Talk:Sexual fluidity/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fluidity vs. fixity

(Below is an attempted continuation of the archived discussion linked here)

To non-trolls, what I said makes perfect sense and I see no need to engage in frivolous debate, the fact is that the sources disagree with what the article says and my point is well made. You're defending your beliefs by intentionally misinterpreting what I said in order to start a confrontation. I see no reason why this should be buried as you quickly did after I pointed it out. An article should be about the THEORY in question, not trying to say "my theory is better than your theory." Admitting sexual orientation fluidity is a theory just like fixed sexual orientation does not harm LGBT, but it does make for a clean and valid Wikipedia article. SomethingUserlike (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This almost sounds like a teach the controversy argument, with a straw version of sexual fluidity standing in for creationism. As the current lead makes very clear, fluidity (as researchers actually use it) and fixity do not contradict one another; most people are fixed, and some experience fluidity. And this is not us saying this; that is what the literature states, as the lead again makes clear. As for trolling, resurrecting this conversation looks odd to say the least. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Also noting that Flyer22 Reborn did not archive that discussion until well over a month had passed. These things do get archived; they don't sit around forever waiting for replies. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

NPOV Issue with the article in two key parts.

There are at least two lines in the section that make claims that are not necessarily supported by the evidence/studies presented. The first problematic line (from the lead) reads "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. The second problematic line (from the Bisexuality as a transitional phase section) read originally "While this supports the idea that bisexuality is a transitional phase, the majority of the bisexual-identified participants that shifted sexual identity shifted towards heterosexuality" in reference to an aforementioned study. I change ti to "may support" due o the possibility that the studies results are being wrongly interpreted. The reasons the studies referenced in the lead and the transition phase section section may not support the claims being made is a follows:

• While I believe it's probably safe to assume most peoples sexual orientation is fixed, that can't currently be proven definitively by science in any objective manor. This also means we can't assume that some people's orientation is flexible because we can't define what exactly it means to it straight, gay, bisexual, asexual, etc. in a scientifically objective manor unlike say how we would determine say a chicken's sex which has clear objective criteria defining it.

• Since science currently has no way to determine what someone's true orientation is other then by asking them and that we know at least some people lie about their sexual orientation due to homophobia and biphobia then it;s possible that some participants were not being honest their supposed transition from bisexual to strictly straight or gay. For example. it well recognized that their are formally closeted gay and bisexual people exist who admit to at one time falsely publicly identifying as straight or strictly gay at one time due to stigmas, discrimination, gay/bi bashing, etc. Thus, without some objective scientific test for sexual orientation, who would a scientific researcher on the subject be able to determine if some claiming to have changed their orientation is being honest with the researchers?

• Even if it could be determined they were not contentiously lying, there is still the possibility of an individual existing who has deluded themselves into believing they are straight or strictly gay when in fact they are bisexual. This could be because they have been convinced bisexuality does not exist thus they could not possibly be one in their minds or it could be because they falsely believe all bisexuals are equally attracted to both sexes, which they are not so they dismiss any rare or infrequent attractions (same or opposite) and assume they are strictly straight or gay.

• If the people who claimed to be bisexual then switched to being strictly straight or gay lived in a society that had no issues with bisexuality, would they still identify as straight? Would many more straight or gay people (or or hetero/homo-flexible types) identify as bisexual/pansexual? Currently, the research on bisexuality and sexual orientation in general is insufficient to answer this question.

What all the above means for the article is that we can't assume the studies referenced support sexual fluidity given the current limitations in how such research is conducted and what we can currently prove regarding sexual orientation. Thus the limited research available on bisexuality and sexual fluidity might support the claims made in the article. These studies might indeed support the idea sexual fluidity in some individuals but there also might be valid alternative explanations for supposed cases of sexual fluidity that have been posited, that support the theory that all sexual orientation is fixed and rather some either simply choose to hide their true sexual identity or have yet to fully discover/recognize it. So we should change the article were needed to reflect this.--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Prior to seeing this, I removed the second of the two parts mentioned above ([1]) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

So you tagged the entire article as POV because of two sentences, one of which is now removed. Hmm.

Most of your comment appears to be you, personally, questioning the research on sexual orientation. It doesn't matter what you or I think; it matters what the reliable secondary sources say. The lead sentence you are questioning is supported by 5 such sources. So, your critique of the research doesn't matter. It's also wrong; if you had looked at these sources you would know that researchers are well aware that some people lie about their orientation due to stigma. Neither is it true that science currently has no way to determine what someone's true orientation is other then by asking them; a variety of methods exist to measure physiological response to erotic stimuli, and in men these correlate very closely with self-reported sexual behavior or identity.

