Talk:Human male sexuality/Archive 1

Confusion between "non-western" and "traditional", and other problems

This page asserts that it is describing the "concept" of male sexuality in non-Western and non-Westernized contexts, and then quickly asserts that this concept is the same as that prevailing in premodern or "traditional" Western societies. While this topic is important, I am very concerned that the claims put forward here are far too general; the present (geographical) non-West and past (historical) pre-modern West are enormously diverse and complex locales. Evidence from very specific sources is used to support claims applied to a range of geographical and historical contexts much broader than those they were originally intended to describe. Two things need to happen to fix this problem, IMO:

• As this article is about contemporary non-Western concepts of male sexuality, I think that all references to historical concepts of sexuality in the West or elsewhere should be removed. Perhaps we need an article about historical concepts of sexuality in both the West and non-West.
• The claims in the article should more transparently give the voice of which source is speaking, in the form of "x expert claims y..." The article as it stands is a list of postulates |synthesized from a multiple sources. This is a type of WP:OR. The lines of verifiability from these claims to their sources must be much more clearly and explicitly drawn. This is especially important as many of the claims are not neutral facts but interpretations of a complex phenomenon by specific sociologists, anthropologists or historians which, through perhaps notable and verifiable, represent only one POV within those fields.--Agnaramasi (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue with the term 'West': The problem mentioned here, though valid, is a problem of the English Language ... so there is no way out of it. Please refer to the Wikipedia article on Western World. West is supposed to mean different things in different contexts. In this case it is used in its most common English usage: Europe and America, the industrialised world, the rich nations, the Occident as against the Oriental.

Actually, west refers to 'modern' europe and America, because before that there was no concept of west as we know it today. We were occident and orient -- in the eyes of the Europeans, at least.

"Westernised" spaces: Westernised spaces refer to the spaces in the oriental world which are not westernised (see westernisation)

Traditional Societies: Traditional societies or spaces refer to the spaces in the Orient which have escaped Westernisation or are not yet Westernised.

Thank you for the suggestion, and I think its a good idea to clarify these words, giving citations whereever avaliable.

<<<Evidence from very specific sources is used to support claims applied to a range of geographical and historical contexts much broader than those they were originally intended to describe.>>>

(1) I've included references from different parts of the orient, including Arab, India, China, Thailand and Latin America. These regions taken together cover most of the orient. But, if you think references from other parts of the orient are needed, I can try and get these as well.

What needs to be understood here is that these traditional spaces are not organised in the modern way, the way westernised spaces are. The Western voice is also very powerful, because it controls the modern day resources and technology. The voices of these traditional spaces may be scattered and weak. But they do represent, what apparently is the voice of the majority -- silent, neglected, majority if you please. But whereever there are voices, they all express the same thing: an anguish towards being forced upon with the western concepts, values and definitions, as can clearly be seen from the cited references.

(2) Also, its only a reflection of how things stand, that no-one so far has challenged the sweeping generalisatons made in the articles on Homosexuality, Gay, etc., e.g., stating that homosexuality has a history, and that the concept of Homosexuality is universal across regions and times, when innumerable western scholars and experts too have time and again challenged this aggressive but unsubstantiated assumptions.

It's just another blatant generalisation/ chauvinism when animals are talked about as 'gay' or when you talk about 'homosexuality' in animals.

(3) ALSO, do you have suggestions to make the statement seem less 'generalised'? However, then we would also need to water down the generalisations made in the 'homosexual', 'gay', 'sexual orientation' etc. articles, which claim to represent the world.

<<<*As this article is about contemporary non-Western concepts of male sexuality, I think that all references to historical concepts of sexuality in the West or elsewhere should be removed. Perhaps we need an article about historical concepts of sexuality in both the West and non-West.>>>

I am open to another article on the concepts of sexuality in the pre-modern west and orient (which really are the same). But I do dispute that the references should be totally removed -- because they are so intricately linked.

It was the heterosexualisation of spaces in the modern west that changed the traditional concepts of Male gender and sexuality in the modern-west, otherwise, there was no difference in the concepts of male sexuality in the occident or the orient.

It is the same process that is being thrust upon the orient now.

Perhaps, we can just add a small abstract in this article about the historical thing in the west, and then link it to the article you have proposed.

<<<The claims in the article should more transparently give the voice of which source is speaking, in the form of "x expert claims y..." The article as it stands is a list of postulates |synthesized from a multiple sources. This is a type of WP:OR. The lines of verifiability from these claims to their sources must be much more clearly and explicitly drawn. This is especially important as many of the claims are not neutral facts but interpretations of a complex phenomenon by specific sociologists, anthropologists or historians which, through perhaps notable and verifiable, represent only one POV within those fields>>>

I am not totally comfortable with this suggestion. You want these concepts of sexuality to be attributed to just the 'claims of the respective experts', which is akin to watering down their significance. Is it not cultural chauvinism, and a refusal to give the traditional concepts their due place in the modern world (represented here by Wikipedia).

Would you do the same to the articles on 'gay' and 'homosexuality'? Reduce the statments made to the 'claims of the people making them'?

Unless ststements are uncontroversial or accepted fact, yes they should be attributed, in order to clarify that they are specific opinions. By the way, I have just read the text you cite here published under the auspices of UNESCO, which very clearly states at the outset that it only represents the opinion of the author, not of UNESCO. This is important to note, given the very idiosycratic statements that are to be found in it ("women who misuse the 'invisible' power to pressurise men to have sex with them are mostly sexually aggressive women. They have little power in traditional societies. But in heterosexual societies they are given unregulated and exploitative powers" etc). Paul B (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I appreciate your involvement and would appreciate if you can jot down the specific changes you are suggesting, in light of the whatever we have discussed here (or are going to discuss), so that we can work on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs) 04:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing which I find really problematic is that you are applying the term "the third sex" - coined by Magnus Hirschfeld in 1920s Germany - to denote a supposedly transhistorical and transcultural phenomenon of "feminine gendered men." Is is not problematic from the standpoint of your own analysis to universalize and naturalize a modern category of identity in this way?--Agnaramasi (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Third Sex, has been an age old concept all across the world. Although, its definitions have been manipulated through the ages, as part of politics around manhood (but that is yet citable as per Wikipedia policies), so that today it has evolved into the modern 'gay' space.

In ancient India, as mentioned in the Vedas, there was a distinct third (sex) category of people, apart from men and women. And they were called "Tritiya Prakriti" or the Third Nature/ Gender. The first being "Purush Prakriti" (or the Male nature/ Gender), and second being the Stree Prakriti or the Female Nature/ Gender.

In India, there still are people who are considered neither male nor female, along with the Hermaphrodites, known as Hijras. They are definitely the Third Sex.

In the American tribes, since the ancient times, there has been a third sex category, apart from men and women, and they are today translated in English as "Two spirited people", i.e. they had elements of both male and female -- that included a male body and female spirit.

Similarly, all across the ancient and medieval world, including what is today known as the west, there has been a distinct third category of 'sex' or rather 'gender', known by different names, including, Fa'afanine in Polynesia, Catamite in ancient Greece, Pandaka and Kathoey in Thailand, Kinnar and Hijra in India, Bissu in ancient Indonesia, and so on.

I would like to add an element of original research here, and say, that the formal definition of the third sex had been deliberately changed in the past to exclude man to woman sex, and to make it synonymous with receptive anal sex -- and this was done in order to make receptive anal sex highly stigmatised for men, in order to discourage them from indulging in it. Thus, male-female sex generally came to be associated with 'manhood' in most 'civlised' parts of the world long ago -- at least at the formal level.

I can provide references, should you need them (Masculinity (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

<<<Is is not problematic from the standpoint of your own analysis to universalize and naturalize a modern category of identity in this way?>>>

What I know is the root of all problems is that the Fundamentalist Christian rule over the western world wiped out the concept of the "third gender" or transgender if you please, from the western culture. Today, western science and society which carries several baggages of the Christian past, does not recognise human gender (i.e. masculinity and femininity) as valid human phenomenon that are distinct from their outer sex (denoted by sexual organs).

