This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homosexuality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Q1: Why does this article define homosexuality as "romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender"?
A1: Because that is how high-quality reliable sources define it.
Homosexuality was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
The etymology section in this article is within the scope of the Etymology task force, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of etymology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EtymologyWikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/EtymologyTemplate:Etymology sectionEtymology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Where on earth did this come from? In one sliver of the academic universe, dionism can mean the opposite of homosexuality -- dionism is in opposition to uranism, an historic word for gayness as well as what we'd now call bromance, aka non-sexual male-male love. There is literally no way that term should redir here! Ta, Bitten Peach (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent edit by @Jino john1996 highlighted the rather tortured phrasing of the Classical Period section. I've made an effort to reword it. If you don't like this edit, please improve it, but please don't just revert it to the highly elliptical original. Ta, Bitten Peach (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The given definition of homosexuality is not neccessarily true for gay men. Its not neccessarily attraction towards other men that makes them gay. Its the feeling of femininity inside that makes them behave that way. They have womanly characteristics like the way they talk, behave etc. This entire article never talks about why most gay men behave in a very feminine way. Why is that? That is one major issue with this article. I think it has something to do with hormonal issues rather than some attraction towards other men. I think we need a change in the definition of homosexuality. Jino john1996 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is wrong but it is wrong in an interesting way so let's try to understand where and why it is wrong.
First up, it is the attraction to men that is the fundamental definition of a gay man. This is one time when we can just point to the dictionary and that's that.
An heterosexual! The second bit is wrong in a more interesting way because it reflects a lot of stereotypes of what gay men are like and these stereotypes can be self-reinforcing. If the only gay men one notices are the ones that fit the stereotype then one will take that as corroboration that that is what gay men are like as a whole and hence as validation of the stereotype. There are plenty of gay men who do not fit that stereotype but they are typically not read as gay except when they do something that identifies them as gay.
The other mistake is to confuse culture with inherent traits. Scottish people don't speak with a Scottish accent because they have Scottish hormones. Gay men tend to socialise with other gay men, and other queer people, and that creates a shared culture affecting language, dress and manners. You will see the same thing among close knit religious groups, ethnic groups, sports and pop culture fandoms. That's right, evangelicals, goths, weebs, rastas, trainspotters and your local bowls club all have this in common with The Gays™.
Attempts to pin homosexuality down to hormones or genetics have never got very far. There might be something to it but nobody knows what, if anything at all, and it's not likely to be a strong correlation anyway because it would already be apparent if it was.
So, what's with the "feminine" behaviour? It is socially acceptable in queer circles but frowned on in society more generally. Straight men are expected to avoid what is perceived as feminine for fear of being labelled frivolous, unmanly or queer. Were such pressures to go away then we could see straight men return to the more flamboyant masculinities of past ages, i.e. undoing the Great Male Renunciation. After all, we already have a flamboyant masculinity that expresses itself through flashy sports cars. It's not too hard to imagine that transferring back to clothing. In summary, we need more straight drag queens! Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a straight guy I feel zero attraction towards men. But for them somehow it is different which i really find hard to believe. I think it's a cope mechanism because they don't want people to know the actual reason why they are that way. I still think we need a section to talk about feminine behaviour shown by gay men Jino john1996 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look into secondary sources covering gender nonconformity. This review is good for a brief overview. Under the "Development and Psychological Correlates of Sexual Orientation" section, there are two sub-sections: childhood gender nonconformity and adult gender nonconformity. These cover this. As for hormones, yes it is theorised that prenatal hormones and how they organise the brain are underpinning this finding. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have much knowledge in this nor i have sources to back up what i am claiming. All i am saying is that one of the characteristic feature of gay men is their feminine behaviour. Almost all gay men have it. If we imagine about gay men, that is the first thing that comes to our mind. Some gay men able to mask it by imitating manly stuff. But that is not at all reflected in the entire article. Why? I was just suggesting it would be better if there is a section to talk about it. Then give reasons why they have that behaviour. I am not going to make any edits regarding this cause my knowledge is less regarding this. It would be better if someone could do it. Sorry for my english Jino john1996 (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may not realise how offensive many gay men will find that statement, and I think it's clear it was not your intent to be