Talk:Homosexuality

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homosexuality article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25: 3 months

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: Why does this article define homosexuality as "romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender"?

A1: Because that is how high-quality reliable sources define it.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Homosexuality. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Homosexuality at the Reference desk.

Homosexuality was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 5, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
August 2, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
January 9, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 26, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
Current status: Delisted good article

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Etymology

The etymology section in this article is within the scope of the Etymology task force, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of etymology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EtymologyWikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/EtymologyTemplate:Etymology sectionEtymology

Human rights Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Comment

'twas a sock, move along. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Octanvui – 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)[reply]

Octanvui OK, I will add this link about this studies [1], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Octanvui Ok, this is new link - (Nature journal [2]) - "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Dionism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Dionism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2 § Dionian(ism) until a consensus is reached. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where on earth did this come from? In one sliver of the academic universe, dionism can mean the opposite of homosexuality -- dionism is in opposition to uranism, an historic word for gayness as well as what we'd now call bromance, aka non-sexual male-male love. There is literally no way that term should redir here! Ta, Bitten Peach (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can retarget. This redirect is older than uranian (sexuality) page. Skemous (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Change Article

Whether or not this was ever a serious request for a change, it has devolved into an excuse to waste people's time with off-topic WP:NOTFORUM advocacy and nothing productive can come of continuing with it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please remove gender from the definition, sex is what's important here; that is the one thing that, even now, determines whether or not a child can be created without outside help. A trans woman and a cis man can never, no matter how hard they try, create an embryo on their own. The same applies to trans men and cis women. If you don't believe me believe AI, "Yes, sex is a fundamental aspect of defining homosexuality, as it refers to the sexual or romantic attraction an individual has towards people of the same sex; therefore, when discussing homosexuality, the concept of sex is inherently involved." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masquewand (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What source says that this should be removed? The second and third sources use both sex and gender. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google AI. Masquewand (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google AI and we as people. Gender is a purely social aspect, it has no place in an article about what individuals feel and how they are "so-called different". Sex is what a person is born as and can't change even with trans treatment. Masquewand (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable source says that. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these: https://www.google.com/search?q=is+gender+socially+constructed&oq=is+gender+soci&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgBEAAYgAQyBwgCEAAYgAQyBwgDEAAYgAQyBggEEEUYOTIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDINCAgQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAkQABiGAxiABBiKBdIBCDc4NjNqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Even with these, this article is about (or can be about) every single person in and around the world; with something that is inside us you can't believe what other people say, they aren't you. This article is about emotions, attraction, friendship, colleagues, and society. Every single thing that makes up who we are as people. Masquewand (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And on the changing sex part there's these. https://www.google.com/search?q=can+you+change+your+sex&oq=can+you+change+your+sex&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyCQgAEEUYORiABDINCAEQABiRAhiABBiKBTIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCDg3MTNqMGo5qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Masquewand (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:RS EvergreenFir (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then these. https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_gender

https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Gender_Studies/Sexuality_the_Self_and_Society_(Ruhman_Bowman_Jackson_Lushtak_Newman_and_Sunder)/05%3A_Gender_Identity_Gender_Roles_and_Gender_Differences/5.07%3A_Social_Construction_of_Gender#:~:text=Scholars%20generally%20regard%20gender%20as,peer%20groups%2C%20and%20mass%20media. Masquewand (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And these. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/procedures/gender-affirmation-surgery

https://can-sg.org/frequently-asked-questions/can-humans-change-sex/

https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/sex-reassignment-doesnt-work-here-the-evidence

https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/new-york-times-reveals-painful-truths-about-sex-change-surgery Masquewand (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also this written by a mayor's office of lgbtq rights and office of human rights. It states "sex and gender are often used interchangeably; however they are not the same thing. Whereas sex has a biological basis, gender is a social construct." "Sex is a medical classification made based on a person's internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, chromosomes, and gonads." "Gender refers to the social and cultural differences a society assigns people based on an individual's biological(assigned at birth) sex. These differences are usually split into norms, behaviors, and roles that are associated with being biologically male or biologically female."

https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publication/attachments/Words%20Matter%20Sexual%20OrientationMay232024.pdf Masquewand (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening of Classical Period

An excellent edit by @Jino john1996 highlighted the rather tortured phrasing of the Classical Period section. I've made an effort to reword it. If you don't like this edit, please improve it, but please don't just revert it to the highly elliptical original. Ta, Bitten Peach (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]