However, for the rest of the world, they are a primary distinction between people. Sexual orientation tries to ignore this difference, and seeks to divide men on the basis of a criteria which was non-existent till one creates conditions that artificially lead to its development. (Masculinity (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Still, I think you have a point here. We should use the word Third Gender instead of Third Sex. If we are making a distinction between Sex (outer sex; sexual organs) and Gender (Inner Sex: masculinity, femininity) as per the UNESCO book. Because, third sex, to be precise, can only refer to hermaphrodite. (Masculinity (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

The problem in this case is the way you take the example from India and then say it stands for a general phenomenon of the "third sex" or gender across all non-Western and premodern times and places. This generalization is highly dubious original research.--Agnaramasi (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was a disinct concept of a "third" sex in the ancient western world - certainly not among the Greeks, Romans or Celts. As for other cultures, I think there were a great many different attitudes to sex and sexual identity. I don't know how widely accepted the idea of a Vedic "Tritiya Prakriti" is. We would need some sources (I see there is a book on the subject, but it seems to be related to a specific Indian sect). As I said above, we should not treat the UNESCO booklet as an authoritive source of information. It only represents the views of its author, Alok Srivastava. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

<<<The problem in this case is the way you take the example from India and then say it stands for a general phenomenon of the "third sex" or gender across all non-Western and premodern times and places.>>>

I think it is no use talking without references. So, what I'll do now is to collect some references and then get back to you. I thought this is such common knowledge that you guys would know. The Berdache, the Pandaka, the Kathoey, the Catamite, the Fa'afanine -- they are well known as 'transgender' categories. Transgender is just another name for Third Gender.

What you should understand meanwhile is that the Term Third Gender, which is indeed a modern term coined in the west -- like gay (but it did not take off so well in the west because the western society doesn't recognise gender as a valid human phenomenon), has a well established past as shown by these third sex categories across the world (for which I will now try to get published references). Unlike Gay, for which there is no parallel in the entire world history ... but have you ever disputed gay, as you dispute Third Gender? !Masculinity (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

Unless there is a source explicitly arguing that all of the cultural practices you are ennumerating are manifestations of a single phenomenon, i.e. a shared concept of "transgender" (another horribly anachronistic term), then you simply cannot make that argument. It is one thing to list verifiable facts, but another to claim that they are all evidence or examples of something else. Without a source, the latter is WP:OR of the WP:SYN variety.--Agnaramasi (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many many good sources on sexuality in ancient Europe, for example there is a discussion of ancient Celtic mores in Rankin's Celts and the Classical World and there is a lot on Greek ideas of both pederasty and adult male sexual bonding in Athens and Sparta, for example William A Percy, Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece or Dover's classic Greek Homosexuality. As far as I am aware the concept of a third sex is not present, which is not to say that the idea did not exist in other cultures. Paul B (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that in some contexts - especially tribal cultures - the concept of inter-gendered identity may not be tied to sexuality at all, at least not in any clear way, but may be more directly connected to shamanic functions. We should not simply equate the concept with "sexuality". Paul B (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul, may I request you to use a simpler language, it is difficult to respond when I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Can you guys please take up things one by one. And cleary enumerate your issue.

Let's take up the issue of Third Gender first.

I think, the objection you are raising is that the concept of third gender has not been documented as per the requirement of wikipedia, to be a worldwide phenomenon.

And, although I was planning to bring in published references from around the world, I suddenly thought of the wikipedia article on Third sex/ Gender. And what could be better than that to support my case. Indeed, it validates clearly, that the third sex have been there in all parts of the world, from the Indian subcontinent to Polynesia, Arab, Mediterranean, native America, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Europe, Africa, Latin America and the Carribean ... and hold your breath, even in the West. Now, you can't argue with Wikipedia, can you. (Masculinity (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

It's also worth noting that in some contexts - especially tribal cultures - the concept of inter-gendered identity may not be tied to sexuality at all, at least not in any clerar way, but may be more directly connected to shamanic functions. We should not simply equate the concept with "sexuality"

Paul, if you open up yourself mentally to what I'm saying, you would notice that I've been saying the same thing. That the concept of Third Sex is actually not about sexuality, certainly not in the way it is defined in the west (attraction towards male or female). Third Sex is about being neither completley male nor completley female, and in fact being both at the same time. It has been wrongly defined as including receptive anal sex by many medieval cultures, especially indo-European cultures of which Europe is most certainly a part.

You should understand that this only validates my point, that there is no notion of 'sexuality' in terms of being towards male or female (sexual orientation) in non-western societies. There's only the notion of being man, woman or neutral (both). We have gender identities, not sexual identities. (Masculinity (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

... and that you cannot talk about Sexuality without reference to the gender category of people (man, woman or third gender). (Masculinity (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Masculinity, this article is about "Non-western concepts of male sexuality", so if a concept is not about "sexuality" then it is misplaced in an article on that subject isn't it? I have no doubt that something like the concept of an intermediate or "third" sex had been documented in many places. That is quite different from saying that it is a universal phenomenon. Wikipedia most certainly can be argued with. It is not a valid source for articles. See policy on verifiability. However the Third gender article differs from this one because it is very specific about how the term is used in different ways in different contexts, and when some authors have used it to describe a characteristic of a particular culture, but others reject its value. Paul B (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

<<<Masculinity, this article is about "Non-western concepts of male sexuality", so if a concept is not about "sexuality" then it is misplaced in an article on that subject isn't it? >>>

That certainly sounds like a biased statement -- a mental block.

The article is to show that in non-western societies sexuality is not seen in terms of 'sexual orientation'. It doesn't meant that people are asexual. However, sexual orienatation and sexual identities are irrelevant here. Don't you see the difference. It is important to assert this becasue the gay lobby is claiming that 'homosexuality' and homosexuals are a universal concept -- and that you cannot be involved with another guy romantically or sexually without being 'gay' or 'homosexual'.

<<<That is quite different from saying that it is a universal phenomenon.>>>

If there are references available to show that the concept of third gender exists in all known places (or majority) of places on the planet, and there are no places where it is non-existent then it does mean that the concept is universal, isn't.

The article however, only claims that it universal in the non-modern western world.

CAN YOU SHOW ME ONE PLACE OUTSIDE OF MODERN WEST, WHERE THERE IS NO CONCEPT OF THIRD SEX?

Besides, I am sure, we have to go by what is written in the Wikipedia, when debating such issues. I mean, if third sex is not found in all parts of the world, the article on Third sex should not include all these parts. And, it should actually mention the parts of the world where it is not applicable.

I have shown several places where the concept of 'gay' or 'homosexuality' is not applicable, yet, you are not willing to recede on your sweeping generalisation of using these terms not only for all cultures across the world, but also for history as well as the animal world.

And, where there are clear evidences of a universal concept of third sex, you are not willing to acknowledge that or give it space on wikipedia, at least not on LGBT section.

Talk about Gay chauvinism!

Its worse when someone tries to hide this biasness behind Wikipedia policies, even where there is apparently no such violation; or uses double standards: using the policies against the voice that counters the Gay standpoint, while not using it for Gay standpoint.

(Masculinity (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

In response to: "CAN YOU SHOW ME ONE PLACE OUTSIDE OF MODERN WEST, WHERE THERE IS NO CONCEPT OF THIRD SEX?" The Kaluli of Papua New Guinea. But the question for inclusion on Wikipedia is not whether the statement is true but whether it is verifiable. Queerudite (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul, here is a great reference I found about third sex in the west, before the concept of Homosexuality was developed, which was not only built upon this third-sex, but which has so aggressively obliterated all signs of the concept of third sex from the western minds, that today, people who are doing such important work as editing encyclopedias (like yourself) have no idea about the existence of third sex in your own cultures.

(Masculinity (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Masculinity, you will need to find a notable and reliable source which argues that the "third sex" is universal in non-Western and premodern Western cultures. Without a source, any such claim is original research. Don't take it personally.--Agnaramasi (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How is the third gender an example of the difference between Western and non-Western concepts of identity in the first place? See for instance, the Native American Two-Spirit or the German Uranian (the theoretical predecessor of male homosexuality in the Western world). Increasingly the topic of this article appears to be "Social constructivist perspectives on homosexuality" rather than comparison of Western and non-Western concepts. Queerudite (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agnarmasi, O.K., till the time that I find that reference, let's change it to "third-sex has been documented in cultures across the non-western world, including such and such places..." (Masculinity (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Queererudite, please try to understand this basic difference, because this is the main difference between the western concept of sexuality and the non-western one.