insulting. It is a common (and incorrect) stereotype. In fact, most gay men look and act like any other man of the place and culture in which they live. Suggesting that gay men are all (or mostly) effeminate is much like saying that people from {country/region} smell bad or that folks from {culture/social group} are criminals. It is usually capped off with something like, "It's not their fault, of course, it's just the way those people are." From your post, it seems like English may not be your first language, so you have probably encountered people who hold crazy ideas about you based on that fact alone. Making broad assumptions based on such stereotypes is hurtful and usually wrong. Hope this helps, Bitten Peach (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to come off as insulting. I just want to technically discuss such topics and make additions to the article if possible. It was just a suggestion. Jino john1996 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, gay, bi and pan men really do find men attractive. It's not some weird conspiracy to confuse or annoy the straights. Different people really do experience attraction differently. Ignoring LGBTQ people for a moment, just look at how what is considered attractive among straight people differs over time, location and culture. Nobody is looking for an explanation for that in genetics or hormones because that's culture. The content you are advocating for would belong at LGBTQ_culture#Gay_men's_culture if there were sources for it but it sounds to me that you are looking for an answer to a question that you are unable to frame correctly. There is no limp wrist gene. There is no drag queen hormone. Even if there was, that probably wouldn't actually answer your question anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of evidence finds that gay men tend to be more feminine than straight men, on average. Gender nonconformity seen in many gay men also emerges in life (according to Bailey et al, as early as age two) and it happens despite parents/peers discouraging it. There are dozens of studies looking at sex differences/interests/behavior/career and gay men are often – but not always – shifted in a 'sex atypical' direction compared to heterosexual men. As for "it would already be apparent" that prenatal hormones were involved – probably not. We cannot measure or observe how sex hormones arrange the brain in utero. This is a question for future researchers when technology advances. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are not really talking about gender nonconformity here though. We are talking about gay men and gay culture. I think the question being asked here is rather less sophisticated than you assume. Remember that the OP doesn't even really understand that gay men find men attractive. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot just put it aside as "gay culture" when one of the defining features of gay men tends to be their feminine behaviour. When i see a gay man thats the impressuon i get. But the entire article never even touches upon the subject. We need a section specificaly to talk about it. Jino john1996 (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case it has not been mentioned above, there is no point in exchanging opinions like that at Wikipedia (see WP:NOTFORUM). It would be better to say something like "Here is a source [details] which says [whatever]. I think the text [example] should be added." Johnuniq (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the history section of greece, the current way it is worded now is very misleading. It is not same sex relationships that were institutional. It is pederasty that was institutional. It was meant to be educational. But such realtionships often turn out to be sexual. As this is stated by xenophon. That important distinction should be made here. My last edit was reverted for no reason without citing proper reason. I have made no controversial changes, it is all there in the main article 'pederasty in ancient greece'. Jino john1996 (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jino john1996, I think the history section could be trimmed down quite a bit. It's a little too incomplete in some areas, and too detailed in others, and it makes it a confusing read. Referring to this book, I am probably in agreement with you, and I think the constructionist view is given a little too much weight on this article – plus a lot of it is over simplified. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before I started editing these pages like a year ago, these articles were in a very bad state. A reader without any prior knowledge will come out thinking that ancient Greece was a gay paradise and almost every men engaged in it. It was very misleading. The truth of the matter is we don't know what percentage of men engaged in such relationships and the society's general attitude towards it. But these important point was not reiterated enough in these articles. Often generalized statements like 'Greek men this' or 'Greek men that' are made. Some major edits are required to improve these pages Jino john1996 (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have to stick to the sources, but it is true that in the past some Wikipedia editors would go beyond the sources, such as by overgeneralizing from upper-class men in certain locations and time periods to a general "Ancient Greek men". There were also issues with one-sided selection of sources, emphasizing those who thought it was more common over a broader view; some such individuals were later banned. So our content on this history does need a critical eye. Crossroads-talk-22:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
The redirect Dionism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2 § Dionian(ism) until a consensus is reached. --MikutoH talk! 02:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
--DanielRigal (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Done, did a small summary. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)