|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted May 21, 2014 05:04 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:09, 21 May 2014.
|
Well, considering the current situation is "various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, but scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors determine sexual orientation" surmising on the probable isn't the wrong thing to do here. I'd say, rushing to strict conclusions would be the mistake, not the other way around.
meroe said:
And of course animals have genders, otherwise they would be humping the nearest thing to them.
I said they dont have "genders" like we do. They don't have an identity problem about it, wolves don't sit and wonder "so are we bi or is this because we can't get any."
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 06:26 PM |
|
|
Just so I understand your position, Xerox, you do not believe reproduction is a social, not natural, instinct for humans?
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 08:25 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:32, 21 May 2014.
|
This will be brief because I just lack the time today to investigate this fully, but evidence was asked for, so evidence shall be received:
A quick 30 min search of the primary literature yielded a number of studies that show positive genetic influences on male homosexuality. Without validated animal models, most studies appear to look for linkages between chromosome regions and homosexual phenotypes. (Identifying homosexual phenotypes is not as straightforward as, say, identifying color blindness. Many studies appear to use the Kinsey scale, which has been the subject of some criticism.) A number of studies in the late 1990s independently identified strong correlations between male (but not female) homosexuality and a specific region of the X-chromosome called Xq28. A short meta-analysis of this work can be found in the journal Science, published 1999, vol 285, page 803. It is well known that the X-chromosomes accumulates genes that influence sex, reproduction, and cognition.
There is also a statistically significant difference in the way that mothers of homosexual men exhibit extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation compared to mothers of heterosexual men (Bocklandt et al, Hum Genet 2006 118, 691-694). (Each cell in a woman has an inactivated X-chromosome because women have two X-chromosomes and men have only one. Typically the inactivation is randomly determined, but there are mechanisms for non-random inactivation as well.) This was particularly evident in women with multiple homosexual sons. A paragraph from the authors' conclusion that might be of interest: "Recently, several identified autosomal loci suggested a multi-gene regulation of the sexual orientation pathway (Mustanski et al. 2005), as expected for a complex behavioral trait. We hypothesize that one central neuronal pathway establishes sexual attraction to eithermales or females, usually towards the opposite sex. However, a variety of genetic and non-genetic biological effects might intersect this pathway. Hence, there might be several subgroups of gay men and women, each with their own specific biological origin. Although these results need to be replicated, the unusual X chromosome methylation pattern in our sample of mothers of homosexual men supports a role for the X chromosome in regulating male sexual orientation and offers a path for further research on the (epi)genetic basis of a complex and biologically critical human trait."
Not related to humans, a landmark study in 1996 (Ryner et al, Cell, 1996, 87, 1079) showed that male sexual behavior of fruit flies, including sexual orientation, was conctrolled by a single gene. Granted, fruit flies may not be an appropriate animal model for human sexual behavior (and doubtless many have made that argument). Still, it does establish that sexual behavior has a clear genetic basis in a least one species. There's no reason to suspect that other species should be different.
Artu has already briefly described a body of literature related to the incidence of homosexuality in twins, which is higher than what you would expect, statistically, for a nonheritary trait. My search also turned up a number of studies related to this, which again supports a biological, and likely genetic, basis for sexual orientation. Co-incidence of phenotypes in twins have also been investigated. In one interesting study (Hall and Love, Arch. Sex. Behav., 2003), the authors looked at the ratio of the 2nd to 4th finger length, which is a "sex-dimorphic characteristic in humans, which may reflect relative levels of first trimester prenatal testosterone". Interestingly they found that this ratio in lesbian females was consistent with the ratios exhibited by average European males, while the ratio in heterosexual participants was consistent with the ratio of average European females. No difference was found among homosexual/heterosexual males. The conclusion from this (and a number of related studies on interdigital ratio): lesbian sexual orientation is associated with higher androgen levels during prenatal development. This supports a biological basis, but not necessarily genetic basis, for homosexuality in females.
There have also been some studies that show fraternal birth order (FBO) may play a role in sexual orientation. On the surface this would appear to support a basis of social environment, and not biology/genetics, for homosexuality. However FBO has been linked to immunological effects in the prenatal conditions. It goes something like this (from Bogaert and Skorska, Sex. Diff. Sex. Behav. Orient., 2011): "After the first child, a mother develops an immune reaction against a substance important in male fetal development during pregnancy, and this effect becomes increasingly likely with each male gestation. This [auto]immune effect is hypothesized to cause an alteration in (some) later born males' prenatal brain development. The target of the immune response may be molecules (Y-linked proteins) on the surface of male fetal brain cells, including in sites of the anterior hypothalamus, which has been linked to sexual orientation in other research. Antibodies might bind to these molecules and thus alter their role in typical sexual differentiation, leading some later born males to be attracted to men as opposed to women." This was taken from a review article, which then went on to review the dozens of studies in support of this hypothesis. Again, this would support a biological, but not necessarily genetic, basis for male homosexuality.