Human beings are divided based on their gender in the non-western world. While, there have been as much as up to six genders documented in parts of the non-western world (like in traditional Bali --- generally, the minimum there are -- and seen in most Indo-European societies are three basic genders.

Whether they are three or six, a feminine gendered male (third sex) who likes men is not in the same category as a masculine gendered male (who is called 'man', while the feminine gendered male is the equivalent of the West's Queer) who likes men.

The western concept of homosexuality, breaks the masculine gendered male from other masculine gendered males (called straight in the west) and clubs them together with the third sex. This is not only problematic for men, it doesn't fit into how things are viewed in their culture.(Masculinity (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

I think, before you go on aggressively putting on tags, you should learn what exactly is meant by West. The English language, especially the US version is based more on stereotypes than on facts. West doesn't mean literal West. It means the Industrialised, first world, developed countries -- often only including those with European background (including US and Australia) or sometimes even including Japan.

Native American people are not part of the 'West' according to this most common usage. And so, in this case the 'two-spirited' people will be a part of the 'non-west' rather than the west.

As far as the German "Uranian" is concerned, first of all, its only a theoretical thing, with no real cultural background. Second, the homosexual concept and identity, as can be seen by the Wikipedia article is actually based on this very Uranian, third sex concept (a fact which is cleverly hidden by modern definitions). As such, it is basically a third sex space, not suitable at all for masculine gendered males. And that is why mascuilne gendered males are always uncomfortable with both accepting their sexuality for men, or if they do, to accept the 'gay' identity. (Masculinity (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

<<<Increasingly the topic of this article appears to be "Social constructivist perspectives on homosexuality" rather than comparison of Western and non-Western concepts.>>>

Since you are so ignorant about this issue, its better to stick to the references when discussing this issue. And as far as the references are concerned, there is no mention that the difference between the western and non-western ideologies have to do with the social constructionist point of view. (Masculinity (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

General tone of article

I have several concerns with the general tone of this article:

• The general lumping of dissimilar entities as the West or non-West. Most of the research cited is about specific places or people and should not be summarily lumped with simply "the West" or "non-West". As a specific example, the identification as Hijra is culturally and geographically specific to areas in South Asia. South Asia is small subset of the "non-West". The article does not address this.
• The statement of culturally specific arguments made in research papers as immutable fact. For instance, "[In the non-West], there is no concept of sexual orientation or men being divided on its basis." Firstly, this statement is simply untrue without proper qualification. Second, statements about the existence or non-existence of a social category cannot be "proven" in a strictly empirical sense. So statements like these need to state who argues for them and who argues against them.
• The phrase "it can be argued" has no place in Wikipedia. If it "is argued" the source needs to be stated; if it "is not argued" then it is not relevant.

Queerudite (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with these excellent criticisms. The text as it stands is almost wholly WP:OR.--Agnaramasi (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Queerudite, thank you for trying to be specific in your criticism.

Point one: About West and Non-West:

(a) As I have mentioned before, the terms West and Non-West are themselves not very specific, as the Wikipedia article on West itself recognises. Their meaning and 'jurisdiction' changes in different contexts. Perhaps, we can define here, the context that we are using these terms in, if you want to be specific.

(b) If you notice, the published references very specifically use the terms "Western" -- whether these references are from China or Arab or India or Latin America. Since, we are only concerned here about what is published reference, and not supposed to use our own notions (otherwise that would become 'own research'), we have to accept it as it is. If the papers say, its western vs Chinese/ Indian/ Arab/ Latin America, etc. then we have to accept it as such.

(c) But, if you think it appropriate, kindly suggest the specific changes you would like to make to make it more acceptable as per Wikipedia policies. My only request to all of you is try not to be biased and do justice as per Wikipedia rules -- but apply them as you do when writing a piece on 'gay' or 'homsexuality'.

<<<As a specific example, the identification as Hijra is culturally and geographically specific to areas in South Asia. South Asia is small subset of the "non-West". The article does not address this.>>>

Queererudite, please note that the article no where claims that Hijras are found accross the non-western world. What it does claim is that The concept of Third Sex in one form or the other is found all across the non-western world, They're only known by different names, and there are regional variations. What is common is the concept of being male as well as female at the sametime (or being neither exclusively). And, the Wikipedia article on Third Sex completely validates my point.

However, I will try to make changes to incorporate your concerns.

(Masculinity (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

<<<Firstly, this statement is simply untrue without proper qualification.>>>

Here, you are not being specific. Kindly enumerate how this statement is simply untrue. And what are the qualifications? (Masculinity (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

<<<statements about the existence or non-existence of a social category cannot be "proven" in a strictly empirical sense. So statements like these need to state who argues for them and who argues against them.>>>

(a) Please explain what do you mean by "cannot "proven" in a strictly empirical sense".

(b) So, can we also say that the existence of the 'gay' category cannot be 'proven' in the western world, in a strictly empirical sense. If so, should we make appropriate changes in the articles on Gay, Homosexuality, Sexual Orientation etc.

Yes, the existence of the category "gay" cannot be proven in a strictly empirical sense. Yes, places that cite a definition of "gay" without stating where that definition comes from or without an appropriate citation should be corrected. Queerudite (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(c) It would be an interesting thing to talk about who argues for specific categories and who argues against. However, since we cannot include original research, someone will first need to do a valid research from a University and publish his papers, before we can put them up here.

Agreed. If a published document does not verify a statement, that statement should not appear in a Wikipedia article as per WP:VERIFY. Queerudite (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there is published material from mainstream sources like the book, "Reinventing Desire" by Joseph Massad, which clearly points out who are the people who embrace the gay identity in these non-western cultures. I do not totally agree with his conclusions, but that is what has been published from a recognised source.

<<<The phrase "it can be argued" has no place in Wikipedia. If it "is argued" the source needs to be stated; if it "is not argued" then it is not relevant.>>> Fine, I'll remove the words "it can be argued" (Masculinity (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

Why is (attribution needed) added to every sentence in the article when references have been cited?

Is it because of cultural bias -- because of resistance to the idea that cultures can incorporate sexuality between men without the concept of 'homosexuality'? This may be news to those living in the western world, but anyone who has ever been outside of the western world will understand immediately, how common and well understood these statements are. (Masculinity (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Nope, it's just WP:VERIFY. Queerudite (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you stop accusing your fellow editors of cultural bias and "gay chauvinism." Stop assuming we are "against you" in some profound way. Your tone is not only insulting but also weakens your legitimacy as a Wikipedia editor. In answer to your question, the attribution tags mark places where you simply must explicitly give the name of the author/commentator/expert whose argument is being relayed. A major problem with the text is that it represents specific and controversial arguments as inert, unquestioned facts. This is misleading and POV.--Agnaramasi (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, its not my idea to hurt someone, but that is the way this entire thing is being treated by people here, who have just no understanding of how things stand outside of the gay cubcultue in the west. Yet, they are not willing to believe even the published references. I have not only given so many direct references of published sources, I have also quoted the exact statements from these sources based on which I have created this article. E.g. there are paper after paper claiming that the western concept of gay and lesbain is not valid in the non-western cultures, be it China or India or Arab, or South America ... Almost all of them use the word "Western" ..., yet you have put (attribution needed) in front of "Non-western concepts of male sexuality vary considerably from Western concepts of sexual and gender identity." What else do you want? Of course, it is a disputed thing, because on one hand you have researchers from the gay/ straight community that support the gay theory, and they are very powerful in the west. The very reason that there are several other researchers in the west and outside who dispute the gay theory shows that there is a problem. You should understand that this page is being created because there is a dispute. And instead of trying to change altogether the pages on 'gay' and 'homosexuality' and 'sexual orientation' I have chosen to put the differences onto another page.

If you see this position as 'disputed' then in all fairness you should also see the 'gay' concept as disputed.

In fact I should put (attribution needed) and (vague) and (citation needed) in front of innumerable statements made in the articles on 'Gay' and 'Sexual Orientation' and 'Homosexuality' for widespread generalisations, of which there are a plenty?

