Talk:Sexual fluidity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Evolutionary explanations

Although this article discusses some potential innate/biological (as well as socio-cultural) determinants of sexual fluidity (e.g. in the "Essentialism" section), it could be improved by including information on sexual fluidity from an evolutionary perspective.

Evolutionary theories on the origins of findings such as gender differences in sexual fluidity could be added to create a wider coverage of the topic.

For instance, the "Alloparenting Hypothesis" postulates that the capacity for sexual fluidity may have been particularly adaptive for women in the past, as it would have allowed women to form bonds with female "alloparents". According to the theory, these same-sex bonds would provide additional resources to help ensure that a woman's offspring survived to reproductive age, which may have been particularly helpful in situations where the father of a female's offspring would be unable to provide resources (e.g. in the case of the father's death).

OR95 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC) OR95 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

OR95, I added a heading for your above material, a signature for your first post, and tweaked the reflist aspect. When it comes to adding theories, I always keep WP:Fringe theories in mind. WP:Primary sources and WP:Due weight too. I'm not sure about adding your content, but I suppose it would be okay to add a little bit on it, especially since there is a lack of consensus regarding a number of things concerning the topic of sexual fluidity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, thank you for adding to my post and for the helpful advice. To clarify, I did not intend to give undue weight to a fringe theory, and will ensure to keep all the above points in mind when adding theories. Nonetheless, more coverage of evolutionary standpoints on sexual fluidity could be helpful. The above-mentioned hypothesis is by no means the only evolutionary account of this topic, but merely a suggestion of a starting point for including more input from evolutionary theory. Again, thank you for your helpful comments, I will definitely keep those points in mind.OR95 (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

______

WP:Class assignment

Hello, Charleywoltynski (talk · contribs). What you added has nothing to do with bisexuality as a transitional phase; so I removed your content. It concerns evolutionary views, which are discussed above. With the way the article currently is, your addition would fit better at the bottom of the "Males versus females" section. So feel free to add it there. You also signed your usermame, but usernames should not be signed in Wikipedia articles. Ahhthewitch (talk · contribs), what you added is fine, though it would fit better in the Sexual identity article. You also signed your username; as the edit link in this paragraph shows, I removed that.

I see that you have both edited this article as part of a WP:Class assignment, and seem to be from the same class as the editor I talked to above. It is often important for student editors to discuss such plans with more experienced Wikipedia editors to ensure that the edits are in compliance with WP:Policies or guidelines. This is for reasons noted at WP:Class assignment. For example, your class should be mindful of the WP:Primary sources policy, and that it is easy to go overboard with primary sources. Simply adding study after study, especially primary studies, is not a good way to build an encyclopedia. Do read that policy. Also read WP:Fringe. Those are important rules for these articles. In my opinion, before adding content to the article, it would be best that you and/or your class post proposed additions to be evaluated, either in your sandbox (with a link on the article talk page to that sandbox) and/or directly to the article talk page. If not, you are likely to be reverted if the edits are amiss. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Weirdness

How come this edit above appeared on my notifications? I wasn't mentioned...weird. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Me too. I think it's a glitch. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: Mine also. That's not the weirdest part. Look at this revision of this page, coincident with Charleywoltynski's first edit. There are multiple sections there that are not present in the current edition, but there is no record in the article's history of them being removed. Think there are database/concurrency issues at WMF. General Ization ^Talk 22:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

And now they're not there. General Ization ^Talk 22:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I know what happened. Flyer22's Talk page was transcluded here with this edit. We have all posted on Flyer22's Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 22:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

How on earth did that happen? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Charleywoltynski typed {{User talk:Flyer22}} when they meant to type {{U|Flyer22}} or {{re|Flyer22}} or one of its variants. General Ization ^Talk 22:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Though the user they were talking to was actually Flyer22 Reborn. General Ization ^Talk 22:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I got the same thing. Interesting bug! Or is it a feature?  :) Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Me as well! Nifty. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus

