Talk:Homosexuality: Difference between revisions

Template:Vital article

Glaad declares the term homosexual verboten

From the media guide: Offensive: "homosexual" (n. or adj.) Preferred: "gay" (adj.); "gay man" or "lesbian" (n.); "gay person/people" Please use gay or lesbian to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay." The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term "homosexual" (see AP & New York Times Style). —what should be done about this? Ericl (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The link provided says neither that GLAAD declared it to be pejorative, not demanded that it be banned. And GLAAD did not incorrectly use "it's". I have fixed your errors. In the future, please ensure the accuracy of your edits by not misrepresnting your sources. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 17:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

then what part of "Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes." says that they don't want it's use "banned?" Ericl (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the word "banned" implies that there is a mechanism in place to punish people for doing the thing in question. This is not such a case. They're asking people to stop using the word, but they're not calling for legislation against its use or for editors to punish their employees for using it. Nor are they demanding anything at all. They're asking for cooperation. To make an analogy: You might politely ask guests to your house to take their shoes off at the door. But that wouldn't mean you were banning their shoes, or calling for their shoes to be banned from anywhere. Nor would it constitute a demand. Garik (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a "code" sent out to media outlets to prevent them from using "homophobic" language. Yes, it's polite, but then most of these things always start out this way. It's saying, "this time we're asking you nicely, next time, we'll picket your house..."Ericl (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

'what part of "Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes." says that they don't want it's use "banned?"' -- No part. A ban is a legal instrument to prohibit something from happening. "Please" is a polite request. "Avoid" is not an absolute prohibition.

'It's a "code" sent out to media outlets to prevent them from using "homophobic" language.... It's saying, "this time we're asking you nicely, next time, we'll picket your house..." -- Thank you for interpreting this for the reader. This, however, violates WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." Ground Zero | t 13:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

For documentation here on this talk page, this is the article text Ground Zero and Ericl are debating. I added the term homosexual to the above title to make it clearer what this discussion is about. If Ground Zero minds, he can of course revert the heading to its original title. We (I and others), at WP:Med, recently discussed the offensiveness of the term homosexual, noting when it can be offensive and when it is appropriate to use. That discussion also involved gay male editors, and two of them (Wesley Mouse and Jonathunder) appear to be okay with use of the term homosexual; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56#Use of the term "homosexual." I noted there that the appropriateness of the word homosexual has been discussed various times at WP:LGBT. In the most recent discussion we had about that there, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 49#Homosexual vs Gay in articles, I stated: "[W]hether or not to use gay or lesbian as opposed to homosexual -- has been discussed a few times at this WikiProject; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#LGBT instead of homosexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 47#Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles."

In that second discussion ("Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual"), you can see a general agreement to not use homosexual as a noun, unless somehow necessary because of clarity. Using the word homosexual will be needed in some cases, such as at certain points when speaking of sexual orientation or same-sex sexual activity, as is demonstrated by some aspects of the Homosexuality article. Some LGBT people find the term homosexual offensive because they consider it too clinical and stigmatizing (the Gay article addresses that in detail); other LGBT people don't find the term offensive at all. The term homosexuality (which often, not always, indicates behavior more than sexual orientation, as opposed to the term homosexual) is commonly seen as more acceptable than the term homosexual. After all, homosexuality is the term that is most commonly used to refer to same-sex sexual behavior. We have the Homosexuality article, which can refer to a sexual orientation or to sexual behavior; we don't have the Same-sex sexual behavior article; nor should we, per WP:Content fork. I also noted that WP:LGBT editors addressed "the setting in history" aspect; this is because the term homosexual, and similar, did not exist in, for example, the Sappho period. In that aforementioned second discussion, Rivertorch makes excellent points. Flyer22 (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the section title change helps clarify what we're talking about. As a gay man, I agree with GLAAD's recommendation against using the scientific term in social situations. It would be ridiculous, however, for GLAAD or anyone else to try to ban it, so I am glad that they did no such thing, and Wikipedia should not suggest that they did because one editor wants to go beyond what GLAAD actually said. For the record, I am also engaged in a debate with Eric1 at Talk:42nd Canadian federal election where I and other editors are trying to get him to understand and accept Wikipedia policies on WP:CIVILITY and WP:No personal attacks. -- Ground Zero | t 13:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh heck! We're not thrashing this old rag about again are we? What is offensive to one person, may not be as offensive to another. It all depends on how an individual's mechanism to handle such "offensiveness" functions. As a gay man, if someone were to call me "homosexual", I would not be offensive - because they are correct in identifying me as a homosexual. When I get people calling me "faggot", "fag", or "shit stabber" - then I get offended as they are using slang terms in a derogatory manner. If someone were to use the term "homosexual" and say it in a hurtful derogatory way, then yes - I can see how one would be offended. But lighten up folks, if someone is offended then don't be beating them up over it. There are probably things we find offended that they do not. That's what is brilliant about the human being, we are all different, unique, and special in our own little ways. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We're not debating this old rag again. What we are discussing is the statement that an editor added to the article stating the GLAAD demanded that the term be banned, which GLAAD did not do. the debate on how it should or should not be used in Wikipedia took place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56#Use of the term "homosexual." I am really happy I missed that debate. Ground Zero | t 14:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: yes I am award of the previous debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56#Use of the term "homosexual."; I participated in that debate hence why Flyer22 flagged my name up in a previous comment above. And when I said "thrashing the old rag again", I meant we are still discussing about "homosexual" being offensive and people trying to get the word banned. The chances of the word ever being banned is highly unlikely. Not unless every dictionary in the world suddenly removed the word and it vanished out of vocabulary existence. We will get people who find certain terms and words as offensive. But being open-minded plays a high role in a person determining something as offensive or not. Even the word "gay" is seen as offensive to some, depending on the context it is being used. For example, if I were to say "Oh look at that dirty little gay boy" or "look at that homosexual scumbag" - then I've used the words in a derogatory context and being offensive. But if I say "This is my friend, he is gay" or "he is homosexual" - I've spoken in a friendly non-offensive manner. We're going through something similar where I live, and people burning down a Christmas Tree, all because it is "offensive to their religion". Another incident involved people being banned from entering a shop on Remembrance Day if they were wearing a poppy - because the shop owner seen the poppy symbol as offensive. We will get people that find certain things offensive. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: Something I should have mentioned above is that GLAAD advised against using the term homosexual before 2014; therefore, I have tweaked this text in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. So it seems that nothing that Eric1 wrote was accurate. That is very disappointing. Ground Zero | t 17:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's easy for the media manipulators. They just use the term (in print) as LGBT. Fine for them, but a particular Wikipedia article may not be discussing "B" or "T!"

