This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homosexuality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Q1: Why does this article define homosexuality as "romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender"?
A1: Because that is how high-quality reliable sources define it.
Homosexuality was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
The etymology section in this article is within the scope of the Etymology task force, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of etymology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EtymologyWikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/EtymologyTemplate:Etymology sectionEtymology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When editing this article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve it, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Definition of homosexuality
Latest comment: 28 days ago19 comments10 people in discussion
The given definition of homosexuality is not neccessarily true for gay men. Its not neccessarily attraction towards other men that makes them gay. Its the feeling of femininity inside that makes them behave that way. They have womanly characteristics like the way they talk, behave etc. This entire article never talks about why most gay men behave in a very feminine way. Why is that? That is one major issue with this article. I think it has something to do with hormonal issues rather than some attraction towards other men. I think we need a change in the definition of homosexuality. Jino john1996 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is wrong but it is wrong in an interesting way so let's try to understand where and why it is wrong.
First up, it is the attraction to men that is the fundamental definition of a gay man. This is one time when we can just point to the dictionary and that's that.
An heterosexual! The second bit is wrong in a more interesting way because it reflects a lot of stereotypes of what gay men are like and these stereotypes can be self-reinforcing. If the only gay men one notices are the ones that fit the stereotype then one will take that as corroboration that that is what gay men are like as a whole and hence as validation of the stereotype. There are plenty of gay men who do not fit that stereotype but they are typically not read as gay except when they do something that identifies them as gay.
The other mistake is to confuse culture with inherent traits. Scottish people don't speak with a Scottish accent because they have Scottish hormones. Gay men tend to socialise with other gay men, and other queer people, and that creates a shared culture affecting language, dress and manners. You will see the same thing among close knit religious groups, ethnic groups, sports and pop culture fandoms. That's right, evangelicals, goths, weebs, rastas, trainspotters and your local bowls club all have this in common with The Gays™.
Attempts to pin homosexuality down to hormones or genetics have never got very far. There might be something to it but nobody knows what, if anything at all, and it's not likely to be a strong correlation anyway because it would already be apparent if it was.
So, what's with the "feminine" behaviour? It is socially acceptable in queer circles but frowned on in society more generally. Straight men are expected to avoid what is perceived as feminine for fear of being labelled frivolous, unmanly or queer. Were such pressures to go away then we could see straight men return to the more flamboyant masculinities of past ages, i.e. undoing the Great Male Renunciation. After all, we already have a flamboyant masculinity that expresses itself through flashy sports cars. It's not too hard to imagine that transferring back to clothing. In summary, we need more straight drag queens! Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
As a straight guy I feel zero attraction towards men. But for them somehow it is different which i really find hard to believe. I think it's a cope mechanism because they don't want people to know the actual reason why they are that way. I still think we need a section to talk about feminine behaviour shown by gay men Jino john1996 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Look into secondary sources covering gender nonconformity. This review is good for a brief overview. Under the "Development and Psychological Correlates of Sexual Orientation" section, there are two sub-sections: childhood gender nonconformity and adult gender nonconformity. These cover this. As for hormones, yes it is theorised that prenatal hormones and how they organise the brain are underpinning this finding. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I dont have much knowledge in this nor i have sources to back up what i am claiming. All i am saying is that one of the characteristic feature of gay men is their feminine behaviour. Almost all gay men have it. If we imagine about gay men, that is the first thing that comes to our mind. Some gay men able to mask it by imitating manly stuff. But that is not at all reflected in the entire article. Why? I was just suggesting it would be better if there is a section to talk about it. Then give reasons why they have that behaviour. I am not going to make any edits regarding this cause my knowledge is less regarding this. It would be better if someone could do it. Sorry for my english Jino john1996 (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
You may not realise how offensive many gay men will find that statement, and I think it's clear it was not your intent to be insulting. It is a common (and incorrect) stereotype. In fact, most gay men look and act like any other man of the place and culture in which they live. Suggesting that gay men are all (or mostly) effeminate is much like saying that people from {country/region} smell bad or that folks from {culture/social group} are criminals. It is usually capped off with something like, "It's not their fault, of course, it's just the way those people are." From your post, it seems like English may not be your first language, so you have probably encountered people who hold crazy ideas about you based on that fact alone. Making broad assumptions based on such stereotypes is hurtful and usually wrong. Hope this helps, Bitten Peach (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't want to come off as insulting. I just want to technically discuss such topics and make additions to the article if possible. It was just a suggestion. Jino john1996 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Trust me, gay, bi and pan men really do find men attractive. It's not some weird conspiracy to confuse or annoy the straights. Different people really do experience attraction differently. Ignoring LGBTQ people for a moment, just look at how what is considered attractive among straight people differs over time, location and culture. Nobody is looking for an explanation for that in genetics or