hatting long discussion that got no where Jytdog (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The opening paragraph currently reads "Scientific consensus is that sexual orientation, unlike sexual orientation identity, is not a choice, as there has been no strong evidence to validate it as a lifestyle choice". It should be noted that claims of scientific consensus are not to be taken lightly and should be strongly sourced. Based on WP:RS/AC, "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources". This claim is based on three sources. One, from newscientist.com. makes no mention of consensus and specifically acknowledges that the discussion is still ongoing. This source does not seem to support this claim. The AAP source states "The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual." This does support that most scholars agree however another statement from the APA states explicitly "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.". Another source Law's Dream of Common Knowledge also quotes "".. 'what determines sexual orientation?' No consensus exists about the answer to this latter question..." Does anybody have access to the third, offline source cited here in order to find the quote being used to support consensus? It's possible this statement needs to be softened to reflect current academic standing. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC) I take it that you are here because of the ping malfunction mentioned above? Either way, I reverted you because scientific consensus is indeed that sexual orientation is not a choice. The APA directly supports that matter, and, in addition to other sources, I will be adding it as a source like we do for other articles about sexual orientation. The APA does not contradict itself by stating, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation." The matter of choice and the matter of how sexual orientation develops are distinct topics. Do not confuse sexual orientation with sexual orientation identity. Like the APA states, "Sexual orientation identity—not sexual orientation—appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events." And in cases like these, we go by authoritative sources, and WP:Due weight, not the lone opinion of an author or a few authors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC) The sources are solid. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks, Jytdog, for this and this. I'll see about adding other sources for that aspect, though. As for that primary source about the twins, I took it from the Environment and sexual orientation article, and added it here to cover the "no strong evidence to validate it as a lifestyle choice" aspect (the news version of the source covered that portion). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC) I was indeed brought here by the above ping. I appreciate the attempts to clean up the sources, but I am curious in what way you feel this is an issue of due weight or lone opinion. Surely a statement by the APA is not my or anybody's lone opinion, but the position of an authoritative source. But I see the distinction being made, however I would caution that we not confuse a source which supports the position as being a source which supports the consensus. We must also not to confuse sources which show a lack of consensus for "choice" as being sources which support consensus for "non-choice". The latest source appears to be the latter. For clarification, I will add the APA statement in the preceding sentence so the distinction is known. On an unrelated note, I'm actually of the opinion that the "... as there has been no strong evidence to validate it as a lifestyle choice" clause actually might draw weight away from the consensus as it seems to imply that a lack of evidence is the primary factor in the consensus, when in reality a number of positive factors were found to support that. However, that's only my thoughts and I'll leave that to others to decide. Scoundr3l (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your thoughts, Scoundr3l! Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC) I did not indicate that the APA is not authoritative; I was specifically noting that it is authoritative, and that it is clear that sexual orientation is not a choice. By "in cases like these, we go by authoritative sources, and WP:Due weight, not the lone opinion of an author or a few authors," I meant exactly what I stated. The vast majority of the literature on sexual orientation is clear that the evidence points to sexual orientation not being a choice; there is no solid evidence that supports it being a choice. We should go by what authoritative sources state and what the preponderance of the literature states. You cited an author above, and I noted that a lone author's commentary is not enough. If we are looking to add sources that specifically state "all or most scientists or scholars," per WP:RS/AC, the Pediatrics source, in its ETIOLOGY AND PREVALENCE section, clearly states, "The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual." More than enough sources state similarly, such as this 2012 Delivering Culturally Competent Nursing Care source, from Springer Publishing, page 169, which relays, "Most health and mental health organizations do not view sexual orientation as a 'choice.'" So there's that, the APA stating "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation" and other times flat-out stating that sexual orientation is not choice (as they did in 1998 and in 2010), and there is the Royal College of Psychiatrists stating, "It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is." This 2013 Social Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies: A Reader source, from Routledge, page 81, echoes what I stated above about the matter of choice and the matter of how sexual orientation develops being distinct topics; it states, "While there is not consensus in the social sciences upon how one's sexual orientation is determined, it does not appear likely that one's sexuality is chosen - despite the current use of terms such as 'alternative lifestyles,' which suggest a choice in this matter." So, yes, researchers still debate what causes sexual orientation, although most of them believe that it is determined by a complex interplay of biological and social factors, but they are generally in agreement on sexual orientation not being a choice. Sexual orientation and sexual identity are also commonly confused, including by researchers, which impacts accurately assessing sexual orientation; this 2016 Sociology: The Essentials addresses source, from Cengage Learning, page 303, addresses that confusion; it states, "Although sometimes used interchangeably, sexual orientation and sexual identity are not the same thing." So do other sources. I'm not sure what you mean by "For clarification, I will add the APA statement in the preceding sentence so the distinction is known." But I don't see it as needed, given my arguments in this post. I'm also not sure what you mean by the "as there has been no strong evidence to validate it as a lifestyle choice" aspect, but that is a part of the debate regarding sexual orientation, as in whether or not sexual orientation is biological or a lifestyle choice. Like I just noted, scientists these days generally believe that it's not nature vs. nurture, but is both. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Yes, it wasn't an issue of not knowing what the individual words in the sentence meant, only how they related to the conversation. Due weight has nothing to do with the present issue, nor was anybody stating an opinion, nor was anybody not using authoritative sources. The quoted author was stating that there is no consensus on the cause of sexual orientation, which is also the stance of the APA and, by all measures of verifiability, a fact. The distinction, of course, is that we're attempting to show that there -is- a consensus that it is not a choice, which has been made. Citing evidence that supports sexual orientation not being a choice, though, is not the same as citing evidence that there is a consensus, which is what a number of the sources are doing. The RCPsych article, for example, does not directly support consensus, nor does the Routledge source. The Pediactrics source, as stated earlier, does support the position, and I hope you'll also add the nursing book. As for the APA statement, I meant that I'm adding it to the preceding sentence so that the distinction is known to the reader. Regarding the last sentence, I was stating that I think the sentence looks and sounds stronger without that clause as the subordinate conjunction seems to takes weight away from the initial statement. Scoundr3l (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC) If the vast majority of the literature on sexual orientation is clear that the evidence points to sexual orientation not being a choice, and there is no solid evidence that supports it being a choice, with authoritative sources also stating that sexual orientation is not a choice, that is scientific consensus that sexual orientation is not a choice. And that is why I noted WP:Due weight, which is clear about going by what the preponderance of reliable sources state on a matter. You make it seem like we need sources that directly state "scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice," and I disagree since the preponderance of reliable sources (disregarding the cultural debates, such as religious views and all that) are clear on the matter of sexual orientation not being a choice, or rarely being a choice if at all possible to choose (that is, when they are not confusing sexual orientation with sexual identity); so, yes, I think such an argument is an unnecessary semantics issue. But going by the arguments we've have had at Talk:Campus sexual assault, and now here, we clearly have different approaches to relaying the literature on a matter. When I see that the literature overwhelmingly supports a matter, I see that as a consensus in the literature, and I follow the WP:Due weight policy on that here at Wikipedia. In the case of this topic, scientist after scientist states that sexual orientation is not a choice; I do not know of a credible scientist in this field who states that sexual orientation is a choice (unless he or she is using the term sexual orientation to mean sexual orientation identity). But no matter what I think about the difference regarding our approaches, there are clearly reliable scholarly sources that state "scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice" or something similar. And I clearly noted that I cited the Routledge source because it supports what I stated to you about separating sexual orientation development from the topic of sexual orientation being a choice. As for the lead, per the WP:Citation overkill essay, I don't see that I need to add another source for the choice statement, unless the third source does not support the statement in any way. As for what you added to the lead, I don't believe that it's needed; the lead is meant to summarize the article, and this article, unless some sources are including sexual identity in the "sexual orientation" category, is not about what causes sexual orientation (but rather about changes in sexuality and sexual identity, and what might contribute to that), and the causes aspect is already addressed in the lead and body of the Sexual orientation article, the Biology and sexual orientation article, the Environment and sexual orientation article, and the Homosexuality article. The exception is that (other than the Environment and sexual orientation article, which is directly quoting the American Psychological Association and is being noted alongside the Royal College of Psychiatrists) we don't state "According to the American Psychological Association" since it's well-known in literature that there is no consensus about the exact cause of developing a sexual orientation. Furthermore, in those other articles, we note that, despite this, scientists think that nature and nurture – a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences – factor into the cause of sexual orientation. And so now I'm tempted to add that to the lead of this article because you left the matter at "there is no consensus about the exact cause of developing a sexual orientation, although many factors such genetic, hormonal, cultural influences have been examined." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC) I didn't think we were arguing here (at least not yet, which is impressive) Hopefully you could see my point as I can see yours. And I think we both know what consensus is, but there is naturally a difference between you and I collecting the literature and a reliable source collecting an analyzing the literature. So we can't just find 3, 10, or even 50 sources that support something and call it consensus, we have to find a reliable source that demonstrates there is consensus otherwise it's OR. You are, of course, welcome to modify my added sentence if you like. I attributed the sentence because I feel it's good practice to do so. Consensus can change, but attributed statements will always be attributable. But if I left anything out, it was only in haste. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Well, we were arguing about presenting consensus; this is the second time we've debated that. I understand your point in the case of this latest disagreement between us, but I obviously don't fully agree with it; I noted why above: The research in this area is clear that the consensus among scientists is that sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientific consensus literally means general agreement in the scientific community. Either way, I didn't engage in WP:Synthesis when I added the material, since the first source directly supported the sentence (and still does since it's still used as the first source), and the "Garcia-Falgueras, Alicia; Swaab, Dick F (2010)" source apparently does as well (I need to check that one since I remember what some sources state better than what other sources state), and since the twin source was meant to support the "there has been no strong evidence to validate it as a lifestyle choice" part of the sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC) i am seeking clarification here. Scoundr3l, above i had the sense that you were not seeking changes to the content of the article anymore. Are you, or are you not? If not, we can let this go. Please do clarify. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC) You are correct. I added content, but I am fine with the above quoted sentence. Flyer22 and I are apparently just clarifying a few things. Personally, I think when the APA and other sources say there is no consensus, they mean there is no consensus. I think if they meant there was no consensus except on one aspect, they would have said so rather than saying, in no uncertain terms, that there is no consensus. Pediatrics' remark about most scholars seems offhand to me and was likely not meant to be interpreted as a position on consensus. Nonetheless it's verifiable and there's enough ambiguity in the wording that both sources can be simultaneously correct, so it's good enough for me. I still think, in the interest of improving the article, someone should try to verify the offline source and remove the unrelated source. It's only citation overkill if all the sources are saying the same thing. Additional sources directly supporting consensus would be appreciated if they can be found. The nursing textbook, while supportive, is likely tertiary. Otherwise the current state: not perfect, but acceptable. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC) OK. In general, if folks are able agree that the content is good enough, I suggest it is best to move on and work on other stuff. I've seen discussions like this become kind of forum-y and in the course of that discussion, agreement on the content that was reached gets lost, and editors get pulled back into conflict again. The two of you are of course free to do as you will. Just my suggestion.... Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Scoundr3l, you stated, "I think when the APA and other sources say there is no consensus, they mean there is no consensus." I agree with that, and clearly was not arguing against that. The thing is that you confused two different consensus aspects above: Consensus on whether or not sexual orientation is a choice and consensus on how sexual orientation develops; they are two different things, which is why the APA states in its "Sexual orientation and homosexuality" online source that there is no consensus on how sexual orientation develops and that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." I already noted that they also stated that sexual orientation is not choice in 1998 and in 2010. So again, you were addressing two different consensus aspects. Scientists do not know what causes sexual orientation, but they have enough evidence to believe that it's caused by a complex interplay of biological and social factors, and that it is not a choice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Flyer22 really, since there is no disagreement about the actual content, in my view it is best to let the discussion go. WP isn't a place to work out how various folks think about stuff, it is just about creating content. Please consider letting this go. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC) I agree to drop this discussion, but it was important to be very clear about the differences regarding the consensus aspects, especially so that this mistake or a similar mistake is not made by Scoundr3l or others in the future. Per what I've stated above, I made changes to the sexual orientation and sexual identity aspects of the article, with two sources I cited above, and with other tweaks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Indeed, while we're in agreement about this particular statement, and I'm sure nobody wants to needlessly prolong conflict, this is more than just an area for resolving individual grievances. In the interest of the ongoing development of the article, and for the sake of future editors, there's really no better place to have a discussion regarding the way the information in the article is conveyed. Provided, of course, that the discussion stays on topic, which it generally has. The distinction between the two consensuses has been made, as has the distinction between a source which supports a position and a source which supports a consensus. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Judging by your latest edits to the article, you still weren't satisfied with the sentence because you only wanted references that explicitly state "most researchers," "most scientists" or similar for the "not a choice" line. I disagreed since the first sentence has such a source, and since the APA is authoritative. That stated, as seen, I removed the Royal College of Psychiatrists source (mainly to avoid citation overkill; I did not want to use a WP:CITEBUNDLE) and replaced it with the aforementioned Delivering Culturally Competent Nursing Care Springer Publishing source since it explicitly states "Most health and mental health organizations do not view sexual orientation as a 'choice.'" Citation overkill is not only about "if all the sources are saying the same thing." I left the APA source beside the line, however, because, again, it is authoritative, and is good for readers to see that big statement that the APA makes about choice. etc. right there at the beginning. I removed the "There has been no strong evidence to validate sexual orientation as a lifestyle choice." sentence as unneeded and in the way. I removed the "such as" piece you added to "genetic, hormonal, cultural influences have been examined" since it's unneeded. I added "social" since "genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences" covers all the bases. I removed "According to the American Psychological Association, there is no consensus about the exact cause of developing a sexual orientation" part because it's not just according to them, and, if we were to go by the literal definition of scientific consensus, it is clear that the vast majority of scientists believe that sexual orientation is caused by a complex interplay of biology and social factors. They don't know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they are pretty much in agreement that it is caused by a complex interplay of biology and social factors; that is clear by this 2014 Principles and Practice of Psychiatric Nursing source I added to the article, this WebMD source (which also talks abut sexual orientation not being a choice on page 2), this Science Daily source, and by a number of other scholarly sources or health sites. I also moved the "Sexual identity (or sexual orientation identity), however, can change" sentence back to where I think it flows best -- right after the "not a choice" sentence. I will go ahead and alter the Sexual orientation article and related articles in the same fashion when it comes to the "no consensus about the cause of sexual orientation" aspect, since researchers generally believe in the combination theory. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC) I fixed reference year, page number and accessdates matters; those things got messed up because I copied and pasted the template of a reference. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Well, sure. I didn't think agreeing to the distinction implied I would stop trying to improve the content. I made it clear what I thought about the "there is no strong evidence" clause early in this discussion. The only reason I moved it to its own sentence is because you mentioned that some of the sources were added to support that clause and others to support consensus, so I was diving them accordingly. I appreciate the additional source and the removal of that sentence as it really only served to weaken the position. I don't agree with your reasoning for changing "there is no consensus", however, as that is explicitly what the source says. You may think it clear that scientists agree, but the APA does not think it's clear and they have said so. There is, as of yet, no consensus on the cause and there's no reason not to say so. Otherwise, I think your changes look good and appreciate the collaboration. As it stands, I'm satisfied. Scoundr3l (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC) I noted that one source (the twin source) was added to support the "There has been no strong evidence to validate sexual orientation as a lifestyle choice." sentence. I also noted that I'd removed that source. And the way you split the consensus material left the Pediatrics source as the only source beside the "not a choice" line, as though you felt that the line should have only sources that state "most researchers," "most scientists" or similar. As for the "there is no consensus" aspect, nowhere did I state that there is consensus for the exact cause of sexual orientation. I stated, "[Scientists] don't know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they are pretty much in agreement that it is caused by a complex interplay of biology and social factors." That is a fact, not simply my opinion. I pointed to sources supporting me on that fact. The APA also supports me on it. While they state that there is no consensus on the exact cause of sexual orientation, they also state "that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality." That, as the article shows, is an APA statement from 2010; it is a more recent statement than the online APA source you have been focusing on; I know that because of the years I've been researching this topic and editing Wikipedia sexual orientation articles. With this archived version of the online source, which is used at the Sexual orientation article and other Wikipedia articles, you can see that the "Suggested Bibliographic Citation" section at the bottom is dated to 2008. I also reverted you again on the order change since, like I noted, "The topic of sexuality changing should come first; it's what this article is about. Then we should go into the topic of what causes sexual orientation; this article is not about the causes of sexual orientation." It is a better transition for the lead to note that sexuality changing has been debated, that sexual orientation is not a choice and is unlikely to change, and that sexual orientation identity can change. So I added "is unlikely to change" for better transition. Discussion of what causes sexual orientation, which is a different topic, should come after that. The 2010 APA statement already relays that sexual orientation is unlikely to change, but if you want me to add another source, one that specifically states "most researchers," "most scientists" (or similar) don't believe sexual orientation can change, I can add a source for that as well. As this 2014 Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society source, page 64, notes, the APA also states that "sexual orientation is unlikely to change." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC) The APA supports that sexual orientation is not a choice, yes, but they do not support that there is a consensus on the subject, which is what is being cited. This is where it's important to understand the distinction between the two because using that quote to support that sentence is arguably SYNTH. Still, I'm not really contesting the poor sources, at present, I'm only contesting the rephrasing of the other APA statement. Why you would change the cited "There is no consensus" to read "Scientists don't know" but allow the cited "Most scholars agree" to read "Scientific consensus is" and not the other way around is baffling and really not necessary. Assuming both sentences are discussing consensus on the subject, it stands to reason that the two sentences would be together. Still the order is not wholly important so if you'd like to have the sentence regarding 'sexual orientation identity' follow the sentence regarding 'non-choice', I can return the sentence to its original place: bridging the discussion between debate and consensus, where it logically flows. As the statement is regarding the position of the scientific community on development of orientation, it would logically follow a statement regarding debate on the malleability of such an orientation. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Also, I would strongly reconsider that "unlikely to change". I know some of the sources support that it cannot be changed at will, but this entire article is about changing sexual identity and orientation, so that may be contentious. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC) I updated it again. This time using your sentence order but my phrasing. Hopefully that should make us both a little happy if not fully. I would still strongly consider the above though. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Again, I did not state that the APA says that there is consensus on the exact cause of sexual orientation. I stated that the APA and scientists in general believe that sexual orientation is caused by a complex interplay of biological and social factors. I pointed to a reliable scholarly source that relays the APA stating "that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors." How you take that as the APA not believing that sexual orientation is caused by a complex interplay of biological and social factors is beyond me. Not having a consensus on the exact cause of sexual orientation is different than having a consensus on what sexual orientation is most likely caused by. I already noted why I changed the "There is no consensus" line; I told you that the literal definition of scientific consensus means general agreement in the scientific community. There is general agreement in the scientific community that sexual orientation is caused by a complex interplay of biological and social factors. That is directly supported by this source and the APA explicitly states "is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors." Above, I also pointed to two health sites stating the same thing. There was no WP:Synthesis violation by stating, "Scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences have been examined. They believe that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." Furthermore, the APA does not speak for the entire scientific community. When various scholarly sources make it clear that there is general agreement in the scientific community that sexual orientation is caused by a complex interplay of biological and social factors, as they surely do, and when the the APA clearly states that sexual orientation "is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors," we should not be prioritizing the APA's 2008 "no consensus" wording. And while the book sources I've used are not the best sources, they are not poor sources either. They pass WP:Reliable sources and WP:MEDRS. And as anyone who has significantly studied the topic of sexual orientation knows, there are not a lot of literature reviews or systematic reviews on sexual orientation, especially the cause of it. Most of the good sources on these topics will be from authoritative organizations, scholarly book sources, solid health sites, or solid primary sources. Do have a look on Google Scholar, on PubMed, and so on for what I mean by "There are not a lot of literature reviews or systematic reviews on sexual orientation, especially the cause of it." Your wording of "It is believed that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." begs the Template:Who or Template:Whom question. Scientists/researchers, that's who. You also put the causes of sexual orientation aspect first again, despite my valid points about the order above; I disagree with that order per what I stated in my "20:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)" post above. So I appreciate you reversing it. Notice that I am arguing with sources, as I usually do, and they support what I state. More sources that make it clear that scientists are pretty much in agreement that sexual orientation is likely caused by a complex interplay of biological and social factors? Sure. This 2006 Culturally Relevant Ethical Decision-Making in Counseling source, from Sage Publications, page 149, states, "Considerable research evidence suggests that genetic or hormonal factors play a significant role in determining a person's sexuality. Most scientists, however, agree that sexual orientation is a complex interaction of biological, cognitive, and environmental factors and that sexual orientation is shaped at an early age (APA, 2004)." Yeah, not much different than what the APA stated in 2010. This 2010 Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology source, from Springer Science & Business Media, pages 887-888, states, "[Researchers believe] sexual orientation is probably the result of a complex interaction of biological, environmental, and cognitive factors." This 2011 Human Sexuality: The Basics source, from Jones & Bartlett Publishers, page 136, states, "Sexual orientation is most likely determined by hundreds of genes and numerous environmental factors that affect brain development in utero as well as after birth." This 2012 Encyclopedia of Clinical Child and Pediatric Psychology source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 135, states, "As with all of the psychosocial features discussed, sexual orientation is thought to stem from a complex interaction of biological and environmental factors." This 2014 Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century source, from Cengage Learning, page 423, states, "Experts believe that sexual orientation is complex. The determinants of sexual orientation are not yet known but appear to be a complex interaction of biological and environmental factors." This 2016 Engendering Psychology: Women and Gender Revisited (reprint) source, from Psychology Press, page 258, states "Most researchers today believe that sexual orientation is determined by a complex interplay of biological, psychological, and social factors, not by any one factor alone (Rathus et al., 2002)." That is six more sources supporting me. As for "unlikely to change," I noted to you above, "The 2010 APA statement already relays that sexual orientation is unlikely to change, but if you want me to add another source, one that specifically states 'most researchers,' 'most scientists' (or similar) don't believe sexual orientation can change, I can add a source for that as well. As this 2014 Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society source, page 64, notes, the APA also states that 'sexual orientation is unlikely to change.'" The wording "unlikely to change, not just the "unlikely to change at will" aspect, is well supported in the literature. The literature is clear that the changes are actually, or most likely, changes in sexual orientation identity; human sexuality can change, depending on the topic, but scientists generally do not believe that actual sexual orientation changes (after it becomes stable, meaning after it emerges in early childhood or adolescence). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Since you haven't yet responded to my "22:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)" comment, I went ahead and changed "It is believed that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." to "Scientists believe that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.", per the aforementioned sources that support the statement. I left in the "There is no consensus on the exact cause of developing a sexual orientation" part since, like I noted above (in bold), "Not having a consensus on the exact cause of sexual orientation is different than having a consensus on what sexual orientation is most likely caused by." The APA states "exact cause" for a reason. And just to reiterate, below are sources that support scientists believing that sexual orientation is caused by a complex interplay of biological and social factors: Click on this to see sources for the argument that scientists/researchers generally support the multiple (biological and social) combination theory regarding the cause of sexual orientation. 1. The American Psychological Association (APA) states that sexual orientation "is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality." I've read the other APA, the American Psychiatric Association, state similarly. 2. The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated more than once, and mostly recently in 2014, that they believe "that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors. There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of choice into the origins of sexual orientation." 3. The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in the Pediatrics journal, "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. [...] Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood." 4. This 2006 Culturally Relevant Ethical Decision-Making in Counseling source, from Sage Publications, page 149, states, "Considerable research evidence suggests that genetic or hormonal factors play a significant role in determining a person's sexuality. Most scientists, however, agree that sexual orientation is a complex interaction of biological, cognitive, and environmental factors and that sexual orientation is shaped at an early age (APA, 2004)." 5. This 2010 Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology source, from Springer Science & Business Media, pages 887-888, states, "[Researchers believe] sexual orientation is probably the result of a complex interaction of biological, environmental, and cognitive factors." 6. This 2011 Human Sexuality: The Basics source, from Jones & Bartlett Publishers, page 136, states, "Sexual orientation is most likely determined by hundreds of genes and numerous environmental factors that affect brain development in utero as well as after birth." 7. This 2012 Encyclopedia of Clinical Child and Pediatric Psychology source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 135, states, "As with all of the psychosocial features discussed, sexual orientation is thought to stem from a complex interaction of biological and environmental factors." 8. This 2014 Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century source, from Cengage Learning, page 423, states, "Experts believe that sexual orientation is complex. The determinants of sexual orientation are not yet known but appear to be a complex interaction of biological and environmental factors." 9. This 2016 Engendering Psychology: Women and Gender Revisited (reprint) source, from Psychology Press, page 258, states "Most researchers today believe that sexual orientation is determined by a complex interplay of biological, psychological, and social factors, not by any one factor alone (Rathus et al., 2002)." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC) As for sexual orientation changing, I noted above that "the literature is clear that the changes are actually, or most likely, changes in sexual orientation identity; human sexuality can change, depending on the topic, but scientists generally do not believe that actual sexual orientation changes (after it becomes stable, meaning after it emerges in early childhood or adolescence)." The "sexual orientation is established at an early age" aspect is supported by source 1, 3 and 4 in the first "Click on this" piece above. There are sources that talk about sexual orientation changing, but there are also sources, including ones in the article, that make it clear that researchers believe that sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity are confused in the vast majority of these cases. And, yes, researchers are also clear that teenage girls and women are far more fluid than teenage boys and men when it comes to sexuality, but they debate whether these cases are actually changes in sexual orientation, females having higher erotic plasticity (which includes the fact that society is far more open to women being intimate with one another than men being intimate with one another), or females being likelier to be bisexual than males but usually taking on the heterosexual identity due to heteronormativity (like many people do). The one case that I've seen where scientists genuinely believe that sexual orientation may possibly change is in the case of transgender people; for example, this 2014 PubMed article states, "Sexual orientation is usually considered to be determined in early life and stable in the course of adulthood. In contrast, some transgender individuals report a change in sexual orientation. A common reason for this phenomenon is not known. [...] Sexual orientation is determined in early life and usually unchangeable thereafter. [...] However, it has been reported that transgender individuals report a change in their sexual orientation over time." Otherwise, as the sources below and even this PubMed source indicate, scientists usually believe that sexual orientation is unlikely to change: Click on this to see sources commenting on whether sexual orientation is likely to change. 1. The American Psychological Association APA states, "sexual orientation is not a choice that can be changed at will." And also states, "sexual orientation identity—not sexual orientation—appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events." 2. The Royal College of Psychiatrists states, "There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed." 3. This 2011 Marriages and Families in the 21st Century: A Bioecological Approach source, from John Wiley & Sons, pages 76-77, states, "Can sexual orientation change? In addition to discovering that sexual orientation exists on a continuum, contemporary research also shows that it is not likely to be modifiable. Despite many attempts, both past and present, to change people's sexual orientation, there is no evidence that environmental experiences or interventions can change one's sexual attraction (LeVay, 1996). Just as most gay men and lesbians were raised by heterosexual parents and their parents' sexual orientation didn't make them grow up straight, most children of gay and lesbian parents grow up to be predominantly heterosexual like the rest of the population (Fitzgerald, 1999; Patterson, 2006)." 4. This 2012 Exploring Psychology source, from Macmillan Higher Education, page 183, notes, "There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed." 5. This 2014 Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society source, page 64, while commenting on the APA Task Force, states, "This therapeutic guideline advises mental health practitioners working with clients experiencing conflicts over same-sex attraction to let those clients determine the path of their sexual orientation identity development, as long as it is not based on anti-gay stereotypes, and as long as clients acknowledge that sexual orientation is unlikely to change (APA Task Force 2009)." "Unlikely" does not mean "can't." So I am fine with the current wording of the lead paragraph. Jytdog, are you fine with the current wording of the lead paragraph? Any views on the arguments I've made in both of my "22:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)" posts -- what I've stated about scientific consensus, general agreement in the scientific community, and/or what the sources support? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Hey there. Sorry for the delay. Honestly, the comment was a bit TL;DR right before the holiday weekend but I think we're in agreement on most major points if not all minor points. Sure, the APA doesn't speak for the entire scientific community, but then again, nobody does. This is why we rely on authoritative sources to assess the general consensus of the scientific community. The APA is such an authority and their assessment is that there is no consensus. But we've been over this distinction before and I think we've both made our points, so I don't see any reason to keep going over it. As for the "unlikely to change" addition, all of your provided sources support that sexual orientation is unlikely to be changed (i.e. straight camps don't work; you can't 'go gay' for someone). Much the way the weather cannot be changed, it does not mean it is unlikely to change, nor would you likely be able to extend the 'consensus' statement to support that position. For evidence to the contrary, I present the majority of the sources in this article, which support the fluidity of sexual orientation if not the modifiability. It's a small difference, but a crucial one. Still, it's not a change I'm all too invested in, I only warn you that others likely will be. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC) I was clear when first replying to you that we rely on authoritative sources to assess the general consensus of the scientific community. But after we got into our debates, I was also that we do not solely rely on that. I noted, "When various scholarly sources make it clear that there is general agreement in the scientific community that sexual orientation is caused by a complex interplay of biological and social factors, as they surely do, and when the the APA clearly states that sexual orientation 'is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors,' we should not be prioritizing the APA's 2008 'no consensus' wording.'" That is true, per WP:Due weight. This is exactly what we do in the case of many of our articles, including medical articles. For one primary example, refer to this DSM-5 discussion, where it was made explicitly clear that we do not always go by what an authoritative source states, and certainly not solely by what it states, especially when what it states is at conflict with the vast majority of the literature. But in this specific case we've debated, while the APA has stated that there is no consensus on the exact cause of sexual orientation, the APA is in agreement with the rest of the scientific community that sexual orientation is most likely caused by a complex interplay of biological and social factors. It is indeed scientific consensus that this is how sexual orientation is created, and I've provided more enough sources showing that. You seem to keep focusing on the exact cause aspect, but I already noted that not having a consensus on the exact cause of sexual orientation is different than having a consensus on what sexual orientation is most likely caused by. As for you stating "the majority of the sources in this article [...] support the fluidity of sexual orientation if not the modifiability." You are incorrect. Go ahead and look at the title of the sources and actually read the sources; they support sexual orientation identity changing, not sexual orientation changing, and I've already been over the difference. Your "unlikely to change" and "unlikely to be changed" distinction is not supported by the sources; I'm used too such a semantics argument from you, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Per the "unlikely to change" bit not being supported by a source that states "most scientists believe that sexual orientation cannot be changed" or something very similar, I moved that text and added sources to it. For example, the third source in the "Click on this to see sources commenting on whether sexual orientation is likely to change." area above specifically states "contemporary research also shows that it is not likely to be modifiable." There is no indication whatsoever that the source is focusing only on sexual orientation change efforts. It quite clearly asks, "Can sexual orientation change?", not "Can sexual orientation forcibly change?". And the Routledge source (the fifth source in that area), which cites the APA Task Force as its reference on the matter, states that "sexual orientation is unlikely to change." In all such task forces, the responsible mental health professionals make it clear to people that sexual orientation is unlikely to change, not just unlikely to change by sexual orientation change efforts. The aforementioned PubMed article states, "Sexual orientation is usually considered to be determined in early life and stable in the course of adulthood." and "Sexual orientation is determined in early life and usually unchangeable thereafter." And that is what the research on sexual orientation has consistently shown, with the exception of sexual orientation identity changing, particularly for women, or some transgender people's sexual orientation changing as a result of sex reassignment therapy (the hormones and their effects on the brain and body specifically) or changes in their sexual orientation identity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC) And the "Is sexual orientation a choice?" and "Can sexual orientation change?" aspects are always contentious because of the cultural debates surrounding them, including at the Sexual orientation article, Sexual orientation change efforts article, Conversion therapy article and Homosexuality article, but those editing disruptively on such matters (and I don't mean you) are always dealt with. They are told to follow the literature with WP:Due weight. It will be no different for this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC) I think you'll find that my distinction is found in each of the provided sources if you'd be so kind as to re-read them. 1, 2, and 4 all specifically say "be changed", with the APA added "at will" in case there was any confusion. Source 3 specifically says that orientation is not "modifiable", and goes on to say "Despite many attempts, both past and present, to change people's sexual orientation, there is no evidence that environmental experiences or interventions can change one's sexual attraction (LeVay, 1996)" which is a clear indication that they are specifically talking about willful change to attraction and SOCE, provided you read the entire quote and not only the sentence which supports you. The last source is off-handedly quoting, in the context of giving advice to therapist dealing with patients who want SOCE therapy, the APA task force report which says that "efforts to change" are unlikely to be successful. Here is the abstract from that report: "The American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates." So, again, SOCE. At no point does the report take any stance on sexual fluidity. Even if the strength of one poorly worded mention in a text book were enough to contradict the seminal Lisa Diamond and Kinnish et al. works on sexual fluidity, there's still likely no consensus on the matter, so I appreciate you moving the sentence at least. However, your wording is not verifiable. It's not mere semantics when you're misrepresenting sources and poorly conveying information. Whether or not you're willing to see the distinction and self-correct is up to you, at this point. Bringing up personal experience and previous discussions, both of which are unrelated to this discussion or this content, suggests that you may have lost focus on the content and are attempting to win a personal battle. If so, you may have it. I just thought you should be made aware of the glaring distinction between the sources and your wording. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC) I do not see your distinction found in any of the sources; none of the sources make an "unlikely to change" and "unlikely to be changed" distinction; that's you making the distinction. That's your interpretation of the sources. Unless the sources are specifically clear that they are only talking about forceful or willful change, you shouldn't be presuming it or assigning such a view to their stances. None of the sources state or indicate that "Sexual orientation cannot forcibly change, but it may change at some point on its own." They are clear that sexual orientation is unlikely to change, period. When the Royal College of Psychiatrists states, "There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.", there is no proof at all they are only talking about sexual orientation change efforts. The APA states, "sexual orientation identity—not sexual orientation—appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events." Notice how it includes "life events," which is a matter not restricted to sexual orientation change efforts. When a source states that "contemporary research also shows that [sexual orientation] is not likely to be modifiable", and specifically when it is cited to Simon LeVay, they are not simply talking about sexual orientation change efforts. And if you would actually take the time to read the research on sexual orientation change efforts, you would know that it includes scientists stating that sexual orientation is formed at an early age and is unlikely to change after that point, much like the aforementioned PubMed source states. You would also know that research on whether or not sexual orientation can change is significantly, but not solely, based on sexual orientation change efforts being ineffective, which is why the Essentialism section of the article currently states, "In support of the essentialist view is the finding that conversion therapy (attempts to change sexual orientation) is rarely successful." Like this 2010 source from Springer Science & Business Media, page 42, states, "As none of these interventions have led to a well-documented change in sexual orientation (LeVay, 1996), there can be little doubt that our sexual orientation is fixed during prenatal and early development and is beyond influencing in adulthood." I specifically quoted all of source 3 initially; so acting like I was only focusing on the "contemporary research also shows that it is not likely to be modifiable" part to bias the argument is misrepresenting me. I noted that source 3 quite clearly asks, "Can sexual orientation change?", not "Can sexual orientation forcibly change?" and not "Can sexual orientation be changed?". You are have interpreted modifiable strictly. You are the one interpreting the source as only talking about forcible or willful change efforts, when the source does not at all state that. The words modifiable, change, immutable, stable, etc. are all used when it comes to talking about whether or not sexual orientation can change. So you seemingly arguing that modifiable only refers to forcible or willful change is not supported by the literature. And if you do believe that modifiable only refers to forcible or willful change, you have contradicted yourself by previously stating "the majority of the sources in this article [...] support the fluidity of sexual orientation if not the modifiability." since you are arguing that the aforementioned sources I provided support that sexual orientation cannot be forcibly or willfully changed. I pointed out that you are wrong about the majority of sources in the article supporting the assertion that sexual orientation can change, since they (the majority of them) actually support sexual orientation identity changing, not sexual orientation changing. Even Lisa Diamond largely talks about sexual identity changing, not actual sexual orientation changing, which you would know if you thoroughly read her work. If you were familiar with the literature, you would also know that Simon LeVay is clear that sexual orientation is unlikely to change and is never solely talking about sexual orientation change efforts. For example, in this 2010 Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation book of his, pages 9 and 10, he states, "Obviously, most of us believe that sexual orientation is stable, because we use terms like 'a lesbian' or 'a straight man' to describe individuals. This usage wouldn't make much sense unless sexual orientation was a reasonably durable attribute. It's the stability of our attractions that we're discussing here. If we considered actual behavior, then volatility would be the rule for plenty of people. [...] Another study, by psychologist Lisa Diamond of the University of Utah, focused specifically on 89 young women whose sexual attractions were non-heterosexual at the start of the study. When reinterviewed 10 years later, all but eight of these women were still non-heterosexual. There were often more subtle shifts within the broad category of 'non-heterosexual,' however, and there were more changes in the labels that the women applied to themselves than in the actual direction of their attractions. It seems fair to conclude from these and other studies that people's basic sexual orientation doesn't commonly undergo major shifts." So, yes, when source 3, which is cited to LeVay, states "contemporary research also shows that [sexual orientation] is not likely to be modifiable," it's reasonable to assume that the source and LeVay were not simply talking about sexual orientation change efforts. You stating the wording "scientists believe that sexual orientation is unlikely to change" is "not verifiable" is clearly false, as sources I've provided show. I even pointed to a health site stating exactly that: This WebMD source, which states, "Most experts agree that sexual orientation is not a choice and, therefore, cannot be changed." The matter of the fact is that scientists and other scholars usually state that sexual orientation is unlikely to change, cannot be changed, is unlikely to be modifiable, is usually immutable, or is usually stable; all of these are used as synonyms in the literature. For more examples, this 2011 Handbook of Identity Theory and Research source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 652, states, "Modern scholarship examining the stability of sexual orientation also seems to support our conceptualizations of sexual orientation, sexual orientation identity, and sexual identity (e.g., Diamond, 2003a; Horowitz & Necomb, 2001; Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Braun, 2006, see Savin-Williams, Chapter 28, this volume). Specifically, some dimensions of sexual identity, such as relationships, emotions, behaviors, values, group affiliation, and norms, appear to be relatively fluid; by contrast, sexual orientation [i.e, an individual's patterns of sexual, romantic, and affectional arousal and desire for other persons based on those persons' gender and sex characteristics (APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual orientation, 2009)] has been suggested to be stable for a majority of people across the lifespan (Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Ellis & Ames, 1987; Haldeman, 1991; Money, 1987). Our distinctions among sexual orientation, sexual orientation identity, and sexual identity attempt to capture and acknowledged both fluid and stable aspects of sexual identity." All of that is exactly what I have been explaining in this discussion. Also notice that the source cites the APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual orientation. This 2012 Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews source, from Cengage Learning, page 372, states, "Sexual orientation is a deep part of personal identity and is usually quite stable. Starting with their earliest erotic feelings, most people remember being attracted to either the opposite sex or the same sex. [...] The fact that sexual orientation is usually quite stable doesn't rule out the possibility that for some people sexual behavior may change during the course of a lifetime." This 2012 Transcultural Health Care: A Culturally Competent Approach source, from F. A. Davis Company, page 11, states, "Sexual orientation is usually stable over time, but some people are bisexual." As for bringing up personal experience and previous discussions, my knowledge on these topics is very significant to the discussion; it's that knowledge, combined with knowing what sources to point to, that stopped you from making mistakes at this article, beginning with the "no choice" aspect. An editor's knowledge of a topic is very important here at Wikipedia, and we need more editors who know what they are talking about on the topics they edit. I pointed to the previous Campus rape discussion because it shows that we do not think alike when it comes to wording issues, and that we are like oil and water on such matters. I pointed to the DSM-5 discussion because it shows that "we do not always go by what an authoritative source states, and certainly not solely by what it states, especially when what it states is at conflict with the vast majority of the literature." If I'm going to claim something about Wikipedia, then I'm likely to point to evidence, just like I do when claiming something about a specific literature topic. It has nothing to do with making things personal. If you sense anything personal about my replies, it is me being frustrated by trying to thoroughly explain the literature to an editor and that editor not always understanding it and sometimes stating or implying that I am wrong when I know that I am not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Your knowledge is insignificant here as you are not a reliable source, therefore your bolded statements are no more authoritative than your unbolded statements. Conversely, the sources you've provided in this article and previously in this discussion all state either the passive "be changed" (as does WebMD) or speak of change only as it relates to SOCE. If you are not seeing the distinction, I can only assume you are either not reading them or willfully ignoring the change in verbiage. As an experienced editor, I'm sure you understand the difference between perspectives gained from personal knowledge (here known as OR) and verifiable, cited claims. If you have better sources which support your phrasing (hopefully better than tertiary text books) the article would be the appropriate place to add them. They don't do the reader any good in here. Scoundr3l (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC) We'll have to disagree on my knowledge here being insignificant, considering that it saved this article two times from mistakes that would have harmed it. Those mistakes include: Your challenge to the "scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice" aspect. And your challenge to fact that scientists are generally in agreement that sexual orientation is caused by a complex interplay of biological and social factors. And now it seems I am saving it yet again: Your assertion that sources are only talking about sexual orientation change efforts when stating that sexual orientation is unlikely to change. Again, unless the sources are specifically clear that they are only talking about forceful or willful change, you shouldn't be presuming it or assigning such a view to their stances. None of the sources make an "unlikely to change" and "unlikely to be changed" distinction, and that distinction is one of the silliest semantics issues I have seen in a long time, considering that the literature uses the words "unlikely to be changed" or "cannot be changed" when talking about whether or not sexual orientation can change in general (meaning not just when discussing sexual orientation change efforts). I told you above, "scientists and other scholars usually state that sexual orientation is unlikely to change, cannot be changed, is unlikely to be modifiable, is usually immutable, or is usually stable; all of these are used as synonyms in the literature." Scientists and other scholars are very clear that sexual orientation, not sexual identity or sexual behavior, is usually stable (as in it does not usually change). I bold to highlight the most important points. The 2011 Handbook of Identity Theory and Research source, the 2012 Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews source, and the 2012 Transcultural Health Care: A Culturally Competent Approach source also support me on the fact that scientists/scholars usually consider sexual orientation to generally be stable. LeVay has stated the same thing when assessing the research on the matter. You using the WebMD source for your "cannot be changed" distinction is asinine since there is no indication at all that the source is talking about sexual orientation change efforts, which shows how far your interpretation has strayed; the only one engaging in WP:OR here, specifically the WP:Synthesis part of it, is you. But then again, the WP:OR policy is clear that it does not apply to talk pages. And as for the sources I've used, I already told you: "And while the book sources I've used are not the best sources, they are not poor sources either. They pass WP:Reliable sources and WP:MEDRS. And as anyone who has significantly studied the topic of sexual orientation knows, there are not a lot of literature reviews or systematic reviews on sexual orientation, especially the cause of it. Most of the good sources on these topics will be from authoritative organizations, scholarly book sources, solid health sites, or solid primary sources. Do have a look on Google Scholar, on PubMed, and so on for what I mean by 'There are not a lot of literature reviews or systematic reviews on sexual orientation, especially the cause of it.'" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC) To be even clearer about the quality of the sources argument, Wikipedia commonly uses scholarly book sources for our medical and anatomical content (such as the Adrenal gland and Cranial nerves articles written by LT910001), and for various other topics, and there are not many literature reviews on sexual orientation; there are even less high-quality sources on sexual fluidity, which is why most of the sources on sexual fluidity in this article are currently WP:Primary sources and I will at some point trade them for scholarly book sources. Heck, most of the sources in the article don't even state "sexual fluidity"; they are mostly about sexual orientation identity changing, or are discussing something else. But even for articles like Autism, which has many literature reviews, a source like this Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders, Assessment, Interventions, and Policy book, from John Wiley & Sons, which I added to the Autism article in 2014, is fine. It's a good-quality 2014 book. I commonly use scholarly book sources on Wikipedia, especially if I do not have access to the literature reviews or there are barely any literature reviews, or no literature reviews. The topics of sexual orientation and sexual fluidity are not very actively studied, which is why the literature will often point to studies from the 90s and 2000s, and less often studies from the 2010s...like the Savin-Williams, Joyner, and Rieger 2012 study. There are less actively researched areas like these all over Wikipedia, which is why the WP:MEDDATE guideline (an aspect of WP:MEDRS) states, "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 where few reviews are published." For cases like these, I go by what authoritative sources and scholarly book sources state, especially what the preponderance of scholarly book sources state. Some of these sources will be secondary; others will be tertiary. And like WP:Tertiary source states, "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others." WP:MEDRS sums up the type of book sources I use for topics like these: "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC) By virtue of NPOV alone, a single unknowledgable editor with a solid source is easily worth three "knowledgeable" editors Google-grabbing sources which affirm their current views. As with all sources, their reliability is based wholly on what is being cited. In the example of the Routledge handbook, the nursing guide, and the Introduction to Psychology textbook, they may be reliable in some context, but when they are citing other secondary analyses, they are tertiary sources. This sort of "I'm knowledgable, therefore I know how to find sources" line of thought also leads to embarrassing gaffes like when you above cited a source which was itself citing Wikipedia. As for additional sources you've provided in this discussion, they are irrelevant to the content because verifiability means providing good citations in the body text, not the discussion page. Trying to convince me of a viewpoint is unnecessary OR because your view and my view don't matter to the context of the article, only your sources. However, if you'd like to improve the article content (or "save the article" as you so adorably put it) please do. Scoundr3l (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC) The sources support me, and I've been clear about that. So I haven't a thing to be embarrassed about in this case. If you feel so strongly about your "unlikely to change" and "unlikely to be changed" distinction, which is not a distinction made in any of the sources, and doesn't matter any way since I've provided sources explicitly stating that sexual orientation is usually stable/is generally considered to be immutable, you are free to start a WP:RfC for wider input. There are various other scholarly sources I can provide stating the same thing. I sincerely doubt that any editor will state that these sources should not be used to relay that "Scientists believe that sexual orientation is unlikely to change" or "Scientists believe that sexual orientation is usually stable." As for "embarrassing gaffes like when [I] above cited a source which was itself citing Wikipedia," I'm not sure what you mean. Feel free to point out that gaffe; regardless, that gaffe is irrelevant, given my arguments and the sources showing that I am correct. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Also, the book sources are commonly citing primary sources and summarizing the literature. On a side note: I didn't see that Jytdog had hatted this part of the discussion until after I made my "07:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Question