Second, we have a lot of still-applicable reliable citations which use "homosexual."

Third, we have trouble enough with genderless phenomenon, like s/he contortions. This just makes it worse.

Fourth, I thought all genders were supposed to be equal? :) Student7 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Xenoestrogens and the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) guideline

I reverted 7157.118.25a here on his xenoestrogen addition, pointing him to the WP:MEDRS guideline. He re-added the xenoestrogen material, and with what is not much of an improvement. Jytdog, as a fellow WP:Med editor who has also recently mentioned/interacted with 7157.118.25a (as seen here and here), do you mind weighing in on this matter? Flyer22 (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Followup note here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, from what I can tell of the first source for that section, going by the abstracts, it is about human females (women), not non-human females. Flyer22 (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: 7157.118.25a changed the content to this. Flyer22 (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this, this, this, this, this, this and this, the section still has poor sourcing. Then again, other parts of the article have poor sourcing. I don't feel like debating this matter or trying to make an editor understand WP:MEDRS, so I'm dropping this topic for now. If you add more sources to the section in question, oh well. But do be aware of WP:Citation overkill (that's simply an essay, though), and try to improve your understanding of WP:MEDRS before you edit any more Wikipedia content dealing with biomedical information. Flyer22 (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Final editing should be here.[1] I am not prone to making careless claims. That is a well-backed, well-sourced, thoroughly defensible section supported by the scientific/medical literature and the information has been mentioned in the news as well. Just from looking at the rest of the page, I would venture to say this has better sourcing from medicine/science than any other section on the page. --7157.118.25a (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You started off the section by being careless; this was by having the initial sentence supported by sources that are about human females. Like I stated, "try to improve your understanding of WP:MEDRS before you edit any more Wikipedia content dealing with biomedical information." On your user page, for example, you currently focus on news coverage when it comes to sourcing. With few exceptions, news coverage is not the type of sourcing you should be relying on for scientific information. Same goes for WP:Primary sources in most instances. WP:MEDRS is clear why that is the case, and so is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Breaking news. Flyer22 (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

As you can see here, Dominus Vobisdu removed some of what you added. Flyer22 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose National Geographic wouldn't be accepted as a source in this instance then?[2] I believe this would count as a Secondary Source since it mentions multiple studies.[3] --7157.118.25a (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe this would count as a secondary source also since it's a textbook.[4] --7157.118.25a (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This should count as secondary also since it cites multiple studies.[5] Also, I notice that the Scientific American article --7157.118.25a (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrongly Removed Material

The following material is being reinserted because User:Dominus Vobisdu wrongly removed secondary sources[6], contrary to WP:MEDRS.

2009 studies of fish reveal a link between estrogen exposure and intersex characteristics.

Reason: U.S. government reports from major scientific bodies count as secondary reports, and a release by the U.S. Geological Survey would certainly seem to meet that criteria.[7] Furthermore, WP:MEDRS specifically mentions Scientific American articles can be acceptable sources depending on content.[8]

Furthermore, studies reveal that those taking the most well-known xenoestrogen, diethylstilbestrol, have increased likelihood of homosexuality.

Reason: Springer textbooks are specifically mentioned as good secondary sources.[9]

Xenoandrogens, artificial male hormones, may produce similar effects per Androgen insensitivity syndrome. According to MedLine Plus and the Michigan Institute of Urology, intersex characteristics can be caused by "Male hormones (such as testosterone) taken or encountered by the mother during pregnancy."

Reason: Medline articles are specifically mentioned as ideal secondary sources.[10]

None of that should have been removed. --7157.118.25a (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

section as of today

I went through the section as it stood today. Content there was either focused on intersex physiology, which is not the same as homosexuality, or was supported by news stories hyping primary sources or primary sources themselves, neither of which is OK per MEDRS - see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources. In a controversial article nobody should be using low quality sourcing. There are three fairly recent reviews in Pubmed on estrogen and sexual orientation/homosexuality - see here, if anybody wants to build content based on them. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jytdog. I truly do mean that; I appreciate your help when I can get it. This article would benefit from having you watch it, if it's not already on your WP:Watchlist, but I can also understand why you or anyone else wouldn't want to WP:Watchlist this highly contentious article. Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And I'm back. Jytdog, a list of disagreements:

