Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 7

message: Well, I'm not sure what the dispute above is about exactly.  The article sex identifies ten different compentents of sex and gender, both biological and social.  I certainly lapse into using "sex" and "gender" as synonyms, because repeating one of them over and over again just gets kind of boring.  But certainly the scientific community seems to prefer "sex" to have biological connotations, and "gender" to have social connotations.  Though when writing for the encyclopedia, it is probably important to be explicit whether we mean one in particular or both.  When doing this, we must keep in mind that not all readers will know if we say "sex" we mean "biological sex" and if we say "gender", we mean "gender identity or role", or (Webster rolls in his grave) vice versa. In most cases, this article is really talking about both, and the messiness of the distinctions thereof is pushed out to other articles.  In doing on work on the introduction, I've simply used both terms, which will hopefully alert people to the idea that there are at least two different things going on here.  Well, that and the paragraph that points people to the articles describing the fuller complexities in detail.
In any case, in the process of rewriting demographics of sexual orientation on the basis of the various scientific studies, I found it useful to separate "sexual orientation" into three axes - orientation/preference/attraction/inclination, behavior, and self-identification - because these are what scientists use in practice to define the term.  In common society and among LGBT people, you see different people using "homosexual" to mean any one of these three things (and often arguing over which one is the "right" definition).
If you actually try to use a popular dictionary to do detailed linguistic work, you will find that it is often incomplete.  (Many of the definitions are also circular - e.g. males are men or boys, boys are young males, etc.)
Unless we are playing Scrabble or something, dictionary writers can't really be the final arbiters of what a word means or whether or not it exists; popular usage determines those things.  When someone sits down to write a dictionary, they do a lot of research to find out how people are actually using various word.  Unfortunately, dictionary writers tend to wait a long time for words to "stabilize" before they record them; they often prefer written usage to oral usage; they often prefer more "mainstream" sources and dialects which may tend to de-emphasize certain communities of usage (everything from slang in ethinic and sexual minorities to technical jargon); and they don't update their dictionaries very quickly.  And if you actually try to use a popular dictionary to do detailed linguistic work, you will find that it is often incomplete.  (Many of the definitions are also circular - e.g. males are men or boys, boys are young males, etc.)  I'm not sure why that is exactly (other than the sheer magnitude of the problem of isolating so many different meanings loaded into the same word), but certainly when it comes to reading scholarly journals about homosexuality, the dictionary definitions are often too vague or otherwise inadequate.
Whether or not a particular usage is "correct" or not is also a matter of popular or personal opinion, and over time, popular consensus has changed about many such questions.  And very, very, often, people disagree about what "correct" usage is - sometimes due to localized patterns, sometimes because the language is changing, and so on.  Dictionaries are often used to settle these disputes, but the very same controversies happen in the process of writing the dictionary.  Dictionaries which are useful to linguists will note multiple usage patterns, and will also note that some people consider one or more usages to be erroneous, offensive, etc.  (If I remember correctly, The Language Instinct talks more about the controversies of proscriptive grammars and word usages, and about language change.)
The policies Wikipedia is not a dictionary and NPOV seem to imply that Wikipedia should not take a stand on which usages are "correct" and which are "incorrect", but for accuracy and completeness, we should note when some people think that a given usage is offensive, erroneous, etc.
I'm sure there are articles on Wikipedia (possibly including this one) which could use some improvements along these lines. -- Beland 04:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you can consider all that babbling about dictionaries to be a semi-educational tangent-slash-rant; the citations above seem to show that there are multiple, contradictory "proper" usages, and that "correctness" can differ depending on the social context. (Which agrees with my own experience.)  So once again, my general advice would be to explicitly disambiguate using more specific terms, for the benefit of our poor, confused readership.  If this whole long dispute was just about the use of "sex" vs "gender" in the introduction, then as I've said above, we really mean both, because usually people - including scientists - when they talk about homosexuality are thinking about or are actually measuring people who have either male sex and gender, or female sex and gender, and don't really consider the fuller complexities, and anyway, we have some fine articles that go into that subject in great detail.  So hopefully my dual use of both terms plus linkages to appropriate articles will suffice. -- Beland 04:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a lot better - thank you for your effort. As for the general problem with dictionaries etc, I 100% agree with you there. -- AlexR 13:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, thank you Beland you always do great work.  I believe your new introduction is equitable.  My main concern with the previous edition was the possibility of having a lot of relevant information removed.  For example - negative attitudes with the scientific definition - Romans held negative attitudes only for the passive partner - certain cultures did the same thing, only the passive person was really "gay" - some culture are positive towards it as long as it does not threaten the masculine or feminine gender role - i.e. Hijras of India.  And of course we will explain each case in the best possible manner to avoid any confusion. Apollomelos 20:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro rewrite and terminology