I have been trying to follow the discussion on this page but there are way too many words. Could each of you please just write below the content you want to see (I think it is the one sentence) with the sources you want to use, so that others can understand what is at stake? Please, each of you just write your preferred version of the content, with sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, Scoundr3l is arguing that the sources I've provided are only talking about sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) when stating that sexual orientation is unlikely to change; I am arguing that there is no proof that they are only talking about sexual orientation change efforts (forceful or willful change), and that Scoundr3l shouldn't be presuming it or assigning such a view to their stances. I have also provided sources showing that scientists/scholars are not solely talking about sexual orientation change efforts when stating that sexual orientation is unlikely to change or even when they state sexual orientation cannot be changed. I noted that scientists and other scholars usually state that sexual orientation is unlikely to change, cannot be changed, is unlikely to be modifiable, is usually immutable, or is usually stable, and that all of these are used as synonyms in the literature. I also noted that research on whether or not sexual orientation can change is significantly, but not solely, based on sexual orientation change efforts being ineffective, which is why the Essentialism section of the article notes that. For some direct proof on that aspect, I pointed to the following above, stating, "Like this 2010 source from Springer Science & Business Media, page 42, states, 'As none of these interventions have led to a well-documented change in sexual orientation (LeVay, 1996), there can be little doubt that our sexual orientation is fixed during prenatal and early development and is beyond influencing in adulthood.'" After that, I cited this source (pages 9 and 10) by Simon LeVay, which is clear to distinguish between the sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity, the same distinction I've been making in this discussion; LeVay, while assessing the literature on the issue, is clear that research shows that sexual orientation identity and behavior changes but that it is unlikely that actual sexual orientation changes. I then pointed to this, this and this source also supporting me on the fact that scientists/scholars consider sexual orientation to usually be stable (meaning that it usually does not change).

So I am fine with the following sentence, which is currently the sentence at dispute: "While scientists believe that sexual orientation is unlikely to change, sexual identity (or sexual orientation identity) can change throughout an individual's life, and may or may not align with biological sex, sexual behavior or actual sexual orientation."

We could trade the sources used for the "unlikely to change" bit for this, this and this source. Or rather trade only one of the sources -- the last source citing the APA Task Force, since the APA Task Force is partly about addressing sexual orientation change efforts. We could also alter "unlikely to change" to "is usually stable," which is directly supported by the additional sources I've provided, but I don't see the need for that. The words "unlikely to change" are clearer for readers than "is usually stable." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

____

versions

• OK, so Flyer's preferred version is:

While scientists believe that sexual orientation is unlikely to change, sexual identity (or sexual orientation identity) can change throughout an individual's life, and may or may not align with biological sex, sexual behavior or actual sexual orientation."

References

Scoundr3l, what is yours? Just the content with sources, please. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Scoundr3l pinging you... are you interested in doing this? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FWIW, it looks to me like Flyer's sourcing is fine and that she better understands the topic; which is fluidity, not the underlying concepts. Whole thing feels like a tempest in a teapot. Montanabw^(talk) 03:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current wording provided it's properly sourced. Unfortunately, that means I have to re-hash my previous statement. At present, the sources provided do not support the statement that sexual orientation is unlikely to change, only that it's unlikely to be changed, specifically in the context of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). The first source specifically says that it's unlikely to be changed. It may seem minor to change a passive verb to an active verb, but consider the difference between "kill" and "be killed", or whether the weather can change or be changed. The second sources says that it's not modifiable despite many efforts to change in the past and present. The third says "This therapeutic guideline advises mental health practitioners working with clients experiencing conflicts over same-sex attraction to let those clients determine the path of their sexual orientation identity development... as long as clients acknowledge that sexual orientation is unlikely to change." which would be within the context of conflicted clients determining their identity development, i.e. willful change is unlikely to happen. If the wording of the last source is ambiguous, the source it is quoting specifically reads "The American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates." Revealing not only the full context of the statement, but the fact that the APA Task Force is a meta-analysis of existing literature, therefore Routledge's citation of that analysis would make Routledge a tertiary source of information and not wholly reliable for the accuracy of this statement. As you said, the comments are exceedingly long, but it appears that Flyer22 is still providing additional sources here rather than the article. While this might serve to create some collaborative OR, I'm not interested in the research, only the verifiability. If there are better sources, add them to the article. Currently, it's unverifiable. Improve the sources, change it to reflect the existing sources, or strike it to the previous status quo. Scoundr3l (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

These endless long posts are not going to solve anything. Would you please propose the content and sourcing you actually want to see? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I just provided that. Either the first or last sentences of the above comment should adequately summarize, but the arbitrary limit of what you're willing to read just may not coincide with the information necessary to explain myself, nor did you have trouble reading Flyer22's much lengthier response above. Improve the sources, change them to reflect the existing citations (i.e. 'be changed'), or strike that clause from the sentence per the previous status quo. Preferably the first. As I wasn't the one who added the statement, I can't be expected to provide those sources, but I believe Flyer22 has others. Scoundr3l (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I stand by what I stated in #Question section above, and will not be rehashing this matter with Scoundr3l again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not read Flyers long thing, I only looked at her proposed content and sources. I have no idea what you mean by a "comment". Please. Provide. The. Content. And. Sources. YOU Would. Like. In. The. Article. Really. Do not tell me about it. Do not tell me what Flyer wants or doesn't. Just, simply, provide the content and sources you want to see in the article. I don't think you understand that no one has read the long back and forth between you and Flyer in any detail. No one is ever going to. Jytdog (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

LOL, Jytdog, at your "I did not read Flyers long thing" commentary; I don't blame you. To hopefully end this discussion, and so I don't have to keep bending over backwards to accommodate, I changed two of the sources with two of the aforementioned sources I cited above that it make it clear that sexual orientation (not sexual identity or sexual behavior) is usually stable (meaning unlikely to change). I left the "Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Position Statement on Sexual Orientation" source as the first source for the sentence in dispute since I prefer to retain an authoritative source for the sentence and there is no indication at all that its "There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed." statement is only referring to sexual orientation change efforts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Not always that simple, Jytdog. Sometimes to participate you gotta be a big boy and actually read the comments. I'd explain why, but that might make this comment too long. Anyway, I think we got it sorted out all the same, thanks. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Flyer's new version:

While scientists believe that sexual orientation is unlikely to change, sexual identity (or sexual orientation identity) can change throughout an individual's life, and may or may not align with biological sex, sexual behavior or actual sexual orientation.