• This removal was unjustified, as the paper does clearly mention the chemical genistein produces demasculinizing effects in males, i.e. homosexuality. "When genistein was examined for its effects on the AVPV, a sexually dimorphic brain region that is larger in females than males, it did not mimic the effect of estradiol in females and exerted a demasculinizing effect on males, counter to what would be expected of an estrogen-mimicking compound."[11]
• Concerning your contention here[12] if you'd prefer a book source then I will provide the following as the main sources.[13][14][15]
• Disagreed with this removal also.[16] The first source alone clearly mentions that estrogens feminizes male fish. "Exposure to estrogens can have various detrimental effects in fish. It can reduce general viability, induce gonadal malformations or feminization of genetic males, or lead to sterilization." Reverting this also.[17] --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I will say though that some of the Xenoandrogen and Diethylstilbestrol references were more relevant to humans than nature though so I will leave them out for now and consider them later for a different section instead. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Will wait 24 hours for discussion on talk page to occur about edits, and give Jytdog time to explain reverts. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I am at work now and cannot respond in detail now, but will later this evening. But in general, you keep confusing sexual orientation and physiological intersex changes; they are not the same. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The cases involved had both sexual orientation and intersex changes. In the first example it was brain regions being affected with the result being homosexual activity.[18] The entire paper was about the impacts of estradiol/estrogen on brain development, specifically sex differences, e.g. Chapter IV, "IV. Estradiol and the Establishment of Sex Differences in the Brain." The paper is about how to use chemicals, estrogen and androgen, to make males in nature act homosexually towards other males, and vice versa. "Moreover, if as an adult she is treated with male levels of androgen, she will exhibit the male pattern of sexual behavior when presented with a sexually receptive female (26, 238). In other words, the brain sex of a female is converted to that of a male by administration of exogenous steroids during a critical perinatal window (Fig. 2)... Adding to the confusion was the observation that injections of estradiol increased masculine sexual behavior in males, yet it was so clearly a female hormone. In fact, giving estradiol to females also resulted in female sexual behavior." The article even specifically mentions the subject involves same-sex marriage, stating, "The issue of human brain sexual differentiation is one fraught with political, religious, and cultural bear traps. Debates on the biological basis of partner preference, same-sex marriage, and the scientific aptitudes of men versus women continue to rage..." This article was definitely applicable and there was no basis for its removal.

The same goes for the fish reference, the final case addressed.[19] Source 1 referred to how estrogen byproducts cause gender changes in nature. "Concentrations... have been demonstrated to cause sex reversal in the laboratory (for example, 10 ng/L [7]). Indeed, exposure to effluents of wastewater treatment plants has led to all-female populations in field experiments [8]. Sex reversal is possible in many fishes where sex is genetically determined, that is, treatment of fish with hormones can functionally override the genetic sex. Estrogens or androgens are therefore widely used in aquaculture to manipulate gender (for example, if one sex is preferred for economic reasons), but as pollutants they can be serious threats to natural populations (see below)."[20] Source 2 specifically sources the paper, "Guppy sexual behavior as an effect biomarker of estrogen mimics in Exotoxicol by Bayley, Nielsen, et. al. (pg. 995) These papers are not just referring to change in physical organs, but actual sexual behavior and gender brain preference. The second source furthermore mentions that scientists widely use estrogens and androgens to change gender preference in wildlife.

As such, I still see no basis for the reverting of that material. --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If the cases only involved changes in genitalia from estrogen/androgen, and not actual sexual behavior, your point would be valid. However, the material clearly involved changes in behavior as well, with males engaging in homosexual behavior when treated with estrogen and females engaging in it when treated with androgen. This is why the first paper dealt with changes on brain development from these steroid/hormone products, because it's not just genitals being affected but actual brain gender preference by these artificial chemicals. So all of the research is valid and should not have been removed. You seem to be trying to equate intersex changes with changes in sexual behavior, both of which are involved when addressing estrogen/androgen effects. It's not an either/or scenario. --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, ignoring the word salad issues. Let's take this step by step, starting with sources. Would you please identify the sources you actually want to use? Please make sure they are recent secondary sources per MEDRS. Once we agree on the sources, we can work out what content is OK based on them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. The single strongest source is I believe the following, which addresses chemical effects on the developing brain's gender preferences. Nor does it just address humans either, but summarizes a broad swath of research. "The majority of what we know about the impact of estradiol on brain development comes from rodent models, predominantly rat and mouse but including hamsters, voles, and guinea pigs. Birds, in particular zebra finches and Japanese quail, have also provided novel insights into the myriad of ways estradiol can alter brain development. In primates, both human and otherwise, we know a great deal more about what estradiol is not doing than what it is doing. There is a clear need for more information about this potent steroid and how it affects the developing primate brain."

http://physrev.physiology.org/content/88/1/91

These are relevant news sources, although they should be used in conjunction with other sources, as mentioned at WP:MEDRS#Popular_press, which states "A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the laysummary= parameter of cite journal." So they will need to be used in conjunction with their respective scientific papers.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46354343/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/estrogen-turns-male-snakes-same-sex-charmers/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094541.htm

I will add more sources to these as well in the upcoming hours, as some of the others mentioned were very good as well. Just need to go through the revisions again and check. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

please bring secondary sources per MEDRS. The only good source you bring is Phys Rev. Please do not bring newsmedia; they do not clarify difficult issues - they pick some simple thing and hype it, and that is not what we need here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, a few things. First of all, no 24 hour limit, for now I just want to defend it as a valid addition.

Secondly, sorry about the delayed response, I just wanted to be careful in posting this reply given your concern about the exactness of the sources. I couldn't rush this response and still be as exacting with these sources as you are asking.

Thirdly, aside from the PhysRev source we both agree on, I will provide more secondary sources according to WP:MEDRS. Each and every one of these has been carefully checked and is thoroughly defensible, meaning it is specifically a secondary source that adheres perfectly to WP:MEDRS, and addresses chemical change in gender preference; not just changes to external organs (intersex) but to behavior and thought processes specifically.

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458140/ This is another very strong source as far as I am concerned, a systematic review of the literature on neurotoxicology (e.g. estrogen and androgen) and how it affects both wildlife and humans. As laid out in the opening paragraph, the content matter involves sex steroids and how they alter brain sexual differentiation. "They stemmed from the principle that sex differences in behavior are primarily the outcomes of differences in how the brain is sexually differentiated during early development by gonadal hormones (the Organizational Hypothesis). We also now understand that environmental chemicals are capable of altering these underlying events and processes. Among those chemicals, the group labeled as endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) offers the clearest evidence of such selectivity, a consequence of their actions on the endogenous sex steroids, androgens and estrogens." The author specifically focuses on chemical effects that change sexual behavior, mentioning in the introduction, "a statement by Richard Sharpe (2008) frames the context in an engaging way: 'The difference between becoming a male rather than a female is about as fundamental as you can get, as it will alter that individual’s place in society, transform the shape of his body, reshape his inherent abilities, his thought processes and his behaviors [my italics].'" See the section, Molding the Sexual Brain, which covers research on rodents and songbirds in addressing how chemicals alter gender preference in the brain. My point is that this is arguably as strong a source as the PhysRev one, maybe stronger. It does NOT just address intersex changes to external physiology, but to the brain's, sexual preference, and behavior. Furthermore, because it addresses estrogen and androgen while reviewing a large number of studies (100 in all) it is an invaluable critique on the subject.