message: The introduction to this article is truely, truely awful. I suggest tearing it down and rewriting it. →Raul654 05:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree that there are more elegant introductions on WP - however, check the "definition dispute" above to see why it looks that way. I can do without a repetition of this argument. -- AlexR 08:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion re introduction

message: Please note that there are two different concepts associated with the term "sexual identity".  The first is male/female identity, which is what sexual identity covers.  The second is self-identification with respect to orientation, e.g. "I am gay."  This is the meaning used by the introduction, and this meaning is covered in a section on "sexual identity" in the article sexual orientation.  This is certainly a confusing arrangement, and I would support making "sexual identity" a disambiguation page or other remedy. -- Beland 03:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual identity 

message: it is true that homosexuals among First Nations and Native Americans were called Two Sirited people and were respected and even reveared, for having  a closer connection to the earth then most,  i was wondering if this should be included in the article... what do  you think?
Gabrielsimon 05:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is Two-Spirit to check, but briefly, that term refers to transgender people, not homosexual people. -- AlexR 09:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is only partially correct, from what I have seen. Two-spirit expression is very fluid and not all two-spirit people take on the gender chractersitics of the opposite sex, suggesting that those may be garden-variety homosexuals. Haiduc 10:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then be so kind and update Two-Spirit, since all I ever heard was that two-spirit people are usually considered gender-variant. Then again, the framework two-spirits were set in was probably different from the current western one, so that ought to be explained in detail. -- AlexR 11:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Semantics: being gay is gender variance. Hyacinth 21:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, usually it is not included in "gender variant", but at the very least that is open to debate. -- AlexR 00:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  first nations 

message: "Those who are atheist, agnostic or secularist have been consistently shown to be tolerant of homosexuality as well as supportive of gay-rights legislation. Countries with significant populations of these groups are often among the most accepting of gay citizens."
Is this true?  I don't think the Soviet Union or China were/are particularly accepting of homosexuality despite the fact that both were/are officially atheist.  I'm not going to edit the article, as I don't know for sure, but someone who knows more about it probably should look into it.
Vonspringer 01:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then perhaps the first sentence could better read something more like: "Many of those who are atheist, agnostic or secularist consider themselves to be tolerant of homosexuality as well as supportive of gay-rights legislation."  The second sentence might need to be more severly modified or deleted since it makes a statistical statement without citing research.
Vonspringer 07:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, even that sentence does not hold much water, above it is already mentionend that "atheist, agnostic or secularist" does not automatically equal LGBT-friendly; and it implicitly still implies that not being "atheist, agnostic or secularist" means automatically a homophobic bias. That seems to me very much like one of those US based POVs, where that experience probably can be made, but fact is, one has nothing to do with the other. Even when one assumes that many religious leaders or teachings have a homophobic bias, experience in Europe at least has shown that this does not necessarily mean that those belonging to these religious groups show the same bias. Most ceretainly it is not a necessary relation. So I'd just cut it, because it is - at least right now - nothing but POV crap. -- AlexR 08:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more or less what I was worried about as well.  I agree that cutting the entire section would be best, since there is by definition no uniform atheist position on such a subject.  And I don't like the implication that religion implies intolerance.  But I'm not going to do the modification myself since I have no idea how to do the necessary updates to the table of contents.  If you'd like to, feel free to go ahead and chop it yourself if there are no objections from anyone else. Vonspringer 20:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Because the (potentially sanctimonious) phrase "God's law" can refer to all manner of things, many of them trivial, ridiculous, or nonsensical to modern eyes. Their inclusion thus contextualizes the argument. Haiduc 12:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sociology 