hormones because that's culture. The content you are advocating for would belong at LGBTQ_culture#Gay_men's_culture if there were sources for it but it sounds to me that you are looking for an answer to a question that you are unable to frame correctly. There is no limp wrist gene. There is no drag queen hormone. Even if there was, that probably wouldn't actually answer your question anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand why you are claiming that a stereotype is true with little to no experience of the stereotype itself. Plus, it would be hard to find studies to back it, so why are you proposing to add it? ~2026-18316-19 (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Homosexuality is simply “attraction to another gender”. I don’t think it is necessary to discuss perceived mannerisms that some homosexual people have. If we go that route the article would have to be expanded to include any kind of stereotype associated with homosexual people. Jamesmanvsmassifiovongino (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is beside the topic from what you said, but I made an error in my comment. What I actually meant was attraction to “your own gender”. Silly error. Also, please keep your comments to the topic of this page, not baseless personal attacks from a temporary account. Thank you. Jamesmanvsmassifiovongino (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Plenty of evidence finds that gay men tend to be more feminine than straight men, on average. Gender nonconformity seen in many gay men also emerges in life (according to Bailey et al, as early as age two) and it happens despite parents/peers discouraging it. There are dozens of studies looking at sex differences/interests/behavior/career and gay men are often – but not always – shifted in a 'sex atypical' direction compared to heterosexual men. As for "it would already be apparent" that prenatal hormones were involved – probably not. We cannot measure or observe how sex hormones arrange the brain in utero. This is a question for future researchers when technology advances. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
We are not really talking about gender nonconformity here though. We are talking about gay men and gay culture. I think the question being asked here is rather less sophisticated than you assume. Remember that the OP doesn't even really understand that gay men find men attractive. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
We cannot just put it aside as "gay culture" when one of the defining features of gay men tends to be their feminine behaviour. When i see a gay man thats the impressuon i get. But the entire article never even touches upon the subject. We need a section specificaly to talk about it. Jino john1996 (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
In case it has not been mentioned above, there is no point in exchanging opinions like that at Wikipedia (see WP:NOTFORUM). It would be better to say something like "Here is a source [details] which says [whatever]. I think the text [example] should be added." Johnuniq (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Maternal immune hypothesis
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 8 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
In the history section of greece, the current way it is worded now is very misleading. It is not same sex relationships that were institutional. It is pederasty that was institutional. It was meant to be educational. But such realtionships often turn out to be sexual. As this is stated by xenophon. That important distinction should be made here. My last edit was reverted for no reason without citing proper reason. I have made no controversial changes, it is all there in the main article 'pederasty in ancient greece'. Jino john1996 (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Jino john1996, I think the history section could be trimmed down quite a bit. It's a little too incomplete in some areas, and too detailed in others, and it makes it a confusing read. Referring to this book, I am probably in agreement with you, and I think the constructionist view is given a little too much weight on this article – plus a lot of it is over simplified. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Before I started editing these pages like a year ago, these articles were in a very bad state. A reader without any prior knowledge will come out thinking that ancient Greece was a gay paradise and almost every men engaged in it. It was very misleading. The truth of the matter is we don't know what percentage of men engaged in such relationships and the society's general attitude towards it. But these important point was not reiterated enough in these articles. Often generalized statements like 'Greek men this' or 'Greek men that' are made. Some major edits are required to improve these pages Jino john1996 (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
We have to stick to the sources, but it is true that in the past some Wikipedia editors would go beyond the sources, such as by overgeneralizing from upper-class men in certain locations and time periods to a general "Ancient Greek men". There were also issues with one-sided selection of sources, emphasizing those who thought it was more common over a broader view; some such individuals were later banned. So our content on this history does need a critical eye. Crossroads-talk-22:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Bias in the FDA claim in Physical subsection of Health section
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It cites the FDA’s “policy” from 2007. This implies that the FDA scrutinizes or denies MSM blood transfer more, considering the context of the paragraph being the legality and safety of MSM blood transfer. A lot has happened over the past 18-19 years, and if you look at the FDA’s methods now, neither the citation nor the accompanying sentence hold up at all. ~2026-35934-38 (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
RfC: definition of homosexuality in the lead
Latest comment: 1 day ago13 comments7 people in discussion
Should the lead distinguish between reliable sources that define homosexuality in terms of the same sex and sources that use “same sex or gender”, rather than presenting “same sex or gender” as the sole definition? Paradisesnake (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
‘’‘Rationale’’’
The current lead states: “Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between people of the same sex or gender.”
The sources cited for this wording do not appear to use a single consistent definition.
‘‘Cross-Cultural Psychology’’ (Shiraev & Levy, 2016) explicitly defines homosexuality as romantic or sexual attraction between persons of the same “sex or gender”.
‘‘The Equal Curriculum’’ (Lehman et al., 2019) uses “same-sex or same-gender attraction”, while also noting that the term “homosexual” is ambiguous as to the group it describes.
