧 11:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CFCF—Oh dear, now I wish I had followed my advice to others in similar situations, and ignored this thread—a lecture from a student in Gothenberg, I do not want. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 14:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth Griffith-Jones – I don't see how location or academic affiliation comes into play here – the fact remains that your edits on this page were poor conduct. CFCF 💌 📧 19:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]
"poor conduct"? ... your diatribe is unworthy and I shall avoid you, CFCF, in all circumstances from now on. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging KrakatoaKatie (the administrator who blocked Rafe87 after CFCF reported him for the aforementioned edit warring) that Rafe87 is up to it again; there is a bit of new content in that, but it is mostly the same disputed content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rafe87 reverted yet again, and I reverted him yet again. He also took the matter to this, this and this WikiProject. It should also have been taken to WP:Med while he was at it, but the only other medical editor (other than KateWishing and CFCF) who has the patience to deal with sourcing for sexual orientation issues is Jytdog. I told Rafe87 that if he keeps adding this material to the article, my next step is WP:ANI, since this content is disputed, he was blocked for edit warring over it, and has vowed above and in the article's edit history to add it no matter what. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exotic becomes erotic section

(Note: The citation given for the section's first paragraph is Bem's year 2000 paper on the exotic becomes erotic (EBE) theory. The citation also links to a PDF of Bem's seminal 1996 paper on the EBE theory).

The second paragraph of the section is a lengthy discussion of studies showing a higher rate of childhood gender non-conformity (CGN) in homosexuals. The problem is only reference [48] (Bailey, J.M.; Zucker, K.J. (1995). "Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review". Developmental Psychology 31 (1): 43–55) and reference [50] (Zucker, K.J. (1990) Gender identity disorders in children: clinical descriptions and natural history. p.1–23) are actually cited in Bem's 1996 and 2000 papers. From what I've read, none of the other CGN studies have been cited as evidence for the theory (by Bem or other researchers) nor do any of the studies themselves purport to be evidence for the EBE theory. In other words, the relevant paragraph combines material from multiple studies to imply that the EBE theory has sufficient evidence for it, a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the CGN studies. This is improper synthesis.

Even the two studies that are properly cited (i.e., [48], [50]) are mentioned only in passing in Bem's 1996 & 2000 papers. The section does not mention how the EBE theory is based almost completely on a survey from San Francisco (i.e., Bell et al. (1981), AKA "the San Francisco study” in Bem's papers), the use of which by Bem was thoroughly critiqued in Peplau et al. (1998). I will try to add this info as well as criticism by Peplau and colleagues when I find the time.

I feel the studies on childhood gender non-conformity are noteworthy and could be moved somewhere else in the article; they should not be kept in the EBE section because it gives the misleading impression that they are scientifically-recognised empirical support for the EBE theory. —Human10.0 (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding what you intend to add will help balance the section out. I'm not sure about moving the childhood gender nonconformity material, though, which is on-topic with the section discussing childhood gender nonconformity, especially if we are going to move it in a way that does not tie it to a biology and sexual orientation argument. I feel that it should be included in context. The section you take issue with states, "The theory is based in part on the frequent finding that a majority of gay men and lesbians report being gender-nonconforming during their childhood years." Do you doubt that the theory is based in part on that matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response Flyer22 Reborn. I would like to clarify that while I am proposing moving the CGN material, I am not saying we should move it without emphasizing its link with biology & sexual orientation. I should also clarify that I think studies [48] & [50] should be mentioned in the EBE section as they have been cited as evidence for the EBE theory. I feel the rest of the CGN material however is not on-topic since the section is not about CGN, it's about Bem's EBE theory, and the material has not been linked with the theory by researchers. Currently, the material is mentioned in a way that suggests it is evidence of the EBE theory and has been recognized by science as such (which is not true).
In my opinion, on-topic would be if the article had a separate section on CGN that emphasized the biological basis of CGN, mentioned studies showing higher rates of CGN in homosexuals than heterosexuals and then mentioned (but not explained) the EBE theory as a theory that integrated certain CGN findings (i.e., the findings of studies specifically cited as evidence of the theory, e.g., Bell et al. (1981), [48], [50], etc.) to explain how a homosexual orientation could develop in humans. The section could then link to the EBE section, where the EBE theory could be discussed in detail with its critique.
Regarding your question, I do not doubt that the theory is based on CGN-related findings (the ones cited in Bem's papers). I only mentioned that the EBE theory is based mostly on the San Francisco study and that I will "add this info" to the article so that if any editors have reservations about the addition of that info, they can voice them on the talk page (and I can address them) before the actual addition of info to the article.
PS- Sorry about replying so late, something came up irl due to which I had to take a break from editing. —Human10.0 (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Human10.0, for this issue, I still don't see the need for two separate sections, but I would be somewhat fine with including the material in the way you proposed to include/structure it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Human10.0, I added in "somewhat" before "fine" because of the fact that I'm not keen on addressing the EBE and CGN aspects in two different places in this case; this is because they partially tie together, and because one term might be linked in another section and therefore result in a WP:Overlinking issue. Also, as you can see at the Childhood gender nonconformity article, the two topics are currently discussed together there as well. Right now, I'm thinking that the Exotic becomes erotic section should only mention the childhood gender nonconformity material that relates to it, and that we leave the other childhood gender nonconformity material to the Childhood gender nonconformity article to deal with. If it seems that the Biology and sexual orientation article needs a childhood gender nonconformity section, like the Environment and sexual orientation article currently has one, only then will we add one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input Flyer22 Reborn. I thought about your proposal and feel it's alright if the CGN material unrelated to the EBE theory is removed from this article & left for the CGN article to deal with.
Regarding the EBE section, I feel its second paragraph could read something like:
"Bem sought support from published literature but did not present new data testing his theory.[Peplau et al. (1998)] Research cited by him as evidence of the Exotic Becomes Erotic theory include a study by Bell et al. (1981)[Peplau et al. (1998)] and studies showing the frequent finding that a majority of gay men and lesbians report being gender-nonconforming during their childhood years. A meta-analysis of 48 studies showed childhood gender nonconformity to be the strongest predictor of a homosexual orientation for both men and women.[48] In six "prospective" studies—that is, longitudinal studies that began with gender-nonconforming boys at about age 7 and followed them up into adolescence and adulthood— 63% of the gender nonconforming boys had a homosexual or bisexual orientation as adults.[50]"
Is such a paragraph okay? What improvements could be made in it? —Human10.0 (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