• http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7167/full/nature06335.html Here is a good review covering the history of scientific research on how to make fruit flies and mice homosexuals. In the section, "fruitless and its power to shape sexual behaviour", for example, the following is mentioned: "Benzer's trainees Hall and Yoshiki Hotta (Box 2) used genetic mosaic analysis to define portions of the central nervous system required for male courtship behaviour19, 20 and genes that governed heterosexual behaviour... Mutant fru males show homosexual courtship behaviour in which large groups form chains of males courting each other. In a remarkable experiment, Barry Dickson showed recently that male courtship behaviour directed at females can be induced in chromosomally female flies simply by expressing the male-specific isoform of fru in the female brain24. Recent work in the mouse from Catherine Dulac's group suggests a similar underlying latency in the female mouse to exhibit male behaviours on manipulation of a single gene28. A major goal in this field is to define the molecular targets of fru and define the neural circuits that drive both male and female sexual behaviours." This appears to be a thorough article detailing the history of research in producing homosexual behavior through gene regulation.

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1457099 This is a systematic review which references 129 sources. It examines estrogen effects on the brain's "neural sex differences" and the resulting "social and reproductive behaviors", i.e. homosexuality as well. As such the opening paragraph mentions the following: "Vasopressin neurons in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis and amygdala and vasotocin neurons in homologous areas in non-mammalian vertebrates show some of the most consistently found neural sex differences, with males having more cells and denser projections than females. These projections have been implicated in social and reproductive behaviors but also in autonomic functions. The sex differences in these projections may cause as well as prevent sex differences in these functions. This paper discusses the anatomy, steroid dependency, and sexual differentiation of these neurons. Although the final steps in sexual differentiation of vasopressin/vasotocin expression may be similar across vertebrate species, what triggers differentiation may vary dramatically. For example, during development, estrogen masculinizes vasopressin expression in rats but feminizes its counterpart in Japanese quail." This is also summarized in the ending section, 'A Unique Opportunity': "There are at least two reasons to be enthusiastic about the sex difference in AVP and AVT systems, or for that matter about any sex difference in the brain. First, the possibility of hormonal manipulation provides a unique perspective for studying how specific neural systems develop. Second, sex differences allow one to study how differences in brain structure translate into differences in function." Furthermore, this review examines not only quail but rodents and newts as well, and thus provides a good overview of estrogen effects on wildlife in general.

As a side note, while I suppose it would classify as popular press, this Scientific American article does interestingly mention that homosexuality is more common in captivity than the wild, while also mentioning the fruit fly study.[21] The fruit fly study I mentioned earlier involved switching a 'Genderblind' gene on and off, and that is referenced in this article. The Genderblind study about the fruit flies is here. [22]

Also, I did find a review mentioning the 2007 fruit fly Genderblind study but it doesn't really give detail about the impact on gender preference that I saw, just on altering of brain behavior in general. I figured I'd mention it since it's a high-quality secondary source that addresses the study in question.[23]

I will add more secondary sources as I find time but these are three more solid sources in my opinion. --7157.118.25a (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is another good secondary source on mice.

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4145994 This review involves estrogen specifically and how it alters mice brain patterns on sexual preference, stating "The sexually dimorphic nucleus is a highly tractable feature that can be studied as a model system regarding how sex differences in brain function arise and are maintained. This is highly clinically relevant for understanding the origins of sex biases in psychiatric syndromes and for iden-tifying novel clinical targets." There is also a very useful quotation in the Introduction section, "Sex hormone-like compounds can be found throughout the environment, occurring in natural and processed foods, food and drink containers, and medical devices. Many of these are capable of altering normal development and exerting pathophysiological effects on the central nervous system, most noticeably in sexually dimorphic brain structures. Hundreds of synthetic compounds are estrogen-like compounds that have at least some affinity for estrogen receptors and can affect gene transcription."

There seems to be quite a bit of research when it comes to changing sexual preference in mice. Just last month a study was completed for example, although the following is a primary, not secondary source.[24]

--7157.118.25a (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I just now noticed you gave a link to an NCBI search earlier, I had just skimmed over the mention until now because it was mentioned as an optional aside. That really is a good search though, and it did help in finding that last study on mice. I tweaked the search slightly though to include search terms on 'homophilic' and 'gender preference.'[25]

That resulted in 26 returned results. But I just added another term, 'sexual differentiation', which resulted in search results skyrocketing to 212 results, so it seems that is the popular term being used.[26]

Good job with that search creation though, I didn't realize you'd designed such an in-depth search until now. --7157.118.25a (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

i'll have a look at these this evening. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

just looked at them briefly. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1457099 is from 2006. This is too old per WP:MEDDATE. Will look more in depth at the others this evening. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure that it would be too old? I notice that MedDate specifically mentions that reviews which are of high quality should be included, giving as an example, "Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high-quality and are routinely maintained even if their initial publication dates fall outside the above window." The section furthermore mentions that the standard can be relaxed in areas of research with fewer reviews, stating "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." MedDate appears to be more of an optimal guideline on preferring newer research than a set-in-stone exclusion of all older reviews. --7157.118.25a (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

this is a field where there has been plenty of work and reviews; we don't need to reach for old ones. Per Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Raise_source_quality we should be reaching for the best sources we can. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I suppose you are right, though I hate to see perfectly good sources go to waste because they fall within a 10-year time limit rather than a 5-year time limit. That means there are now 2 high-quality secondary sources remaining.

