LGBTQ+ studies Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

• This template was listed on templates for deletion, but there was no consensus to delete. See the log. (archive entry) Courtland 02:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand why how you get off is an acceptable definition of who you are as a human being. Really, does it matter?--Mijeff (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add gayelleNewAtThis (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add that. I saw the article on your page, and can tell you right now that it's not notable. For one, you cite urban dictionary. Bad source right there. Also, you cite a Neology.(see WP:NEO.)

Zoophilia is linked to directly on this template, beside paraphilia. Yet the paraphilia article includes mention of zoophilia as a paraphilia:

Under Paraphilia NOS, the DSM mentions.. zoophilia (animals)

Why does it receive this distinction when other paraphilias are not directly linked to? Shouldn't it be removed, or if not, the other prominent paraphilias also linked to directly? The implication here is that zoophilia, referenced as a paraphilia, is included within 'sexual orientation'. This is a contested idea, similar to pedophilia, another paraphilia, also being contested as being viewed as an orientation. To conclude positively on this association in regard to one paraphilia and not another is probably a bit of a bias in the presentation, even if an unintended one. Tyciol (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoophilia's involves animals, which paraphilia does not, generally, denounce. paraphilia is generally connected with objects, non-living.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your use of the word "denounce." This seems like a simple question of V: does DSM IV list zoophilia as a form of paraphilia, or doesn't it? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sexual orientations on this list end in sexuality rather than sexual. Is that right? For example, I would say a gay person had a homosexual orientation, not a homosexuality orientation. If I understand right, sexuality includes more than just a sexual orientation, but also sexual behavior. This causes problems when writing the different articles. For example, on the homosexuality page, the intro reads "Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation." Wouldn't it be clearer just to have pages and links to sexual orientations, not sexualities? Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, I purpose to list the various sexual orientations as heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual instead of a heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality orientation. If no one objects, I'll go ahead and make those changes. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here, either one works for me. --User0529 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ResolvedThese terms are scene as a vital part on the field of sexuality and orientation, personal dislike of these terms has no ground for the removal of these affiliated articles. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ResolvedSeparated terms into "hetero-homo continuum" and "no hetero-homo continuum", with footnotes. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template includes a number of unusual terms that only a few writers argue are "orientations" while most psychologists would class them as paraphilias, and the common-usage understanding of "orientation" refers only to gender of attraction. Since you've done this for some terms, it's also POV to exclude certain other paraphilias that their advocates argue are really "orientations." In general, the prominent place the template has in high-traffic articles like homosexuality gives undue weight to fringe ideas.

And it's completely silly to have the joke term "pomosexual" on there.

The fix I propose is to list only those orientations widely accepted as being orientations in common usage -- heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. A general link to sexual orientation and paraphilia can then direct readers to a discussion of various ways orientation is defined by various writers, and whether more unusual terms ought also to be considered under this category.

Dybryd (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on cleaning it up... though who knows how long before the zoosexuality people want to reclaim their status lol. I tightened up the formatting some and replaced the Homosexuality and transgender item (since it only related to homosexual orientation) with Third sex and Two-spirit (under the non-westernized concepts section) and Transgender under see also. --User0529 (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting, your case is not logical and based on personal opinion. Sexual orientation is a personal choice, not what some doctor says, you have no right to say what is a sexual orientation or not. I changed it from "Classifications" to "Sexual orientation identities" so all terms can fit snug in this category without any conflict.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia can meaningfully define anything according to personal choice -- we must use the published consensus. Dybryd (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the content is disputed, I think explicit sourcing may be a good idea. However, are references normally put in a template? It seems unsightly. Could they be added invisibly, commented out -- is that legit? Dybryd (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If what to call the first section is going to be that much of a debate, we could just remove the heading for it, or <!-- --> comment it out. (Personally I can see both sides of the debate, as it is an identity that a person self-identifies as, and it also is used as a classification that some people project onto others (example: List of LGBT people categorizing ancient peoples as homosexual or bisexual when such classifications did not exist before the 19th century CE) User0529 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Template:Sexual identities which is quite good, and more like the all-inclusive list that Cooljuno411 seems to be looking for.