(Masculinity (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Your tone continues to be patronizing and insulting. Please do not assume that every editor but yourself is clueless as to the realities of cultural difference and the historical contingency of categories of sexual identity. It extremely arrogant of you to claim that other editors "have just no understanding of how things stand outside of the gay subculture in the West." The reason for the attribution needed tags is simply that the cited references do not verify claims made in the article; rather than interpreting sources or using them to make original research claims, this article must limit itself to relaying the arguments of notable and reliable sources as transparently as possible.--Agnaramasi (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity, to be fair, the original sentence that was tagged "attribute needed" was much more sweeping: "[In the non-West], there is no concept of sexual orientation or men being divided on its basis." -- which the source given simply does not say. When I changed the sentence to: "Non-western concepts of male sexuality vary considerably from Western concepts of sexual and gender identity." I left the tag, because, given the broad scope of the statement (ie. spanning every human culture in modern civilization), I feel the sentence warrants more than just one source. Queerudite (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agnaramasi, instead of just complaining or removing things on your own or putting endless tags, if you were to raise specific issues, that would be helpful. There is a strong gay chauvisnism and I have experienced it at various forums, including Wikipedia. Instead of taking offense you should take this opportunity to do some soul searching.

Please discuss specific issues rather than just blaming generally of things not being cited, because to my knowledge I have cited every stuff given here. (Masculinity (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Queererudite, I don't think you're making the attempt to look at this from outside the 'gay' experience. I have no where claimed that it is so in every modern human culture. There is surely a Western and Non-Western divide. I mean why do you keep ignoring that every reference that I have provided talks about this Western - non-Western difference. Note that every reference uses the word 'gay' and lesbian identity is 'Western'. How can you say that I am putting my own words into this.

Besides, when you're putting stuff together, you have to use your own words to do so. If people talk of West vs China, then they surely mean that China is non-western. If I use the term non-Western, it doesn't become original research.

Also, when documentation from all non-western sources say the same-thing, then saying that there is a difference between Non-western concepts of sexuality and western ones is not original research. It is just putting everything in the perspective for the readers to understand. Without this you cannot write a meaningful article. Your own articles do that immensely.

I don't understand what's your problem with this.

If you suspect that this information, even though supported by references may be wrong, then please try to do some research and find out ONE instance where the Western concepts of sexual orientation finds reflection in the local concepts of a non-Western, third world society.

I promise, I'll do the needful as you say.

The fact is that there is no such society, except the west.

And there is no documentation of there ever being a concept of sexual orientation even in the West, before the medical science named the disease of 'homosexuality'.

(Masculinity (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

The first sentence refers to both the West and non-West. This spans every modern civilization. There is only one reference cited for the first sentence. More than one does not seem unreasonable. Secondly, I agree that China is non-Western, but the non-West is not China. The non-West is many cultures including, but in no way limited to, China. It is important to be precise in what is actually being stated. Specifically, if a source says China, the statement should not be generalized to the whole non-West. Queerudite (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the first sentence: "Non-western concepts of male sexuality vary considerably from Western concepts of sexual and gender identity." This sentence classifies the world into two parts for studying the phenomenon that we are talking about.

As far as references are concerned I can bring you hundreds of references. But I've chosen to give one reference that talks about the difference between western and non-western in general ... and then give several specific references that talks about Western on the one hand and specific non-western cultures on the other.

I suggest that we work with these many references for the time being and sort out our basic differences first -- keeping in mind the Wikipedia policies. Once, this is settled, then the issue of finding more references can be taken up.

As far as the debate about whether we can talk about the entire non-west by giving references about specific examples is concerned, then what I would say is that I have provided the following references (they may not be in the right place, in that case they have to be put where they belong):

- references that talk about west and non-west in general. - references from specific non-western countries, covering almost all the major parts of non-west -- enough to say 'non-western' countries, even if there are minor exceptions, which I can prove there aren't. These include references from China, India, Arab and Latin America. I can also collect material from Africa and native Australia, if that is what you want.

But then, I am sure, then to talk of west vs non-west is not original research. (Masculinity (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Foucault ref

It is not clear if the quote given is from Foucault himself or from a critic interpreting Foucault. Clarification is needed.--Agnaramasi (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to doubt that this is not a direct quote from Foucault himself. I have read a lot about him, and he has been the first ever prominent academician/ psychologist/ theorist who has come out openly against the 'homosexual' identity. Besides, the statement has been reported by the professor doing the review in quotes, which is the ussual way to do it, when you're quoting someone directly.

You should have some reason for suspecting that it is not a direct quote. However, I'll try to gather whatever more I can about this or similar quotes.

(Masculinity (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

This was an excellent point Agnaramasi, and on verification it turns out it was a direct quote of David Greenberg summarizing Michael Foucault, not a direct quote of Foucault. Queerudite (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you enlighten us on the verification?

(Masculinity (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)).

It has already been corrected and sourced properly in the current article. Here is the full paragraph from the original source ("The Construction of Homosexuality", David Greenberg, pages 486-487):

Some critics have accused social constructivists of exaggerating the power of society to shape sexuality. The presocial urges of the body, such as are postulated in biological and psychoanalytic writings on sexuality, are treated in social-constructionist writings as more or less a myth. In the absence of a concept of exclusive homosexuality, the premodern world, Foucault argues, had no such critter. It was the production and dissemination of a medical discourse in the recent past that gave birth not just to the concept of a homosexual person, but also to homosexuals themselves, and at the same time, to their antitwins, heterosexual persons. In the begininng was the word!

Queerudite (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(a) The line you've added about the debate between social constructionists and essentialists sounds to me basically from the point of view of an essentialist (I believe the reality is between social construction and essentialism, nature and nurture both). However, the reason the social construction thing has been mentioned here is to show that all is not weell with the gay identity even in the west, and that the social construction theory is sympathetic to the non-western viewpoint.

(b) I think the review of DAvid Greenberg is much easier to understand than this direct quote from him. So I would like to use the one by David Green and mention it as such.

(masculinity) (124.30.94.10 (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Masculinity, I didn't add the Greenberg quote: you did. What I did was attribute it to the proper source (ie. Greenberg, instead of Foucault). Queerudite (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cite check

I am concerned that many of the citations may not actually support the statements made in this article. As an extreme example, there is a single direct quote from Michael Foucault that has no fewer than six (?!) references to it. Firstly, for a direct quote I can't see how more than one source would be necessary. Secondly, which (if any) of the sources actually contains the quoted text? I note that none of the sources were written by Foucault. Queerudite (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Either I making a mistake in putting the references, or you're not reading them properly.

The references you read are not about that particular quote. They are about the entire section of "Differences on the concept of 'sexual orientation' within the Western world".

(Masculinity (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Oh, I see. In nearly all cases, references belong after the final punctuation mark of the sentence to which they refer (WP:CITE). Also, all direct quotes need a reference (WP:CITE). Queerudite (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, the reason I put some of the references at the end is because they validate the entire content of the section. If they support a particular statement, then I make sure to put it at the end of that statement.

(Masculinity (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

I happen to have the book where the unsourced direct quote was taken from (The Construction of Homosexuality, great book by the way), so I have fixed the reference. There are several places in that section where sentences do not have attributions. The references you placed at the end of the section belong after the corresponding sentences. If you need to use the same reference more than once that is fine (see WP:FOOT), but placing them at the end of the section is insufficient because it makes it difficult to verify the source of statements. Queerudite (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You can bring each of these sentences one by one and we can discuss and correct them. (124.30.94.10 (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

The sentences that lack attribution are marked: "attribution needed" or "original research?". Queerudite (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what you're saying that the sentences "Lack attribution". You have to discuss it to show that they are indeed so. Like I said, unless you do so, you actions will smack of gay chauvinism, something I want to avoid, but can definitely feel. (Masculinity (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Overzealous editing

Many editors here may not agree with what ever this article says. Especially, if they know very little about the non-western world, and especially if they've only seen the western/ gay point of view their entire life. But that does not mean that you could go on putting irrelevant tags at the end of statements you don't agree with. If there are references for it, then you must accept them.