References

- Jytdog (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the social, psychological and medical sources on the stability of sexual orientation (including some primary sources on Google Scholar), I'm seeing the same thing that I saw years ago: Although there are not a lot studies on the stability of sexual orientation, and there is some disagreement on the matter, scientists and other scholars generally believe that it's stable/does not change throughout the life course, unless referring to sexual orientation identity. For example, this 2014 Handbook of Social Work Practice with Vulnerable and Resilient Populations source, from Columbia University Press, page 336, states, "Once a person's sexual orientation has unfolded, it generally remains 'stable, consistent, and endures throughout the life course, although changing social norms and opportunities for relationships might influence how that orientation is manifested' (Saewyc, 2011, p. 258)." This 2014 Life-Span Human Development source, from Cengage Learning, page 413, states, "For the most part, sexual orientation is stable across the life span, at least for those individuals who identify themselves." And this 2015 The Oxford Handbook of Emerging Adulthood source, from Oxford University Press, pages 270-271, goes one step further and lists sexual orientation labels as generally being stable in addition to citing that sexual orientation is generally stable. It cites research. And, like other sources, also reports that women are likelier than men to change sexual orientation labels. So, yeah, I still think it's solid to state that "scientists believe that sexual orientation is unlikely to change." Also remember that, in the #Question section, I suggested "is usually stable" in place of "unlikely to change," even though I think the "unlikely to change" bit is clearer (even if more contentious than "is usually stable"). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The new sources are better, especially those provided in the text, such as the Columbia University Press. I don't mind either "is usually stable" or "unlikely to change" in this case, although it does appear that the latter contradicts the intro to this article which says that sexual fluidity is one or more changes to sexual identity or sexual orientation. As long as the distinction is made clear to the reader, it won't be my feathers ruffled over it. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I think the matter is settled. Great. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Scoundr3l, well, like we discussed, there is belief among some scholars that sexual orientation may change; but in these cases, it's usually that what is actually being discussed is sexual identity rather than sexual orientation having changed; some scholars use the term sexual orientation to cover "sexual orientation identity." Other scholars genuinely believe that sexual orientation can change for some people (for example, the topic of whether or not sexual orientation changes for some transgender people as a result of the hormones and their effects on the brain and body during sex reassignment therapy), but that it is otherwise stable for the majority of people. This is why the sources state "usually," "unlikely" or similar, not "can't" or "won't" (well, except for sources like the aforementioned WebMD source). That stated, I have wondered about the "is one or more changes in sexual identity or sexual orientation" part of the lead sentence too; I understand what you mean about that portion of the sentence, but it was defining the topic, not stating that "Yes, all of this has been validated." And the rest of the lead is clear about the debate. Still, I changed the lead to "Sexual fluidity is one or more changes in sexuality or sexual identity (sometimes known as sexual orientation identity)." for better accuracy. The term sexual fluidity is largely credited to Lisa Diamond, and even she stated, "although sexual attractions appear fairly stable, sexual identities and behaviors are more fluid." And, remember, Simon Levay concluded the same regarding her work. I also changed "While scientists" to "While scientists generally" and "is unlikely to change" to "is stable (unlikely to change)."

Jytdog, yeah, I think so too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Usually stable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

You have summarised the topic in your lead section really well. The subsections are also in a sensible order. The topics within the subject of sexual fluidity were also well chosen and presented. What I would suggest, is to split the "male and female" section into two coherent sections.

Also, the content is not very balanced. There is a phrase regarding Lisa Diamond's views on the term "sexual fluidity". This statement in itself is quite emotional. To balance this claim, you could cite research that suggests that sexual fluidity has been seen as "a phase" or "denial".

Focusing on the changes in sexuality section, the "bisexuality as a transitional phase" has been inappropriately headed. This is because, some of the research presented under the heading also contradicts this claim. I would suggest, changing this heading to just "Bisexuality". To increase the balance of the content, I would also suggest including the homosexuality perspective, detailing research that suggests that homosexuality can also be a sexuality change. To balance this whole section, it is important to also present brief information that also shows that sexuality is not fluid but can be biologically predetermined.

The formatting of the male and females section should be changed. Statements regarding the topic should be made and then backed up by research. There is no need to explain that several studies have made these findings. Statements are also not appropriately referenced. For example the claim that some researchers found that sexual fluidity is more common in females but further research suggests that it is more common in males, uses an unreliable magazine source. These claims should be separately referenced based on the work of different researchers. There are several claims within this section that are not referenced at all such as " making female sexuality inherently more open to change" and "Whether female sexuality is naturally more fluid and therefore changes from social factors or social factors cause female sexuality to be less stable is unknown".

I am copy-editing your "males and females" section: Many sentences are incomplete. The information does not flow and is quite difficult to understand. I have edited this so that the section flows better and is understandable but it does require references in many places and reliable references in others (these were not present before my edit). I have also sectioned your information into new subheadings under "males and females" in "changes in sexuality". These are the: social constructive view and the evolutionary view.

Mshahzad1 (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Mshahzad1, thanks for the feedback on the current state of the article. The vast majority of this article was written via a WP:Class assignment, and I tweaked it along the way. I know you are also with a class, and I welcome improvements. As for the "Bisexuality as a transitional phase" heading, a heading does not always fully represent what is included in the section, but I would not mind much if you changed the heading to "Bisexuality." As for the "Males versus females" section, I think that the goal the class had for adding "several studies" is to make it clear that researchers are generally in agreement that female sexuality is more fluid than male sexuality. I don't see anything there stating that "further research suggests that it is more common in males." What I see is "further research may show more sexual fluidity in men," as in males may be more sexually fluid than is currently thought. As for some parts being unsourced, I think some of those parts are sourced, but that the reference placement is odd or the reference is meant to support more than one sentence. For example, there is this sentence: "Evidence suggests that male sexuality is more centered around physical factors, whereas female sexuality is more centered around sociocultural factors,[33] making female sexuality inherently more open to change." There is a reference for it, but does that reference cover the entire sentence? And when it comes to a reference supporting more than one sentence, see WP:Citation overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Mshahzad1, after you made this edit, I made this, this, this, this, this, this and this edit. Reasons why are mostly explained in edit summaries. If you are wondering why I removed the headings you added, it's because I did not see the headings as needed for the little bit of material; see MOS:Paragraphs. I usually don't add headings unless necessary, especially since the article can look bigger than it actually is from the table of contents and sometimes make the article more difficult to navigate through. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Content introduced today

Moving content added in this dif here to talk.

As I noted in my edit note, this is WP:SYN - it weaves together primary sources to make an argument. We don't do that in Wikipedia. We read secondary sources that themselves synthesize the literature, and summarize that here. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia expresses accepted knowledge, not the synthesis of its editors. The tone is also chatty and non-encyclopedic ("An interesting study....", "In conclusion...." etc) and would need revising if this is something we could use.

In a recent study, over 10,000 participants where selected and questioned and followed for 15 years. The study determined that of all the self-identifications (i.e. straight, gay/lesbian, bisexual), the identity of bisexuality was the least stable. After the participant’s sexual orientation was determined, they were then labeled as two separate groups; non-LGB for those who identified as heterosexual or non-sexual, and LGB for those who identified as Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual. The numbers received at the end of the study revealed that of the initial, both-sex attracted participants, only .16% of them continued to identify with that at the end of the study. It was also found that 27.8% of the LGB tested community shifted from opposite sex attraction to both-sex attraction and then finally to same-sex attraction. These statistics supports the notion of an unstable, transitional phase bisexuality. Even into old age, both-sex attraction remains the least stable sexuality. A possible reason for this could because someone identifying as bisexual could be right in the cusp between both-sex and same-sex attraction. A study from 1992 revealed that women who are “more than 75% attracted to women tend to identify as lesbian, whereas those who are less than 75% attracted to women tend to identify as bisexual”. Because of this, it is easily seen how bisexuality could be unstable. A woman could be 70% attracted to females, then one day meet the love of her life, and rise up to 80% attracted to females and identify as homosexual.

An interesting study done argues that any orientation is a phase. In the study, it was revealed that woman who changed identities from straight to gay to straight did not view their comeback to heterosexuality as “going back to straight,” but instead as “moving forward towards new forms of sexual and erotic pleasure.” The women in this study said that their re-adoption of heterosexuality as “feeling fundamentally different” from their previous experiences. Following this belief, it can be said that even if one changes from other-sex to both-sex and then back to other-sex attractions, they still went through a transitional phase, rediscovering themselves. Such were the girls from this study, where 19% of the, transitioned from bisexual to heterosexuality. Along with those women, 60% of the participants from the study transitioned to homosexuality from bisexuality. These high numbers may result from the fact that women are more sexually fluid than males. This is also supported by a phenomenon recorded by this study. The transition that women took more than any other, was a transition to an “unlabeled” identity. These women did not want to be directed who to like or dislike by their sexual orientation. They did not want to feel like they could only like men if they were identified as heterosexuals and the same goes for those identifying as homosexual.

One study over sexual identity delved more into the youthful aspect of their self-identifying. It was still found that bisexuality was the least stable, with only 15% of identifiers consistently identifying as such, furthering the notion of bisexuality as a transitional phase. This is helped by the fact that 18% of those who were identifying as bisexual transitioned to homosexual. Over all, in the study, the number of bisexuals decreased as the number of homosexual increased. It was reported that the youths who changed their identities were “experiencing psychosexual and sociosexual milestones of identity formation more recently than youths whose sexual identity remained consistently gay/lesbian.” So, they are saying that it is possible that the reason some youths are changing their identities are because they are going through personal checkpoints in their lives, letting them know who they are better. That could be a factor into why bisexuality is unstable. Perhaps a child realizes that they are attracted to both sexes because of some “milestone,” only to realize many years later that they are actually more so attracted to males or females, causing them to change orientations. There was also reported that “consistently gay/lesbian youths had been involved in gay-related social activities for a longer period of time than youths who transitioned from a bisexual to a gay/lesbian identity.” So, here the evidence suggests that the reason homosexuality is more stable than bisexuality is because gay/lesbian youths were more involved in gay social events, which could have lead to more moral support for them, making them feel more accepted, thus allowing them to continue to self-identify. Another study sheds some light on this notion by concluding that a predictor for a man to shift to homosexuality from bisexuality is better mental health. This statement supports the previous studies’ assessment because if you get more support for who you are in a group, of course your mental health will be better. This conclusion also supports the notion of bisexuality as a transitional phase. As a youth begins to self-identify themselves as non-hetero, they are likely so have feelings such as internalized homophobia, anxiety and depression, and as such feelings arise they are likely to identify as bisexual until their mental facilities are more improved and are perhaps in a society of acceptance to where they could identify as homosexual.

Now, none of this is to suggest that bisexuality as a sexual identity does not exist. In every study conducted, there are always the participants that who maintain their both-sex identification. In one such study, nearly 50% of the participants continued to identify as bisexual. Another study found that over the course of 10 years, women adopted the bisexual/non-labeled title more than those who changed from bisexual/unlabeled to a different orientation. A third had 75% of its participants identify as bisexual after identifying as lesbian. These studies maintain the notion that bisexuality is a stable, 3^rd party of the sexual identity continuum.

In conclusion, the many studies conducted have shown that bisexuality is unstable and has a tendency to shift towards homosexuality and also to heterosexuality, but less so.This evidence supports the notion of bisexuality as being more of a transitional phase, but the majority of the studied participants were youths. Because of this, is not safe to assume much about the notion of transitional aspect of bisexuality, especially in one direction or the other, but it is to say that both-sex attraction is the least stable of all the identities, as that has been more thoroughly studied across the ages.

References

- Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Jytdog. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Bisexuals who later identify as straight or gay due to biphobia

There seems to be a central issue in trying to determine if some people who once identified as bisexual but later switched to straight or gay identification in that it's difficult to separate those who are truly straight or gay and only identified as straight or gay for other reasons as apposed to those who are truly bisexual but go back in the bisexual closet to avoid biphobia in the straight or gay community. As such, what may be described as sexual fluidity in some individuals may just be a case of people no longer choosing to public identify as bisexual or pansexual or whatever when in reality their sexual identify has not really changed. I think the article really needs to better discuss the issue of public identity vs internal identity and who it can effect the sexual fluidity debate. --2601:644:400:8D:F0F0:ECA4:4AAD:40AC (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sexual fluidity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141228033920/http://knowledgex.camh.net/amhspecialists/Screening_Assessment/assessment/ARQ2/Pages/arq2_question_a2.aspx to http://knowledgex.camh.net/amhspecialists/Screening_Assessment/assessment/ARQ2/Pages/arq2_question_a2.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140628094701/http://www.psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation to http://www.psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Culture and Sexuality

Is there any research done on how culture effects sexual orientation? I read the talk page but I find it hard to believe that the scientific consensus says that choice is not a factor at all.

How would these scientists explain how sexually fluid several pre-modern societies were? For example in Ancient Greece it was the norm for men to have same sex relationships along side their relationships with their wives. Wouldn't this indicate that culture affects sexuality therefore making it a nurture and a not solely a nature thing? I fully support LGBTQ people having complete freedom from discimination so don't get the wrong idea from where I am coming from. I find it kind of odd that scientists are ignoring the wide variety in cultural variation when it comes to sexual orientation if they simplify the outcome and say that it's inborn. 173.73.110.61 (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC) That was my comment I forgot to log in Xanikk999 (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Xanikk999, like I stated above, and like the article states, sexual fluidity and sexual orientation identity are not the same thing as sexual orientation. Read the Sexual orientation identity article, and read sources on sexual orientation identity. Yes, culture affects how people choose to identify and behave sexually. Human sexuality is broader than sexual orientation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Article quality (class)

I am a member of WP:LGBT Studies and WP:Psychology. I changed the article's class ranking to "C" for both WikiProjects because this is an excellent article! I came to the article after doing a Google search on "fluid sexuality" because I wanted to enhance my understanding of the topic, and boy did I get an enhancement knowledge boost! ;-) I suspect the article might qualify for "B" Class, but I am not knowledgeable enough about the topic to make that call, especially for B-class criteria #2 ("The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies") and #5 ("The article contains supporting materials where appropriate"). Kudos to all of you who have worked hard to develop this well-written encyclopedic article. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to give it a B ranking, there does seem to be quite a bit of political fighting going on here and otherwise digging up sources to counter other sources rather than actually approaching from a neutral standpoint that we do not have enough information to use definitive words like "innate" (which does not appear in the sources referenced.)

The whole debate of sexual identity vs sexual orientation is entirely unreferenced and even if referenced it would easily be considered equivocation since the authors of the studies being referenced have their own meaning. Mary Ann Lamanna, Agnes Riedmann, Susan D Stewart (2014). seems to interchangeably use the terms while Saewyc, E.M. (2011). blatantly disagrees with the idea of sexual identity vs sexual orientation "However, longitudinal studies published during the past decade have raised awareness about the fluidity of orientation" stated directly after talking about the idea of an innate sexual orientation.

All in all, we have yet again politics and personal beliefs muddling another Wikipedia article. I have my bias, others have their own... but it is clear that Fluid Sexual Orientation (Theory) and Stable Sexual Orientation (Theory) should be separate articles with their own supports instead of Wikipedians bickering about who is right in one article. 134.194.253.22 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no political fighting on my part. I don't let politics affect my Wikipedia editing. And I'm not a heavy political person anyway. If you mean that old discussion, which I will archive after this post, it concerns what the literature states. I follow what the literature states with WP:Due weight. That is what WP:Neutral means. Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. And it is absolutely scientific consensus that sexual orientation is not a choice, and also that sexual orientation is unlikely to change; that is what that aforementioned discussion is about. And that (like global warming) is not a political matter for me because I simply think of them as scientific facts. The "is/isn't a choice" and "can/can't change" societal debates on sexual orientation are political matters for many because of conversion therapy/sexual orientation change efforts and people insisting that gay, lesbian and bisexual people are choosing to be homosexual and, if not, they can change their sexual orientation. Looking at the current state of the article, I do not understand what you mean by "The whole debate of sexual identity vs sexual orientation is entirely unreferenced." "Sexual identity vs. sexual orientation" is not framed as a debate in the article. Even the "Cultural debate" section is not framed as "sexual identity vs. sexual orientation." What the article does state is that sexual orientation and sexual identity are not the same thing, which they are not. What the article does state is that they are not always distinguished, which is true. What the article does state, among other things, is that "While the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and American Psychiatric Association state that sexual orientation is innate, continuous or fixed throughout their lives for some people, but is fluid or changes over time for others, the American Psychological Association distinguishes between sexual orientation (an innate attraction) and sexual orientation identity (which may change at any point in a person's life). Scientists and mental health professionals generally do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice." The "Cultural debate" section in the article is about the debate on sexual fluidity, which may concern whether or not sexual orientation can change or sexual identity changing. It's also about the debate on sexual fluidity among -- or bisexuality in -- males, which is something I can surely add academic sources on. Yes, the article still needs work and I intend to work on it further. WP:Content forking is not needed in this case. Nor would it be best. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The use and abuse of sources

"Scientific consensus is that sexual orientation, unlike sexual orientation identity, is not a choice."