Whether to define a given form of sex as an "orientation" is a highly contentious question in some cases, one that advocates on each side have strong contrary opinions about. That being the case, it's still more important to stick close to academic consensus to avoid "taking a side" in these debates.

However, it's true that I gave no source for reducing the list of orientations to the "big three" and there really ought to be one, given that the question is controversial. But as I said -- I don't know how to give sources in a template. Any advice on this?

Dybryd (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, methinks it might be overkill to put citations in a navigation template though. You could <!-- include a hidden citation for future editors to discourage additions--> maybe. ?? I think asexual has place in the list, but the others (zoosexuality, autosexuality) seem more questionable User0529 (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our own opinions about what has a place shouldn't matter. However, I've read a bit about asexuality, and many people who identify as asexual also identify as gay, straight, or bi -- they just seek purely affectionate rather than sexual relationships with the gender(s) they desire. Others may consider it an orientation -- I haven't read enough to know. But, again, it's academic consensus we have to go by.

I asked about this at the Help desk, and the reply was that sourcing for templates is usually just done by referring to the sources of the articles included in the template, rather than being explicitly included in the template in any way.

Dybryd (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and Citations can go on the talk page, but do not belong in the template. What is the main audience for this template? Trying to make a template fot for all things will cause problems. Is it for science, biology and includes other animals than humans? Or is it primarily for human anthropology, sexuality or sociology? The list has included asexuality for some time without issues, why is there an impetus to change that now? On the other hand, pomosexuality doesn;t seem to have any support for inclusion beyound the person who put it there. If you asked the average girl on the street, she would probably list homsexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality. I would bet not one in a hundred would list zoosexuality, autosexuality or pomosexuality as a sexual orientation. Probably only some small percentage would list asexuality. Why not consider making the list realistic and pragmatic, rather than inclusive of all terms that could possibly be considered as a form of sexual orientation. I suggest keeping it simple with the big three, and possibly asexuality. Atom (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article asexuality says it is "considered by some to be an orientation" and gives a link to a magazine article which describes the personal feeling of some asexuals that asexuality is their orientation. No more academic background is given.

I won't kick and scream if the consensus is to include it, but I'd really like to find a neutral, authoritative list. There are many forms of sex that their advocates like to describe as an "orientation" as a politically legitimizing strategy.

Dybryd (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The big three (with or without Asexuality) would seem to be neutral for me. I think asexuality has more place in the template than the other non-big-3-classifications (such as auto- and zoo-), but like Dybryd, I won't kick or scream over its inclusion (or lack thereof). User0529 (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've removed paraphilia. I'm actually the one who inserted that -- I did it because for many of these specific cases of unusual forms of sex that some want to call orientations (like zoosexuality), others want to call them paraphilias. Basically, an ideological conflict between the wish to legitimize and the wish to pathologize. So I think paraphilia is perfect to go under "alternative concepts" because it's a different way of conceptualizing some of the same things. Dybryd (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do think asexuality should be included. I'm not sure it's a good idea to have removed the template from all the pages, esp. the "big three", while discuss this. Aleta ^Sing 19:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did so hoping it would draw the editors of the relevant articles to the discussion. And, in general, I'm strongly in favor of getting disputed content out of article space until the dispute is resolved. Better to be temporarily skimpy on content than to have mistakes or bias turning up in the search results of folks innocently doing research. Dybryd (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Paraphilia back into See also: under the orientations. I agree w/ your reasoning, just was trying to thin out the miscelaneous some. Problem with putting paraphilia with the other alt concepts is they are all gender-based constructs (Non-westernized male.. refers to male sexuality within gender-based societies of the non-west, Third sex is what transgender and effeminate (female-gendered) homosexuals are called in some places like India, etc) User0529 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