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458140/

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4145994

If articles can be found in Cochrane Library, would you support allowing them, or is a 5-year limit being strictly adhered to here? --7157.118.25a (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

there is nothing privileged about Cochrane. The key thing is that we gather the most recent reviews and see what they have to say on the topic of homosexuality. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, there are some decent sources. Now what content are you proposing based on them? I will leave it for you to define the subtopic within the topic of "homosexuality" - please make sure that the content reads on the topic. Please do not do WP:SYN to get there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Just with those two sources for now I favor as close a reading as possible to the sources, I'm still unclear on whether the American Physiological Review source is acceptable as a third source given that it's from 2008, and would seem to fall outside the 5-year limit. If not I can look for a replacement source, a few more quality sources would probably be better. Given those two sources though, I would propose the following edit to the page in a subsection like before, perhaps titled Estrogens and Androgens: --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In my experience of studying sexual orientation, there generally are not as many reviews for it as there are for many other scientific topics. But that is especially regarding the theorized causes of sexual orientation, which is where the aforementioned "may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published" aspect of WP:MEDDATE particularly comes in. Homosexuality, like the topic of sexual orientation in general, also concerns behavior...not only sexual orientation as it applies to the mind. So different aspects of the topic sexual orientation have more reviews than others.

As for the five-year rule, as recently stated at the WP:MEDRS talk page, it is the general rule of thumb; we don't have to be, and should not be, strict with it. Jytdog means that we should use newer sources when we can and when the newer sources are better than the older ones. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

Proposed edit is as follows:

---

Environmental chemicals, specifically sex steroids such as xenoestrogens and xenoandrogens, are produced in quantities of billions of kg. per year, and are used prominently in cosmetics and pesticides such as diethylstilbestrol and DDT while appearing also in food and dust particles. When in the form of phthalates they can be widely used in plastics including children's toys, food and drink containers, and medical devices. These chemicals alter the brain's sexual differentiation in a number of different species, including gulls, primates, and rodents, resulting in the masculinization of female brains/behavior (e.g. 'lesbian gulls') and feminization of male brains/behavior. Due to concern over environmental health risks including cancer, thinning of bald eagle eggshells, and reduced species reproduction, endocrine disruption was the primary theme of the 27th International Neurotoxicology Conference.

---

This seems like a fair representation of the papers that remains true to the language and facts mentioned in them. Ideally I'd like to find a few more sources for the section, but this content is all I would propose based on those sources for now. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not even sure if that stuff has anything to do with homosexuality, per se, rather than with overall disturbances in sexual development and behavior. Homosexuality has nothing to do with "masculinization" or "feminization". That's a different phenomenon. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That first source very definitely identifies homosexuality, and specifically states in the Introduction section, "When George and Molly Hunt (1977) observed the presence of female–female pairings of western gulls on Santa Barbara Island, California, they invoked the term 'lesbian gulls.' Michael Fry (1995) attributed such pairings to both a reduced male population and anomalies in male reproductive structures and behavior. He proposed DDT and other 'estrogenic' contaminants in the environment as causes." I was using the same wording the article used, and did not just use the term 'lesbian gulls' carelessly. That phrase is straight from the article itself. As seen from reference 90, the paper's author, Bernard Weiss, includes among his citations his own previous research which includes a paper titled "Same sex, no, sex, unaware sex in neurotoxicology." See also the section, 'The Translation Step', which states "This conjunction brings neurotoxicology into an arena fraught with vocal disagreements aired in public statements by proponents from different cultural milieus. These disagreements arise partly from arguments about the roots of homosexuality, and about questions of gender identity and others that at one time would have seemed quite remote from neurotoxicology."[27]

The second paper meanwhile cites in its 12th Reference a paper titled 'A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men.'[28] The 9th reference cited is a paper titled 'A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity.' The content of both papers does center around homosexuality. --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice that "lesbian seagulls" is in scare quotes. Not without good reason. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you assume it is "scare quotes"? Is there any basis for that assumption? Any logic or reasoning process behind that? It seems like a jump in logic to me. --7157.118.25a (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you assume that they are not scare quotes? Do you have a more plausible explanation. They're not just there for decoration. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

To suggest a professional scientist would resort to "scare quotes" in a grant-funded publication, and resort to tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, seems unbelievable. Nothing in the entire rest of the paragraph, section, or paper that I can see would suggest any use of such sarcasm in writing. The context appears to show simple reporting on other papers to systematically review the subject matter. Indeed there would be no reason for bringing up subject matter the author didn't believe in, in a systematic review article, given the paper's context. Your accusation of it being "scare quotes" seems groundless.

It appears to be a phrase the writer found interesting and just put it in quotes to show it was an exact phrase being quoted, as a way of naming the subject matter. The entire paragraph in context does not indicate any use of such sarcasm or derision at work as you imply; which again would be absurd in a professional publication like this. Your argument is ridiculous in the context of the paper. Full paragraph context is as follows. Needless to say, the phrase "lesbian sea gulls" is no more a use of scare quotes than the phrase "estrogenic" which is also in quotes immediately after it.