• None of the provided sources say that sexual orientation identity is a choice in opposition to sexual orientation. It is original research by Flyer22 Reborn.

"While scientists generally believe that sexual orientation is usually stable (unlikely to change)"

• Flyer22 Reborn is cherry picking sources. She/He arbitrary rules out sources that do not confirm her/his point of view. Flyer22 Reborn cites the Royal College of Psychiatrists' Position Statement on Sexual Orientation: There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. The quote is out of the context. It is about the impossibility of changing sexual orientation through psychotherapy. Here is the full context: The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Systematic reviews carried out by both the APA and Serovich et al suggest that studies which have shown conversion therapies to be successful are seriously methodologically flawed. Flyer22 Reborn deliberately omitted that source also states that: It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life.

Flyer22 Reborn wrongly assumes that if a person changed their sexual identity, their sexual orientation remained not changed. It may be true for some people, but not for all. The assumption that all women who have changed their sexual identity from lesbian to straight or from straight to lesbian still have the same sexual orientation (defined as a sexual attraction to persons of the opposite sex, the same sex or to both sexes) as before is erroneous and is contrary to the research. A recent review of the scientific research on the immutability of sexual orientation clearly states that: [A]rguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unscientific, given what we now know from longitudinal, population-based studies of naturally occurring changes in the same-sex attractions of some individuals over time. Muppet00 (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Muppet00, your "manipulation" and "cherry-picking" claims are out of line. While the "unlike sexual orientation identity" part needs a source, it can be easily supported. I don't need to cherry-pick (and I wouldn't anyway); the literature is very clear about sexual orientation identity changing.

The claim that the Royal College of Psychiatrists source is only talking about psychotherapy when saying "there is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed" is your interpretation. The source certainly does not state that it is only referring to psychotherapy for that part. I went ahead and removed the Royal College of Psychiatrists source, but it was just one source beside the "scientists generally believe that sexual orientation is usually stable (unlikely to change)" part. The other two sources, seen here and here, that are beside the line, clearly support sexual orientation usually being stable. And by "usually being stable," the researchers do indeed mean "unlikely to change." Your claim that I "deliberately omitted that the source also states that 'it is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person's life'" is false. That is like stating that I deliberately omitted the part of the source that states "nevertheless, sexual orientation for most people seems to be set around a point that is largely heterosexual or homosexual." We don't need to quote the whole source within the reference; we obviously shouldn't. The immutable aspect was not included in the quote within the reference because the lead did not touch on the immutable aspect, unless one considers that the "usually stable (unlikely to change)" part is touching on the immutable aspect. But if you considered the matter to be the same thing, why did your version state "Scientists generally believe that sexual orientation is not immutable or fixed, but they also think that it is usually stable"? You are the one who stringed together sources to state that "Scientists generally believe that sexual orientation is not immutable or fixed." None of the sources state that. It is not supported by any reliable source whatsoever. So like I told you on your talk page, that is WP:Synthesis. As made clear lower in the article, and in other sources not in the article, while some scientists speak of sexual orientation changing for some people throughout the life course, many other sources do not...especially when it comes to men. And like I told you on your talk page, the literature is clear that the terms "sexual orientation," "sexual orientation identity" and "sexuality" are often used interchangeably...to the detriment of having factual sexual orientation information.

To repeat: Scientists know that sexuality (without meaning sexual orientation) and sexual orientation identity can change, but they have no way of accurately determining whether or not sexual orientation can change. Like I recently stated at Talk:Human male sexuality, demographics of sexual orientation are based on self-reports; we don't actually know the sexual orientation of these people. The penile plethysmograph, for example, measures sexual arousal in men, but it has flaws, and that includes when using it to gauge sexual orientation. Researchers aren't going by the plethysmograph or MRI scans when reporting on what portions of the population are whatever sexual orientation; they are going by self-reports. The reasons they believe that sexual orientation is unlikely to change/is usually stable is because of the research on sexual orientation change efforts and interviews with people about their sexual orientation. This latest review on sexual orientation (in its "Sexual fluidity" section) states, "Sexual fluidity is situation-dependent flexibility in a person's sexual responsiveness, which makes it possible for some individuals to experience desires for either men or women under certain circumstances regardless of their overall sexual orientation. [...] At the first interview, none of the women identified as 'heterosexual'; rather, their reported identities were 'lesbian,' 'bisexual,' or unlabeled. Many of the women's sexual feelings toward women versus men changed over time, although typically the changes were not large (about 1 Kinsey Scale point, on average). Yet changes in sexual identity were common." Notice how the source, like various other sources on sexual fluidity (including on Diamond's research), focuses on sexual identities changing?

The sexual fluidity literature, which is centered on Lisa M. Diamond's research, is primarily about women. This is clear by the Bailey review I pointed to. And the sources, when speaking of that research, mainly speak in terms of sexual identity changing. The Bailey review I pointed to, which is an actual review of the sexual orientation literature, quite clearly talks about the matter in terms of sexual identity. It does not present the topic of sexual fluidity changing with regard to actual sexual orientation as fact. It does not present Diamond's beliefs on sexual fluidity as fact. The review you pointed to is about "review[ing] scientific research and legal authorities to argue that the immutability of sexual orientation should no longer be invoked as a foundation for the rights of individuals with same-sex attractions and relationships (i.e., sexual minorities)." It's about research on sexual orientation and U.S. legal advocacy for sexual minorities. And it's by Diamond, who is obviously not objective on the topic of sexual fluidity. So why you feel that this is a good source to cite, as if it's about sexual orientation or sexuality fluidity in general, is beyond me. You state that I "wrongly assume that if a person changed their sexual identity, their sexual orientation remained not changed," but that is not what I stated at all. You are the one doing the assuming. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's check out whose version is closer to the truth!

• Flyer22 Reborn's version: "Scientific consensus is that sexual orientation, unlike sexual orientation identity, is not a choice."

None of the provided sources say that sexual orientation identity is a choice. It's Flyer22 Reborn's original research.

• Flyer22 Reborn's version: "scientists generally believe that sexual orientation is usually stable"

None of the provided sources say what scientists generally believe. It's Flyer22 Reborn's original research.

• My version: "Scientific research shows that sexual orientation is not immutable or fixed, but also finds that it is usually stable, and rejects the possibility of changing sexual orientation through psychotherapy."

The sentence is confirmed in its entirety by sources:

• Conversations about Psychology and Sexual Orientation. New York University Press. 1999. p. 134. ISBN 9780814713242. Retrieved June 22, 2019. [T]he three time periods have shown again and again that sexual orientation is not fixed. It is fluid for many people, though not for all people. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• "LGBT Fact Sheets". Association of LGBTQ Psychiatrists. Retrieved June 22, 2019. Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime.
• American Psychological Association (2012). "Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients" (PDF). American Psychologist. 67 (1): 10–42. doi:10.1037/a0024659. PMID 21875169. Retrieved June 23, 2019. [S]ome research indicates that sexual orientation is fluid for some people; this may be especially true for women (e.g., Diamond, 2007; Golden, 1987; Peplau & Garnets, 2000). [...] Therapeutic efforts to change sexual orientation have increased and become more visible in recent years (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004). Therapeutic interventions intended to change, modify, or manage unwanted nonheterosexual orientations are referred to as "sexual orientation change efforts" (SOCE; APA, 2009b). [...] Reviews of the literature, spanning several decades, have consistently found that efforts to change sexual orientation were ineffective (APA, 2009b; Drescher, 2001; Haldeman, 1994; T. F. Murphy, 1992).
• "Royal College of Psychiatrists' Position Statement on Sexual Orientation" (PDF). Royal College of Psychiatrists. Retrieved June 21, 2019. It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person's life. [...] The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Systematic reviews carried out by both the APA and Serovich et al suggest that studies which have shown conversion therapies to be successful are seriously methodologically flawed.
• The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies. Wiley-Blackwell. 2016. p. 1781. ISBN 978-0-470-65845-1. Retrieved June 22, 2019. Like gender, sexual orientation is not fixed and static but exhibits variation and fluidity over the life span and is always a matter of degree. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• "Measuring and Surveying Bisexuality". The Changing Dynamics of Bisexual Men's Lives. Springer Science & Business Media. 2016. p. 47. ISBN 978-3-319-29412-4. Retrieved June 22, 2019. [R]esearch suggests that women's sexual orientation is slightly more likely to change than men's (Baumeister 2000; Kinnish et al. 2005). The notion that sexual orientation can change over time is known as sexual fluidity. Even if sexual fluidity exists for some women, it does not mean that the majority of women will change sexual orientations as they age – rather, sexuality is stable over time for the majority of people. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• Diamond, LM; Rosky, CJ (2016). "Scrutinizing Immutability: Research on Sexual Orientation and U.S. Legal Advocacy for Sexual Minorities". Journal of Sex Research. 53 (4–5): 363–391. doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1139665. PMID 26986464. [A]rguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unscientific, given what we now know from longitudinal, population-based studies of naturally occurring changes in the same-sex attractions of some individuals over time.
• Handbook of Identity Theory and Research. Springer Science & Business Media. 2011. p. 652. ISBN 1441979883. Retrieved February 18, 2016. Modern scholarship examining the stability of sexual orientation also seems to support our conceptualizations of sexual orientation, sexual orientation identity, and sexual identity (e.g., Diamond, 2003a; Horowitz & Necomb, 2001; Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Braun, 2006, see Savin-Williams, Chapter 28, this volume). Specifically, some dimensions of sexual identity, such as relationships, emotions, behaviors, values, group affiliation, and norms, appear to be relatively fluid; by contrast, sexual orientation [i.e., an individual's patterns of sexual, romantic, and affectional arousal and desire for other persons based on those persons' gender and sex characteristics (APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual orientation, 2009)] has been suggested to be stable for a majority of people across the lifespan (Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Ellis & Ames, 1987; Haldeman, 1991; Money, 1987). {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews. Cengage Learning. 2012. p. 372. ISBN 111183363X. Retrieved February 18, 2016. Sexual orientation is a deep part of personal identity and is usually quite stable. Starting with their earliest erotic feelings, most people remember being attracted to either the opposite sex or the same sex. [...] The fact that sexual orientation is usually quite stable doesn't rule out the possibility that for some people sexual behavior may change during the course of a lifetime. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• Haldeman, DC (2002). "Gay Rights, Patient Rights: The Implications of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy". Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 33 (3): 260–264. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.33.3.260. PMID 26986464. The proposition that sexual orientation can be changed therapeutically is widely questioned, and there is concern that such therapies reinforce social devaluation of homosexuality and bisexuality.
• Jannini, EA; et al. (2010). "Male Homosexuality: Nature or Culture?" (PDF). The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 7 (10): 3245–3253. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02024.x. PMID 21053405. Retrieved June 22, 2019. [P]osition statements of the major mental health organizations in the United States state that there is no scientific evidence that a homosexual sexual orientation can be changed by psychotherapy, often referred to as "reparative" or "conversion" therapy.

Flyer22 Reborn said: The claim that the Royal College of Psychiatrists source is only talking about psychotherapy when saying "there is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed" is your interpretation. The source certainly does not state that it is only referring to psychotherapy for that part.

Nope. It' not my interpretation. It's a fact. If the organization thought that the phrase was about any change of sexual orientation, it would not say that: "It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life."

Flyer22 Reborn said: I went ahead and removed the Royal College of Psychiatrists source

You have deleted the inconvenient source, because it doesn't match your point of view.

Flyer22 Reborn said: Scientists know that sexuality (without meaning sexual orientation) and sexual orientation identity can change, but they have no way of accurately determining whether or not sexual orientation can change. Like I recently stated at Talk:Human male sexuality, demographics of sexual orientation are based on self-reports; we don't actually know the sexual orientation of these people. The penile plethysmograph, for example, measures sexual arousal in men, but it has flaws, and that includes when using it to gauge sexual orientation. Researchers aren't going by the plethysmograph or MRI scans when reporting on what portions of the population are whatever sexual orientation; they are going by self-reports.

Stick to the sources. Do not create your own theories and interpetations. According to your reasoning, everyone could undermine any research that is based on self-reports. If reliable secondary scientific sources clearly state that sexual orientation is not immutable or fixed, you have no right to remove them, just because that sources provided information contrary to your views.

Flyer22 Reborn said: You state that I "wrongly assume that if a person changed their sexual identity, their sexual orientation remained not changed," but that is not what I stated at all. You are the one doing the assuming.

You assume that sexual orientation and sexual identity are completely different things. Muppet00 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn said: Diamond, who is obviously not objective on the topic of sexual fluidity. So why you feel that this is a good source to cite, as if it's about sexual orientation or sexuality fluidity in general, is beyond me.

She is the co-author of a peer-reviewed article (a review of the literature) in a well-respected journal. It's enough to think that it's a good source. She is also the co-author of the Bailey paper, which you mentioned. Bailey is obviously not objective as well, because he has essentialist views on male sexual orientation. Muppet00 (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You stated that the "sexual orientation identity is a choice" is my original research. Nope. The WP:OR policy has a note that says, "By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source." Like this 2004 "Encyclopedia of School Psychology" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 298, states, "The term sexual identity is used to describe an individual's adoption of a label of heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual." What do you think "adoption" means in this context? The source goes on to state, "Sexual orientation is considered an aspect of a person's identity that is not consciously chosen, and there is significant evidence for a biological basis [...] Sexual orientation is used to refer to the feelings of attraction, while sexual identity is based on the individual's self and social identification. For instance, a person may have an attraction to both sexes (orientation) but choose to identify as gay (identity). [...] Although sexual orientation is considered to be an aspect not chosen or subject to voluntary change, social pressures affect self-awareness and identity labels chosen." See how the source distinguishes sexual orientation as just being what one is and sexual identity as something people take on/choose? My mistake was not adding a "sexual orientation identity is chosen" source for that part in the lead.

You state that "scientists generally believe that sexual orientation is usually stable" is my original research. Nope. This source is talking in terms of modern scholarship thinking that sexual orientation is stable for a majority of people across the lifespan. It's why this source says that "sexual orientation is a deep part of personal identity and is usually quite stable." Per WP:Plagiarism and WP:Close paraphrasing, we are supposed to put matters into our own words while staying true to the source. Sources talk about most scientists not believing that sexual orientation is a choice; that is scientific consensus. Like the Scientific consensus article currently states, "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity." You also added "but also finds that it is usually stable," and added this source, which says "rather, sexuality is stable over time for the majority of people," to support it.

You stated that your version was that "scientific research shows that sexual orientation is not immutable or fixed." Nope. Your version, until I warned you about WP:Synthesis, was "Scientists generally believe that sexual orientation is not immutable or fixed." And either way, both of your wordings make it seem like all or most scientists agree that sexual orientation is not immutable or fixed. And that is false. Not to mention the sexual fluidity sources are prone to place emphasis on "not immutable" being likelier for women than for men. And yet your wording does not point this out. There are sources in the article that are mindful to state things like "for some people" or "even if sexual fluidity exists for some women, it does not mean that the majority of women will change sexual orientations as they age – rather, sexuality is stable over time for the majority of people."

We still disagree on the Royal College of Psychiatrists source only talking about psychotherapy for that line. Regardless, I'd remove it.

You stated that I deleted the inconvenient Royal College of Psychiatrists source because it doesn't match my point of view. No. I deleted it because it wasn't needed for that line, and we were disagreeing on it. This is not about my personal POV. That is not how I edit topics like these. You are the one making it out like scientists have accurately determined that sexual orientation can change when they are actually talking about a change in sexual identity.

Regarding what scientists know, you said "stick to the sources." I have. I pointed you to the actual latest review on the sexual orientation literature, which you keep ignoring. I have not attempted to create my own theories and interpretations. I'm going by my knowledge of the literature. What it states.

You stated, "According to your reasoning, everyone could undermine any research that is based on self-reports. If reliable secondary scientific sources clearly state that sexual orientation is not immutable or fixed, you have no right to remove them, just because that sources provided information contrary to your views." Do not twist my words. But do take the time to read WP:Due. Researchers are very clear about the issue with sexual orientation demographics and that they (the researchers) are not actually in anyone's head to know what these people's sexual orientations are. They go by self-reports and somewhat flawed tools such as the penile plethysmograph. It's not a coincidence that the sexual orientation demographics vary so wildly.

You stated that I "assume that sexual orientation and sexual identity are completely different things." That's not an assumption. That's a fact, unless a source is using "sexual identity" to mean the same thing as sexual orientation. Otherwise, they are two different things. Completely different, in fact. Why do you think so many of the sources stress that sexual orientation and sexual identity may not align and use "sexual identity" or "sexual orientation identity" instead of "sexual orientation" on this subject? Why do you think that the Bailey review states, "Many of the women's sexual feelings toward women versus men changed over time, although typically the changes were not large (about 1 Kinsey Scale point, on average). Yet changes in sexual identity were common." What are you reading? How many sources do I need to cite on this matter? Like this 2014 "Sociology: The Essentials" source, from Cengage Learning, states, "Although sometimes used interchangeably, sexual orientation and sexual identity are not the same thing, nor is one's sexual identity simply based on one's sexual practices." Like this 2017 "The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings" source, from Rowman & Littlefield, states, "Sexual orientation and sexual identity are not the same thing." They obviously are not the same thing, which is why many gay people have identified as heterosexual.

You stated, "She is the co-author of a peer-reviewed article (a review of the literature) in a well-respected journal." And? It is not a review about the overall literature. I already addressed what it is about. And you cherry-picked from it. She specifically promotes the idea of sexual fluidity. So much of the material traces back to her. And many sources talk about her research in terms of sexual identity, not actual sexual orientation, changing. I just went over sexual identity and sexual orientation being different unless conflated. The Bailey et al. review was conduced by several researchers and is about the overall literature on sexual orientation. It is the far more appropriate source. Your "he has essentialist views on male sexual orientation" belief is your personal opinion. It's been supported time and time again in the literature that male sexual orientation is more rigid and is significantly better understood than female sexual orientation. Again, the sexual fluidity literature, which is centered on Lisa M. Diamond's research, is primarily about women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Flyer22 Reborn said: See how the source distinguishes sexual orientation as just being what one is and sexual identity as something people take on/choose? My mistake was not adding a "sexual orientation identity is chosen" source for that part in the lead.