message: ===== Christianity 04/27/05 =====
Strong's Number: 8441
Pronunciation: tow`ebah to-ay-baw' or
Total Occurrences: 117
KJV Word Usage: abomination (113) , abominable thing (2) , abominable (2) 
תעבה to`ebah to-ay-baw' act part of 8581 ; TWOT-2530a; n f
Definition:
1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
1a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
1b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)
In the Book of Leviticus (Vayikra ויקרא), which is a book of the Torah (תורה), God reveals his commandments or laws through Moses, in an ethical framework. In the context of Chapter 18, (in modern Christian Bibles), God pronounces his law concerning sexual immorality. The Hebrew word תעבה or abomination, as it was translated into English, is used many times throughout the chapter. For example, it is used to describe incest, adultery, the act of same gender intercourse and bestiality.
While is true the word is used 117 times, but to liken the word abomination to “being arrogant or eating shellfish” as exemplar is being narrow minded and trying to fabricate or further a particular point of view. With regards to usage and context incest and bestiality bound the act of same gender intercourse. However I would suggest the phrase “—much like being arrogant or eating shellfish.” Should be removed rather than include a comparative. I understand the Hebrew Torah, Christian Bible and the Qur'an of Islam all view the act of same gender intercourse as a violation of God’s law. Why not let this be stated here plainly and be done with it? Rgordey 19:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the (potentially sanctimonious) phrase "God's law" can refer to all manner of things, many of them trivial, ridiculous, or nonsensical to modern eyes. Their inclusion thus contextualizes the argument. Haiduc 12:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrahamic 

message: Strong's Number: 8441
Pronunciation: tow`ebah to-ay-baw' or
Total Occurrences: 117
KJV Word Usage: abomination (113) , abominable thing (2) , abominable (2) 
תעבה to`ebah to-ay-baw' act part of 8581 ; TWOT-2530a; n f
Definition:
1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
1a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
1b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)
In the Book of Leviticus (Vayikra ויקרא), which is a book of the Torah (תורה), God reveals his commandments or laws through Moses, in an ethical framework. In the context of Chapter 18, (in modern Christian Bibles), God pronounces his law concerning sexual immorality. The Hebrew word תעבה or abomination, as it was translated into English, is used many times throughout the chapter. For example, it is used to describe incest, adultery, the act of same gender intercourse and bestiality.
While is true the word is used 117 times, but to liken the word abomination to “being arrogant or eating shellfish” as exemplar is being narrow minded and trying to fabricate or further a particular point of view. With regards to usage and context incest and bestiality bound the act of same gender intercourse. However I would suggest the phrase “—much like being arrogant or eating shellfish.” Should be removed rather than include a comparative. I understand the Hebrew Torah, Christian Bible and the Qur'an of Islam all view the act of same gender intercourse as a violation of God’s law. Why not let this be stated here plainly and be done with it? Rgordey 19:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the (potentially sanctimonious) phrase "God's law" can refer to all manner of things, many of them trivial, ridiculous, or nonsensical to modern eyes. Their inclusion thus contextualizes the argument. Haiduc 12:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity 04/27/05 

