May 13, 2005

• Whoa, shit! Ignore that more inside link. Not what I thought it was. Admin please hope me!
• I failed to ignore the gaydar link. Gaydar involves a lot more than looking at a still of a person. It is as much about body language and speech mannerisms as it is about appearance.
• Interesting, but... So gay men react differently from straight ones to the smell of other men? And sexual behaviour and brain activity are linked? My astonishment remains controllable. Don't see why this is evidence for a hereditary element, particularly.
• Well, I would think less hereditary in the sense of "Daddy was gay so I am too" and more in the sense of "My genetics make me gay, and since I got them from Daddy it's hereditary whether he is gay or not." My astonishment remains so controllable as to be virtually non-existant. Although I support any and all research that says it's biology, not a choice. The homophobes can suck my wang.
• *gasp* gay men are sexually stimulated by men!! Not sure that I agree with the article's assertion that this finding "supports an opinion held by most scientists, that people are born—not bred—gay." next up, science reveals which article of clothing shoe-fetishists enjoy! In related news, experimentation with Pavlov's dogs clearly supports the opinion held by most scientists that dogs are born - not bred - to salivate when bells ring.
• Mmm... anyone else thinks this sounds like left-handedness vs. right-handedness? Highly unlikely it's entirely genetic.
• This must shock women who think gay men are just obstinate.
• People here seem to be mocking the study because it seems obvious to them that gay brains might act differently from straight brains. But studies which suggest that the brains of different races act differently are met with outrage and contempt here.
• The study, though not conclusively demonstrating that teh gheye is nature and not choice, at least lends some credence to the argument. Maybe obvious for those of us who believe it, but not for others. Sniff it.
• [...]demonstrating that teh gheye is nature Unless you can proof that you can learn someone to respond like that. Then it would be nurture. As it is now, this only suggests you can 'objectively' see if someone is gay - if he knows it or not.
• Another one of these useless studies that proves nothing, but everyone will read into it what they want. "Scientific progress goes boink" (Which is irrelevent, but I wanted to say it) Does having gene 'X' equal gay? I'm waiting for a study that examines the amounts and types of hormones the fetus receives while in the womb while its brain is developing, and comparing this to the teenage and adult sexual preference. But this would be an expensive long term study, lacking any of today's hot scientific topics, as well as contrary to our society's "must know NOW!!!" attitude.
• No, right, I'm saying it's not proof, but does bolster the argument some. Assuming a blind study where they don't know it's man-sweat, it's hard to argue that they chose to get all het up.
• The study does not answer the question of whether this response is innate or learned.
• Man, that study is gay.
• I just got into a huge debate - somewhat related to this topic - with a very close friend. [which ended on a rather bad & sour note] [self-link via the yahoo message archive, user names changed, she's most and I'm ppusan]. She's one of these bored housewife types - her husband works mad hours and is rarely home. She likes to go out on the weekends with her entourage of "gay" friends. Based on this, and discussion with the priest at her church, she claims to know quite a lot about homosexuality. So the debate began when she found out that my brother is gay. She already knew that my father was gay, so I don't know why she took it as a shock. I was adopted as a child, and my brother was my parents only natural child. We were raised by the same parents, even shared the same bedroom for 12 years... Naturally, I have always believed that homosexuality is entirely genetic. So my father came out when I was 5 years old... my brother when I was 12. It is traceable on my father's side of the family 2 additional generations back.
• Wouldn't a genetic trait that makes one less likely to reproduce be eliminated in a few generations?
• The "this doesn't prove whether teh gay is genetic or learned" assertion seems pretty obvious to me. Let's take another sense, taste. I've learned to like the tastes of some foods, and others I have decided not to like, based on my own feelings toward the look of the food, its texture and the way it affects my digestive system. Do I not like eggplant (and all others who don't like eggplant) because of genetics? Hardly. For me, it's probably due to the fact that when I was younger I had a vomitorious experience with eggplant that left my palate scarred and my brain was wired to dislike that particular food from then on. Other foods I have a fondness for, much of it is due to its pleasant taste, or perhaps I like the connotations it has with pleasant memories. Any number of explanations could explain these things. And all of it could change, because they're learned responses, and humans can be taught to change behaviour. Now this isn't to say that part of it's NOT genetic--just that it's not ALL genetics, at the very least, and there's a good chance a lot of it is in fact learned behaviour.