E.g., Why has the tag (vague) been put next to "the discrepancy" (Isn't it Queererudite?). That there has been an age old debate about Social Constructionism and Essentialism is known to the whole world. It is no secret. Those who say the homosexual identity is socially constructed have consistently argued against judging past cultures as well contemporary non-western cultures in the light of western concepts of gay and homosexuality. In fact one of your own editors had mentioned it in one of the discussions, writing off my assertions as "just the same old debate about Constructionism vs Essentialism.

I have myself read several debates about this issue. How can you say it is vague. You are indeed very ignorant about even the gay issues in the west. How can you do justice to same-sex sexuality issues in other cultures? Either that, or you are an overzealous gay activist -- both are not good for doing justice to your job as an editor.

You should understand that it is now time to give space to facts the gay movement has been distorting and suppressing for sometime now.

(Masculinity (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

I put the tag on the phrase "the discrepancy" because it is not clear to me what "the discrepancy" is. A discrepancy is two or more things that contradict each other. It is not clear from the article whether the discrepancy is between:

• Social constructivism and essentialism (concepts which haven't been introduced in the article before "the discrepancy" is used)
• Identity in the West and non-West
• Western society's concept of "sexual orientation" and men's self-identification

The phrase as written is vague. Queerudite (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Queererudite, how would you like me to go about putting a tag in front of every sentence in the articles on 'gay', 'homosexuality' and 'sexual orientation', because I don't understand them or relate with them or don't agree with them.

IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOMETHING, WHY DON'T YOU DISCUSS IT HERE FIRST, INSTEAD OF GOING AND MAKING (SOMETIMES HUGE CHANGES) ON THE MAIN ARTICLE ITSELF.

I mean I can see that you have no understanding or appreciation of the non-gay/ non-western standpoint of male to male sexuality. But one can try patiently and discuss them. This is gonna be a new thing for most people who have not been exposed to other cultures.

(Masculinity (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

As a side note, your comments about me personally are quite hurtful and completely inappropriate. Please be civil and assume good faith. Queerudite (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My intention was not to hurt you, but just to remind you, because some of your editing seemed way too out of place. Anyways, I'll try not to do that again. But may I ask you and others to do this exercise with a more open mind. I mean it is one thing to ask to comply with Wikipedia policies. But once I do this, you should not unnecessarily split hair in order to show your displeasure. You should edit this article as you would had it been written with the Gay standpoint. Only then can you honestly ask not to be judged as more of an activist than an editor. I mean I have this problem with articles on Homosexuality, as editors try to use every fair and unfair means to stop any stuff that goes against the Gay POV to be added to LGBT articles.

(Masculinity (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Masculinity, when you write things like "you should not unnecessarily split hair in order to show your displeasure." it makes me feel hurt and not listened to. When you mischaracterize my motivations, it makes me feel like you are making an argument on my behalf, one that I don't agree with, and then summarily dismissing that argument. It is difficult to work collaboratively when others speak on your behalf. I have not questioned your intentions or motivations in editing this article. I have assumed and still assume that your intentions are nothing short of trying to improve the quality of this article and the general quality of Wikipedia by extension. I only ask that you show me and other editors the same courtesy and respect by also assuming good faith. Thank you. Queerudite (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take care of that in future. Like I said, its a case of once bitten, twice shy. It seems like I misunderstood you. (Masculinity (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, Masculinity. I appreciate that. I think it will make future editing much more constructive. Would you mind clarifying what you meant by "this discrepancy"? Thanks. Queerudite (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Too few opinions

This article discusses social constructivism and essentialism, but only provides social constructivist arguments. Many social constructivist arguments are presented as though they were facts. In fact, essentialism is not even defined in this article. This article should provide some discussion of essentialist arguments as well. Queerudite (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Queererudite, the entire LGBT gamut on Wikipedia is about the essentialist point of view -- although it passes off as THE UNIVERSAL TRUTH. In fact, if I may say so, the LGBT is given 'ownership' of man's sexual need for men. That is why they don't allow anyone to love another man without being gay (it's like in Christianity you can not relate with god unless you're a member of the church). However, to correct you on this, this page is certainly not about the Essentialist point of view. NoSir. The Social Construction point of view basically arose out of the discomfort of men in western cultures who do not relate with the gay identity but may not have any problem accepting their sexual need for men (original research). However, since they don't have a concept of gender (as distinct from sex), and thus 'third gender', they have not been able to place their discomfort in its (if I may say so!) proper perspective. I think their basic contention is that sexuality is not fixated, and it is wrong to classify people based on exclusive 'homosexuality' and so on.

While, this article is about a totally different point of view that exists in more than half of the world. Only a passing reference has been made to debate within the western society. In fact, this reference should also be made on the main page on homosexuality, gay and sexual orientation. This page is not about Social Constructionism or Essentialist point of view. It's about non-western point of view.

I would argue for a separate page on 'Social Constructionist' theory of sexuality as well

(Masculinity (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)).

Masculinity, I am confused. If this article is not about "Social Constructionism or Essentialist point of view", why did you add text about it in the first place? I am fine with removing the discussion of the two. I would also be fine with keeping it if Essentialism were at least explained. Queerudite (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and mention Essentialism. But please don't go overboard. Like I said, everything concerning male sexuality for men on Wikipedia, basically consists of the Essentialist argument. This is the page to discuss otherwise.

But to make things a bit more complex, I personally feel that sexuality is given by nature, it's only that the western society just defines it wrongly, without taking into account the Gender factor, and without giving due recognition to the natural fluidity of sexuality for most humans.

(Masculinity (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

But, while you can add a small note about essentialism, please do understand that this article is specifically titled "Non-Western concepts of male sexuality". The Social Constructionism theory is sypathetic to this stand, and finds no place at all (like the non-western POV) in Gay discourse in Wikipedia ... it is not appropriate to include the Essentialist POV here.

However, the Gay section or the Sexual Orietntation section claims to talk about male-male sexuality as its sole representation, and so needs to accomodate all points of view. Had it been the "Western concept of male sexuality", there would be no need to include more than a line about the Construction theory or the Non-Western POV.

(Masculinity (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

QUEERERUDITE, Why are you changing your discussion text retrospectively. You have also added stuff in the middle of the discussion. I will not know the points that you have made, nor would I be able to answer your points.

The following text was not there the last time I answered your query:

I put the tag on the phrase "the discrepancy" because it is not clear to me what "the discrepancy" is. A discrepancy is two or more things that contradict each other. It is not clear from the article whether the discrepancy is between: Social constructivism and essentialism (concepts which haven't been introduced in the article before "the discrepancy" is used) Identity in the West and non-West Western society's concept of "sexual orientation" and men's self-identification The phrase as written is vague. Queerudite (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC

(Masculinity (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

I don't see any evidence that Queerudite is "changing [his] discussion text", though there is nothing to stop editors adding or correcting comments. Your argument about the social constructivist POV is circular. Even if it were unambiguously true that the was concept of 'gay' identity in the 'non-West', as you want to argue, then that would not mean that the modern concept did not usefully describe conditions that did in fact exist in non-Western and premodern culture. The concept of homosexuality as a "condition" or "identity" is a product of modern medical/psychology discourse. Like all such concepts, it did not clearly exist beforehand and it does not exist in cultures uninfluenced by models defined by modern Western medicine and psychology. The same is true, for example, of schizophrenia. The fact that the concept of schizophrenia did not exist does not mean that we cannot meaningfully speak of historical and non-Western persons as having been schizophrenic. The essentialist postion simply holds that there are facts which are best descrbed by a modern concept and which previously had no adequate description. There are descriptions of behaviour by ancient writers that we could reasonably label schiozophrenia, and likewise there are accounts that might now lead us to call historical individuals "homosexual" (e.g Hadrian). Paul B (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity, I would encourage you to look at the history. You inserted a comment after mine and apparently without reading the comment I added approximately seven hours earlier. I would still appreciate a response to what you meant by "this discrepancy" though. Queerudite (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul, first of all, I have made no arguments vis-a-vis social constructionism. The non-western POV is not the same as the social-constructionist theory. The latter says that sexuality is socially constructed. The implication of the non-western concept of sexuality is that the gay identity and the way the 'essential' humamn sexuality is constructed by the society is socially constructed. Can you see the difference between the two. The non-western point of view is different from both social constructionists and the essentialists.