Therefore, that sentence should not be changed, and the POV tag should be removed. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Without even reading any of what Notcharliechaplin stated above, because I know how this editor edits, I removed the POV tag per Template:POV. Bisexuality has been studied as a transitional phase, and it has been found to be a transitional phase for many gay men and lesbians. It can also be stable. We follow what the WP:Reliable sources state. And we do this with WP:Due weight. I'm sure I'll come back to read what Notcharliechaplin has stated, but not right now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

And coming back to read it doesn't mean that I will reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, having read Notcharliechaplin's comment, I feel the need to say this: This article doesn't at all state that sexual orientation can change (well, except for when relaying a statement by the American Psychiatric Association). Like I stated before, the vast majority of sources in this article and on this topic are about sexual identity changing. The article does state that sexual identity can change because it obviously can. By contrast, research has consistently indicated that sexual orientation is stable, does not change, or is unlikely to change. And we partly know this because of sexual orientation change efforts. If the sexual fluidity topic was truly about actual sexual orientation changing, this Bailey et al. review source used in the article would not state, "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." It does not define sexual fluidity as sexual orientation changing. Some sources do define it that way, but (like I stated before), then, when one looks at the sources in those instances, it's usually the case that the sources are actually talking about sexual identity changing. When Lisa M. Diamond is speaking of sexual identity change, some sources make it seem like she's talking about actual sexual orientation changing. Sexual identity and sexual orientation have often been conflated in the literature. Despite this, what we do state in the lead, as a compromise, is that "some research indicates that some people may experience change in their sexual orientation, and this is more likely for women than for men." Yes, we don't 100% know anyone's sexual orientation because we aren't in their head and the demographics of sexual orientation are usually based on surveys rather than on something like the penile plethysmograph. But although the penile plethysmograph has flaws, researchers have (as also echoed by Crossroads above) consistently found that sexual arousal for men more often than not seems to reliably align with their sexual orientation (or sexual orientation identity, if one wants to call it that instead). Measuring and being sure of women's sexual orientation has been significantly more challenging for researchers, for different reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of content

Crossroads, confused why you’d remove content as “unproven hypotheses”. Isn’t every hypothesis unproven? The hypotheses for sexual fluidity in women makes sense. They’re not fringey or bizarre. You made a comment about same sex relationships lacking evolutionary explanation. This article is about fluidity. Many prominent academics have made theories around this such as Richard Wrangham by comparing humans to our distant cousins such as bonobos. As for the rape part, I understand Flyer removing that. Sxologist (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: can you explain what I'm missing here? Sxologist (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. (This is regarding this.) Is every hypothesis unproven? In an absolute, philosophy-of-science sense, perhaps, but some hypotheses have held up under repeated testing, while others have not, or have not as yet been considered worth testing. The prenatal hormonal hypothesis, for example, is well supported, while various forms of the alliance-formation hypothesis are marginal, nearly fringe. Reviews and academic books on sexual orientation and sexuality typically don't mention it. Whether the hypothesis makes sense is also quite debatable. Let's not debate that at length, since we do have to follow the weight of the sources and not our own ideas. I'm not aware that Wrangham has endorsed this idea. While bonobos are close relatives, so are chimpanzees. I'm also well aware that fringe authors and activists have made very wrongheaded and romanticized comparisons of humans with bonobos. The behaviors really are not comparable, and I don't want to amplify such ideas out of proportion to the scientific findings. The vast majority of human women have no interest in lesbian sex at all, and women don't have sex with other women to prevent physical fights over food and so on like bonobos do. Regarding the sources, Satoshi Kanazawa is frankly a fringe author, so he is not WP:Due. The 2020 Frontiers paper is just a hypothesis without uptake in secondary reviews; it is WP:TOOSOON to put it here. How about this compromise: Material from the Bailey et al. review can replace the existing material on evolutionary psychology, which is likewise just a hypothesis. The Bailey review is a review, at least, and there we have the benefit of the source's context. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