• No, there will always be ugly moronic fuckwits like myself.
• Umm, that was in answer to rocket88.
• rocket88: Not necessarily, I don't think. Maybe it could confer some advantage on the straight schlubs competing for the womens.
• sugarmilktea: interesting conclusion. But doesn't it imply that multi-generational families with only one gay couldn't be genetically responsible? That was phrased badly, so hopefully you'll get the gist of what I mean. Put another way, for every case of seemingly multigenerational gayness, there's at least one (and I'd wager a lot more, though I have no numbers) case in which gayness is an "anomoly" (generationally speaking).
• ... or it could be that birthrates are high enough that a non-reproducing minority keeps things stable, or... Any population biologists out there? I'm not.
• Wouldn't a genetic trait that makes one less likely to reproduce be eliminated in a few generations? Not if there are straight "carriers" as well. No, seriously. That makes a nice easy kneejerk response, but progeria still exists, doesn't it, even though most people who develop it won't get a chance at reproducing themselves. Also, homophobia forcing people into closeted straight marriages would help carry on those genes. I believe that's called irony.
• It is hard for me to get past my own conclusions, because they seem so natural. My case is by no means a very common one (as far as I know), so I am open to other views. While it doesn't seem to be genetically responsible on the surface, I think there's more to it than that. on preview: Also, homophobia forcing people into closeted straight marriages would help carry on those genes. I believe that's called irony. That's exactly what happened in my family...
• Also, homophobia forcing people into closeted straight marriages would help carry on those genes. I believe that's called irony. That's a relatively recent phenomenon...and genetics have been in play for hundreds of thousands of years before civilizations and marriages came along.
• True, but we shouldn't hold to the assumption that all gays are exclusively gay. Shurely, some people go back and forth -- to wit the 'college lesbian'. If one isn't exclusively in same-sex activity, then at some point, the 'gay gene' would be passed along. But this gives rise to a dicey possibility -- if there is a 'gay gene', would that create a desire for some to go through gene therapy to make sure their kids came out straight? Another dicey possibility is if the 'gay gene' wasn't anything passed down, but rather just a regular gene that somehow became mutated -- in which case, the homophobes would have twisted legitimacy in seeing gays as something outside the 'normal'. Freaks, in a word.
• So you say that gay men respond differently to sexual stimuli from heteros? Well I never. I wonder what I would do without scientists to tell me these things. Meanwhile, still no cure for cancer.
• Forbidden Science, an article from Discover Magazine, sites a study that says women react to sexual images of women and men, whereas self defined straight men only reacted to images of women and gay men reacted only to images of men. They didn't come to any conclusions other than "hey, women may be sexually wired differently from men!", which... duh. But it does bring up some interesting possibilities.
• Bah! I did the second link wrong. Discover Magazine
• I think there's a decent amount of evidence that gayness is determined to some degree by hormone levels during fetal development, though there may be a genetic factor as well. This paper mentions that men with older brothers are more likely to be gay. Also, though it might make you feel cool and in the know to talk about your "gaydar," you just can't tell someone is gay from how they look/dress/act unless they want you to know.
• "Born gay" is not the same as "it's hereditary". So some of you are criticising them for something they didnt say. This does lend some credence to the suggestion that homosexuality is innate, but only as a bolster to the many other studies that actually examine brain structure and function, and so on. In other news, I have no sense of smell, and am bisexual.
• f8x, your analogy to food doesn't quite hold up. It might hold up a little bit better if people told you your dislike of eggplant and like of something else made you evil and wrong and they made laws specifically aimed at keeping you from eating what you like and kept trying to get you to eat what you don't like. What I'm saying is there is not many consequences for choosing to like or dislike certain foods (other than the tragic consequence in your case of never enjoying babaganoush). From my experience, this isn't a nature vs. nurture issue. It's a nature AND nurture issue. There's choice associated with biological facts. I am biologically a woman, but I also choose to live out many roles associated with women which in turns helps define me as a woman. That is the social construct part of it. All the furor over homosexuality is in part because it is redifining what being a man or a woman means. I think the people who say homosexuality is entirely genetic are as silly as the people who say it's entirely environment/choice.