The difference, like I mentioned before, is that:

(a) the essentialist POV is powerful in the west, and the social constructionists are the only ones that challenge it.

(b) the social constructionist are more understanding and accepting of the non-western POV, and in fact unlike the essentialists understand that there is a problem here.

As far as the discussion about the usefulness of the concept of 'homosexuality' in understanding non-western cultures (including past european cultures) is concerned, and your equating it with 'Schizophrenia' there are the following points I'd like to make: (a) Male to male sexuality is neither a medical condition, nor so specific as can be treated in the same way as 'Schizophrenia'. In fact, identifying it like this (homosexuality) makes it look like a disease.

(b) Let's assume that the term 'Schizophrenia' is factually, logically and scientifically correct. In that case, it can be used across different cultures (eventhough it may not be so even with Schizophrenia, but that's a different issue).

However, the problem is that the 'gay' identity and the concepts of 'homosexuality' are not even sound scientifically. There are several drawbacks with the modern western concepts of 'gay' and 'homosexuality' that make them unsuitable to describe the actual situation even in the modern west.

However, all these things are beyond the scope of Wikipedia, since as of yet I don't have references. Therefore, I am not claiming any of that. I'm only writing what has been raised through published papers.

I have shown, through publihsed sources that there is a problem between west on one hand and non-western cultures on the other with regard to the concept of homosexuality. And I'm asking to incorporate this article in order to highlight that problem.

If you have a published source that says that the concept of 'gay' is valid in these societies, despite these objections, we can add this information as well.

(Masculinity (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

"The latter says that sexuality is socially constructed. The implication of the non-western concept of sexuality is that the gay identity and the way the 'essential' human sexuality is constructed by the society is socially constructed. Can you see the difference between the two?" Nope, can't say that I can. In fact I can't make any clear sense of the second sentence at all. I think you are trying to say that "gay identity" is socially constructed but that "essential human sexuality" is not, but you may be saying that the concept that there is an 'essential' sexual identity is contructed. However the sentence is so grammatically confusing it is very far from clear what you are trying to say. I don't think an "essentialist" (a term that has several meanings) position implies anything about the validity of non-western or pre-modern models. It simply implies that models attempt to describe fact, and that there are facts of which models speak, not merely shifting constructions. This alao implies tha some models may genuinely describe those fact more adequately than others. The example of schizophrenia was not given to compare homosexuality to a disease (a hackneyed argument), but to point to the historical fact that the concept arose from medical/psychological discourse, and shares its form with other such concepts. That would apply to entirely neutral ones about peronality types too (extrovert/introvert, for example). Noone is opposed to having an article on this topic. The problem lies with the sweeping generalisations and dogmatic character of the text. Paul B (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Queererudite, I wonder why you can't understand what the discrepancy is all about. If its your personal problem in understanding this issue (or even with some other gay people) it doesn't mean you can put a tag at the sentence without at least discussing the issue with the author.

IT seems you've removed a line that went before the discrepancy statement. I had included a line that went something like, "the western society has been unable to explain this indescrepancy". This is corroborated by the corresponding reference that quoted the study, which goes like this:

"Despite recent theories of sexual identity development and synthesis, very little is actually known about why some people who experience same-sex attraction integrate their experiences into a lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) identity by identifying with LGB-affirming ideologies, while others dis-identify with LGB-affirming ideologies. It is unclear whether specific milestone events lead to one outcome, or whether multiple outcomes are possible with respect to sexual identity synthesis.”

This is the descrepancy I have spoken about.

(Masculinity (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

Masculinity, the line "the western society has been unable to explain this indescrepancy", was probably removed because it doesn't make any sense. If you meant "discrepancy" that's a different matter. I don't think indiscrepancy is a word, and if it was it would mean the opposite of discrepancy. (Also, Queerudite is discussing with you.) Aleta ^Sing 15:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see ... wrong English, sorry... I'm just too overwhelmed by all this opposition to this article. (Masculinity (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Yes Aleta, Queererudite does seem to be sincere, if a bit overzealous. Yet, he still goes on putting endless tags, most of which I feel are unwarranted and could also be because of an aggressive lack of understanding of non-gay perspectives, Had it been someone else, I would think it was pure chauvinsim.

I think editors here need to show some restraint and patience before coming down on the article like this. Because I know and I have experiences similar aggressive denial of space at almost all 'gay' forums. (Masculinity (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Rephrasing of the first section / question re: article deletion

I have tried to rephrase that first section so it is less vague and no longer contradicts itself so directly. I think some of it remains original research and still more are unverified facts. But this is a better start. I have a question, though... Should an article as big a mess as this one be nominated for deletion?? I think a lot of facts about culturally specific sexual practices and beliefs could really be incorporated into the main homosexuality article. (And No, I don't think the word "homosexuality" is overly problematic in this case)--Agnaramasi (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent changes. It could still use citations, but at least it is more coherent. I think your suggestion to add a section to homosexuality about social constructivism and culturally specific identity is a good one. There is a very brief mention of Foucault on the article right now, but it could be elaborated on. Queerudite (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to deleting the article, I am not sure. On the one hand, I don't see where the article is headed. The "Limits of the concept of sexual orientation within the Western world" section seems off topic for an article about Non-western identity. The section on "Comparison of Western and non-Western societies" doesn't seem particularly unique to the Non-west either (e.g. third gender category, men's spaces, etc). On the other hand, I think much of this information is important and warrants both infusion with other articles and stand-alone articles. Maybe the focus should be changed and the article renamed to "Social constructivist views of sexual identity", "Sexual identity and culture", or "Culturally-specific sexual identity"? I don't know. Thoughts? Queerudite (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The section is controlled by the strong gay lobby, so I won't be surprised if it is eventually deleted because the gay lobby doesn't want to give space to this information, but if Wikipedia has to maintain its credibility on this issue, sooner or later it will have to acknowledge the strong difference between the western and non-western world. (Masculinity (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

I can see that at least as far as Agarmassi is concerned he is already intent on having this article deleted. It has not even been established that there is any problem whatsoever with the article as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned. I can see some strong gay activism here, when without discussing the matter here, the material is disqualified upon one's own whims and fancies, tags put unnecessarily, but without being bothering to explain one's position clearly. (Masculinity (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

If you wish to get other editors involved who are not part of the Gay Mafia, then you can file a Request for comments Paul B (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are your own worst enemy, Masculinity. Your original contribution was totally unacceptable as per basic Wikipedia policy for the many reasons we've given. The only person who is being dogmatic and unreasonable in this discussion is yourself. Stop assuming that everyone is somehow affiliated with the "gay lobby" and is irredeemably biased against non-essentialist or non-Western perspectives. Your comments about me are not only personally offensive but also in violation of WP:AGF and WP:Civility. You might even thank me for improving the incomprehensible first section if you had any respect for other editors at all. All I am advocating is that non-Western perspectives be better incorporated into the other GLBT articles.--Agnaramasi (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agnarmasi, I don't know if you're threatening me or something ... but, you guys are surely pulling your gay weight around. You raised some points about western and non-western and about a few other things. I answered them and then I expect your response to my answer. Instead, you go and change things on your own, without discussing them with me, the original author, and without bothering to answer my answers. If this is not aggressive activism, what is. It is I who should be offended for being given this shoddy treatment. (Masculinity (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

You wrote the whole article without discussing its contents with anyone beforehand. Your approach to discussion is often difficult to distinguish from unrelenting attack and repeatedly includes the absurdly misplaced and patronising pointing out of the obvious ("West doesn't mean literal West. It means the Industrialised, first world, developed countries -- often only including those with European background"). It's hardly surprising that people do not persist with attempts to build consensus by discussion. Furthermore any article can and will be edited at any time. There is not requirement that all changes must be discussed. Paul B (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that how things are done around here? So, I can go and edit the article on Gay and Homosexuality, if I find things are not supported by references and if they are there the references are not proper -- without discussing the matter with the writer of the article? Then it would be a free-for-all! (Masculinity (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

There is no "writer" of an article - see WP:OWN - only an editor who has started an article and editors who have contributed to it. If you find controversial things that are not sourced properly then you can remove the content. However if you do this with content which has been around for a while then expect some protests. The polite thing to do in these cases is put {{fact}} tags after content which needs a source. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

<<<You wrote the whole article without discussing its contents with anyone beforehand.>>>

That's a wrong accusation. In fact I posted the article up for discussion and approval, and it was only when several members almost unanimously said that this article should be posted and also asked me to put a short abstract in the articles on 'gay' and 'homosexuality' that I posted them here.