"The publication of Our Stolen Future (Colborn et al., 1996) firmly placed endocrine disruption on the agenda of neurotoxicology. Theo Colborn, honored at the 27th conference, had the insight to foresee this development. Many of the observations that created the book’s thesis, that environmental chemicals had been fomenting turbulence in hormonal function, arose from puzzling instances of animal behavior. When George and Molly Hunt (1977) observed the presence of female–female pairings of western gulls on Santa Barbara Island, California, they invoked the term 'lesbian gulls.' Michael Fry (1995) attributed such pairings to both a reduced male population and anomalies in male reproductive structures and behavior. He proposed DDT and other 'estrogenic' contaminants in the environment as causes. Because behavior is a reflection of events and processes in the brain, it became necessary to explain the coupling between aberrant behavior and endocrine disruption by determining how such environmental agents alter brain anatomy and function. In particular, to borrow Sharpe’s term, how they proceed to alter the events that 'make' a male. A succinct review of this sequence follows to help provide a context for the topics discussed at the conference."[29]--7157.118.25a (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The second to last sentence in the paragraph is key, "In particular, to borrow Sharpe’s term, how they proceed to alter the events that 'make' a male." The author is just putting quote marks around terms they like, to "borrow" them as it were. Nothing in the paragraph remotely suggests that "scare quotes" are being used. Indeed, mentioning the material for reference purposes, as is being done here, to support Weiss' argument would make no sense in your scenario. --7157.118.25a (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm far from convinced that this paper has anything whatsoever to do with homosexuality, versus changes in general sexual development and behavior. Yes, scientists do indeed use scare quotes in reference with non-scientific, popular terminology, as seems to be the case here. And there's no "accusation" in pointing that out. For what it's worth, I'm a scientist and scientific writer, editor and translator with 30 years experience, and I've used them myself and have often seen other writers do so as well.

Again, masculinity and femininity are very different topics than homosexuality, and any overlap is coincidental, at best. I'm afraid you are reading something into this article that the authors did not intend to say. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If scare quotes were what was intended, then the quoted material would be presented only in disagreement for rebuttal purposes, but nothing in the review indicates that. Indeed, nowhere in the paper does Weiss even cite other papers for purpose of disputing them or disagreeing with them. Every time he cites a source, it is to reinforce his original argument, namely that "sex differences in behavior are primarily the outcomes of differences in how the brain is sexually differentiated during early development by gonadal hormones" and "environmental chemicals are capable of altering these underlying events and processes."

If Weiss was quoting the material derisively as you suggest, he would indicate disagreement with it or attempt to rebut it afterward, which does not occur. Rather he cites Fry in support of his original argument. It should be abundantly clear from reading the context that scare quotes aren't being used. In the Epilogue section, the author states, "What the 27th Conference, and the terse summary here of findings based on bisphenol A and phthalate exposures most notably reveals, is how misleading it is to expect EDCs to produce profiles of effects, such as sexually dimorphic behaviors, as literal copies of those produced by native hormones." The reference to sexually dimorphic behaviors, i.e. differences in gender sexual behavior, is clearly reference to changing sexual behavior in gender. I think you are trying to read something into the paper it doesn't say to deny material that you don't like. --7157.118.25a (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Weiss even specifically states in the paper, "These disagreements arise partly from arguments about the roots of homosexuality, and about questions of gender identity and others that at one time would have seemed quite remote from neurotoxicology." --7157.118.25a (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I remain unconvinced, and have said all I have to say about this. Let's see what other editors have to say. And please watch your tone. It's a bit antagonistic, and needlessly so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

7157.118.25a, it seems that Dominus Vobisdu is stating that, if your content ties to homosexuality, you need to be clearer on how it does. Perhaps point to content from WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that specifically use the term homosexual, homosexuality, gay or lesbian and are direct in their comments on how these behaviors tie to homosexuality? We have to be mindful of WP:Synthesis and WP:Editorializing. There are researchers who tie masculinity or femininity to homosexuality, as is clear by the Gender variance and Childhood gender nonconformity articles, whether it's humans and/or non-human animals, but, if such content is reported on Wikipedia, the sources should be very direct on the matter so that debates like the one you are having with Dominus Vobisdu don't happen. Flyer22 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the article uses the terms "lesbian", "homosexuality", "gender identity", and "same sex" so it takes some serious interpretation to claim it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Furthermore, I would point out that Dominus was the first to make the accusation of reading into the article. I simply pointed out that applies better to his claim than mine. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In my view the proposed content is mostly about concerns about chemicals in the environment; that content doesn't belong in an article about homosexuality. Also, the sentence, "Environmental chemicals... are produced in quantities of billions of kg. per year." doesn't make sense to me - I don't know what "environmental chemicals" are. Most importantly, the content doesn't provide any actual information on the possible effect of endocrine disruptors on sexual orientation. I note that the endocrine disruptor hypothesis is controversial - it is far from being settled science, as described in our article on that. And the first source in the proposed content above emphasizes that (which was already quoted in part by the proposer - emphasis added here and next sentences included): "What the 27th Conference, and the terse summary here of findings based on bisphenol A and phthalate exposures most notably reveals, is how misleading it is to expect EDCs to produce profiles of effects, such as sexually dimorphic behaviors, as literal copies of those produced by native hormones. Such agents are not hormones. They should not be expected to act precisely as hormones. The term disruptor is a far more accurate depiction of our current depth of understanding." In other words, there is a lot that is unknown and right now we cannot make many (if any) definitive statements. The proposed content is more definitive than the sources allow. and ditto what Flyer said about SYN - I noted the risk of SYN in my comments asking for proposed content. Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can use CTRL+F in the paper to see that the terms "homosexuality", "lesbian", "gender identity", and "same sex" are all used; despite the fact that when addressing homosexuality in scientific papers, terms like sexually dimorphic behavior or sexual differentiation are typically used as alternatives.

To me it just seems incredible that in an article which concludes with the statement, "These disagreements arise partly from arguments about the roots of homosexuality, and about questions of gender identity", it is being claimed that homosexuality is unrelated to the article's topic. You don't conclude an article like that if homosexuality has nothing to do with the content. Let alone the reference to lesbian gulls or citing of a paper in the article, by the paper's author no less, about same sex.