The APA document ‘‘Definitions Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity in APA Documents’’ (2015) compiles several definitions rather than supplying one uniform definition. Some of those definitions describe sexual orientation in terms of the sex of the persons to whom one is attracted, including “same sex (gay or lesbian)”, while another discusses attraction to men, women, genderqueer and other gender identities.
There are also major reference works that continue to define homosexuality in terms of sex. Merriam-Webster defines homosexuality as sexual or romantic attraction to others of one’s same sex, and the Oxford English Dictionary defines “homosexual” in terms of attraction to or sexual activity with people of the same sex.
My concern is therefore not whether some reliable sources use “same sex or gender” — clearly they do — but whether the current lead gives appropriate weight to the existence of both formulations.
One possible wording would be:
’’‘Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between people of the same sex. Some contemporary sources also define it in terms of the same sex or gender.’’’
I am open to other wording. The question is whether the lead should reflect the differing formulations found in the cited and other reliable sources rather than presenting only one of them. Paradisesnake (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Snowclose premature RfC. This is a perennial discussion (see the FAQ item). If it is really necessary to change the definition (your survey of sources demonstrates it is not) I recommend following WP:RFCBEFORE and beginning a normal discussion to gauge consensus and workshop possible wording (this form is clearly redundant). –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 19:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Two current medical sources also use sex-based definitions. The WHO's 2024 Frequently asked questions on sexual and gender diversity, health and human rights defines “homosexual” as describing “same-sex attraction and behaviour”, while separately defining gay and lesbian identities using “same sex and/or gender identity”.[1]
The American Psychiatric Association likewise defines homosexual orientation as attraction to individuals “of the same sex”.[2]
Snow close. This is trolling and soapboxing dressed up in the clothes of an RfC. The OP is a newly registered SPA and I had already warned reverted them over their previous attempt to start an argument about this so they are well aware that this is inappropriate. WP:DENY applies here. We do not owe them our time or attention. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Several comments above concern my account or presumed motives rather than the sources I have provided. I have now cited current WHO and American Psychiatric Association sources that use sex-based formulations. Could editors please address the substantive question: whether these sources affect the FAQ claim that high-quality reliable sources define homosexuality as “same sex or gender”, and whether the lead should reflect the existence of differing formulations?
I also take the procedural point about WP:RFCBEFORE. If editors consider the RfC premature, I am happy for this to proceed first as an ordinary talk-page discussion.
It may also be relevant that major LGBTQ-focused organisations and publications have not uniformly adopted a gender-based formulation. GLAAD’s current glossary defines “gay” in terms of enduring attraction to people “of the same sex”, while PinkNews’ LGBTQ+ glossary defines “homosexual” as a person romantically or sexually attracted to someone “of the same sex”. This further suggests that the terminology is not as uniform as the current lead and FAQ imply. Paradisesnake (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is a mistake to assume that everybody who says "sex" means "sex as opposed to gender" and that everybody who says "gender" means "gender as opposed to sex". These terms were used pretty much interchangeably until recently. Even now, most people are not splitting the hair that you want to split when they say "sex" or "gender". This is the niche jargon of the anti-trans movement being projected onto people who are not seeking to make an anti-trans point at all. I think you already know this. I am not saying that we can't say "sex" at all but we will not be adopting the transphobic troll stance of creating a definition that elevates sex (whatever that might mean in any given context) over gender in order to insinuate that lesbian and gay trans people are straight or vice versa. We understand what the point of that argument is and why that is the hair has been chosen to try to split. It is to sow confusion, division and bad feeling. It is not for Wikipedia to amplify that nonsense. I really think that you need to drop this. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is not supposed to create or adjudicate definitions according to what editors consider socially preferable. Its role is to summarize what reliable published sources say, without original synthesis, and to give differing formulations their appropriate weight. Where authoritative sources themselves use different definitions, Wikipedia should report that difference rather than resolve it editorially.
My point is about sourcing, not about the motives or identities of anyone concerned. Wikipedia’s claims should reflect reliable sources, and not all sources carry equal evidentiary weight. Current authoritative sources such as WHO and the American Psychiatric Association use sex-based formulations, while some textbooks use “sex or gender”. I would therefore appreciate responses to the source question itself rather than assumptions about my motives. Paradisesnake (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am not claiming that these (new) sources use “sex” in a trans-exclusive sense. My point is narrower: they explicitly use “same sex”, while the Wikipedia lead says “same sex or gender”. The question is what reliable-source basis we have for treating sex and gender as interchangeable alternative criteria in the definition, particularly when sources such as WHO distinguish those concepts. Paradisesnake (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
(summoned by bot) No. There is nothing confusing, confounding, or misleading in the sentence under discussion here. It is a reasonable and well-sourced statement which would also lead the reader easily to more detailed discussions of sex v. gender - should that be wanted or needed. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 13:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
--DanielRigal (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Done, did a small summary. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)