Anyway, I could go on, but I think it's clear: there is ample evidence in support of a biological basis, and possibly genetic basis, of homosexuality in both males and females - although the mechanisms appear to be quite different for males and females. This brings home an important point: it is true that there is probably not a single "gay gene". For one thing, there appears to be a strong biological but non-genetic component (hormonal or immunological) to some homosexuality phenotypes. (These could still be ultimately genetic in origin, but that kind of secondary effect hasn't been studied as far as I can tell.) For another, complex human behaviors are the result of dozens, if not hundreds of genes, the individual purposes of which are not easy to determine. The studies I have found talk about "regions" of chromosomes rather than specific genes. The end result is that homosexuality is not a monolith; there are likely different variations, possibly largely indistinguishable from each other, each with its own separate suite of causes. It's important to stress that at present, it seems that the evidence is limited to genetic correlations, and precise chemical causes (i.e., proteins involved) are still largely unknown. Certainly each related study in the literature (like any scientific study) is open to criticism, although from what I can tell most criticism has been lodged by nonscientists who have pre-established agendas.
The claims that there is no scientific evidence to support a biological basis of sexual orientation are false. The persistance of such claims is due probably to a combination of factors: ignorance of the science is one, fear by media outlets to report on a touchy subject is another, poor communication by scientists a third, and also an unwillingness by laypersons to listen to or believe in evidence that conflicts with pre-established viewpoints also contributes. Face it, people don't like the implications of research that suggests that human behavior has a genetic basis. There's a discomfort with the idea that we aren't totally in control of our desires, ideas, intentions, and behavior patterns. It destroys, or seems to take away from, our cherished notion of free will. Conflict with religious or cultural beliefs don't help, and there are also social and legal implications as well. (If a man is genetically predisposed toward violence, is it fair to punish him when he murders someone else for no apparent reason?) Certainly, the book isn't closed on the biological basis of sexual orientation - indeed, it's barely been opened - but I think it's dangerous to assume that any aspect of human behavior is purely a matter of human choice with no biological influences whatsoever. Dangerous and also rather absurd.
It's actually interesting to me that Xerox wants to deny a biological/genetic basis for homosexuality. In my experience many homosexuals seem eager for there to be a proven genetic basis, I guess as a route toward legitimization. That's a double-edged sword, though, because there are plenty who would use that as an argument to treat homosexuality as some kind of genetic disease that can be "cured". I don't subscribe to that opinion, because again I think most of us are slaves to biology and chemistry to a greater extent than we think. Genetic "disease" is a rather vague statement to begin with, and brings up questions about "normality" and, in the case of psychological states, ethics regarding "treatment". It's a complicated area, one that science alone cannot solve. That doesn't mean we shouldn't ask the scientific questions. The difficulty for scientists is to be objective when interpreting and reporting on the answers, because certainly nobody else is going to be.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 08:32 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 20:35, 21 May 2014.
|
No, Omegadestroyer, I do not see much evidence that reproduction is a natural instinct for humans. What we do know, is that societies need reproduction to endure, which is why it's understandable why heteronormativity became such a strong norm in most cultures.
artu said:
Btw, Xerox, to clarify, you say:
Quote:
We're all more or less bisexual
Do you formulate that as, without any social construct, we are all simply bisexual
OR
do you mean, nobody is 100 percent gay or straight.
We are all simply sexual. Various social influences, aswell as possibly some biological ones (though I do not believe these have anything to do with a specific gender per se), "decide" what we're attracted too. This attraction is not just sexual, but can also be emotional. A lot more people are likely to feel homoemotional than homosexual, since romantic attraction to the same sex is not as big of a threat to reproduction as sexual attraction. Homoemotionality is more compatible with heteronromativity than homosexuality, which explains why those feelings are more prevalent.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 08:42 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:50, 21 May 2014.
|
Quote:
No, I do not see much evidence that reproduction is a natural instinct for humans.
So how exactly would you categorize things such as women's hormones going crazy at a certain age and they start to pinch every baby they meet on the street or teenage boys going horny as a rhino?
The instinct of reproduction wont manifest itself as consciously planing to have kids. It's an instinct! We can disobey our instincts, that doesn't mean they are non-existent. As I stated earlier, the instinct of survival does not stop some people from killing themselves, hunger don't stop monks from fasting...
What do you expect as evidence?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 08:43 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:43, 21 May 2014.
|
@Xerox
Humans are mammals, and mammals are sexual despite having no society. Humans were obviously sexual before they evolved into modern humans with modern societies. I suppose you think that it is society that determines that humans feel sexual urges around the age of 13 - and indeed cause us to grow breasts, begin ovulation, and so forth - and not hormones?