readded pomosexual to "see also", hello it is a RELATED TOPIC, hence in the SEE ALSO--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it comes down to verifiablity. Zoosexuality, autosexuality, and paraphiliac identities would be wholly appropriate on a template for sexual identities (ie. Template:Sexual identities), but I don't think there are any reputable sources citing an "is a" relationship between zoosexuality and sexual orientation. Likewise, I think a "see also: paraphilia" is inappropriate. This suggests a linkage with sexual orientation that is both inaccurate and unverifiable. Queerudite (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about being unverifiable or anything to do with that, this is about "orientation identities", whether or not it is a mental paraphilia or not, it is an identifiable sexual orientation that one classifies themselves as. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooljuno, it sounds like your argument is essentially that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation because zoosexuals themselves identify zoosexuality as a sexual orientation. I don't dispute the validity of that argument, I dispute the verifiability of that argument. Are there any reputable sources stating that zoosexuals commonly identify themselves as having a sexual orientation of "zoosexual"? If there aren't verifiable sources, then it should be removed as per WP:Verify. Queerudite (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queerudite, are you in favor of expanding the template to a list of all forms of sex which some people self-identify as their "orientation"? I think that would be awful (NPOV, UNDUE, etc.), but if it were done it would have to be done comprehensively, not just with the couple of terms that were in the template in its previous form). Dybryd (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(As I mentioned above, the criteria of self-identification for inclusion seems more appropriate for the existing template Template:Sexual identities, which already has a much longer list). Dybryd (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting, there is lovely references and great detail on the Zoosexuality article, feel free to take a look at that for info and references.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, that's interesting. I didn't realize there has been a research study supporting zoosexuality as an orientation. I was surprised too that there doesn't appear to be any academic resistance to the application of the term to zoosexuals (in contrast, to say, the resistance to deeming pedophilia as a sexual orientation). I am still a little concerned that (1) Zoosexuality and autosexuality don't fall under the commonplace understanding of "sexual orientation". That is, "sexual orientation" is generally understood to mean a gender preference as opposed to an animal/human preference. (2) That the sexual orientation template is going become a duplication of Template:Paraphilia, except with homo/hetero/bi/etc-sexuality added. I agree with Dybryd that such a "comprehensive" approach would be excessive. What do other people think? Queerudite (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just 3rd-opinioning here... paraphilia generally refers to some sexual behavior that is (considered to be) destructive to the self or others. Zoophilia is not destructive in the same sense as something like pedophilia, and so I can see why it would be seen as an identity and not necessarily a paraphilia. however, I don't think zoophilia counts as an orientation for the simple reason that (as an identity) it doesn't tell whether a zoophile is attracted to male or female animals (or both...). thus there could be 'gay' zoophiles, 'straight' zoophiles, 'bi' zoophiles... Orientation is too deeply connected to the same-gender/other-gender distinction. IMO, the template should include the following: Bisexual, Heterosexual, Homosexual, maybe Pansexual (to the extent that it's different from bisexuality), but not Asexual, Autosexual or Zoosexual (which are sexual behaviors or identities more than orientations), or Pomosexual (which is an intellectualization of bi- or pansexuality, not a separate orientation). --Ludwigs2 20:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What input there has been on this has generally supported the changes I originally made. I'm going to remake those parts of the changes that have received support. Although not that many have commented, consensus among those who have about removal of the neologisms seems pretty clear -- except from Cooljuno411.

I'm hoping that rather than simple reversion, he'll make an effort to get his point of view across on the talk page first.