Human10.0, in regards to this edit, I see no reason not to use Alan P. Bell's full name, and am surprised that you would object to it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FreeKnowledgeCreator: The basic format for in-line citations is [first author’s last name] followed by "et al." Using Bell's full name is unnecessary. Also, kindly ping me next time if you want to talk to me; I might have missed this post entirely if I hadn't checked up on this talk page. —Human10.0 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an in-line citation, Human10.0. It's a mention of someone's name in the text of the article. As it is the only mention, there is no reason Bell's name should not be given in full. (Just as there would be no reason for the sentence, "In 1990, Dick Swaab and Hofman reported a difference in the size of the suprachiasmatic nucleus between homosexual and heterosexual men" to be abbreviated to, "In 1990, Swaab and Hofman reported a difference in the size of the suprachiasmatic nucleus between homosexual and heterosexual men"). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FreeKnowledgeCreator: I guess the proper word for it is 'in-text citation'? Regardless of what the technical term is, WP:MOS states that "[s]tyle and formatting should be consistent within an article." If you check the article, you will notice that (just like in the case of Bell et al.) works by multiple authors have been consistently cited by mentioning the first author’s last name followed by the abbreviation "et al." e.g. Sanders et al., Hu et al., Bailey et al., Rice et al., Mustanski et al., Ellis et al., Bocklandt et al. & Roselli et al. None of these authors' full names are mentioned because they are unnecessary and if they were mentioned, they would have just added clutter to the article, making it harder to read. By making the phrase "Bell et al." link to Alan Bell's wiki article, I think we have adequately avoided ambiguity, in line with WP:MOS.
The "Dick Swaab and Hofman" example you've given isn't a particularly good one because while it mentions Swaab's full name, it doesn't mention Hofman's full name (I don't think that citation is following any particular style guide). Other reasons for why I support the "Bell et al." wording as opposed to the "Alan P. Bell et al." wording is that the format [first author's surname followed by "et al."] is how studies are cited in most journals, it's easier to understand and most importantly, Peplau et al. (the study used as a citation for the verifiable "Bell et al." sentence) uses "Bell et al.," not "Alan P. Bell et al." Someone checking out Peplau et al. will just be perplexed because that study doesn't mention Bell's full name ("Alan P. Bell" or even "Alan Bell") at all. It repeatedly references his Sexual Preference study simply as "Bell et. al"
Using "Alan P. Bell et al." serves no purpose other than drawing undue attention towards Bell. I don't feel anyone is eager to know what his full name is, and even if someone were, his own wiki article is linked in the phrase "Bell et al." so there should be no confusion about what his full name is. —Human10.0 (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that mentioning Bell's full name makes the article in any way harder to read, and it is not clear to me why readers would not want to know what his full name was. In fact, I'd assume that readers who have any interest in Bell's work at all would find it quite important to know what his full name was. I am not interested in discussing this subject any further, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biology_and_sexual_orientation&oldid=712081369"