You don't understand the sources, which you have quoted. The fact that sexual identity labels or sexual orientation identity labels are chosen does not mean that sexual identity/sexual orientation identity is a choice. Gender identity labels are also chosen, but that does not mean that gender identity is chosen. Moreover, there are many other definitions of the term sexual identity: 1) "Sexual identity refers to how an individual defines him- or herself in terms of whom he or she is romantically and sexually attracted to (gay, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual)." 2) "Sexual identity is generally thought of as sexual orientation and one's beliefs and feelings about the individual or individuals to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted." 3) "Sexual identity refers to how individuals define themselves sexually." 4) "Sexual identity refers to an individual's pattern of physical and emotional arousal and attraction toward other people."

• Flyer22 Reborn said: And either way, both of your wordings make it seem like all or most scientists agree that sexual orientation is not immutable or fixed. And that is false.

Ok, I agree with you, but the sources that you have provided also do not support your claim that "scientists generally believe that sexual orientation is usually stable", which implies that all or most scientists say that. Of course, I don't state that it's false, I only try to say that it's not confirmed by the sources.

• Flyer22 Reborn said: Researchers are very clear about the issue with sexual orientation demographics and that they are not actually in anyone's head to know what those people's sexual orientations are. They go by self-reports and flawed tools such as the penile plethysmograph. It's not coincidence that the sexual orientation demographics vary so wildly.

And what about this? Are all studies on sexual orientation unreliable?

• Flyer22 Reborn said: That's not an assumption. That's a fact, unless a source is using "sexual identity" to mean the same thing as sexual orientation. Otherwise, they are two different things. Completely different, in fact.

Nope. There are not completely different things since most studies on sexual orientation measure sexual orientation through declarations.

• Flyer22 Reborn said: I pointed you to the actual latest review on the sexual orientation literature, which you keep ignoring.

I have ignored that, because, unlike you, I do not undermine scientific articles/books because of my personal beliefs.

• Flyer22 Reborn said: And? It is not a review about the overall literature. I already addressed what it is about. And you cherry-picked from it. She specifically promotes the idea of sexual fluidity.

Is it peer-reviewed? Yes. Is it published in a well-respected journal? Yes. Is it a review of the literature on the immutability of sexual orientation? Yes. Are the authors of the paper well-respected researchers? Yes. I see no reason why not to quote it.

• Flyer22 Reborn said: The Bailey et al. review was conduced by several researchers and is about the overall literature on sexual orientation. It is the far more appropriate source.

It's only your personal opinion. Why not both? Unlike you, I do not exclude or remove scientific sources from the article.

• Flyer22 Reborn said: Your "he has essentialist views on male sexual orientation" belief is your personal opinion.

Nope. That's a fact. He confessed that in his 2003 book titled The Man Who Would Be Queen (page 126): "Essentialists believe that sexual orientation is anessential part of human nature. I am an essentialist." Muppet00 (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Flyer22 Reborn said: You stated that I deleted the inconvenient Royal College of Psychiatrists source because it doesn't match my point of view. No. I deleted it because it wasn't needed for that line, and we were disagreeing on it. This is not about my personal POV. That is not how I edit topics like these.

The source should go back. Your personal opinion is not Wikipedia's rule.

• Flyer22 Reborn said: You are the one making it out like scientists have accurately determined that sexual orientation can change when they are actually talking about a change in sexual identity.

It's only your interpretation. Stick to the sources. Don't interpret them as you like it. You assume that if a person changed their sexual identity, their sexual orientation remained not changed. It may be true for some people, but not for all. Muppet00 (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the sources which I have quoted, you say? LOL. The sources are very clear that sexual identity and sexual orientation are two different things. It should be obvious to anyone that they are two different things, or else this site wouldn't have one article on sexual orientation and another on sexual identity (also known as sexual orientation identity). There is a reason that researchers use the term "sexual orientation identity," and it is because it is not the same thing as sexual orientation, although it may align with it. These sources are clear that sexual identity is chosen and is far more subject to change. A person's sexual orientation is what it is. A person's sexual identity is the label they choose to represent or mis-identify their sexual orientation. This is why one of the source's you cited on this talk page states, "Sexual identity refers to how an individual defines him- or herself in terms of whom he or she is romantically and sexually attracted to (gay, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual)." And your "sexual identity refers to an individual's pattern of physical and emotional arousal and attraction toward other people" line? I already pointed to a source that states, "Although sometimes used interchangeably, sexual orientation and sexual identity are not the same thing, nor is one's sexual identity simply based on one's sexual practices." I would cite more sources making it clear that a sexual identity is something one chooses/adopts, but you would just dismiss them and/or continue to interpret them how you want to. This is not the same thing as gender identity; except for the latest non-binary categories (which generally don't exist in the literature on gender identity), researchers are clear that gender identity is not chosen.

You stated, "but the sources that [I] have provided also do not support [my] claim that 'scientists generally believe that sexual orientation is usually stable', which implies that all or most scientists say that." I don't agree. Again, the first source used for that line speaks of what modern scholarship believes. It doesn't state "some of modern scholarship" or similar. While citing a bunch of researchers, it states, "some dimensions of sexual identity, such as relationships, emotions, behaviors, values, group affiliation, and norms, appear to be relatively fluid; by contrast, sexual orientation [i.e., an individual's patterns of sexual, romantic, and affectional arousal and desire for other persons based on those persons' gender and sex characteristics (APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual orientation, 2009)] has been suggested to be stable for a majority of people across the lifespan." That is what modern scholarship generally supports -- that sexual orientation is stable for a majority of people across the lifespan. Also, see how the source is distinguishing sexual identity and sexual orientation, just like many other sources have. The use of "generally believe" was just a way of putting the matter into my own words, like we are supposed to do unless we are going to quote the source or unless there are limited ways to say the same thing. But, yes, it would be better to have a source that explicitly states "scientists generally believe" or "most scientists state," or similar.

You asked, "And what about this? Are all studies on sexual orientation unreliable?" The point is that you are making it seem as if researchers know that sexual orientation is actually changing when they don't know this (have been clear that they don't) and instead usually emphasize sexual identity changing. The exception is what some research has found on some transgender people's actual sexual orientations seeming to change once on hormone therapy, which lends weight to scientists' belief that hormones affect/contribute to one's sexual orientation.

You continue to argue that sexual orientation and sexual identity are not completely different things. Okay, then. Just go against the many sources that state that they are not the same thing. The fact that they are often conflated doesn't negate that they are two different things.

You said that you have ignored the actual latest review on sexual orientation because it and/or I undermine scientific articles/books because of my personal beliefs? What? Like I've made clear, you have repeatedly edited this article to push a fluidity POV, almost as if you are Diamond herself. Like Crossroads1 made clear below, your text pushes a POV that I criticized. Like Crossroads1 and I stated, that actual latest review on sexual orientation is the scientific literature. It reviews all of it. It is the gold standard at this point, and Diamond is even one of the authors. And yet you want to focus on that other review as if it even comes close to this one? And yet I'm the one pushing a POV? The sources are with me that sexual orientation and sexual identity are two different things. The sources are with me that sexual orientation and sexual identity are often conflated. The sources are with me that sexual orientation is usually stable (which means that it is unlikely to change). Yeah, I should have been perfect with the lead; I won't make the mistake of being a bit lazy with the lead again.

Of the Diamond co-authored source you pushed, you stated, "Is it peer-reviewed? Yes. Is it published in a well-respected journal? Yes. Is it a review of the literature on the immutability of sexual orientation? Yes. Are the authors of the paper well-respected researchers? Yes. I see no reason why not to quote it." A review of the literature on the immutability of sexual orientation? What???? To repeat, it is about "review[ing] scientific research and legal authorities to argue that the immutability of sexual orientation should no longer be invoked as a foundation for the rights of individuals with same-sex attractions and relationships (i.e., sexual minorities)." It's about research on sexual orientation and U.S. legal advocacy for sexual minorities. Do you not see where it says "U.S. legal advocacy"? And you want to use this source as if it applies to the general public? To quote Crossroads1 below, the source "is by Diamond herself and from 2016, but in context is making the point that legal rights for LGBT people should not hinge on immutability because some do not experience their sexuality that way."

It is not my personal opinion that "The Bailey et al. review was conduced by several researchers and is about the overall literature on sexual orientation. It is the far more appropriate source." Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, context indeed matters. As WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDRS make clear, certain sources are more reliable and/or appropriate than others. And, yes, WP:MEDRS matters in the case of sexual orientation literature (which deals with biomedical aspects, namely neuroscience). It's why this talk page is tagged with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles.

You sated that Bailey having "essentialist views on male sexual orientation" is a fact because he "confessed that in his 2003 book titled 'The Man Who Would Be Queen' (page 126): 'Essentialists believe that sexual orientation is anessential part of human nature. I am an essentialist." I wonder how I knew Bailey's old work on transgender topics would come up. Regardless of what he stated all the way back in 2003, and you making it seem like a person's view could not have possibly changed since then, Bailey does not look at sexual orientation solely from an "it's all biology" viewpoint. Scientists these days are more so about nature and nurture rather than nature vs. nurture. Regardless of what he stated all the way back in 2003, it's a fact that male sexual orientation being more rigid and significantly better understood than female sexual orientation has been supported extensively in the literature. It's not just Bailey stating it, as is clear by that 2016 review I keep pointing you to.

You stated that the Royal College of Psychiatrists source "should go back" and that my "personal opinion is not Wikipedia's rule." Wikipedia does not unnecessarily include references. It is more against citation overkill than for it.

You stated that my view that "you are the one making it out like scientists have accurately determined that sexual orientation can change when they are actually talking about a change in sexual identity" is "only [my] interpretation" and that I should "stick to the sources. Don't interpret them as [I] like it. [I] assume that if a person changed their sexual identity, their sexual orientation remained not changed. It may be true for some people, but not for all." Um, no. The sources are clear that sexual orientation usually does not change. The sources on sexual fluidity stress "sexual identity" and "sexual orientation identity" and use those terms far more often than they use "sexual orientation" on this topic. There are sources that even state that Diamond is not actually saying that sexual orientation can change and that she is more so talking about sexual identity changing. Are you aware of the sources that criticize Diamond's research? Rather than citing a nearly decade old one, I'll go ahead and cite this 2014 "Sexualities and Irish Society: A Reader" one, from Orpen Press. I don't know how reliable the publisher is. But the author of the source relays, "As already stated, Diamond differentiates the capacity for sexual fluidity from sexual orientation, holding (for the most part) that one's sexual orientation cannot change. However, Diamond's concept of 'sexual orientation', as she utilises it in her book, is problematic. Conceptualising sexual orientation as an essentialist trait results in significant contradictions within her book. It contradicts the research mentioned above and it contradicts the experiences of women who participated in the study that is the focus of this chapter." You can read the rest of what that page states yourself, but I will point out that the source also sates that Diamond concluded that "although 'novel' attractions may arise for an individual woman, these are 'short-term fluctuations' (Diamond, 2009: 245), and that women's overall level of sexual attractions remain within too narrow a range to be considered changes in sexual orientation."

On a side note: You need to read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Even the current heading of this section is a problem, per WP:TALKNEW. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• You interpret the sources according to your knowledge, instead of reading them literally. That's by definition original research. You have no power to judge the credibility or reliability of reviews of the literature or book chapters that cite studies based on self-reports. That's by definition a violation of NPOV. Only scientists can do it. You can't exclude or delete the reliable, secondary, scientific and not outdated sources, because you have the other sources. That's by definition cherry picking.

• You insinuate that when scientists write about change of sexual orientation, they always and only mean change of idenitity label. That's only your interpretation. The fact that scientists don't have a reliable tool to measure sexual orientation, doesn't mean that we have to reject studies based on self-reports. That's not our business.

• Research consistently rules out the possibility of changing sexual orientation by psychotherapy (APA Guidelines: Therapeutic interventions intended to change, modify, or manage unwanted nonheterosexual orientations are referred to as “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE; APA, 2009b). [...] Reviews of the literature, spanning several decades, have consistently found that efforts to change sexual orientation were ineffective (APA, 2009b; Drescher, 2001; Haldeman, 1994; T. F. Murphy, 1992).), but doesn't rule out the possibility of changing sexual orientation naturally for some people (APA Guidelines: [S]ome research indicates that sexual orientation is fluid for some people; this may be especially true for women (e.g., Diamond, 2007; Golden, 1987; Peplau & Garnets, 2000).; Diamond and Rosky review: [A]rguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unscientific, given what we now know from longitudinal, population-based studies of naturally occurring changes in the same-sex attractions of some individuals over time.).

• The Royal College of Psychiatrists clearly states that regarding conversion therapies there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed, but the College explicitly dismisses the claim that sexual orientation is immutable. Respect that source. Don't arbitrary rule out it due it doesn't support your point of view. You want to exclude the Diamond and Rosky review as well, because it doesn't confirm your beliefs. It's a good secondary and peer-reviewed paper that appeared in the Journal of Sex Research, which is "a scholarly journal devoted to the publication of articles relevant to the variety of disciplines involved in the scientific study of sexuality. JSR is designed to stimulate research and promote an interdisciplinary understanding of the diverse topics in contemporary sexual science". It's published by Routledge on behalf of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality.

• The field of sexual orientation research is dominated by essentialists. So it's not surprising that they are conducting studies that search for the biological basis of sexual orientation. They often ignore women and bisexuals. I respect their research, but Bailey's review doesn't prove that sexual orientation is immutable or fixed for all people. Muppet00 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not "interpret the sources according to [my] knowledge, instead of reading them literally." And with my track record of significantly improving articles based on the literature and working to keep out WP:Undue weight, etc., no Wikipedia editor, except disgruntled ones, would state so. And you sound similar to two disgruntled editors I've interacted with. When it comes to one of them, I'll give you a hint with regard to the second part of her username: "Mistress." I did not significantly build this article; WP:Student editors did. Yes, I could have been perfect with the lead, and I wish I had been, but this article is not "my baby." Citing sources here on this talk page and stating what they state is not WP:OR. Sources are, for example, clear that sexual orientation and sexual identity are two different things. All I did was cite them making that clear. There was no personal interpretation on my part. Like I stated, I can surely cite more stating the same thing, like this 2017 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender" source, from SAGE Publications, page 867, which states, "It is important to distinguish between heterosexuality as a sexual orientation and as a sexual identity. These are related but distinct concepts that are often conflated. [...] Sexual identity is a broader term [than sexual orientation] that includes recognition of and identification with aspects of one's sexual orientation. [...] Sexual orientations are thought to represent fairly stable, deeply rooted attractions or predispositions, whereas sexual identities are something that people adopt and develop throughout their lives and are a product of biology, environment, and culture." The source goes on to state that identity labels are socially constructed and that sexual orientations are "relatively fixed." And either way, WP:OR (just like that policy page says) does not apply to talk pages. Your view that I "have no power to judge the credibility or reliability of reviews of the literature or book chapters that cite studies based on self-reports" is off, as I never stated or implied that. What I did state is the following: "Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, context indeed matters. As WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDRS make clear, certain sources are more reliable and/or appropriate than others. And, yes, WP:MEDRS matters in the case of sexual orientation literature (which deals with biomedical aspects, namely neuroscience). It's why this talk page is tagged with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles." And per what I stated, we do judge the context and/or quality of sources and are allowed to do so. Your definition of "exclude," as if we are supposed to include every source there is just because it exists, is off.

You stated that I "insinuate that when scientists write about change of sexual orientation, they always and only mean change of [identity] label." That is not what I stated. But it is a fact that this is what they usually mean, which is why most of the sexual fluidity and "changes in sexuality" sources emphasize changes in sexual identity. "Sexual orientation" and "sexual identity" are conflated too often. This is acknowledged by older sources as well, such as this 1995 "Sexuality research in the United States: an assessment of the social and behavioral sciences" source, which speaks of "sexual identity" and "sexual orientation" being conflated, and by the "Psychology and Gender" source I cited above with this post. But despite this conflation, enough of the sources on this specific topic (sexual fluidity) emphasize changes in sexual identity rather than sexual orientation. This "Sexual Identity Development among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youths: Consistency and Change Over Time" source talks about identity changing when speaking of sexual fluidity with regard to female and male youths. It's why it states, "These theoretical models, taken together, describe a process of identity formation and integration as individuals strive for congruence among their sexual orientation (i.e., sexual attractions, thoughts, and fantasies), sexual behavior, and sexual identity." It's obvious that the source knows the difference between sexual orientation and sexual identity. So it's not using "sexual identity" to mean "sexual orientation" when talking about changes. And "the fact that scientists don't have a reliable tool to measure sexual orientation" and mainly go by self-reports when reporting on who is and isn't whatever sexual orientation is our business when it comes to some aspects of relaying the literature, like the demographics of sexual orientation. The only thing that goes beyond self-report is research on the biology of sexual orientation.

You stated that "research consistently rules out the possibility of changing sexual orientation by psychotherapy." Not just psychotherapy, but life events as well." The American Psychological Association's "Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation" source states, "Sexual orientation identity—not sexual orientation—appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events." What do you think they mean by "life events"? With what Diamond and some others talk about when speaking of sexual orientation changing (usually when discussing women), they sure seem to be talking about "changes via life events." And, well, we have the "Sexualities and Irish Society: A Reader" source stating that even "Diamond differentiates the capacity for sexual fluidity from sexual orientation, holding (for the most part) that one's sexual orientation cannot change" and that "Diamond concluded that "although 'novel' attractions may arise for an individual woman, these are 'short-term fluctuations' (Diamond, 2009: 245), and that women's overall level of sexual attractions remain within too narrow a range to be considered changes in sexual orientation." The Royal College of Psychiatrists can believe what they want, but it's clear that many scientists, per the Bailey et al. review, don't agree with them. If one wants to interpret The Royal College of Psychiatrists source to mean that sexual orientation is not immutable for anyone, which they surely can, it's not what the Royal College of Psychiatrists states. And it's clearly not what the Bailey et al. review supports.

You stated that I "want to exclude the Diamond and Rosky review as well, because it doesn't confirm [my] beliefs." I've already been over this. I'm not going to keep going over it.