Dybryd (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted, opinions are great but we can't let them get in the way of orderly and informational process, regardless of your opinion on paraphilia or pomosexuality, they are a vital and related topics to sexuality. And the neologism argument for removal is being used incorrectly, the term [paraphilia]] and pomosexuality are well document and written on subjects. Using this incorrect neologism argument would be just the same as arguing the deletion of an article of a newly discovered disease with the same bases of the name being a new term. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooljuno - while these topics are certainly "vital and related topics to sexuality" they are not vital and related to sexual orientation. let me try a compromise edit, though... --Ludwigs2 16:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like compromise edit , rearranged into a more organized fashion.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

errr... so liking compromise edit means revert to your preferred version, except for one word? Cooljuno, if you want to be hard-core, at least don't be disingenuous about it. I'm going to revert back now (just to make the point), and then we can discuss the matter properly. or you can revert again and try to turn it into an edit war; your choice. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your organization is all off, you basically through many terms that are organizable into an "other" category. You made a "compromise", aka an edit you did without input from others and slapped a "compromise" on it, well i took the terms you used from your "compromise" and organized it into something better then an "other" category. I feel that you have a bias towards such terms as "pomosexual" and "zoosexual" and you have a motive to not place your preferred traditional labels, like heterosexual or homosexual, together with these "other" sexual orientation identities. And i would love to hear why these sexual orientation identities deserve not to be in the same category, cause the only thing i really noticed was this whole "neologism" thing, not a reason why it should be separated, so before YOU go making edits without consulting or to make a "comprise", consider using the talk page. Now until you actually make a reasonable argument why these terms can't be in the same category, i am reverting back. Sorry to break it to you, but it's the 21st century, times are changing.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooljuno - I'm sorry, but you keep confusing sexual orientation with sexual identity. the conventional definitions of these terms mark orientation as a same-gender/different-gender issue. sexual identity is a different term having to do with self-perception around sexual issues. creating a new category called 'sexual orientation identities' is an interesting move, and not one I would necessarily object to, but it's original research since that category doesn't (to my knowledge) exist anywhere in the extensive academic literature on the topic. give some citations that show that term being used, and we can talk further, otherwise we need to stay within the categories handed us.

[1], bellow i mention the possibility of "sexual preference and orientation" as well.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunatley, it seems clear to me from this article that Mohr and Fassbinger are not creating a new term 'sexual orientation identity', but rather examining the collective sexual identity of couples. orientation comes in as one of the factors of compatbility. I suspect the article was originally titled 'Sexual Orientation, Identity, and Romantic Relationship Quality in Same-Sex Couples' but that the commas got dropped in press. do you have any more evidence that this is a real term in the field of research? and what precisely does the term stand for (separate from sexual identity and sexual orientation)? --Ludwigs2 05:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said we can use other terms. But i don't know why your the one putting me on the spot, you are the one changing the context of the template, not me. And you have yet to give me a reason why pomosexual and zoosexuality are separate from heterosexual. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC). NOPE, never mind, read the sexual orientation article, it says "Sexual orientation refers to "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, OR affectional attraction toward others."" Does that say only human partners, no, does it say it has to be a sexual attraction, no. You grouped all these "other sexual identity" into an exclusively sexual context, well sorry they are just like any other sexual orientations that include "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectionate attraction toward others". I am reverting back, you have not proved why your new addition should be kept, do not revert until you can prove your point of why they should be separate.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooljuno411 - you're edit-warring; stop it. there is a reasonable consensus for the other version - you need to convince us by talking about it, not by constantly imposing your version on the page.

wikipedia is not a valid secondary source (see wp:PRIMARY), and so it can not be used for establishing new terminology. even if we accepted the sexual orientation page, however, please note that it also says "The most common forms exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex) to exclusive homosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the same sex) and includes various forms of bisexuality (being sexually attracted to members of either sex)." note that that's a gender preference dimension, nothing more. why are you so insistant on pushing the limits on this template? --Ludwigs2 19:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Your the one imposing your edit, an you are the one changing a status quo, and YOU have not provided evidence these terms aren't orientation. And maybe you need to look up a word in the dictionary... because i don't see anywhere in your definition '"The most common forms exists along a continuum ...." i don't see a requirement for a male or female attraction. (2) And if you don't like the word "sexual orientation identities", i will drop the word "identity". And like i said, you have yet to prove a point, i have. I have given you definitions of sexual orientation, i have given you reasons why they are sexual orientations and the you keep arguing about this word "identity".... ok fine, i'll drop "identity", but you have yet to prove to me why these terms aren't "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, OR affectional attraction toward others.", aka, a sexual orientation.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC) I separated the terms into "hetero-homo continuum" and "non hetero-homo continuum" to help distinguish them.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooljuno - I keep restoring the edit that a number of different editors here prefer. so far as I can tell, you are the only editor pushing the inclusion of these other elements as orientations. it that's incorrect, would another editor please help Juno out here?