I react strongly because it seems as plain as day the article's content is on homosexuality, there is no way to avoid it from a direct reading. I just don't think Dominus has a leg to stand on with that claim. There is way too much evidence in the paper that contradicts that argument. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

My comments were about the proposed content, not about what the source itself says. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, true. The proposed edit should probably be worded a bit differently I suppose. I will work on writing an alternate proposal that incorporates the two new sources. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "despite the fact that when addressing homosexuality in scientific papers, terms like sexually dimorphic behavior or sexual differentiation are typically used as alternatives"? Scientific papers commonly use the terms homosexual and lesbian, but scientists generally do not assign a sexual orientation to non-human animals and instead focus on the behavior. The terms sexually dimorphic behavior and sexual differentiation are not used as synonyms for homosexuality and similar. They are far from synonyms. Flyer22 (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I mean that when reading papers on the subject, the term homosexuality often seems to get deliberately avoided in favor of alternate language/phrasing. Take for example the Physiological Review article earlier. It explicitly described homosexual behavior in the article repeatedly, but never used the term "homosexual" to describe this behavior.[30] See for example section 'B. The Organizational/Activational Hypothesis of Brain Sex Differentiation.' It clearly describes homosexual behavior but never uses the term homosexual. "Moreover, if as an adult she is treated with male levels of androgen, she will exhibit the male pattern of sexual behavior when presented with a sexually receptive female (26, 238). In other words, the brain sex of a female is converted to that of a male by administration of exogenous steroids during a critical perinatal window (Fig. 2)."

Similarly in section 'G. Behavioral Masculinization, Defeminization, and Feminization', clearly homosexual behavior is described but the term homosexual is never used once in the entire paper. "Moreover, newborn female pups treated with PGE2 for 2 days have permanently elevated POA dendritic spines compared with normal females, and most importantly, as adults, if provided with exogenous testosterone, will behave as if they are males towards receptive females. These PGE2 masculinized females will pursue and engage in vigorous mounting of receptive females and appear exactly as normal males. Thus PGE2 is both necessary and sufficient for full masculinization of sex behavior. This surprising finding also provided a new tool for investigation of sex differentiation of the brain, since it allowed for the first time the ability to masculinize the brain without steroids. This in turn allowed for asking the question, Are the processes of masculinization and defeminization two sides of the same coin? In other words, if a brain is masculinized, is defeminization an irrevocable byproduct? Or, alternatively, are masculinization and defeminization two separate processes that can be manipulated independently of each other?"

I've noticed this pattern across multiple papers, new phrasing is found in order to avoid use of the word "homosexuality." Now, why that is, I'm not sure. Maybe you can tell me? --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

More Sources

I found a few more high-quality secondary sources for additional backing:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211403/ An October 2014 systematic review that is very explicit in how estrogen can be used to alter "sociosexual behaviors" in rats. In the section Female Social Behavior it is mentioned, "Gonadectomized and steroid-primed ERαKO females placed in the home cage of males that showed sexual behavior to wild type females showed extreme rejection of male mounts, whereas gonadally intact ERαKO females were vigorously attacked by the males (Ogawa et al., 1996, 1998a). Similarly, ERα gene silencing in the VMH caused steroid-primed females to reject males (Spiteri et al., 2010a,b)."
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3901882/ This is a 2014 systematic review that begins with "During the past few decades, scientific evidence has been accumulated concerning the possible adverse effects of the exposure to environmental chemicals on the well-being of wildlife and human populations. One large and growing group of such compounds of anthropogenic or natural origin is referred to as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), due to their deleterious action on the endocrine system. This concern was first focused on the control of reproductive function particularly in males, but has later been expanded to include all possible endocrine functions. The present review describes the underlying physiology behind the cascade of developmental events that occur during sexual differentiation of males and the specific role of androgen in the masculinization process and proper organogenesis of the external male genitalia." The article does focus more on external than behavioral changes, however.

--7157.118.25a (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I found an EXTREMELY clear source to use prominently in the next edit proposal:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/ This narrative review focuses primarily on the effects of androgen and estrogen in causing human homosexual behavior, but does mention experiments on rats as well. This study is invaluable as support for the others previously mentioned, because it clearly states the subject matter is about homosexuality, using the word "homosexuality" 68 times, as well addressing the effects of androgen and estrogen in causing brain sex differentiation.

--7157.118.25a (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, issues within the Frontiers series of journals are guest-edited, and the guest-editor generally uses the issue to promote whatever theory they are a big fan of. The review articles tend to notrepresent the solid, down-the-middle mainstream of any given field. I generally steer clear of reviews from Frontiers, especially in any area that is controversial. You are of course free to use it but please treat its claims gently. fwiw, I would have greater respect for you if you didn't use it at all. (this is part of the kind of thing, that makes it hard for everyday people to just jump in and edit health-related content in WP. It is not impossible of course but it takes a lot of time to learn all of these kinds of pitfalls. A lot of competence is required to do well, and it takes time to acquire if you don't already have it.) Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Just in looking at the credentials of Hines though, it appears she is most definitely a leading expert in the field.[31] She is Director of the Hormones and Behaviour Research Lab at the University of Cambridge and was a Postdoctoral Fellow in Neuroendocrinology and Neuroscience at the UCLA Brain Research Institute and a Visiting Scientist, at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Primate Research Centre. "She is a Past-President of the International Academy of Sex Research and a recipient of the Shephard Ivory Franz Award for Distinguished Teaching at UCLA."

