Is homosexuality genetic?

[Soapy Sam]

Who knows? If something as complex as Thalassaemia can be genetic, why not? I can see how a gene that makes a person sexually active may spread, even if it goes wrong some of the time;- say it makes you wildly attracted (and / or attractive to) men. If it finds itself in a man, it is merely unsuccessful reproductively; in a woman it may more than make up for that. What if such a gene tended to be linked to multiple birth in females? Potentially advantageous in a food rich culture, probably lethal in most of human history.

If there is a situation in which genes for X are advantageous, then they will evolve. Now choose your scenario.

This sort of thing is testable. But who cares?
Is voting Socialist genetic? Dunno. Is it hereditary? Yes, to a significant extent. Human culture is tricksy.

 

[Kiri]

since humans are social animals, it could well be that we need the 'gays' to perform essential societal functions.

Someone did a standup bit about this- citing gays' necessity to a successful hetero date: you go to a hairstylist who's gay, a florist who's gay, you take her to dinner and the waiter's gay, you go to a show and the actors are gay... "Without the gays, straight people would NEVER get laid!"

I don't know how much of it is genetics, but I don't think it's a matter of choice; I WOULD agree that the incidence of homosexuality is "normal".

 

[Kiri]

I have a theory, but it's that there are multiple factors which determine homosexuality.

I've seen many types of gays but these are the two most common.

The first type is the one you rarely see on TV. They're the ordinary looking gay guy, with no speech impediment (lisp) whatsoever. They look ordinary, and act normally.

The second type are the kind who are flaming gays. They act all feminine and have a lisp, and walk with their wrists limped. Rather than saying "Oh God" like an ordinary person would, they would say "ooh, goodneth!" while limping their wrist.

The second type is the most popular view of gays.

Yeah, but isn't that a case of people getting caught up in a cultural stereotype? The culture at large can't accept gays as "normal", so the image of the cartoonish "fag" is used to isolate and marginalize gays, out of heterosexual insecurity. The sad part is that some gays, out of a desire for acceptance, buy into the stereotype themselves.

Now, some gays have gender-recognition issues too! The kinds who either act like women, or those who have sex-change operations (I've talked to one).

The second one have no gender recognition disorders; they know they're men, they're happy being men; they just like other men.

Now, it gets even more complicated because some straight men have gender-recognition disorders. A film on HBO called "Normal" was based upon this.

And there *are* men who like women who have undergone sex-change operations.

I draw some distinctions between gays, transvestites, and transsexuals: they're not necessarily all one and the same:

Gays prefer same-gender sex. They may or may not dress in drag, but they know they're men and like it that way. They're far too fond of penises to want them removed.

Transvestites like wearing the other gender's clothes. They may or may not be gay- it's not exclusively a "gay thing". Lots of "closeted" cross-dressers are straight guys experimenting with their femininity, hoping their women understand.

Transexuals feel they got the wrong gender, and want to change. I knew one such person: wore dresses, liked guys. NOT a gay transvestite; this is a female person, regardless of the body she's in.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Phaycops

I completely agree. But it doesn't change the fact that people want easy explanations for things. They want to be able to say "Oh, hey, I'm gay but it's genetic so you can't deny me basic rights anymore," or whatever. The whole debate is tinged with politics and agendas, you know, just like global warming, etc. People with agendas don't like messy things like, oh, I dunno, reality, because it's difficult.

You've got a finger pointing at a them there, but I fear the problem is worse than that.

Announcing results of any scientific study seems to draw people with agendas like stink draws flies. When what is being studied happens to be humans (or especially then), objective interpretation of results (or even unbiased collection of data) is, almost by definition, impossible. When it comes to what makes us tick, everybody has an agenda (in addition, there are limits to what types of experiments can be done using humans as subjects). So any progress has to occur in the face of these obstacles. Often, before we can adopt a new way--hopefully a better way--of looking at something, an old way has to be abandoned; one observation about human behavior that can be made with confidence is that we don't like to give up a simple, working hypothesis for something that forces us to grapple with more complexity.

Some of the new tools that have dropped into our hands during the last eyeblink of human history are shining light into places previously unseen, revealing things that may make some of us uncomfortable--so much so that we might argue that these are things we can never understand; perhaps even that some things would be best left unexamined altogether.

The Nature/Nuture debate is an old one, and it seems obvious that most aspects of human behavior are affected by both--we may turn out to be 'meat puppets' to a far greater extent than we would like to think, but even so, we will never be meat puppets that live in a vacume.

Determining the degree to which we are driven by genetic predispostition is one thing; deciding what the moral consequences of those findings are is another. The latter may prove to be the more complicated matter.

 

[Guest]

I've read numerous articles in the past on this question.

But the thing that occurs to me is:

Would not evolutionary theory preclude the existance of genetically caused homosexuality?