with respect to your "you have yet to prove to me why these terms aren't "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, OR affectional attraction toward others", aka, a sexual orientation. - I didn't say anything about these not being enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others; I said that this is not the normal, established, cultural or academic understanding of 'sexual orientation'. please see the APA's understanding of sexual orientation, which deals only with the (in-species) continuum from homosexual to heterosexual. there are plenty of places on wikipedia for you to advocate for different sexual identities while staying within Wikipedia policy - however, trying to change the established meaning of 'sexual orientation' is original research, and just doesn't belong on this page.

I've left a warning on your talk page about edit-warring. --Ludwigs2 20:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize this is important to you, but please keep in mind that wikipedia can't go off into uncharted territory. --Ludwigs2 19:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well good think we aren't, these terms weren't published by a 13 year old after school one day, people who specialize in these fields wrote about it, try looking at the articles if you need more information.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think an RFC is the appropriate next step. I can't help but notice that Cooljuno411 has been blocked for revert-warring on this template before.

Dybryd (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if that's what you choose - this isn't really my page. hopefully he'll be willing to discuss the matter fairly though. --Ludwigs2 18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support the use of the word "continuum" in the template. The idea that sexual orientation is a continuum is a particular POV, one with notable supporters, but also detractors. I don't think it's appropriate for the template to take a side on this question.

Dybryd (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The most common forms exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex) to exclusive homosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the same sex) and includes various forms of bisexuality (being sexually attracted to members of either sex).", that is a quote from the sexual orientation article, it as well has a reference on the page, feel free to look at it. When i added the this term, i want to add a small side note saying something like "continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality" but would look unattractive on the template, maybe you can try fitting it in, in a way that looks good.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. It's as much a problem to have this POV directly endorsed in the article as in the template. Dybryd (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

continuum [2]: a set of elements such that between any two of them there is a third element. Hetero and homo are the two sets elements with bisexual as the third inbetween, don't see the issue, correlates directly with the definition. Please tell what you recommend as a alternative.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC) As well, if you search Continuum, anything that goes through a gradual transition from one condition, to a different condition, without any abrupt changes....--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a footnote that gives the definition of the hetero-homo continuum.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RFCsoc

There has been disagreement on whether the terms "zoosexuality" , "autosexuality" and "pomosexuality" should be listed on the template as sexual orientations.

Previous discussion is in the section Template_talk:Sexual_orientation#template_POV_problems above.

Input is also welcome on improving the template in general.

Dybryd (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend we group them together under "sexual preference and orientation", if you don't have a problem with this, i wil go ahead and change it. But i am still waiting for the reason you made that "other" category, you have nost justified that edit, which you called a "compromise" without getting anyones input.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of "zoosexuality" makes my head want to split apart. There are significant political impacts to equating zoophilia with other sexual orientations. I have an apparent lack of opinion about autosexuality (which sounds more like narcissistic personality disorder) or pomosexuality. --Moni3 (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. What do you think the standard for inclusion ought to be? Some possibilities include:

1. some people self-identify this as an orientation (asexuality)
2. an academic paper has argued that this is an orientation (zoosexuality)
3. it is a focus of the main sexual orientation article (hetero-, homo-, bi-)
4. it is listed as an orientation in a mainstream, authoritative work such as an APA publication (I don't know that anyone has found such a thing, though I would like to)
5. is is an attraction between sentient and consenting human adults (Moni3's suggestion)
6. it is experienced as an inescapable attraction (Dev920's suggestion)
7. ...?