• Another dicey possibility is if the 'gay gene' wasn't anything passed down, but rather just a regular gene that somehow became mutated -- in which case, the homophobes would have twisted legitimacy in seeing gays as something outside the 'normal'. Freaks, in a word. Only if you erroneously stigmatize "mutation" as necessarily wrong or inferior, which it is not. There are advantageous mutations as well as non-advantageous, and I don't just mean X-Men type fiction - technically, as I understand, blond[e] hair is also a mutation, and that's hardly "freakish." So no, not much legitimacy, twisted or otherwise.
• Kimberly, I disagree the analogy doesn't hold up--just because there's a social stigma attached to one and not the other doesn't make them necessarily unequitable. You're trying to marry a separate issue to the one at stake, namely, social/cultural norms + biology vs. learned response. I would agree with you however that it is not either entirely genetic or entirely environment. Homosexuality seems to be driven by a genetic predisposition (whatever that might look like) and environmental factors. One without the other probably doesn't result in the phenomenon. These are my ideas though, and not verified by any scientific or social study...
• How is blonde hair a mutation?
• The heterosexual vantage point revealed in these sorts of studies leave me suspicious of the conclusions. Homosexuality is often viewed by researchers, scientists and laymen as a deviation from heterosexuality for which there must be some cause and it's this kind of thinking which makes it difficult for me to take these studies seriously.
• I don't get what you're saying, oklo. You don't think this kind of thing should be studied at all? Social intolerance of homosexuality is rooted in ignorance, and the only way to combat it is by learning more about homosexuality, through studies like this. The fact is that it *is* a deviation from the norm. Homosexuals make up a small minority of humans, and an even smaller minority of sexually reproducing life on the planet. I think that makes it worthy of study.
• f8, a mutation is a change in a gene. It's not evil, or ugly, or bad. It's just a change in a gene, from point A to point B. Therefore, every characteristic is the result of a mutation at some point. That just came to mind randomly. That of course assumes that you believe in evolution. If you don't, then make up your own explanation - and at that point, you're mixing science (genetics) with non-science, so good luck.
• I think what oklo is trying to get at (and I could be wrong) is the studys' assumption of heterosexuality as a baseline, or norm, from which all other types of sexuality deviate. In our culture, sure, heterosexuality is the norm, but heterosexuality as we define it is relatively new (say, 200 years old). Also, the definition of homosexuality is equally new, including the part about its deviance. In some cultures throughout history (as I understand it), homosexuality was an accepted part of life -- as long as all parties agreed to also heed the imperative to procreate. I agree with rocket88 that one of the reasons scientists study homosexuality is because it seems relatively rare within the population, but I also wonder why scientists don't study why most people self define as heterosexual. There's no biological imperative to do so -- it's entirely possible to procreate without the addition of being in a heterosexual relationship. ... I'm rambling, so I'll shut up now :)
• Wurwilf, you said what I was trying to much better than I did. Thanks. My point was simply that the term 'mutation' could simply be co-opted for political reasons, much like how calling evolution a 'theory' is intended to slight it. (Not to derail the thread or anything...)
• I think just about anything is worthy of study. I don't happen to think homosexuality is a deviation (I suspect it, as well as the countless other orientations, runs parallel) and I don't think heterosexuality is the norm. I do think most heterosexuals assume their orientation is the norm. Are heterosexuals the majority on earth? Perhaps. But by a lot slimmer margin than most believe. Human sexuality is far more complex and contains far more variations than those of heterosexuality and homosexuality. On preview: meredithea your first sentence nailed it.
• Wurwilf, not trying to be contentious, just concerned that we agree on definitions. And I can't say we do agree. a. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type. b. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome. Neither of which suggests that blonde hair is a mutation. If you're at all familiar with Mendelian heredity, characteristics such as hair and eye colour are determined through dominant and recessive genes which are asserted through a specific pairing of the parent genes. However, those DNA sequences which determine what colour hair or eyes you have aren't being created from a change in the gene, but are already present in the gene sequence, and simply arise as a process of genetic pairing. This is not mutation, it's a logistical pairing algorithm which can be predicted if enough data about the DNA is already known. Now, I understand mutation as a change in a gene is neither bad nor good in and of itself. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, gene mutations, such as what evolutionary theory is based on, rarely, if ever, produce beneficial changes. But that's pretty OT...