You stated, "The field of sexual orientation research is dominated by essentialists. So it's not surprising that they are conducting studies that search for the biological basis of sexual orientation. They often ignore women and bisexuals. I respect their research, but Bailey's review doesn't prove that sexual orientation is immutable or fixed for all people." All of that is your opinion. Researchers have looked at social causes with regard to sexual orientation, but the research on that is very weak. The research for a biological basis of sexual orientation is much stronger. Although the research on social causes is weak, researchers do believe that sexual orientation is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. And social aspects are included in that (with regard to environmental influences). As for the rest, as made clear here on this talk page, it's not just "Bailey's review." It's a review conducted by several researchers, including Diamond. You want to advance one Diamond source that we should not use for reasons that both Crossroads1's and I made clear, while ignoring that she is an author of that Bailey et al. review and while ignoring another source relaying that she stated that "although 'novel' attractions may arise for an individual woman, these are 'short-term fluctuations' (Diamond, 2009: 245), and that women's overall level of sexual attractions remain within too narrow a range to be considered changes in sexual orientation." That Bailey et al. review is not ignoring women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I have never stated that Bailey's review is written only by Bailey. You're lying, writing that I'm "ignoring that she is an author of that Bailey et al. review". I have noted clearly that she is also the co-author of the Bailey paper, which you mentioned. I have never stated that Bailey's review is ignoring women. I have stated that researchers, who are conducting studies that search for the biological basis of sexual orientation, often ignore women and bisexuals in their studies. I have claimed that the field of sexual orientation research is dominated by essentialists. It's a fact, not my opinion. Social constructionists are in minority. Research on biological causes is preferred by scientists, while research on social, cultural or psychological causes is marginalized by them.

You have claimed that research consistently rules out the possibility of changing sexual orientation by life events as well. And as a proof you have quoted the APA from 2009 and a 2014 book of un unknown credibility. Your claim is not true. You are cherry picking the sources that fit into your theory. The science is not unequivocal in this aspect. In 2012 the American Psychological Association stated that: [S]ome research indicates that sexual orientation is fluid for some people; this may be especially true for women. This statement does not rule out the possibility of changing sexual orientation naturally. Many other reliable secondary sources confirm this: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. You cannot ignore or dismiss them.

Sexual orientation and sexual identity are distinct concepts, but not completely different things. Many studies on sexuality measure sexual orientation on the basis of self-identity. Sexual orientation and sexual attraction are distinct concepts as well, but not completely different things. Muppet00 (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sighs. And I never stated that you stated that "Bailey's review is written only by Bailey." You do, however, keep acting like it's just Bailey's review and as though Diamond is not also an author of that review. You keep acting like Diamond supports actual sexual orientation changing, when Diamond is quoted as stating the opposite and sources reviewing her research state the opposite. Your "the field of sexual orientation research is dominated by essentialists" argument is flawed. You make it seem as though the researchers are just biased and are not looking hard enough for other causes. No, they have looked. They simply have not found strong evidence of social causes for sexual orientation. They prefer a biological basis for valid reasons. It is not about being biased. And I was not taking on your "consistently rules out" wording when stating "not just psychotherapy, but life events as well." I was stating that sexual orientation changing via life events is also something that researchers have seriously doubted. I did not mean to imply that they never consider life events. Otherwise, I would not have stated, "Although the research on social causes is weak, researchers do believe that sexual orientation is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. And social aspects are included in that (with regard to environmental influences)." As for the rest, I'm not going to keep debating you on all of that. It's a waste of my time. The general literature is with what I have stated; various reliable sources support a lot of what I have stated. Following WP:Due weight is not cherry picking. I'm not interested in your personal opinions or your continued verbal abuse. Clearly, you didn't read WP:Talk. Despite the fact that you don't seem to have read WP:Talk, I'll take this time to point you to WP:Civility and WP:Personal attacks as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You still ignore the sources that do not match your point of view. You cannot dismiss the 2012 American Psychological Association Guidelines, stating that: [S]ome research indicates that sexual orientation is fluid for some people; this may be especially true for women, the 2016 Diamond and Rosky review, saying that: [A]rguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unscientific, given what we now know from longitudinal, population-based studies of naturally occurring changes in the same-sex attractions of some individuals over time, the 2014 Royal College of Psychiatrists Position Statement, claiming that: It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life, and many other reliable secondary sources that support the possibility of changing sexual orientation naturally for some people. The science definitely does not prove that sexual orientation is fixed or immutable for all people, and it definitely does not rule out that sexual orientation can be spontaneously changed for some people. In the past, research on biological causes was marginalized by scientists, while research on social, cultural or psychological causes was preferred by them. The situation today is exactly the opposite. That does not necessarily mean that scientists are commonly biased, because their essentialist point of view may be due to the availability and rapid development of modern research methods, techniques or approaches: neuroimaging, genome-wide association analysis, gene-specific candidate-driven studies or epigenetics. I earlier stated that I respect their research. It must be remembered that if a trait is innate does not imply a priori it is immutable, and that if a trait is not innate does not imply a priori it is mutable. Muppet00 (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I still ignore nothing, not even your "the field of sexual orientation research is dominated by essentialists" argument that makes it seem as though the research on sexual orientation speaking on sexual orientation being innate, very likely fixed from a very young age and generally being stable/immutable is just biased research. Yes, I know that you just stated that "the situation today [...] does not necessarily mean that scientists are commonly biased," but I also know what you have implied. I have addressed everything you have stated, point by point. You repeating yourself over and over, including citing a Diamond review for your argument on the non-immutability of sexual orientation when Diamond herself has made it clear that it's unlikely that actual sexual orientation is changing, doesn't equate to me ignoring anything. It doesn't help your case. I don't think you have read any of Diamond's research. I don't think you've read much on this topic at all. This was immediately clear to me by your need to conflate sexual orientation and sexual identity, dismiss the fact that the two are often conflated in the literature which complicates research on whether or not actual sexual orientation can change, and you apparently being unaware of the fact that Diamond herself doesn't seem to believe that actual sexual orientation is changing for these people (the women she studied). It's why she talks about a heterosexual woman finding herself attracted to another woman and a lesbian finding herself attracted to a man. Diamond retains/affirms these people's sexual orientation identities, seemingly believing that the women who say they are heterosexual or lesbian likely are heterosexual or lesbian, but experience "fluctuations." These "fluctuations" are similar to what bisexual people describe, and although Diamond has said that sexual fluidity is not the same thing as bisexuality, "sexually fluid" is under the bisexual umbrella. It is discussed in relation to bisexuality, which is no doubt why an editor who was likely a student editor added a "Bisexuality as a transitional phase" section to this article. I say "likely" because I'm not sure if the person who wrote the first draft was a student editor. Student editors did, however, edit after that editor.

The topic of sexual fluidity is not much about actual sexual orientation changing. As I've already noted, it's far more about changes in sexual behavior and sexual identity. Diamond's research is clear on that. Bailey et al.'s review doesn't even define sexual fluidity as being about changes in actual sexual orientation. So this article is not going to be much about actual sexual orientation changing.

The reason that I stated that the Bailey et al. review is not ignoring women is because it reviews all of the literature on sexual orientation, and we can see that the literature doesn't ignore women like you claimed. And while bisexual people are sometimes ignored, the sexual fluidity literature isn't at all ignoring them.

You keep talking about what my POV is. I'm keeping all of the research in mind, but with WP:Due weight. A source stating "indicates that sexual orientation is fluid" is not the same thing as saying "sexual orientation is fluid." And I've already been over sources actually talking about changes in sexual behavior or sexual identity when they state "sexual orientation is fluid." I never stated that all sources are actually talking about changes in sexual behavior or sexual identity when they state "sexual orientation is fluid." I have addressed conflation, with reliable sources supporting that the conflation often happens. You mentioned "neuroimaging, genome-wide association analysis, gene-specific candidate-driven studies or epigenetics." Well, none of that has been used to assert that sexual orientation may be fluid or is fluid. And before you state that you didn't state that, I know. Me stating it is me making a point. The "possibility of sexual orientation naturally changing for some people" is not the same thing as "sexual orientation naturally changes for some people." It's one thing to use WP:In-text attribution for something an organization states; see WP:YESPOV. It's another to state something in Wikipedia's voice. The literature is more than clear that sexual orientation is usually stable. It is not as clear on "sexual orientation can change." It's not something that should be stated in Wikipedia's voice. And your commentary that "sexual orientation can be spontaneously changed for some people"? Like I stated, I am not interested in your personal opinions. No reliable source states that sexual orientation can spontaneously change for anyone. You keep talking about what my POV is, but I think you are here because you believe your sexual orientation changed and you believe in the idea that sexual orientation can change. And I do state "idea," just like many reliable sources do.

Oh, and you changing the title of this section to what you changed it to is not any more compliant with WP:TALKNEW than what was there before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Section break

User:Flyer22 Reborn invited me to weigh in. Having reviewed all the sources given, I believe the sentence would be most accurate like this:

Scientists believe that sexual orientation is stable and unlikely to change for the vast majority of people, but some may experience change in their orientation and/or identity during their life, and this is more likely for women than for men.<refs>

As it was prior to the dispute, I think the sentence was somewhat misleading as it implied that only identity changed and not orientation. Personally, I suspect that fluid individuals were bisexual to some degree all along, but we are here to report on what researchers think, and there seems to be agreement that fluidity exists to the extent I stated above.

That said, the version apparently preferred by User:Muppet00 is extremely misleading. It gives the impression that orientation changes readily or easily, and that this is true of people in general, i.e. most people. This is not the case as the sources given, taken together, show.

The gold standard here is the secondary source of the Bailey et al. 2016 review of the orientation scientific research. Note that Lisa M. Diamond is the second author of six listed of that paper. That is precisely the place to look for the scientific consensus. Many of the other sources given say basically the same thing.

The sources are not nearly as good that kind of make it sound like fluidity is a common and general property (although they probably just mean that not everyone's orientation is immutable). For example, one is 20 years old. One is just from a professional association's website. One is by Diamond herself and from 2016, but in context is making the point that legal rights for LGBT people should not hinge on immutability because some do not experience their sexuality that way. At any rate, we know what she thinks for people in general because she is a coauthor of the Bailey paper. The main point here, however, is that the up to date scientific consensus is conveniently spelled out for us in the Bailey et al 2016 paper.

Here are the relevant quotes from that paper. I think this paper should be cited for the contentious sentence and that these quotes should be included as part of the ref note. For the purposes of this discussion I have added emphasis to certain words.

"Sexual fluidity is situation-dependent flexibility in a person’s sexual responsiveness, which makes it possible for some individuals to experience desires for either men or women under certain circumstances regardless of their overall sexual orientation....We expect that in all cultures the vast majority of individuals are sexually predisposed exclusively to the other sex (i.e., heterosexual) and that only a minority of individuals are sexually predisposed (whether exclusively or non-exclusively) to the same sex."

Also of possible interest is Mostly Straight: Sexual Fluidity Among Men by Ritch C. Savin-Williams. [7] In Appendix B, on p. 217, he points out that studies estimate a prevalence of between 2 and 9 percent for men. Quite significant, but this underscores the Bailey paper above that it is not a property experienced by the vast majority.

I will be watching these pages so I will be part of any consensus. Crossroads1 (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Crossroads1. I felt that it was best to keep the lead focused on sexual identity (sexual orientation identity) changing because researchers have been consistent in stating that sexual orientation is stable, usually anyway, and most of the sources on sexual fluidity or on sexuality changing focus on sexual identity being fluid or changing, especially for women. Even enough sources speaking on Diamond's research, like the 2016 Bailey et al. review or this one, focus on sexual identity changing or speak to Diamond stating that while 'novel' attractions may arise for an individual woman, these are 'short-term fluctuations' and that women's overall level of sexual attractions "remain within too narrow a range to be considered changes in sexual orientation." The source also speaks of the belief that the women who "changed" in their sexuality were bisexual all along. There are sources that talk about the "bisexual all along" aspect you brought up. And enough sources have been clear that sexual orientation and sexual identity are often conflated, but are not the same thing. But there's no getting past the fact that some sources do state "sexual orientation" with regard to "it changes." And so I could go with your proposed wording of "Scientists believe that sexual orientation is stable and unlikely to change for the vast majority of people, but some may experience change in their orientation and/or identity during their life, and this is more likely for women than for men." Your wording does use "may," after all, and doesn't present the change matter as a fact. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

My compromise proposal: Research indicates that sexual orientation is stable for most people, however, there is scientific evidence that it is not immutable or fixed for some people, but scientists reject the possibility of changing sexual orientation through psychotherapy. Muppet00 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I support Crossroads1's wording ("Scientists believe ... than for men.") but have a couple of questions. Normally text like "Scientists believe that" would be omitted because saying that is the same as asserting the fact. Is the "believe" wording to soften the implication that the finding is guaranteed solid? I imagine that any assertions regarding human behavior or feelings would have to be qualified by such phrases and am not sure what should be done. Regarding Muppet00's above proposal, why should the invalidity of psychotherapy be in the lead? One argument would be that "some may experience change" might suggest that the cause could be external therapy, and that should be ruled out. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Scientific evidence? Crossroads1's wording is better. And, again, I support it. Johnuniq, I think "scientists believe" is appropriate WP:In-text attribution if supported by one or more reliable sources. We are attributing it to what scientists think rather than stating it in Wikipedia's voice without the "scientists believe" qualifier. For example, in the lead of the Big Bang article, it talks about what scientists believe. Stronger wording in the case of reporting on scientific literature is wording like "scientific consensus," "scientists generally agree" or, like this source (when speaking on what causes sexual orientation) states, "most researchers agree." Of course, the stronger wording can be used if supported by one or more sources. For example, this source used in the lead of the Sexual fluidity article states, "The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice." It's followed up by this source, which states, "Most health and mental health organizations do not view sexual orientation as a 'choice.'" And that is followed up by a source citing what the American Psychological Association believes. So I think use of "scientific consensus" for the "not a choice" line in the lead is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Another proposal: Scientists believe that sexual orientation is stable for most people, however, some research suggests that it is not immutable or fixed for some people, especially women, but there is no scientific evidence supporting the possibility of changing sexual orientation through psychotherapy. I think this wording is better confirmed by the given sources. Muppet00 (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll still stick with Crossroads1's proposed wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Crossroads1's wording is significantly less compatible with the quotations from the sources. A better wording is needed. Muppet00 (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC) His proposal overlooks that the knowledge about the mutability of sexual orientation for some people is the result of scientific research. It also omits the issue of the lack of scientific evidence supporting the possibility of changing sexual orientation by psychotherapy. These are important things. Muppet00 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

And what scientific research is this? You are just quoting things. I disagree with your " significantly less compatible with the quotations from the sources" view. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Based on the latest discussion, how about this proposal? If others agree we can leave off the "scientists believe that" - perhaps it waters it down too much. I never meant to leave off the psychotherapy sentence, I had though it was separate. I include it below.

[Scientists believe that] Sexual orientation is stable and unlikely to change for the vast majority of people, but some may experience change in their orientation and/or identity during their life, and this is more likely for women than for men.<refs> There is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through psychotherapy.<refs>

I disagree with User:Muppet00 about his latest version. The words 'vast majority' are lifted directly from the Bailey, Diamond, et al. paper. Using the words immutable or fixed, even though a couple sources do so, is misleading given the other sources. Immutable usually means that something is resistant to external change and fixed is vague; my wording 'experience change' is more consistent with it being an internal, unconcscious shift, which is precisely how it works according to Diamond. Saying 'especially women' is a problem because it makes women sound like they are prone to fluidity in an absolute sense, but this is only true in a relative sense. The vast majority of women are exclusively heterosexual - around 85% - see the stats in the Bailey, Diamond, et al. paper.

User:Flyer22 Reborn and User:Johnuniq, what do you think? Crossroads1 (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Your proposal still overlooks that the knowledge about the mutability of sexual orientation for some people is the result of scientific research. I would exclude sexual identity from the wording, because we already have a separate sentence in the article about it: "Sexual identity can change throughout an individual's life, and may or may not align with biological sex, sexual behavior or actual sexual orientation."

I propose that: Scientists believe that sexual orientation is stable and unlikely to change for the vast majority of people, but [some] research indicates that some people may experience change of sexual orientation during their life, and this is more likely for women than for men. There is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through psychotherapy. Muppet00 (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, what scientific research? You are just quoting sources. We should also be careful about using a source's exact words (with or without artificial changes) unless it's a WP:LIMITED matter. The "research indicates that some people may experience change of sexual orientation during their life" is taken in part from an organization's statement. As seen in our medical articles, we even given the World Health Organization (WHO) in-text attribution for statements that have come specifically from them and may conflict with the literature. This is why WP:MEDORG states, "The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature."

Crossroads1, I support your latest proposed wording, but I can see doing without "sexual identity." The lead sentence already mentions sexual identity, and the "sexual identity can change throughout an individual's life" piece is also in the lead. On that note, I will state that I don't think that the lead sentence should include "sexual orientation" since, like I mentioned to Muppet00 above, the topic of sexual fluidity is not much about actual sexual orientation changing. And the "sexual orientation can change" aspect is clearly debated. So I don't think that "sexual fluidity is one or more changes in sexual orientation" should be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Although this Women's Health interview with Diamond describes sexual fluidity as "the idea that sexual orientation can change over time, and depending on the situation at hand," Diamond does not describe it that way in that source. The literature is far more about changes in sexual behavior and sexual identity. Diamond's research is clear on that. Even with talking about changes in sexual attractions, she treats the people's sexual orientations as stable. Generally anyway. And Bailey et al.'s review doesn't define sexual fluidity as being about changes in actual sexual orientation. As mentioned by you, it describes sexual fluidity as "situation-dependent flexibility in a person's sexual responsiveness, which makes it possible for some individuals to experience desires for either men or women under certain circumstances regardless of their overall sexual orientation." As for the "vast majority of women are exclusively heterosexual," that view is challenged by some research, but that's another topic.

