Talk:Handedness and sexual orientation

message: We have an article with four studies where there are two that have no significant differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and in another there's a very limited number of cases? And the fourth is a meta-analysis. This is not serious people... Raystorm 10:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's weird. All the cited studies seem to agree there may be some degree of correlation to handedness, but they differ strongly on what degree and in what way - certainly there's enough to keep people looking. It'll remain one of those statistical curiosities, at least until someone develops a Grand Unified Theory of sexuality and linked genetic traits, I suspect - and even then it may just be a freak correlation as opposed to any significant linkage. Shimgray | talk | 10:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The article cited the state of the evidence as it exists from credible sources.  The reality of science is that sometimes there are contradictory results.  The article provides easy access pro and con to that hypothesis.  I'm killing the lack of support tag because it is not justified.  The question is not whether the hypothesis is proven or not.  For wikipedia purposes, the question is what the state of the evidence for a hypothesis is; some hypotheses are proven, some are disproven, and some have evidence going both ways which is itself interesting. Ohwilleke (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: For real?

message: I don't have any studies to refer to, so I'll mention it here.  Social pressure tends to repress both left-handedness and homosexuality.  Presumably, there are a lot of "natural" left-handed people who have been "converted" to right-handedness, and a lot of "natural" homosexual people who have been "converted" to heterosexuality.
I suspect the correlation between left-handed people and homosexual people is a third trait: sheer tenacity.  Someone willing to resist social pressures to change handedness is more likely to resist social pressures to change sexual preference, and vice-versa.  Without that tenacity, someone is extremely likely to become right-handed and heterosexual, regardless of their "natural" preference.
Remande (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Reason for Correlation

message: The repeated use of non-right in the article sounds ridiculous and is lexiconally jarring. Does it mean that ambidextrous people are included as well as left-handers? If it is specifically a study of left-handers, I am opposed to the use of "non-right".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.110.183 (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-right? 

message: Yet Another Insult against left handers. "non-right-handed" ?! who the fuck do you think you are?! "P.C./Politically Correct" or not; its wrong.
76.90.232.41 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Each of the five cited studies uses "non-right-handed" in its abstract. This seems to be an intentional use, from what I can see - the studies appear to divide the population into "right-handed" and "left-handed plus ambidexterous", though I am not immediately sure why that grouping's used. See, eg, the first page of Sex ratio of older siblings in heterosexual and homosexual, right-handed and non-right-handed men. here - it clarifies that "non-right-handed" is used deliberately to mean "left-handed or ambidexterity". Shimgray | talk | 23:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Section "Blanchard et al., 2006 study"

message: Someone (not me) has recently edited out the handedness part of the Geschwind-Galaburda wikipedia page (although I did make an opposing argument on the G-G page, I didn't edit out the left hand reference).
Until that portion is restored.  I removed the link to it on this page. Witch Hazell (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geschwind–Galaburda hypothesis 

message: Removed this because they aren't associated with sexual orientation. They might fall under a "handedness and sexuality" category. As stated in Wikipedia, "Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender". Pedophillia and Paraphilia have no association with sexual orientation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.200.219 (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the edit the IP made. I made a similar edit to the IP's months ago. For further detail on how I feel about calling pedophilia a sexual orientation, see this link (the "Interview with Fred Berlin on pedophilia" section). Flyer22 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I just reverted RomanGrandpa on his revert of the IP. He stated, "[S]ince these attractions are stable over a life-time, they're classified as orientation." I replied, "Not a valid reason to restore this material at all; it is indeed WP:Fringe to call pedophilia/other paraphilias sexual orientations." Zad68 and KateWishing, two editors who watch the Sexual orientation and Pedophilia articles with me, can I get your views on this matter? A WP:RfC would also possibly clear this up. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

text: One could argue that the content can validly stay without WP:Undue weight issues if we do not take the title of the article so seriously; that's what I was doing by letting the content stay -- not taking the title of the article so seriously. Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's to be included, maybe the article could be moved to Handedness and sexuality. Or it could be merged into Handedness#Correlations, which is lacking any information about these issues. KateWishing (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: By your suggestions, I take it that you are not comfortable letting the pedophilia/paraphilia content stay under the current title? Those are okay options, but the sources currently in the article are specifically about sexual orientation, not sexuality as a whole. And it seems that the topic (handedness and sexual orientation) should have its own article or be merged into the Sexual orientation article. So I would opt for your second suggestion -- moving the pedophilia information to Handedness#Correlations; we can also link to that matter in some way in the Handedness and sexual orientation article. And while we're on the subject of what belongs or doesn't belong in the article, I don't think that the gender identity section should be in the article either. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it seems pretty clear correlations with pedo & paraphilia shouldn't be here, neither should gender identify (the text itself even begins with a disclaimer about how it isn't within the scope of the article!).  I like the ideas of moving the content to Handedness.  Zad68 18:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I don't think that's a good option; I stated above "the sources currently in the article are specifically about sexual orientation, not sexuality as a whole." Furthermore, "alternative sexuality" is vague (just look at the article someone tried to make about that topic), and the Handedness and sexual orientation article addresses heterosexuality as well. But certainly before any article title move happens in this case, it should have WP:Consensus first. Wikipedia:Requested moves has a requirement that potentially controversial moves should be discussed through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process before being moved. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The Erroneous inclusion Pedophillia and Parapillia