message: Instead of cutting the Atheists, Agnostics, and Secularists section entirely, as suggested by the "Sociology" talk section above, I made an effort to be more informative but factual, and completely rewrote it.
The section on religion in this article is much longer than the article Religion and homosexuality, which is only a little insane.  I will work on moving material there in the near future. -- Beland 02:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lariviere book has a handful of homosexual popes and cardinals (Michel Lariviere, Homosexuels et bisexuels celebres, Deletraz Editions, Paris, 1997) Haiduc 09:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Two users are discussing whether the lists of arguments set out in the Polemic section should be left as lists or should be reformatted as narrative paragraphs. Opinons of other users would be welcome. Haiduc 02:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate on format 

message: "Anthropologists divide homosexuality into three major types: fags, fagiitty fags, and homos. See Forms below."
can someone sort this out, it appears differently when i try to edit, not sure what to do.
It was already fixed--Tznkai 18:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit needed 

message: There are users trying to remove logical arguments that they obviously disagree with by calling it POV.  Please clarify this.  Just because an outside source says it exists, does that make it legit?  I would tend to side with logic- if you can disprove those arguments logically I would be happy to recant.
*Above by User:IntellectualProp2002.  Please make sure to sign your comments by using four tildes in a row ~~~~.  It makes these pages easier to read.  Also, to FCYTravis... is this IP you?  207.224.198.170 (revert intellectualprop, use talk page to discuss why your origincal research and non-mainstream conspiracies should be included, if you or your ip address reverts again you will be blocked for 3RR) -- if so, perhaps you should be careful yourself of 3RR; if you're this IP, I count this last revert to be your fourth.  If not, then please disregard. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
I am separate although the other ip addresses I believe are connected to intellectualprop2002. If you wish to develop your material in the specifc articles and than once that has been wordsmithed insert a small summary feel free. Mainstream science has cited androgen links in MANY studies yet we only half a sentence on this page for that because of size constraints. 207.224.198.170 22:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Size constraints?  Wikipedia is not paper..  If it's a valid theory, there's no reason why those theories can't be included. These are particularly critical to social debates over homosexuality, so I can't see how it can be argued for them to be excluded. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Can we add the fourteen paragraphs of mainstream scientific studies on adrogen to the article as well? 207.224.198.170 22:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I am not particularly well versed in whatever these theories are, but isn't it more proper to air them in a discussion setting instead of just reverting things and seeking to quash debate over it?  (I ask this of both sides of this current edit war).)  What are these theories that are being proposed?  Let the community see them and decide. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
I'm fairly new to this process. I wasn't sure what 3RR was, but thanks for the warning.  It's not becomming of us to twaddle on insignificant matters.  My goal is the truth.  I will take your advice and create new aricles, but unless you can find an egregious error in the logic, I insist on including these.  I suggest you counter these arguments with ones that offer more information as opposed to ignoring current information.  These arguments represent a significant portion of the scientific community, as well, and I cannot rely on what you say is "mainstream."
sorry the last comment was by Intellectualprop2002 22:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  I took a look at some of these links and looked more carefully at the text being proposed and see them for what they are.  I do think they're perhaps worth mentioning in the article, but definitely do not deserve the amount of real estate that's being inserted currently.  I agree that it would perhaps be better for a fork article.  And FCY, I apologize for any affrontery I caused you -- I just saw all the reverting, plus reverting from an anon IP along the same lines as yours, and was taken a little aback. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
by the way- These arguments are at the crux of the origin of homosexuality.  Why don't they deserve discussion?  Yes you should put 14 pages supporting your view. JFIntellectualprop2002 22:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I in fact suggested the opposite -- let's discuss it.  Can you please make a thumbnail argument for what you would like to insert?  Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:37, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Those paragraphs are pretty concise, but I suppose I could reduce them further. JFIntellectualprop2002 22:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am asking for a conversational argument, not cited text. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:54, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Please see mall. section, mainstream scientific organizations clearly state homosexual orientation is not a choice and it cannot be changed due to innate factors that are immutable. A social construct infers choice and is definently a minority fringe view in todays world (2005), now in the 1980s that was another story... Globeism 22:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarify point of view.