Talk:Alfred Kinsey

message: looks like a homophobic statement. tgeorgescu (talk)  18:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how you think Kinsey's use of predominantly homosexual men as a point of reference for the sexuality of all men, is not only conducive to an accurate assessment, but any criticism somehow reflects poorly on my support of the LGTBQIA2S+. Let's stay relevant, I won't take your attempt to smear my character personally, his work is still controversial. 137.186.197.136 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We would need sources to that effect - we need more than your personal say so. Sure, there is some commentary here and there about oversampling, but that is not evidence for an ongoing controversy. MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ongoing controversy? Not being a mainstream topic of discussion doesn't negate the fact that Kinsey's work is still controversial even in the context of modern cultural norms, in fact his take on homosexual men and disregard for the sexuality spectrum is even worse by current standards. 137.186.197.136 (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The meaning is opaque. Fact is that you have put homosexual men in the same row as pedophiles and prostitutes. Your text was too short to make heads or tails of what you mean. tgeorgescu (talk)  19:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I just quoted the groups mentioned in the controversy part of the article, so just going to admit that you didn't read the article that you're trying to make contributions to? Just going to drop the guise of concern and just take on the mantle of the misinformed reactionary 137.186.197.136 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homophobic statement 

message: @vandals: The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association basically endorse Kinsey's conclusions. If he merely were a prevaricator, how do you explain that his view is still scientifically correct in 2022? As a pioneering work, he did not have to be altogether correct, but preponderantly correct does the job. tgeorgescu (talk)  03:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: As I was told before, Reisman is not representative for the anti-Kinsey movement. She was a fringe loon crying in the desert. There are other people who are more representative for that movement, but I am not an expert thereupon.
All she could show is that Kinsey had received data donated by pedophiles. The rest of her allegations were paranoid rants. So, reducing the anti-Kinsey movement to her is a straw man.
What Anthony Storr wrote about somebody else could also apply to her: "His belief system is so eccentric, so unsupported by evidence, so manifestly bizarre, that rational skeptics are bound to consider it delusional...." So, of all anti-Kinsey folks, she is the easiest to dismiss, because she never had any real evidence that Kinsey were a pedophile organizing a world conspiracy against virtue and common sense. tgeorgescu (talk)  22:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: tgeorgescu, regardless of the merits of a possibly neutrally-worded question that might have been placed here, your phrasing badly taints this Rfc, and makes it nearly impossible to respond to, or to assess for closure later. Nevertheless, I'll try to ignore the way you wrote the question, and respond to the neutral question that isn't there, namely: I disagree, because pedophilia and homophobia are orthogonal, and there is no evidence that either one implies the other. However, you should change the wording ASAP to be neutral, as required by WP:RFCNEUTRAL, or you should withdraw this Rfc, and start another, properly conceived. Mathglot (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Non-neutral RFC: I get the general gist of what the OP is trying to ask, but a better phrasing would be  or maybe  Loki (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Loki; either of those would be okay, assuming they agree with what the OP generally had in mind, but only tgeorgescu (or a telepath) can answer that question. Mathglot (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Not sure what this is asking. In particular there is no proposed text? Adoring nanny (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Disagree.  If he has or hasn't associated with pedophiles has nothing to do with homophobia simply because being gay and being a pedophile have no direct correlation. I don't see what the idea is here. Only thing that matters is what the sources say about his research and how to accurately represent them in the article. FelipeFritschF (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

text: I could certainly add plenty of negative things to say about the politicians of which you speak, but it isn't appropriate to insert personal opinion or unencyclopedic language in the article (and expounding it on the talk page can run afoul of WP:NOTFORUM). Crossroads -talk- 23:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, but you could still rephrase the statement for complying with WP:NPOV instead of wholesale deletion. tgeorgescu (talk)  18:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representativeness of Reisman 

message: * Withdrawn. tgeorgescu (talk)  00:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: tgeorgescu, regardless of the merits of a possibly neutrally-worded question that might have been placed here, your phrasing badly taints this Rfc, and makes it nearly impossible to respond to, or to assess for closure later. Nevertheless, I'll try to ignore the way you wrote the question, and respond to the neutral question that isn't there, namely: I disagree, because pedophilia and homophobia are orthogonal, and there is no evidence that either one implies the other. However, you should change the wording ASAP to be neutral, as required by WP:RFCNEUTRAL, or you should withdraw this Rfc, and start another, properly conceived. Mathglot (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Non-neutral RFC: I get the general gist of what the OP is trying to ask, but a better phrasing would be  or maybe  Loki (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Loki; either of those would be okay, assuming they agree with what the OP generally had in mind, but only tgeorgescu (or a telepath) can answer that question. Mathglot (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Not sure what this is asking. In particular there is no proposed text? Adoring nanny (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Disagree.  If he has or hasn't associated with pedophiles has nothing to do with homophobia simply because being gay and being a pedophile have no direct correlation. I don't see what the idea is here. Only thing that matters is what the sources say about his research and how to accurately represent them in the article. FelipeFritschF (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on Kinsey and homophobia 

message: It does not matter that the allegations are batshit crazy, but Christofascist senators use them as a stick against the scientists whose works have been essential for the support for the LGBT (decriminalization up to gay marriage). Actually, the legally designated scientific advisor of the US Congress was just a phone call away, and they could learn very fast that they deal in WP:CB. Of the FBI, for that matter. But nothing beats stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance at their own game. If these people decide the fate of US science, the US is doomed, economically and militarily. In order to achieve that, they only have to combat mainstream science, and entropy will take care of the rest. If they make scientists feel unwelcome in the US, that will be the end of a superpower. Sexologists, evolutionary biologists, virologists, bacteriologists—make them all unhappy and see how fast the country reaches bottom. tgeorgescu (talk)  19:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I could certainly add plenty of negative things to say about the politicians of which you speak, but it isn't appropriate to insert personal opinion or unencyclopedic language in the article (and expounding it on the talk page can run afoul of WP:NOTFORUM). Crossroads -talk- 23:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, but you could still rephrase the statement for complying with WP:NPOV instead of wholesale deletion. tgeorgescu (talk)  18:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political use 

message: Did he tried to have sex with men? Yes, but found out pretty soon it wasn't his thing. So, the category LGBT or bisexual is shoddy. tgeorgescu (talk)  23:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about Kinsey's life. I only added that category because this entry had already been classed as belonging to other LGBT categories. In any case, we should probably follow how RS generally describe him instead of following our own intuitions. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a theorist, he was an ally of the LGBT. But in practice he rarely deviated from heterosexual sex or masturbation. Yup, he wasn't a monogamist, for the rest his reputation as a sexual pervert is very much undeserved. I'm speaking of how the American religious right imagines him. tgeorgescu (talk)  11:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

text: His POV was that he should like having homosexual sex, but in reality he didn't really enjoy it much. tgeorgescu (talk)  00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT / bisexual