I was asked by one of the moderators/ editors to first put up the matter for discussion otherwise it may get deleted.

But it seems the aggressive gay activism is already out to hack it -- discussion or no discussion. (Masculinity (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

No, you wrote it without consultation (not that that's a problem) and then [posted it. Normally other editors will trhen appeaer add add, delete or rewrite it. That's normal. You can't reasonably complain about other aditors addiong or changing material, since your material was never "approved" by anyone as authoritative. Paul B (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You are so unreasonable and rude, always assuming us other editors are "gay activists," that it is nearly impossible to collaborate with you on this. Please stop attacking other editors for their supposed biases. You really couldn't be more wrong.--Agnaramasi (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

O.k., even if i think its true, I'll try not to do this, and concentrate on dealing with all this aggressive butchering of the texts so painstakingly provided by me after collecting the references. (Masculinity (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

I have added some very clear cut references to the section on Limits of the concept of sexual orientation within the western world

I don't know why someone deleted it in the first place, although in the begininning I had not provided the quotes from the paper.

the paper clearly enunciates that in the western (and note the word 'Western' and societies with "European origins") world:

(1) the incidence of male 'homosexuality' has decreased substantially, and whereas it was earlier commonplace, now it has been reduced to a few gay identified males.

(2) Post-'homosexuality', the process of realisation of ones sexuality for men has become traumatic for men.

(3) Earlier, in the west (till as far back as 1978), only third gender (or in his words "gender nonconformable") identified as 'gay', while it was normal for men to indulge in sex with other men. They were not considered different for that. It was gender non-conformity that made men different from each other. This clearly means that the ground realities remaind unchanged for a long time even after the introduction of the concept of 'homosexuality'.

This is from a Western, valid source, since it is a published paper from a University. Also, it quotes several other western reknowned authors whose voice have been suppressed in all the 'homosexual' activism. I plan to do more research and bring out all these references.

(Masculinity (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

THIS IS EXACTLY HOW THINGS STAND IN ALL NON-WESTERNISED SOCIETIES TODAY. THE WESTERNISED/ HETEROSEXUALISED SPACES HOWEVER, ARE GOING THE WEST'S WAY. (Masculinity (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

I will be as specific as possible is explaining to you why the sources you gave for the second sentence in this section do not actually verify it. The quote provided in note (2) is only about "so-called "gay-identified" males, many still being teenagers, [who were] often were gender nonconformable." It addresses the psychological problems of feminine-gendered gay men who identify as gay and not the masculine-gendered men who have sex with men who refuse gay identity; it thus has nothing directly to do with claims about the psychological stresses undergone by latter group of men. (3) and (4) don't even discuss psychological issues; they simply describe the changing social construction of homosexuality itself. For these reasons - and not because I am an agent of some gay agenda -- am I tagging those references appropriately.--Agnaramasi (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the changes and I appreciate that you discussed it so specifically. (Masculinity (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Agnaramasi, we are here not to give our personal opinion about the papers cited -- even if we are 100% correct -- if the published papers say so, then we have to accept them, and it qualifies as per Wikipedia policy. And the paper clearly says: "This sense of isolation and negative reinforcement has been shown to increase the incidence of mental health issues in young people, resulting in emotional disorders, self harm and suicide. (Goldfram et al. 1999) My own adolescent environment, however, precluded having such feelings because desires to have sex with other males, and engaging in such joyful activities, resulted only in knowing that I was part of a majority even if, as with masturbation, my sexual activities with other males were to be private acts"

It clearly says that the author who grew up in the west when a man could like men without being counted as 'gay' -- as long as he was masculine gendered he was 'straight' and part of the majority, and only third sex guys were Queer.

He also cites the paper to show that today, men in western societies go through a severe sense of isolation and mental trauma, which pre-identity generation just did not go through.

What was in the west in pre 60s is exactly the situation today in non-western societies. Masculine gendered males feel no sense of isolation or separation from the straight population. Everyone is into sex with other men, they just need to adopt secrecy and follow certain rules. Only third sex guys are isolated and queer. The feminine gendered males would anyway want to be isolated into a different group even when they are so-called 'heterosexual', because it is their gender non-conformity that makes them different.

And, this is the problem with introducing the gay concept in these societies buying their societies wtih western money and technological power. Now, slowly 'straight' men are giving up sex with men, and masculine gendered males are increasingly being isolaged together with the third sex, queer guys.

Also, although this is not in the paper, but for everyone's information, its not the feminine gendered queer guy who goes through trauma because of the gay identity. (s)he digs the identity, its made for him/ her. It is the masculine gendered guy who is an outsider here and is forced by the western concept of 'homsexuality' into this group, away from his natural group 'straight'.

THANKS TO THE WESTERN GAY BRIGADE, WHICH DOESN'T WANT TO GIVE US SPACE IN WESTERN INSTITUTIONS, BE IT SCIENCE, EDUCATION, MEDIA, FILMS ..... OR WIKIPEDIA, WE IN THE NON-WEST WILL LOSE OUR FREEDOM AND DIGNITY, UNLESS AND UNTIL WE STAND UP TO YOU AND SAY, WE WILL NOT LET YOU RUIN OUR TRADITION, IDENTITY AND MANHOOD.

(Masculinity (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

None of references given after the section's second sentence adequately verify the claim that men who have sex with men who refuse to adopt the the dominant gay identity suffer psychological distress as a result. I will address each reference point-by-point below:

• Ref #3: Just as you say above, the source argues specifically that gay-identified males suffer psychological problems as a result of their adoption of the gay identity. This does not verify the claim in the article that men who have sex with men who refuse the gay identity suffer from their exclusion from, or refusal/inability to fit into, the gay identity. Should the sentence in the article be changed to suggest instead that the gay identity causes those who adopt it, namely "gay-identified" males, psychological harm? This latter claim doesn't seem terribly relevant to the section's larger claim that the gay identity has limited applicability in the West, i.e., that there is a group of men who are excluded from it.
• Ref #4: The quotation given from the source simply suggests that binaries of man/woman or heterosexual/homosexual have a limited validity in describing the real world. This is a methodological and epistemological point. There is no mention of the psychological effects of those binaries.
• Ref #5: Discusses the historical emergence of our contemporary understanding and categories of sexual orientation. Again, no discussion of the psychological effects of these categories.
• Refs #6 & #7: Jack Malebranche is obviously not WP:reliable. He is not an expert, but rather some WP:Fringe Satanist.

Given these reasons, will re-tag the first three sources as "failed verification/not in citation given" and simply delete sources 5 and 6.--Agnaramasi (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

For what is the tag "citation needed" affixed here:

"Even in some modern Western societies, like the US, still several decades[citation needed] after the introduction of the concept of sexual orientation, "

Is it for validating that the concept of sexual orientation has been introduced for several decades in the west? (Masculinity (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Yes. Foucault, for instance, locates the emergence of 'homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality' in the 19th century. Whereas something like the modern concept of 'gay' might have emerged post-1967, according to other authors. The claim needs to be sourced and made more precise.--Agnaramasi (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have some information on this, why don't you do it? (Masculinity (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Does someone have problems with this:

"Non-western concepts of male sexuality vary considerably from modern Western concepts of sexual and gender identity.[1] [2] [3] Sexual identity is not a universal concept and varies amongst regions, cultures, and times."

Does someone think this is Original Research:

"Social constructionists point to the discrepancy between categories of sexual orientation and the sexual practices, and claim that sexual identities are socially constructed, While the essentialists claim that sexual identities basically reflect natural sexual desire, which are fixed and unchangeable for individuals (and not fluid) and which can be neatly divided into 'heterosexual', 'homosexual' and 'bisexual' categories." (Masculinity (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

(Masculinity (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Yes, this needs a source. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please put the "this site is still under construction tag

I was only away for a couple of days and it was removed. My internet connection was not working.

