Talk:Homosexuality

message: The discrimination section claims that "Negative stereotypes characterize LGB people as less romantically stable and more likely to abuse children, but there is no scientific basis to such assertions.", however this claim is not accompanied by a source. I've seen people show data relating child abuse or pedophilia to homosexuality, and I believe that a source would help make this claim more sound. Aimarekin (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source required 

message: Currently, the history section reads: 
This seems incorrect. Bailey writes:  p. 128. So, the citing of social constructionists probably needs revision. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We probably have to include their views with proper attribution, but well-sourced scholarly arguments to the contrary - which Boswell certainly count as - should also be included. I would suggest citing Boswell directly for this. Crossroads -talk- 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting that there are characters in Greek literature that we would now classify as homosexual does not mean that the Greeks . Many suffragettes fought to outlaw drag in theatres. That does not mean they had the concept of TERFs at the start of the last century. The point of the sentence is important: The modern homo/hetero dichotomy is not universal in the historical record, and many (perhaps most) ancient and classical cultures would be baffled by our current classifications. I believe that the sources clearly support the current phrasing. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be more reasonable to present both a constructionist and an essentialist view. I don't think the constructionists have strong enough evidence to claim that ancient cultures would be "baffled" by our current classifications. More importantly, it's probably a good idea to tidy up the history section to actually focus on history, instead of large paragraphs dedicated to social constructionist thought at the top. We can probably put constructionist vs essentialist arguments underneath another sub-heading. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section and social constructionism 

message: – this is improper. Wikipedia is based upon secondary sources, not primary source studies. You've also inserted your own improper conclusions from a GWAS study.
A modest 'genetic' influence on a trait is irrelevant to the cause. It does not prove the influence of social environment or nurture, as you assert. For example, the genetic influence on left handedness is low, but we know the environmental influence on left handedness is due to non-social mechanisms, such as hormones in the womb, or randomness in how the brain grows.
As the Bailey review clarifies, the non-social environment is the important part here, especially for males.
Examples of non-social environment include the prenatal hormones that differentiate male and female brains, as well as maternal immune responses which have been implicated. Alternatively, things might be trace back to an an entirely different biological mechanism outside of genes interacting with prenatal hormones. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will add this link about this studies , they said “ This means that non-genetic factors - such as environment, upbringing, personality, nurture - are far more significant in influencing a person's choice of sexual partner, just as with most other personality, behavioral and physical human traits”. Is this ok?Octanvui (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a journalist’s article (which is a misinterpretation of the Ganna study) isn’t sufficient for a complex topic like this. I’ve already linked you the academic Bailey review clarifying the point. A genetic study does not tell you what type of environment affects a trait. As I've already said, plenty of traits present from birth (left handedness, cleft lip) show weak genetic effects. It would be illogical to conclude that these are due to upbringing simply because of a modest genetic effect. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, this is new link - (Nature journal ) - "Ganna and his colleagues also used the analysis to estimate that up to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors". They only wrote "the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors", I think this is okOctanvui (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't cite news articles authored by journalists, over more robust academic reviews by experts on the topic. But to clarify, the Ganna team never say this proves social influence on sexual orientation. They do note how social acceptance would allow those with same-sex attractions to engage in same sex behaviour. This is because the GWAS is not a study of homosexual orientation, it is a GWAS of people who engaged in one same-sex act in their life. So no, that isn't suitable and lacks context. But it does seem like you are potentially engaging in bad faith here. "Environmental" can obviously include non-social environmental factors. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

text: User:Octanvui is an obvious bad faith LTA sock. SPI report will be filed. Bennv123 (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment