Talk:Biology and sexual orientation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biology and sexual orientation 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: 1, 2, 3, 4: 60 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Sexology and sexuality High‑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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biology Mid‑importance

	Biology portal Biology and sexual orientation is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studies

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

Psychology

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): C.ler2022 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bcruz-cisneros.

Undated Citation Needed tags[edit]

There are 3 undated Citation needed tags. One of them is from March 2007, so if someone more familiar can take a look and see whether they are still needed. Thanks Slywriter (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Orientation in Twins: Evidence That Human Sexual Identity May Be Determined Five Days Following Fertilization[edit]

PMCID: PMC10757681 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51346 The disparity in sexual identity in monozygous twins may relate to the time of splitting of the zygote– twins resulting from splitting on or before day 5 after fertilisation are free to develop their own sexual identity; twins splitting after day five have the same identity.

See: Sexual Orientation in Twins: Evidence That Human Sexual Identity May Be Determined Five Days Following Fertilization Narraburra (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bad paper, incorrect twin concordance, for example. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Hi CommonKnowledgeCreator, thanks for your contribution to the evolution section. However, Wikipedia generally relies on secondary sources. I think you've included excessive focus on the kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy hypotheses, mostly using primary source studies. It's great there is an overview of the history, but we only need to cite secondary sources on the general consensus on these models. Zenomonoz (talk) Zenomonoz (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than aware that Wikipedia generally relies on secondary sources. However, per WP:BMI, this is not a medical topic and one that appears (after a search of Google Scholar) to have few secondary sources that systematically review the subject (as most of the content does not appear to systematic reviews or meta-analyses), and WP:RS does not preclude primary sources and only states that secondary sources are preferred. As far as evolution and homosexuality are concerned, kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy are the two main evolutionary hypotheses for homosexuality, and there does not appear to be a consensus about whether either is true. The only review using Google Scholar that I found that discusses kin selection or antagonistic pleiotropy does still suggest that the latter is a plausible hypothesis. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced of this argument for including so much focus on primary source studies? Many studies have questionable effect sizes, which is why it's best to avoid them, especially on a topic as controversial as this. As for not being able to find reviews, they are better reviewed and criticized in text books.

"Kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy are the two main evolutionary hypotheses for homosexuality.. there does not appear to be a consensus about whether either is true" – they're both largely ruled out by GWAS, especially exclusive male homosexuality. There's still plausibility for antagonistic maintenance of the trait through other mechanisms such as this however.

I'm not saying they should not be covered, the Bailey review does indeed refer to both of them. I just think the coverage should be trimmed down, similar to the extent it is covered in that review.

Zenomonoz (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for not being able to find reviews, they are better reviewed and criticized in text books. ... I'm not saying they should not be covered, the Bailey review does indeed refer to both of them. Was not aware of the Bailey article is a review. What textbooks refer to them? I certainly agree that reviews would be better than the primary sources cited for the reasons that you've cited. Are there reviews of GWAS research that contradicts the kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy hypotheses? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]