• flashboy - you have no sense of smell? Dreadnought too - it's so hard cooking for him!
• I think the term that needs defining at this point in the thread is heterosexuality if we're actually tossing around the idea that it is not the norm. "Norm" does not have pejorative meaning for its alternatives, at least in this conversation, and we should stop insisting that science conform to whatever political sensitivities we have, pro-gay, anti-gay, or what have you.
• I have to admit that when I read this article, I wasn't concerned with whether homosexuality is genetic or not because I already operate under the presumption that it is. I was more interested in the fact that someone could "smell gay." Especially interesting to me was this quote: ...found that gay men preferred odors from other gay men, while odors from gay men were the least preferred by straight men and women. Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but I wondered if this has any implications on a social level and would it contribute to "gay ghetto-ism."
• Also, though it might make you feel cool and in the know to talk about your "gaydar," you just can't tell someone is gay from how they look/dress/act unless they want you to know. I have to strongly disagree with that statement, but I have nothing to back it up with except for my own personal experiences and a deep, deep desire to "feel cool."
• Tinfoil Sorting Hat: Would you mind explaining what visible characteristics, in your personal experience, correlate with homosexuality? I personally find "who's the gayest" games like your link above very offensive.
• "Born gay" is not the same as "it's hereditary". Boooorn gay, As gay as the wind blows As gay as the grass grows Born gay to follow your heart. Liiiive gay where booty surrounds you the world still asstounds you each time you look at a star. Staaay gay, where no closet walls divide you you're free as a roaring tide so there's no need to hide. Boooorn gay, and life is worth living but only worth living 'cause you're born gaaaaaaaayy!
• Of the various people I've met who like to brag about their "gaydar", we seem to inevitably come to the point where they confess that they thought that numerous people we know were gay and turned out to not be. Of interest, mind you, is the whole played-up stereotypical gay behaviour. Where that comes from, exactly, but it often seems clearly purposeful and thus is no mystery. As for gaydar, we need to leave the junior high school mentality behind. Wearing pink, disliking sports, and having good taste in clothes "means that you're gay" about as much as wearing a dress "makes you a girl". I haven't tailored my tastes in anything to match an imaginary palette of the heterosexual male.
• Would you mind explaining what visible characteristics, in your personal experience, correlate with homosexuality? That's just it. It isn't merely from visible characteristics that I deduce someone is, like myself, gay. It also involves a gut instinct (an instinct, I might add, that is correct 95% of the time). I can't explain it and I can't prove it to you, so I won't try. You'll either believe me or you won't. I personally find "who's the gayest" games like your link above very offensive. If you want to call me on that link, you have every right to. As I mentioned up-thread, it is not what I intended to put there. It's my own fault for not checking my links before I posted. My apologies to anyone who was offended.
• Sorry, I didn't mean for my that to sound so bitchy. I do believe you, but I guess I meant that the subtle cues that people put out and pick up on are a result of social conditioning and stereotypes, so are in some vague sense deliberate. To put my comment in context: I happen to be straight, but whatever it is that "looks gay" I apparently have. Everywhere I go people seem to think they're really clever for picking up on my secret gayness. Example from the other day: two dudes walking towards me get all quiet and stare at me as they pass, then one says to the other: "I can't figure that guy out.. is he gay?" other guy: "no, I think he's just asian." Obviously I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay, but you can probably see why this annoys me.
• Astragalus: Thank you for clarifying your point. It is one I hadn't considered before. I will definitely give more thought to it. Also, thank you for your graciousness. I was afraid this thread was going to turn into a flamefest and I'm just not up for that today.
• I'm way too late with this response, but the reason why f8x's food argument doesn't necessarily hold up is that choosing not to like food is a relatively minor decision, while choosing homosexuality comes with a whole host of social stigmas which makes "choosing" homosexuality much less likely. I don't think the social consequences are irrelevent.
• Personally, I want to have sex with all of you, and if you could all lube yourselves up with vegetable oil and form some kind of orderly queue that would be great.
• Canola or sunflower?
• Canola?! Jesus! What do you think I am, some kind of pervert?
• Note to Americans: Canola is better known in some countries as rapeseed.
• Bees, thank you for clearing that up. However, I prefer olive oil and red wine vinegar, and ol' Popeye over there doesn't interest me.