Dybryd (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read what there was in the zoosexuality article. The article isn't in too good a shape, so I can't say if that's the total of what has given cause for it to be included with heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, but if the APA still considers it a relatively harmless neurosis, then no. It is not on par with these other widely accepted sexual orientations. I think we need to focus on sexual orientations that include attractions between sentient and consenting human adults. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not include autosexual, because I can't see it as an orientation, which to me implies outward attractions. Zoosexual yes, I have read a significant amount of zoophile testimony and they do seem inescapably attracted to animals, so it does seem to me a valid orientation. Pomosexual I would not include because it's a label for people...who...reject ...labels...and my brain hurts. It's a political term which fails to describe anyone's orientation at all, only their attitude towards having it described. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Would you argue for a general standard of inclusion that says "If it's an inescapable attraction, then it's an orientation"? Could we dig up a source for this standard? Dybryd (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pomosexual is in itself a sexual orientation, defined as an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectionate attraction toward others[2], but refuses to classify ones self with sexual orientation rules, identities, and labels.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps, you opened a request for comments. I have made a comment. No need to be coming at me from both sides, I'm just putting forward my immediate reaction to the question put forth. Yes, I would say your summary, Dybryd, is accurate, but it's just a rule of thumb. Your argument Cooljuno that pomosexual is a valid sexual orientation because pomosexuals are attracted to...something... doesn't really hold up unless that something is defined. Otherwise its not an orientation, it's a label for people who don't want to use them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come across as brusque. But -- since the question has become controversial, I think we really need criteria we can source. Dybryd (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pomosexuality's a political activist statement, not an actual orientation; reality is that's like calling yourself a martian but being born in The Bronx. You can say whatever you want, but you are a New Yorker. That one definitely has no place in a template about sexual orientations. Zoosexuality's a POV push in and of itself by people seeking to validate banging sheep, and a 'paraphilia', and Autosexuality sounds like excess Narcissism, listed as a mental disease in the DSM-IV, and thus another 'paraphilia'. As such, none of them ought to be listed in the main template for Sexual orientation, but can be found by reading up on the main links. ThuranX (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no such thing as a pesron who does't calssify their sexual motive.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a person, but they have a sexual motive. Therefore they have a label that can be applied. Refusing to apply one is a political statement, not an orientation. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the terms "zoosexuality" , "autosexuality" and "pomosexuality" should not be listed on the template as sexual orientations. Let's not be ridiculous, please. Certain followers of these "orientations" may be flattered to have them listed, but that is definitely not a good reason for doing so. Conventional usage is to restrict sexual orientation to hetero/homo/and bisexuality, and it's best to stick with it. Skoojal (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did even say why, you just said no.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said that it was ridiculous. That's a good enough reason. Aside from that, it has no basis in science. The 'non hetero-homo continuum' part should be removed from the template. Skoojal (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We removing something because you think it's silly is against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And feel free to read up on continuum, [3].--Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only relevant question is whether 'Zoophilia' and so forth are recognized as sexual orientations by scientists. And the answer is no, they are not (or at least no one has presented evidence to show that they are). Thus this content does not belong in the template. Skoojal (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read the zoosexuality article, it appears that a reasonable volume of literature has been produced which references the term. You know, everyone needs to read this article, everyone who does seems to be learning a lot of new things from it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article is pretty good -- in some ways it does a better job of defining sexual orientation than sexual orientation. However, "used by scientists" is not the same as being in consensus scientific usage -- there are many debates within psychology on precisely this question, which have partisans on both sides. Although I don't want to exclude anything out of hand, it's also not NPOV to blindly list every scientist's perspective as if being published in a journal made it authoritative consensus -- scientific journals are often the scene of heated debate!

