Talk:Homosexuality

Definition of homosexuality

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You can make discussions to add new stuff on the talk page, but discussing to change or replace something would require reliable sources, see WP:NOR. ~2026-35934-38 (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

sex, it's attraction to another sex (Redacted). ~2026-39677-31 (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

if it's attraction to gender, then it renders it a choice, and it's not called Homogenderality is it? ~2026-40285-28 (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Please use this talk page only for proposing changes to the article, instead of attempting to engage in debate. Jamesmanvsmassifiovongino (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Maternal immune hypothesis

A section ought to be added on the maternal immune hypothesis for male homosexuality, as there is some evidence for this. Non-partisan-scientist (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done, did a small summary. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Changes required in history section

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)

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)

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)

I largely agree with you, that is the stance of the most reputable historians. Happy to help improve it a bit more. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

Bias in the FDA claim in Physical subsection of Health section

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)