Also, lower in the article, we should eventually add something about the "is similar to, or is, bisexuality" aspect to the article. This is because discussion exists on whether or not sexual fluidity is just bisexuality. And, indeed, the "sexually fluid" (or just "fluid") sexual identity is under the bisexual umbrella. Anyway, some examples of the bisexual vs. fluid discussion are the following: This cached version of an American Institute of Bisexuality source states, "Usually, but not always, people who describe their sexuality as fluid are bi people whose attractions skew very heavily towards one gender." In an interview with Women's Health, Diamond states that she gets the "Are you not just describing bisexuality?" question all the time. The source says, "The confusion isn't helped by a lack of agreement, even among bisexual people, as to what bisexual means: For some, it's attraction to both genders; for others, it's not caring about gender at all and gauging attraction on the basis of the person in front of you." Diamond says that bisexuality "is a real orientation, it does exist, and [she's] seen a lot of people in the bisexual orientation experience themselves as consistently over time being attracted to both women and men. Maybe not to the exact same degrees—it doesn't have to be 50/50—but they are consistently attracted to both women and men. [...] Fluidity, meanwhile, connotes change over time: 'Someone who's fluid, they aren't necessarily going to consistently experience attraction for both women and men. There may be times in their life that they are more aware of attraction toward one gender, and times in their life when they're attracted to the other gender.'" By contrast, Joe Kort, in his 2018 "LGBTQ Clients in Therapy: Clinical Issues and Treatment Strategies" source, from W. W. Norton & Company, states, "In general, the difference between someone who is bisexual and someone who is sexually fluid is that the bisexual person is attracted to both genders sexually or romantically, whereas someone sexually fluid is often only attracted to one gender but willing to be sexual with someone of the other gender in the right circumstances." And this 2018 "Bisexuality: Theories, Research, and Recommendations for the Invisible Sexuality" source, from Springer, page 50, speaks of issues with the bisexual umbrella. Under its "Incorporating sexual fluidity and sexual identity transitions over time" section, it says, "An additional issue that complicates the defining of bisexuality, is the question of whether bisexuality is even a true sexual orientation or if it is simply a temporary state or transitional phase. While the American Psychological Association sees sexual orientation as a fixed biological state (Callis, 2014), a body of research describes bisexuality, especially in women, as fluid, implying that people's sexual preferences ebb and flow, or arguing that sexual orientation/sexual identity, especially bisexuality, can change over time (Diamond, Dickenson, & Blair, 2017; Manley, Diamond, & van Anders, 2015)."

General Ization, who was watching the back and forth I was engaged in with Muppet00 and expressed an opinion on the versions, might also have something to state on Crossroads1's proposed wording or other matters concerning the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the ping, but between the three four of you you're exploring the question to a degree well beyond my relatively uninformed opinion, and I would probably only introduce noise. I think you're (as a group) on the right track, and perhaps another editor with more to offer will chime in. General Ization ^Talk 12:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You stated: "Again, what scientific research? You are just quoting sources." I am quoting the sources that are citing the research.

• American Psychological Association (2012). "Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients" (PDF). American Psychologist. 67 (1): 10–42. doi:10.1037/a0024659. PMID 21875169. Retrieved June 23, 2019. [S]ome research indicates that sexual orientation is fluid for some people; this may be especially true for women (e.g., Diamond, 2007; Golden, 1987; Peplau & Garnets, 2000)
• Diamond, LM; Rosky, CJ (2016). "Scrutinizing Immutability: Research on Sexual Orientation and U.S. Legal Advocacy for Sexual Minorities". Journal of Sex Research. 53 (4–5): 363–391. doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1139665. PMID 26986464. [W]e now know from longitudinal, population-based studies of naturally occurring changes in the same-sex attractions of some individuals over time.
• "Measuring and Surveying Bisexuality". The Changing Dynamics of Bisexual Men's Lives. Springer Science & Business Media. 2016. p. 47. ISBN 978-3-319-29412-4. Retrieved June 22, 2019. [R]esearch suggests that women's sexual orientation is slightly more likely to change than men's (Baumeister 2000; Kinnish et al. 2005). The notion that sexual orientation can change over time is known as sexual fluidity. Even if sexual fluidity exists for some women, it does not mean that the majority of women will change sexual orientations as they age – rather, sexuality is stable over time for the majority of people. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

You also stated: "We should also be careful about using a source's exact words (with or without artificial changes) unless it's a WP:LIMITED matter." My proposition: Scientists believe that sexual orientation is stable and unlikely to change for the vast majority of people, but there are studies showing that some individuals may experience change of sexual orientation during their life, and this is more likely for women than for men. However, there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through psychotherapy. Muppet00 (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Alternative suggestion: The scientific literature indicates that sexual orientation is stable and unlikely to change for the vast majority of people, but it also shows that some individuals may experience change of sexual orientation during their life, and this is more likely for women than for men. However, there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through psychotherapy. Muppet00 (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to keep quoting the same sources over and over again. Quoting sources that mention research or evidence is not the same thing as noting what that evidence is; that is my point. Because of the vagueness of the words "research" and "evidence," we will sometimes get WP:Drive-by tagging that involves an editor adding Template:Vague or Template:Clarify, or similar, to those words in Wikipedia articles. In this case, they will wonder: "What evidence supports sexual orientation changing?" With regard to the biology of sexual orientation, I can note exactly what evidence there is for it (the biology of sexual orientation). But exactly what evidence exists for actual sexual orientation (rather than sexual behavior and/or sexual identity) changing? Again, "some research indicates that sexual orientation is fluid for some people" is not the same thing as "sexual orientation is fluid for some people." Use of "may" with regard to "may be especially true for women" is obviously not presenting the matter as fact. The longitudinal study research on this topic is almost always about changes in sexual identity and/or sexual behavior rather than actual sexual orientation. The "Scrutinizing Immutability: Research on Sexual Orientation and U.S. Legal Advocacy for Sexual Minorities" source should not be used per the reasons given by Crossroads1 and myself. I've already been over Diamond being skeptical that actual sexual orientation is changing for sexually fluid people; so repeatedly citing the "Scrutinizing Immutability" source that she is the co-author of is off to me. Same goes for sources that cite Diamond as evidence for sexual orientation changing. The use of "the notion" is obviously not presenting the sexual fluidity matter as a fact. The use of "even if sexual fluidity exists for some women" is obviously language that casts doubt on the matter.

As for your latest suggestions, the "there are studies showing" wording is not language I would support. Use of "showing" is too strong to me, even with "may" being included. I also wouldn't support "scientific literature indicates that sexual orientation is stable and unlikely to change for the vast majority of people." This is because "indicates" is too weak, given that so much of the literature is firm in stating that sexual orientation is usually stable and unlikely to change.

Let's wait and see what more Crossroads1 and/or Johnuniq have to state. I suggest that because this topic is so contentious and we haven't yet figured out what we are going to state, we don't edit the article until we first work out matters here on the talk page. If any editing is had without discussion here on the talk page first, then I suggest that anything that is likely to be contested by one of us is discussed here on the talk page first. Uncontroversial edits are fine. And, Crossroads1, since this page is on my watchlist, I prefer not to be pinged to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Another suggestion: According to [the] scientific literature/knowledge, sexual orientation is stable and unlikely to change for the vast majority of people, but there are studies noticing/suggesting/mentioning that some individuals may experience change of sexual orientation during their life, and this is more likely for women than for men. However, there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through psychotherapy

Alternative proposal: The scientific literature states/shows/acknowledges/ascertains that sexual orientation is stable and unlikely to change for the vast majority of people, but the literature/it/a part of it [also] notices/suggests/mentions that some individuals may experience change of sexual orientation during their life, and this is more likely for women than for men. However, there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through psychotherapy. Muppet00 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I take it that you don't really want the slashes used. You are just using the slashes to indicate different words we could use. Per WP:Slash, we should avoiding slashing anyway. "According to [the] scientific literature/knowledge" is unnecessary. Makes it sound like "Well, the scientific literature says this, but us others just don't know about that." I could support "The scientific literature" without "According to." If we think that someone might add a "vague" or similar tag to the wording, we could add a WP:Hidden note about why it's used. But I've seen that readers generally accept "scientific literature." I'm not big on "studies" in this case per what I stated above. I think your "but some research indicates" wording is better. Yes, it's partly taken from a source but it seems fine WP:LIMITED-wise. We could also add in-text attribution for "but some research indicates," so that it reads as "but [so and so] says that that some research indicates [...]" All in all, when it comes to what you have proposed, I think that your "16:40, 25 June 2019" proposal is best. It's not much different than Crossroads1's "16:11, 25 June 2019" proposal. And I prefer your "but some research indicates that some people may experience [a] change of sexual orientation" wording (without the unneeded "during their life" piece) to Crossroads1's "but some may experience [a] change in their orientation" wording since yours has the "some research indicates" qualifier rather than stating it plainly in Wikipedia's voice. I don't think that "Scientists believe" is needed, but I'm fine with using it. Anyway, again, let's wait and see what more Crossroads1 and/or Johnuniq have to state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, looking over the latest comments, I suggest the following for the sentences currently under discussion:

Sexual orientation is stable and unlikely to change for the vast majority of people, but some research indicates that some people may experience change in their sexual orientation, and this is more likely for women than for men. There is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through psychotherapy.

I left off the 'scientists believe that' at the beginning because I now think it is unnecessary and waters it down too much.

I think we should delete the 'significant debate' sentence in the opening paragraph (the second sentence), as it contradicts what follows, and the word 'malleable' sounds like it can be altered via conversion "therapy".

Flyer22 Reborn briefly questioned exclusive heterosexuality in women. The matter of genital response not correlating with orientation in women is discussed in the Bailey paper; my own view is that 'actions speak louder than genitals' - society in many places is tolerant of or even encourages same sex behavior among women, yet most consider themselves exclusively straight even given mostly straight as an option. It seems that for women sexual desire has a lot more to do with psychological factors, not just raw genital arousal, like for men. So I agree with the 'vast majority' conclusion in the Bailey paper. Crossroads1 (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, I agree that eventually we should add material on the theory that fluidity is just bisexuality to whatever extent reliable sources discuss it. Another worthy goal would be to remove the term 'essentialism'. It is not used in science and nobody believes in 'essences'. Rather, it originates in decades-old debates in the humanities, of essentialism vs. social constructionism. Social constructionism is an extreme nurture-only position in the nature vs. nurture debate; I suspect "essentialism" was made up by them as a strawman/insult. Pretty much all scientists are interested in how nature and nurture interact; as the Bailey paper and other recent sources show, nurture's influence on sexual orientation is minimal. There are other issues too but I will stick to these for now. Crossroads1 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I support the proposal by Crossroads1 above. I think we all agree on that text? Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

And I also support it. With the exception of "scientists believe," "change of" and "during their life," the wording is what Muppet00 suggested. So I think we're good to go. Maybe also add a hidden note about "some research indicates" to counter any vague tag or similar tag that might be added to it. Crossroads1, given the back and forth between Muppet00 and I, I think it would be best if you implement the wording. I also agree about getting rid of the current second sentence.

As for briefly questioning the exclusive heterosexuality in women, I wasn't personally questioning it. I was noting that there is contrary research on it. Even when the literature acknowledges that heterosexual women exists (as most of the sexual orientation literature does), we see it questioning the stability of women's sexuality, and even the stability of their sexual orientation when "sexual fluidity" is taken to mean actual change in sexual orientation. And there's also the erotic plasticity discussion. On top of that, there are the researchers who seem to believe that everyone is bisexual, and many researchers believe that more people would identify as gay/lesbian or bisexual if the world weren't heteronormative. This news.com.au "According to a new study, straight people don’t exist" source (which seems to be a copy of a The Sun source and just hyping the research in a way the researchers wouldn't describe it, as media sources are known to do) quotes Ritch Savin-Williams. The source states, "Lead author Ri[t]ch Savin-Williams suggests that sexuality exists on a spectrum and that younger generations are more open to the idea of fluid sexuality than older adults. Dr Savin-Williams warned that cultural expectations of sexuality need to change in order for people to be more comfortable with who they are attracted to. 'We've always recognised mostly straight women, that is, women who mostly are straight but if the right woman comes along, well maybe she'll try it out. We used to think that was only a female phenomenon,' Dr Savin-Williams told 'Broadly.' 'There are aspects [of male sexuality] along a continuum, just as we have always recognised with women. 'Men have gotten so much cultural c**p put on them that even if a man does have some sexual attraction to guys, they would never say it. Previous research has suggested that women's sexuality can change throughout their life. [...] Surveys show more people identify themselves as 'mostly-but-not completely heterosexual' than exclusively heterosexual. The smallest group is those that are exclusively attracted to the same sex." There are also media sources like this 2018 The Daily Telegraph "Straight people don't exist – so why do half of bisexual men fear coming out?" source. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I don't pay media sources much attention when it comes to reporting on research, unless I'm using the material for a "Society and culture" section or similar, or am just noting the existence of something on the talk page...like I am now.

I know that sexual arousal equating to sexual orientation is especially dubious for women. This can be seen in the "Category-specificity" section of the Sexual arousal article. And like this 2018 Nature "Neural Correlates of Sexual Orientation in Heterosexual, Bisexual, and Homosexual Women" source states, "Studies using physiological measures have found that women tend to have non-specific patterns of genital arousal. That is, in contrast to men, women tend to show similar degrees of arousal to erotic stimuli depicting either sex. For example, heterosexual women have generally shown equivalent arousal to both erotic stimuli featuring men and erotic stimuli featuring women. This has been repeatedly demonstrated with vaginal photoplethysmography. This pattern has also been found using less direct measures such as looking time, pupil dilation, and fMRI. Notably, homosexual women's arousal patterns are more category-specific than heterosexual women's, although less so than men's." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, women have become sexually aroused while watching non-human animals engage in sexual activity, but the researchers know that the women are not sexually attracted to non-human animals. Women have become sexually aroused during rape, but are clear that this doesn't mean that they wanted to be raped; they did not desire it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I have made two edits based on this discussion. Here are the changes and why: (1) Removed second sentence as agreed on. (2) Rewrote material and added Bailey source and its quote as agreed on. (3) Removed sources Bohan & Russell 1999, Assn. of LGBTQ Psychiatrists, & Diamond & Rosky 2016, per discussion on why they are low quality/not relevant. (4) Removed source Shehan 2016; not needed, not scientific, at odds with better sources. (5) Moved Royal College citation to sentence on not changing orientation through therapy, and removed part of its quote, on immutability, per discussion here. (6) Removed first sentence in second paragraph on essentialism, per my recent comments and the sentence's lack of sourcing. (7) Clarified description of Savin-Williams et al. 2012, to be more in harmony with the paper's abstract.

Flyer22 Reborn, I think a good takeaway from those media articles you mention is to keep an eye out for such media misrepresentations being used as sources, on this or any subject. To be clear, I have never seen Savin-Williams himself claim that everyone is bisexual, rather the very reasonable and opposing claim that 'mostly straight' is a meaningful designation and describes a significant and distinct group of men and women. I don't really know of any scientific researchers who claim that everyone is bisexual, but a few historians and anthropologists seem to think this based on certain historical texts or ethnographies. The problem with these is that they are very much subject to interpretation; and if you go in assuming that people are blank slates and sexuality is learned, as pretty much everyone did assume until very recently, you can easily draw wrong conclusions on data that is actually sketchy and unsystematic. Crossroads1 (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh also - I know what hidden notes are, but I was not sure what you had in mind to say in it, so I didn't add one yet. Crossroads1 (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I employed WP:CITEBUNDLE for the "sexual orientation is usually stable" sentence. citation overkill is not ideal.

To be fair, despite the way that the media source was titled, Savin-Williams didn't say in that source that everyone is bisexual. What he is saying is what was quoted above: The younger generations are more open to the idea of fluid sexuality than older adults. Why is that? Surely, it's due societal change - society becoming more accepting of non-heterosexual people/identities. The younger generations are more open to identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. With more people willing to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, we get a much better picture of just how many people are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Here is the actual interview with Savin-Williams; like the note there says, "This article was originally published on Broadly, a former VICE website focused on gender and identity. You can now find all of this coverage on vice.com." The title of the interview is "Straight People Don't Exist, Research Says." Clearly, other media outlets led with that the notion of that title. I have to wonder if Savin-Williams was aware that Broadly would title the article that. Anyway, the interview points to the study that has been used by the media to claim that women are either bisexual or lesbian, but never straight. And, judging by that news.com.au source and the Broadly interview, it's also been used to claim that people (not just women) are never straight. The source relays, "Savin-Williams explains that the motivation for individuals to inaccurately self report their desire is a consequence of restrictive social influence: the norms that determine how individuals are perceived and treated. He's been working on an idea that he calls the mostly straight male. 'We've always recognized mostly straight women, that is, women who mostly are straight but if the right woman comes along, well maybe she'll try it out. We used to think that was only a female phenomenon. We show straight men a picture of a woman masturbating and they respond just like a straight guy, but then you also show them a guy masturbating and their eyes dilate a little bit. So we're actually able to show physiologically that all guys are not either gay, straight, or bi." That is Savin-Williams who stated that. I doubt that Broadly misquoted him or made that up. And with him stating that, it's no wonder Broadly and other media outlets led with the titles they did. While we may say that we know what he meant, it's clear how the source interpreted it. The source goes on to interpret Savin-Williams's research in the following way: "The various parts of Savin-Williams' study collectively address sexuality in both men and women, showing that boring ideas, such as that people are either 100 percent straight or gay, don't endure under objective, scientific scrutiny."

As for some researchers seeming to believe that everyone is bisexual, you qualified "researchers" with "scientific" by stating you "don't really know of any scientific researchers who claim that everyone is bisexual." Yes, I suppose it depends on what type of researcher one is referring to. Marjorie Garber, for example. Part of what I was referring to is what this 2004 "Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge" source, page 112, states: "One of the most common popular assumptions about bisexuality is that 'everyone's bisexual really,' meaning that all human beings are potentially bisexual; this view of bisexuality as a potential is also current in psychology and psychoanalysis, from Freud onward (Garber, 1996; George, 1993)." Granted, 2004 is all the way back near the beginning of the new century, the 1990s are even farther back, Freud's ideas have been discredited, and psychoanalysis is usually considered fringe. But that's not all that I mean. Instead of saying "there are the researchers who seem to believe that everyone is bisexual" (note: I stated "seem to believe"), I should have stated "there are the researchers who seem to believe that most people are bisexual." Either way, the topic of innate bisexuality, some researchers seeming to believe that everyone is bisexual or that bisexuality is far more prevalent than many people think, or that bisexuality does not exist as a true sexual orientation (as noted by the aforementioned 2018 "Bisexuality: Theories, Research, and Recommendations for the Invisible Sexuality" source stating that "an additional issue that complicates the defining of bisexuality, is the question of whether bisexuality is even a true sexual orientation or if it is simply a temporary state or transitional phase") are a different discussion. I don't see that we need to go over all of that here.

Again, I'm always wary of media sources being used for an academic subject. In addition to keeping WP:SCHOLARSHIP in mind, one should keep WP:RSBREAKING in mind (like I do). But discussing different aspects of the literature on the talk page is a different matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)