Ask to Patricio Elicer?

 

[Titananarchy]

Well, going way out there here....

What if the percentage of homosexual animals rises with maternal malnourishment? So, there is a population of animals that are competing for scarce resources, and, as a result, many of the animals are malnourished. It would be better for the population as a whole, because none of them are fully nourshed, to have less of a population next generation so that they fit into their habitat. It seems to me that animal homosexual has been noted in the wild because they do not reproduce. They don't have the peer pressure that humans have to be heterosexual. So, as a result of the malnourishment, the next generation has a higher percentage of homosexuals that will not reproduce. Yes, I know it's out there.

It could be Denise, except homosexuality does not have a genetic cause, and so therefore cannot be "bred" out of the population via natural selection.

In humans, the rate of male homosexuals is around 1-3 %. This remains stable across populations, cultures and societies, which does strongly indicate its biological origin.

Arcticpenguin: I will start a thread with the biological explanation of homosexuality (and come to think of it, heterosexuality) soon. However i) I have some coursework related to my degree which requires much of my time ii) my wife is expecting our first child and there's a lot of preparation to do and iii) I'm having hand problems related to RSI.

 

[Titananarchy]

See above about spurious correlations. Unless there is a causal mechanism between the size of the hypothalamus and sexuality, it is a spurious relationship and has no scientific value.

I don't care what magazine reprints a study, it is evidence of exactly nothing. This problem is more common than you think. What is the hypothesized causal mechanism? Where is the independent variable? If you don't know what they are, how can you measure it? That is the criticism of these types of studies.

Wait around and you'll find out.

It is a joke really. It used to be that the standard for such studies was that you came up with a hypothesis with a causal mechanism - an independent variable - and then prepared a rigorous study to support or deny the hypothesis. Nowadays, that is too difficult for most scientists. So they measure a relationship between two things with no known cause and effect relationship - because it is easy. Then they say... hmmm, maybe there is a cause-effect relationship in there somewhere, let's do another study!


But guess what - no matter how many times the study is done, and no matter what the results, it will NEVER prove the hypothesis. Not if it is a spurious relationship, which can't be determined by the study itself.

Actually there is clear evidence as to what causes these changes and where and when. I begin to wonder if the real reason you write this is because you don't believe that sexual identity is biologically elided, and therefore every scientific study becomes for you an issue of denial against your prior beliefs.

 

[BillHoyt]

Actually there is clear evidence as to what causes these changes and where and when. I begin to wonder if the real reason you write this is because you don't believe that sexual identity is biologically elided, and therefore every scientific study becomes for you an issue of denial against your prior beliefs.

You've been making these assertions since 27 March, sir. Is it not long past time to marshall your evidence?

Cheers,

 

[Titananarchy]

You've been making these assertions since 27 March, sir. Is it not long past time to marshall your evidence?

Cheers,

Bill, if you read the bit above to Arcticpenguin, you'll see why its taking a little time. When I've got the thing together, then I'll stick it into a new thread and everyone can see it for themselves.

 

[BillHoyt]

Bill, if you read the bit above to Arcticpenguin, you'll see why its taking a little time. When I've got the thing together, then I'll stick it into a new thread and everyone can see it for themselves.

I did read it, sir. I've been waiting, sir. You're like watching paint dry, sir.

Cheers,

 

[Fade]

If anyone in this thread is _actually_ gay... comments?

I am, and I already did.

It seems to me that many people don't understand what is going through a gay persons mind. As I said before, there was no choice in the matter. I grew up looking at men (and women actually) as objects of my desire. When I had hots for the teacher, it was for the female AND male teachers. When I had crushes on celebrities, it was the female AND male celebrities.

I never consciously chose what to feel. It was as basic and natural to me as my love of avacados. I grew up devoid of gay culture and gay influence, my mother and father never spoke of it (good or bad) until I outed myself. So, I had these feelings in a relative vacuum.

If I had a choice, I would be straight, and that is the simple truth for just about every gay person out there. Life is easier when you're straight. You get treated better when you're straight. It would be foolish to want to be gay. Yet, here I am.

And I would put transsexuals under another orientation entirely, it rarely has anything to do with homo/heterosexuality. Transvestites on the other hand rarely WANT to be women, watch To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar to get a good handle on what drag queens actually think.

 

[DrChinese]

Wait around and you'll find out.

Actually there is clear evidence as to what causes these changes and where and when. I begin to wonder if the real reason you write this is because you don't believe that sexual identity is biologically elided, and therefore every scientific study becomes for you an issue of denial against your prior beliefs.

I think I have stated my beliefs clearly. I am 100% open to the evidence, if you care to offer any.

For the record: I deny that any relationship has ever been demonstrated between human homosexuality and genetics other than a spurious one.

