Talk:Q7069444

subclass of sexual orientation

@ArthurPSmith: I’m not sure I understand the rationale behind this. Can you explain ? author  TomT0m / talk page 13:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It was part of a subclass loop, this seemed the simplest fix. Enwiki seems to support this relationship, but if you have something better feel free to change! ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

disjointness concerns

This class is the disjoint union of androphilia, gynephilia, and ambiphilia. But there are significant items that are subclasses of more than one element of the disjoint union - female bisexuality (Q105079904) and male bisexuality (Q105079290). I think that these two items should not be subclasses. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

One could also argue that it is not a disjoint union and that one should consider using union of (P2737) instead. This view is supported by the Venn-Diagram (see picture). ambiphilia (Q50810374) could be modelled as a subclass of both gynephilia and androphilia.

Amir (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC) ★ → Airon 90 10:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC) --Another Believer (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC) I am not terribly familiar with Wikidata, but offering my support! Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 00:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC) OR drohowa (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC) SarahStierch (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC) (Been adding LGBT stuff on Wikidata for months, had no clue this existed!) MRG90 (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Ecritures (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC) Shikeishu (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC) OwenBlacker (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Ash Crow (talk) John Samuel 17:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC) SilanocSilanoc (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Tdombos (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Mardetanha (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Theredproject (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC) Davidpar (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Gerarus (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Sweet kate (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Nattes à chat (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) Hiplibrarianship (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC) Jamie7687 (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Nemo 16:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC) ViktorQT (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Christoph Jackel (WMDE) (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Mathieu Kappler (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Myohmy671 (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Ptolusque (.-- .. -.- ..) 23:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC) Zblace (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Clements.UWLib (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Lastchapter (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Idieh3 (talk) 14:28, 31 Januari 2022 (UTC) Koziarke (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Skimel (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC) MiguelAlanCS (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC) Rhagfyr (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC) -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 18:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC) BlaueBlüte (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Léna (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Carlinmack (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Ha2772a (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC) La Grande Feutrelle (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC) StarTrekker (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Samthony (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) Gufo46 (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Sir Morosus (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Cupkake4Yoshi (talk) Wallacegromit1

Notified participants of WikiProject LGBT What do you think? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Another option is to not model this as a class but as a pair of concepts. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The connected sitelinks are more like a summary of the two, separate terms. If it's a class, it should be "androphilia or gynephilia". I think it should be modeled like male and female (Q20686840). -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 15:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• I see the problem but do not know what we have as a best practice for resolving this. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• At the moment I'm inclined to solve this by modelling "androphilia and gynephilia" after male and female (Q20686840). I agree with wd-Ryan (above) that it should be otherwise called "androphilia or gynephilia". I will wait a week or so to see if somebody disagrees and then start with the changes. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider I don’t really see the issue.

If it’s a class, what are the instances ? To me it’s a class of behavior, so we can actually find instances. The behavior of someone who is (mainly) sexually attracted to "male", the behavior of someone who is sexually attracted to "female", or the behavior of someone who seem to be attracted to both, not seeing a clear preference. bisexualité féminine (Q105079904) seem clearly to fall under the second category of behavior ? author  TomT0m / talk page 11:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

That said, these classes should probably subclasses of "human sexual behavior" or something like that and the "disjoint union" statement does probably belong there. It may be linked to this item by statement is subject of (P805) .

(interestingly, the italian wikipedia article linked to male and female (Q20686840) is about … quotes. Not really a primary ontological topic, it does not describe the subject on the topic it describes how people think about it. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

androphilia and gynephilia (Q7069444) is the disjoint union of (P2738) androphilia (Q513896), gynephilia (Q1558475), and ambiphilia (Q50810374). The description of disjoint union of (P2738) is "every instance of this class is an instance of exactly one class in that list of classes". As a consequence gynephilia and ambiphilia are disjoint classes. But female bisexuality (Q105079904) is a subclass of gynephilia (through Sapphism (Q25447263)) and also a subclass of ambiphilia (through bisexuality (Q43200)). As a consequence, female bisexuality is the empty class, i.e., there are no occurences of female bisexuality. So something should be changed, the question is what. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Peter F. Patel-Schneider Valentina.Anitnelav I’m not sure bisexualité féminine (Q105079904) should be a subclass of saphisme (Q25447263) .

Because if the instances are stuff like "a woman is attracted to a woman" or "a woman is attracted to a man" (it does not work because these classes does not seem to be about that but more about the usual class of behavior of someone, maybe they are metaclasses) then some of instances of bisexuality are of the second kind, but not the first one.

I think we should reason with basic objects, like a specific moment where someone is attracted to another person, model that, and then think about habits and sexual orientations. It seems to me like what constitutes sexual habits is something like a sequence of those basic objects.

My behavior = the sequence of all my experiences

Sexual habits = some kind of behavior.

So "orientations" are classes of behaviors. We need to find criteria to classify behaviors.

"sexual Orientations" would be a metaclass of behavior.

The heart of the problem here is, I think, that we could classify as saphism (but the term is not well defined), if saphism is a behavior, either a woman who had, say one experience with women in its history of behavior, or the experience itself. It would be better called "saphist experience" in the latter case.

But the whole behavior of a bisexual woman is not saphistic. So if we define "saphism" as "someone whose behavior has a saphist experience", "androism" as "someone whose behavior includes androist experience", then "bisexuality" can be a subclass of both.

But if the classes are defined as "the behavior of someone who has mainly a behavior of attraction to women" and "the behavior of someone who has mainly a behavior of attraction to men" then it can’t be a subclass of both, it’s even exclusive to "someone who has experience with both with no clear preference".

We could do both but with a different set of items. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I still prefer to model this as a pair of concepts but if we should model this as a class I think disjoint union of (P2738) should be deleted/replaced with union of (P2737): People may define ambiphilia, androphilia and gynephilia as disjoint (e.g. for themselves or for a certain project), but this is not how the English wikipedia article describes it and this is not what the Venn diagram depicts (Q7069444#P18). The English wikipedia article defines ambiphilia as the presence of both androphilia and gynephilia ("Ambiphilia describes the combination of both androphilia and gynephilia in a given individual, or bisexuality") and the Venn diagram shows ambiphilia as the intersection of androphilia and gynephilia. So it does not seem to be non-controversal. By using union of (P2737) we just abstain from the judgement if they are disjoint or not. As to making human sexual behavior (or something like that) the disjoint union of ambiphilia, androphilia and gynephilia: sexual orientation is just one of many aspects of human sexual behavior (besides sexual preferences, sexual identity, sexual morality, etc.).- Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)