I think it should be appreciated that we are people with different jobs and we can only devote so much time on Wikipedia. We need some patience.

This is the only tag which is needed. The rest are not needed at all, since this is a page still under construction.

I do not know how to put tags.

(Masculinity (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Just add {{Underconstruction}} on its own line at the top of the article. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I take this article outside of the LGBT project into the mainstream

This article actually belongs in the mainstream section, rather than the LGBT, since it talks about a concept which is contrary to the concept of sexual orientation upon which the entire notion of LGBT is based.

Is it possible?

(Masculinity (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

There is no "mainstream section". The article is equal to the other Wikipedia articles. It is linked like the others and can be googled like the others. The banner merely refers to a project that most closely relates to the content. Paul B (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To back up what Paul has said, there is one whole Wikipedia. The fact that the LGBT project banner is there simply indicates that members of that project feel the article is relevant to the project's interests. It doesn't mean that the article is restricted in any way. Aleta ^Sing 18:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

However, to take an example, the tag was removed from the article on Heterosexuality, because it was felt that Heterosexuals are out of the scope of "LGBT". However, it may be a topic of interest to the LGBT community. (Masculinity (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

I don't think this is truly comparable. Here we are talking about people that in an LGBT context would be considered LGBT, even if that is in contrast with their own cultural and self identification. Aleta ^Sing 03:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Aleta, I don't mean to be argumentative, and I am not really going to press for inclusion of LGBT tag on the Heterosexuality page, but because I want this issue to be understood by Western people -- we are not talking about people, who in the Western context would be considered LGBT. We are actually talking about people who go by the name of "Straight". These very people in India, when the Gay identity is enforced disown their same-sex needs and adopt the "Heterosexual" identity, like they do in the West. But, when they are taking that Heterosexual identity at the outset, they are actually choosing the "masculine gender" identity (which is a hidden package which comes only with Heterosexuality in the Western context).

Even in the West, straight identified men engage into same-sex activities whenever they find the opportunity, e.g. in hazing incidents or like what happened with prisoners in Iraq. But they're not known as LGBT.

On several Western discussion forums, I have found the same attitude that exists in non-Western cultures -- some men said they'd like to 'f***' 'gays', but without identifying with being LGBT. (Masculinity (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Aleta, here you go. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's cute. (Masculinity (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, I know. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I posted on the Heterosexuality talk page, to a point made by Agnostic that Queer Heterosexuality is part of LGBT:

"So, you are in effect reasserting the common Western belief, that Heterosexuality includes only masculine gendered opposite-sex male behaviour, while feminine-gendered opposite sex behaviour is part of LGBT.

Do you see that you are actually dividing Heterosexuality (sic) into masculine and feminine?

But, to show you, how the western society, through the concept of 'Sexual Orientation' adopts double standards, Male-male sexual behaviour, whether masculine or feminine is clubbed together under the 'homosexual' label, into the LGBT section.

Apart from being an oppressive system, this kind of classification makes any comparison between 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' a mockery, which would lead to absolutely misleading conclusions. And they do so often, when Western science reaches such conculsions that men who desire men have brains like women and so on... " (Masculinity (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

You are the most long-winded person I've encountered so far on WP. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity, males having sex with males (or females with females) is homosexual behavior by definition. That is true whether they identify as gay, androphilic (thinking about Jack Malebranche), lesbian, bisexual, straight, anything else, or nothing at all. That behavior, no matter the identification, is considered to be in the purview of the LGBT Studies project, which seeks to improve the content of Wikipedia with respect to all areas related to these behaviors and identifications. Aleta ^Sing 15:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Aleta, this definition is what is being contested by non-western cultures. There was no concept of Homosexuality ever in the world, because the world always divided people, especially males into two distinct genders. The concept of homosexuality cannot be created unless this Gender division is destroyed, which becomes problematic.

It is the Christian background of the West that made it consider Gender a social construct, instead of the distinctly biological feature that it is.

The aspect of Gender assumes great consequences for men because of the stress on 'manhood' in almost all cultures. The concept of homosexuality may be accepted more easily by women, because, women have often not been divided into two genders in most cultures, and their gender identity as 'women' is not threatened by the Homosexual identity.

However, it is ok, if this page is on the LGBT section. It should be allowed to reflect the traditional non-Western point of view, that is all. (Masculinity (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Agnostic please discuss here when you add a tag to the article

And please don't change things here, unless you discuss them. You've put some tags here questioning facts. Now, discuss those things here. (Masculinity (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

No, I won't. It will end up being 5 archives full of discussions that consists of someone commenting and you replying with a 5,000 word essay and quotes. Not gonna happen on this one. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Then don't put tags or change contents, if you are scared to discuss. Only interfere if you have the conviction. this is not a place to be frivolous. (Masculinity (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

terrible mess

This article is a terrible terrible mess - the reference section in particular is a wreck and is littered with quoted from a document that in no way, shape or form is a RS. --87.114.149.247 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

further, looking at it, the quickest way to bring this article upto standard is to stub it and rebuild from scratch. Comments? --87.114.149.247 (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave up trying to improve this article because of a particular difficult-to-work-with editor who feels they own it. Good luck--Agnaramasi (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The irony is that this could be a fascinating subject, and the central claim that the cconcept of sexual identity is a modern one is valid, and the notion that an "American" model of Gay identity and "liberation" struggles actually creates problems in non-Western cultures is worth examining. There is good literature on the subject (e.g. Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800 by Khaled El-Rouayheb) and it is worth developing. But Masculinity is so wedded to an immovable dogmatic position on the subject, that it is impossible to work with him. --Paul B (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken Paul. Till now, I have only encountered gross opposition even to the very idea that the concept of sexual orientation is not applicable in the non-Western societies (see the Gay talk page). Otherwise, I'm open to even reorganising the entire page -- if people show understanding of the issue, and work without a bias. What I'm opposed to is unnecessary hair-splitting, of trying to suppress issues, and adopting standards which are not applied for the Western point of view. Otherwise, by all means suggest ways to redo the article. But without damaging the essence of the differences that need to be highlighted. (Masculinity (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

BTW, unsigned comments, especially the kinds like the above do not count. (Masculinity (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

There are some specific contexts in which contributions by non-registered users can't be "counted", but there's no such rule for articles and talk pages. Anyone can edit, and that includes IPs. As for "Masculinity for Boys", EVERY non-involved editor has stated that it is not a reliable source. That is the clear consensus. Paul B (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why you keep repeating that because it's just not true. This is wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. There is no requirement to have an account. More broadly, in trying to mass revert other editors, you have re-added a source that has been rejected as a reliable source --87.112.38.211 (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong about the source being rejected. The editors only have to work under UNESCO guidelines. They are not supposed to reject documents from reliable sources, even if they vehemently disagree with it. This is not a place to vent your own ideology. UNESCO cannot be taken lightly.

In any case, the debate on the document is still on, nothing has been decided yet. You can't just go and delete things because a couple of you ganged up against it. (Masculinity (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The editors only have to work under UNESCO guidelines - no we have to do nothing of the sort, we apply our own guidelines that we have developed here on wikipedia. They are not supposed to reject documents from reliable sources, even if they vehemently disagree with it. - it's been rejected because it's in no way, shape or form a reliable document - it has no named author and it has no references - this is enough for us to reject it as an unreliable source. Enough editors have concurred with this viewpoint for us to remain it on sight. This is not a place to vent your own ideology. I have no idea what this is reference to do and frankly I don't care. The source is junk, that is why it's rejected. --87.114.5.135 (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"a couple of you ganged up against it". False. Every editor who commented, before you started to argue the point, was independent. They had not been involved in this page, nor had they had any interaction with you beforehand. They rejected the source on the the basis of what they read. Even our IP friend above clearly had no pre-knowledge of your use of the source, as his comments on the Reliable Sources page indicate. Face it. They weren't part of some Gay conspiracy. They simply applied WP policy. Paul B (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Time for an archive

This talk page seems to be getting pretty long, so it might be time for an archive. I haven't really been following the discussions, so I don't want to risk archiving an ongoing conversation, but someone who has been following the page a bit more closely might want to consider moving some of the older discussions into an archive. —Mears man (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)