If I am wrong, show me the independent variable. Show me the causal mechanism. Keep in mind that a relationship can be measured between any two observables, and that many such measured relationships demonstrate a statistically valid correlation. Such does not mean there is a cause-effect relationship.

For example, the purported link between hypothalamus size and homosexuality does not describe a causal mechanism because it does not state which is the cause and which is the effect. Think I am splitting hairs? It is not as simple as it seems. It would be perfectly reasonable to suggest that homosexuality causes a change in the hypothalamus size. That would certainly upset the applecart of asserting that homosexuality is genetically determined if the physical changes occur at a later time.

I am sorry if my standards seem high. But the fact is, such is the nature of the scientific method - to which I subscribe.

 

[Titananarchy]

I think I have stated my beliefs clearly. I am 100% open to the evidence, if you care to offer any.

For the record: I deny that any relationship has ever been demonstrated between human homosexuality and genetics other than a spurious one.

If I am wrong, show me the independent variable. Show me the causal mechanism. Keep in mind that a relationship can be measured between any two observables, and that many such measured relationships demonstrate a statistically valid correlation. Such does not mean there is a cause-effect relationship.

For example, the purported link between hypothalamus size and homosexuality does not describe a causal mechanism because it does not state which is the cause and which is the effect. Think I am splitting hairs? It is not as simple as it seems. It would be perfectly reasonable to suggest that homosexuality causes a change in the hypothalamus size. That would certainly upset the applecart of asserting that homosexuality is genetically determined if the physical changes occur at a later time.

I am sorry if my standards seem high. But the fact is, such is the nature of the scientific method - to which I subscribe.

Nothing wrong with high standards for evidence, but bear in mind that direct evidence in humans is (for ethical reasons) more circumstantial, but nonetheless compelling.

Please also note that I do not make the case that homosexuality causes changes in hypothalmus size, only that both sexual orientation and hypothalmus size have a common (biological) cause.

Again, I have got to travel to the West Coast of America tomorrow, returning Sunday. I will probably start a new thread towards the end of next week, when I have discharged my other responsibilities first.

 

[BillHoyt]

Again, I have got to travel to the West Coast of America tomorrow, returning Sunday. I will probably start a new thread towards the end of next week, when I have discharged my other responsibilities first.

*yawn*

 

[arcticpenguin]

Bill, if you read the bit above to Arcticpenguin, you'll see why its taking a little time. When I've got the thing together, then I'll stick it into a new thread and everyone can see it for themselves.

I have a devastating and foolproof set of evidence that the earth is actually flat, and I would post it here except that I'm too lazy. I am not, however, too lazy to make absurd claims. Go figure.

 

[Titananarchy]

I have a devastating and foolproof set of evidence that the earth is actually flat, and I would post it here except that I'm too lazy. I am not, however, too lazy to make absurd claims. Go figure.

So there is a difference between a skeptic and a cynic.

 

[BillHoyt]

*chirp* *chirp*

 

[BillHoyt]

Welcome back from our commercial break, sports fans. A quick recap:

3/27: (Titananarchy) "However mammalian reproduction introduces a third reason which is biological in origin but which does not require a genetic precursor to happen."

3/27: (BillHoyt) "Balderdash. If it is biological, it is genetic, sir. Stop with the lame proclamations and get to marshalling evidence."

3/28: (Titananarchy) "Absolutely, but later. I'm busy but I will try to return to this later today or tomorrow with evidence of how a biological difference can happen without a direct genetic cause in humans, and in a burst of keeping to the subject of the thread, how homosexuality (or come to think of it) heterosexuality arises in humans."

3/29:[Note: this would have been "tomorrow" - bh ]

4/1: (Titananarchy) "I will start a thread with the biological explanation of homosexuality (and come to think of it, heterosexuality) soon. However i) I have some coursework related to my degree which requires much of my time ii) my wife is expecting our first child and there's a lot of preparation to do and iii) I'm having hand problems related to RSI."

4/2: (Titananarchy) "Again, I have got to travel to the West Coast of America tomorrow, returning Sunday. I will probably start a new thread towards the end of next week, when I have discharged my other responsibilities first."

Tomorrow has come and gone. As has "soon," which is now replaced with "towards the end of next week." The excuse count, however, slowly rises in the east as he heads to the west. Even the beer and peanut vendors are now leaving the stands, and the maintenance guy is turning off the stadium lights.

Click,

 

[Soapy Sam]

Can't help feeling the "truth" about homosexuality, genetic or cultural , will be established by study of the phenomenon among non-human organisms. Certainly gets rid of the emotive associations.

 

[Kiri]

Can't help feeling the "truth" about homosexuality, genetic or cultural , will be established by study of the phenomenon among non-human organisms. Certainly gets rid of the emotive associations.

Studies with gay sheep, and so on? I doubt that would address the supposed cultural contributing factors... unless the LACK of such factors proves to be significant. Hm.