If her credentials were at all in doubt I would agree with you, and would quickly remove the citation of her material, but actually it appears she has some of the best credentialing of any writers on the topic. I was particularly impressed that she is a former president of the International Academy of Sex Research. --7157.118.25a (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

this is not the kind of discussion that interests me. not responding. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I did remove the second Frontiers source, but I still feel that first Frontiers source is credible. --7157.118.25a (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

New Proposed Edit

collapse former proposal, see below for newer proposal
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Environmental chemicals, specifically sex steroids such as xenoestrogens and xenoandrogens, change the brain's gender preference resulting in homosexuality in nature. According to Melissa Hines, "This article reviews the evidence regarding prenatal influences of gonadal steroids on human sexual orientation, as well as sex-typed childhood behaviors that predict subsequent sexual orientation. The evidence supports a role for prenatal testosterone exposure in the development of sex-typed interests in childhood, as well as in sexual orientation in later life, at least for some individuals... The empirical record generally supports this model for a wide range of brain regions and behaviors that differ on the average for male and female animals. For example, treating female rodents with testosterone early in life decreases their female-typical behavior in adulthood, and increases their male-typical behavior." These chemicals are produced in quantities of billions of kg. per year, and are used prominently in cosmetics and pesticides such as diethylstilbestrol (DES) and DDT while appearing also in food and dust particles. When in the form of phthalates they can be widely used in plastics including children's toys, food and drink containers, and medical devices. Xenoestrogens and xenoandrogens alter the brain's sexual differentiation in a number of species, including rams, ferrets, zebra finches, gulls, primates, and rodents, resulting in the masculinization of female brains/behavior (e.g. 'lesbian gulls') and feminization of male brains/behavior. According to Bernard Weiss, "disagreements arise partly from arguments about the roots of homosexuality, and about questions of gender identity and others that at one time would have seemed quite remote from neurotoxicology." Due to concern over environmental health risks including cancer, thinning of bald eagle eggshells, and reduced species reproduction, endocrine disruption was the primary theme of the 27th International Neurotoxicology Conference.

(proposed by — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7157.118.25a (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC))

first sentence is way too strong - you make it sound like if i walk outside all i will see is gay sex in the animal kingdom. most of this work is done in the laboratory. and there is still way too much off-topic content about environmental chemicals. Please see WP:OFFTOPIC. It also relies on two Frontiers sources, which is very suboptimal. The long quote in the first paragraph from a Frontiers source is definitely WP:UNDUE with regard to where the field stands. The way we do health content in WP (like all content) is that you read all the sources and try to summarize what they say - you don't look for the killer quote that makes some point that interests you. This is not well done. more comments to come. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I made it strong intentionally and quoted the article itself because when I used softer wording in my previous proposal, it drew concerns about whether it related to homosexuality. I am fine with removing the article quote by Hines, just leaving the source, and changing the wording of the first sentence though. Could you propose an alternative to that first paragraph? I only made that first paragraph so strong because I wanted to avoid any claims the subject matter was unrelated to homosexuality; the previous contention. I'm perfectly willing to see that first paragraph changed though, just let me know what wording you think would be best. --7157.118.25a (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

you are free to improve it. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, what about the following version?

-------------------

Environmental chemicals, specifically sex steroids such as xenoestrogens and xenoandrogens, cause effects on the brain's gender preference and can result in homosexuality in nature. Xenoestrogens and xenoandrogens alter the brain's sexual differentiation in a number of species, including rams, ferrets, zebra finches, gulls, primates, and rodents, resulting in the masculinization of female brains/behavior (e.g. 'lesbian gulls') and feminization of male brains/behavior. Due to concern over environmental health risks endocrine disruption was the primary theme of the 27th International Neurotoxicology Conference.

This reduces to one paragraph, changes the wording of the first sentence so it is less definitive, and removes the Hines quote. (EDIT: Removed detail about plastics, Weiss quote, and second Frontiers source also.)--7157.118.25a (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am just going to hold off on adding the material to the page until someone else shows interest in it being added. I do think it would add some valuable context to the page but I'm not going to be insistent on it. I just wanted to defend the claim that it is sufficiently defensible from the scientific literature. Whether it is added is something for the community to decide. I just wanted to help source it and make the case for its possible addition. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

are you still intending this to be in the animal part? it is still too definitive. Once I understand where you intend it to go i would be willing to work on it directly. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I had intended it for the animal section originally, although because it is applicable to humans as well, it's tough to determine where exactly it should go. What about changing the first sentence to "Environmental chemicals, specifically sex steroids such as xenoestrogens and xenoandrogens, alter the brain's sexual differentiation"? This would be a merge of the wording from both proposed edits. --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've addd some content here: Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation#Endocrine_disruptors. That article is not in great shape. I spent some time on it this evening, but that is where this content belongs; not here. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine. I'll abide by your judgment on the matter, I notice you made a good cleanup on the Gallup section also. --7157.118.25a (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

great, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

7157.118.25a is currently indefinitely blocked. There is a new IP that reminds me of him. I think that the person using that IP has used different IPs at Epigenetic theories of homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flyer22 (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Gallup poll

As usual, the Gallup poll portion of an article was overemphasized, compared to the other material, which was quite different. The author was apparently surprised as the Gallup data and therefore mentioned it prominently. However, the other data, the author summary (from a number of sources) reduces the LGBT population considerably. The paragraph can either remain "Gallup" focused and earlier state what everyone else concluded, or furnish the summary by itself without focusing unduly on the Gallup results. Student7 (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Student7 your edit introduced errors which I fixed in this dif, along with adding error margins. The comment in your edit note about "Gallup is very liberal" was unnecessary editorializing - please keep that kind of stuff out. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Relationship between homosexuality and pedo-philia

A strong link has been established between homosexuality and pedo-philia. See for example: 1. Cameron, P. Homosexual molestation of children: sexual interaction of teacher and pupil. Psychological Reports 1985;57:1227-1236. 2. Blanchard R, Barbaree HE, Bogaert AF, Dicky R, Klassen P, Kuban ME, Zucker KJ. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedo-philes. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000;29:463-478. 3. Sandfort TGM, Graaf R, Bijl RV, Schnabel P. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry 2001;58:85-91. 4. Cameron P, Cameron K, Playfair WL. Does homosexual activity shorten life? Psychological Reports 1998;83:847-866. 5. Freund K, Watson RJ. The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedo-philes among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 1992;18:34-43. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.40.2 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Cameron's work in this area has been discredited by the APA and others. See [32], [33] and Paul_Cameron#Criticism. I can't comment on the other sources at the moment.- MrX 21:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)