Dybryd (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Apologies for being overburdened enough not to be able to invest time in this but... please, please, please can we clean up the use of references and other html mark-up? I'm trying to save non-heterosexuals and it's adding this weird reference with its own wiktionary definition link and formatting. I feel that should go n the most logical article instead of every article the template is used on. I suppose an alternative would be to just remove the template from the article but that's a less-than ideal solution. Banjeboi 10:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to leave the second group in, I would like to propose moving "pansexuality" to the top group, as it deals with gender, like homo-/bi-/heterosexuality. --Alynna (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think there are two issues here. First, sexual orientation is not necessarily the same thing as sexual identity. Sexual orientation is specifically in reference to an object (which could be a living being); sexual identities may and perhaps typically are based on sexual orientation (that is certainly what a Freudian would claim) but this need not be the case. The second issue is ompliance with our verifiability policy. There may be individuals who experience their bodies as uniquely their own. But language is not - it is social, and the meanings of words depend on how they are used. We all know dictionaries are generally unhelpful when talking about topics that are matters of a great deal of academic research (such research generally shows complexities that dictionaries are unconcerned with). My only problem with the template is that it may give too much weight to DSM-IV. I do consider this a reliable source. But it is not the only one, since anthropologists and sociologists as well as historians have studied sexual orientation as well. Work by these other scholars would also constitute reliable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think that just having hetero, homo, and bisexual is not enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it exist to inform people of things that they don't know already. Hetero homo and bi are well known. Zoosexual, autosexual, etc are orientations just like the others. For that reason we should include all the possible orientations one can have. I think that the articles on androphilia and gynephilia should be included for completeness (many transwomen and transmen prefere that their orientations be refered to in that way. Don't belive me look at the articles linked to homosexual transsexual.) I also think that including citations in a template is a little much. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because there isn't enough science to know what the most valid definition should be, multiple reasonable ones have emerged, with no way to distinguish among them. There are reasonable definitions of "sexual orientation" that are restricted to erotic interest in male versus female (i.e., the sex in "sexual orientation" refers to which sex you are into); and there are reasonable definitions of "sexual orientation" that are broad (i.e., the sex in "sexual orientation" refers to how and with whom you like to have sex). They refer to different senses of the word sex. In the former and far more common use, zoophilia, autosexuality, and pomosexuality are out. In the latter, zoophilia and autosexuality (and the other paraphilias) would be in.

As for "pomosexuality," I am aware of no evidence to suggest that it is a valid reflection of sexual interest at all and not merely a reflection of one's sociopolitical oppositional defiance.

Let me suggest that the template use a dictionary-like format that acknowledges the frequency of the various uses. For example, it might read: Most common use (heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual); Less common use or technical (paraphilia, androphilia, gynephilia, asexual); Controversial (pomosexual, pansexual)

Using "levels" in the headings allows the broadening that Hfarmer (correctly, IMO) sought, without putting undue weight on the fringe or debatable ones, which folks don't appear to want to have on the same "level." Using "paraphilia" captures the full range of sexual interests without having to choose among zoophilia, autosexuality, and the other many paraphilias. (In fact, it might be a good idea to include list of paraphilias as a link; I've been working on it on-and-off lately.)

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, James, that's exactly why I added paraphilia to the template as part of my original changes. Although many paraphilias are asserted to be orientations by their advocates, there are simply so many that it would be very unwieldy to list them all (and how unfair to the necrophiles if we include zoophilia while excluding them!)

I think a link to list of paraphilias is a much better choice than picking one or two paraphilias to arbitrarily "promote" as orientations.

Dybryd (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"hetero-homo continuum"? This is awkward and unencyclopedic - not sure how it should be fixed but is it even needed to have a hetero-homo section and a non-hetero-homo section? Seems pointy to me. Banjeboi 14:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for this? Kinsey? It is my sense that most scholars today do not classify sexual orientation in terms of a bi-polar continuum. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, that's a fairly common usage in gender studies - note that the APA link I gave above (here it is again) uses almost exactly that language. it's just the extension outside of human sexuality that is novel (unprecedented is maybe a better word).

Okay, as long as you have a verifiable reliable source. Fine by me. Still, I suspect researchers in other fields have different approaches. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no question, and I wouldn't mind seeing that discussed on an article page - but this is a template, for heaven's sake.  :-) --Ludwigs2 21:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]