But practically no hypothesis in the area of homosexuality has held up. Kin selection? No. Antagonism? No. Social glue (macquaqes, dolphins etc), intrasexual conflict (bison, flies), practise (fruit flies), kin selection (no good evidence), indirect insemination (sneaky f**kers, beetles), overdominance, prison effect, maladaption, infection, mistaken identity... All of these are characterized as wild speculations (and the selection for them makes no evolutionary sense) which rely almost exclusively on animal evidence which doesn't apply to humans. Does that mean we should delete all of these theories from the sexual orientation and biology article? I'm not sure about that. For example, no one in science believes that the gay uncle hypothesis is plausible yet it stays in the article because it's covered in sources and was proposed by a reasonably astute theorist (despite it being mathematically implausible). Female bisexual behaviour has been covered in countless books for a while now. Female chimps often return from sex bleeding and covered in wounds, so there's at least some area from which to hypothesise that female chimps selected against aggression to lead to the bonobo sexuality seen today. The ovulation timing is probably the most simple though. Sxologist (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that this text should be added. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you good with one paragraph based on what the Bailey review says for covering this idea, and using it for replacing the existing evolutionary psychology bit? I think that fits WP:Due weight, and is the best source. If we agree on that, then we should be good. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Given what was already there on Diamond, this might make it seem to some that the section has too much Diamond material. But then again, the sexual fluidity concept is commonly attributed to her. The text might also seem to be a bit redundant. Seems like it needs a bit of trimming and/or re-ordering. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree things need trimming and clarification. There is a lot of debate in scholarly cirlces about what sexual fluidity even applies to. Some say it's orientation, but then others say it's identity. Some researchers doubt that fluidity even exists in men, while others don't. I also don't think the concept of 'transitional bisexuality' is even clear in the article, because from my understanding for gay men, it's when they first come out as bisexual because they have an easier time doing so (even though it's untrue). A lot of the media/social media discussion (in more edgy circles) seem to have run with this and now say that sexual orientation is fluid and not a meaningful categorisation, it's a choice that changes with experience, and it's not something that is even influenced by biology. (I'm indifferent about the evolutionary part. I just think it's more interesting to have at least the bailey explanation.) Also this statement in the article: "While some biological research has interesting results, a critical review by Mutanski, Chivers, and Bailey’s (2002) lists many methodological problems with such research on sexual orientation. The vast majority is done with only males and adults, many use problematic measures of sexual orientation, and the results have not been replicable." is outdated and quite frankly wrong. It also makes no sense since it's not a critical review by Mutanski, Chivers and Bailey, it's a critique of those researchers from the early 2000's. lol nvm it's from 2011. None the less, it's still pretty bad. Sxologist (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I wasn't wrong per se, the source actually say's its from 2002 on the WP article. Only once you click on the source it says 2011. So that needs to be fixed. I see that they are referring to the Bailey critique from 2002, but that doesn't mean you would cite the original source but have it link to a 2011 source, does it? Sxologist (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I just removed that. It's off-topic, outdated, and misleading about the current state of the research. Yes, the media/social media has indeed in some cases run with this topic way beyond what really is warranted.

Flyer 22 Frozen, I added that because I noticed that the article surprisingly never summarized Diamond's original findings. I think the review's coverage (of which Diamond is a co-author) is quite good and balanced. Some of the rest could indeed be trimmed or consolidated. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. It could be updated with some more recent reviews but I'll come back and propose something when I can. Sxologist (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Definitions?

I wonder about the definitions in this article. They're not bad, but I did read this Diamond paper which opens with "Sexual fluidity has been defined as a capacity for situation-dependent flexibility in sexual responsiveness, which allows individuals to experience changes in same-sex or other-sex desire across both short-term and long-term time periods". That is probably quite a good definition. Diamond would agree that there may well be considerable "fluidity" in the labels people use to describe their identity whereas the underlying interests and attractions they may have are far less so. Sxologist (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the first sentence definition is good as is, although I won't comment on whether one like this might be useful later on. Even if so, it would be good to compare to what the Bailey et al review and perhaps other similar sources say. The Diamond definition quoted here is rather technical; for example, someone could read "situation-dependent flexibility in sexual responsiveness" and think, whose sexual response is not dependent on the current situation? (Because nobody is sexually aroused all the time.) We here editing this topic know what she means, but most readers will not be so familiar. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Good observations - thanks for a quick response. Sxologist (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

We can have a "Definitions" section on sexual fluidity since it's not always defined the same way by researchers (and that includes the Bailey et al. review). I mentioned something about this on this talk page before. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That would probably be a good idea. Sxologist (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

My bold signature was a bit obnoxious so I removed it. Sxologist (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Ha, there are far louder signatures than that out there. I didn't think it was bad at all, but it's your choice. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus about it not being a choice

I’m really afraid to cause conflict over this but none of the sources say that there is a consensus that sexual orientation isn’t a choice.

Yes they do say most agree it isn’t but not there is a consensus.

I speculate the reason there isn’t a consensus is due to the fact that there are still many scholars in religious countries that view it as a choice.CycoMa (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The sources in favor of it not being a choice are so numerous and strong that we can simply state it as fact. I've also corrected your heading for this talk page section. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads you been editing on this encyclopedia for a lot longer than me. WP:SYN makes it very clear that we as editors should not combine sources to imply or reach a conclusion not directly stated.CycoMa (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I sure have, and the rules are clear that WP:In-text attribution isn't always needed. Here, they don't, so we can simply state that sexual orientation is not a choice as fact. At the same time, if people want to attribute because they feel it is worth mentioning what authorities say that, that's fine with me. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads lets take this discussion to sexual orientation.CycoMa (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This was also posted at Talk:Sexual_orientation#Is_there_really_a_consensus; in the interest of not fragmenting the discussion, I would suggest discussion continue there, in one place. -sche (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

-sche In that same discussion I made it very clear it not being a choice is indeed a majority view. To make things very easy to understand I am not arguing against the majority view.CycoMa (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lbaumgartner928, Vanderson2415. Peer reviewers: TRacer202.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)