Maybe your articulation of your idea is just poor. Otherwise it's really an argument that makes no sense at all to me.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 09:09 PM |
|
|
Just a little something that I found myself.
"One of the biggest studies to date investigating whether there is a genetic cause of homosexuality has failed to find any evidence for the existence of a so-called ‘gay gene’. The research team, led by Dr George Rice of Canada’s University of Western Ontario, initiated the study.
It followed the earlier sensational claims of self-confessed homosexual Dr Dean Hamer and his team in 1993 purporting to have found a genetic link to homosexuality. Several years of frenzied research aimed at isolating the ‘homosexual gene’ proved fruitless.
Now Dr Rice’s team, using a much larger study sample and sophisticated genetic tests, has found no evidence at all of any link between this marker and sexual orientation.
The Independent, (U.K.), April 23, 1999, p. 5.
Science, April 23, 1999, pp. 571, 665–667."
I do not argue that there are influences or even urges to do something. I just point out that regardless of what those are you still have a choice. We are not CONDITIONED by our genes or hormone levels.
I've heard of genetic studies that show some people are predisposed to aggressive behavior up to the point of murder. By your logic here he should not be punished because "his genes made him do it". Right?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 09:11 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 21:18, 21 May 2014.
|
Fred, nobody seems to think homosexuality is genetic in this thread.
Corribus, I specifically wrote that humans are sexual, so I don't get why you think I'm claiming that sexuality per se is socially constructed. It is not. What seems to be constructed, is people being exclusively attracted (sexually or emotionally) to one sex.
Quote:
So how exactly would you categorize things such as women's hormones going crazy at a certain age and they start to pinch every baby they meet on the street or teenage boys going horny as a rhino?
That's anecdotal evidence.
The reason we aren't slaves to our insticts is because we are capable of social construction. Reproduction doesn't seem to be much of an instinct though. It seems much more influenced by social and material factors. When people decide to have kids, these seem to play a much, much bigger role than some natural urge (like hunger) for reproduction.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 09:17 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:18, 21 May 2014.
|
|
You are looking at this upside down, the social construct doesn't determine the urge to reproduce, the urge to reproduce determines social norm. Family values develop and are praised because we have an instinct to reproduce, social constructs that drop from sky do not create an urge to reproduce.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 09:20 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 21:28, 21 May 2014.
|
Social construct doesn't "drop from the sky". It's not like they're something religious. They are created by humans for human purposes.
Everybody can feel hunger, fear, stress. We do not feel "make babies" the same way.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 09:26 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:36, 21 May 2014.
|
We do, it's called getting horny. Sexuality exists because that's the way we reproduce. You were not going to feel a sexuality if you were a specie that reproduces by mitotic division.
You are acting way too blind about this for a kid with good intelligence.
Btw,
xerox said:
nobody seems to think homosexuality is genetic in this thread
Nobody thinks homosexuality is solitarily genetic, or caused only by genetic tendencies, in this thread.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 09:31 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
Just a little something that I found myself.
The Rice study you found was evaluated in the Science article I mentioned above. It is one of about 6 papers that investigated the link between the chromosome region Xq28 and homosexuality phenotypes during the late 1990s and it is the only article of the six that found no correlation. The meta-analysis in the Science paper describe possible reasons for this abnormality, not the least of which was procedural shortcomings when it came to evaluating homosexuality phenotypes. A quick means to getting at a true answer in a statistical meta-analysis is the dump the highest and lowest values and average the rest. When you do this there is a clear connection between the chromosome region and homosexuality phenotype.
This is of course why meta-analyses are important! It's also a perfect example of why experience in searching scientific literature is important when it comes to drawing meaningful conclusions about a complicated topic. (Reading the entire article also helps, because secondary sources - especially nonscientific ones - usually have their own spin on the data.) Anyone can cherry pick the literature for studies that support a viewpoint that they already have. Research articles contradict each other all the time, and so it's easy to reach a wrong conclusion by finding one article that agrees with you and then stopping before you look at the rest of the research landscape. Context in the form of contemporary and future studies is vital. Particularly in a scientific problem of such complexity as the genetic basis of human behavior.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 09:46 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:49, 21 May 2014.
|
@ Xerox,
Consider a recent article published in Nature Methods (I found this coincidentally; DOI 10.1038/nmeth.2935) that showed that laboratory mice respond with different emotional behavior to male (human) researchers than female (human) researchers. This difference in response of laboratory rodents was found to be mediated by hormone pheromones given off by human males and females. (You could trick the mice to some extent by wearing fabrics coated in pheromones extracted from male armpit secretions).
I get this isn't explicitly related to sexuality, BUT if physical/chemical human gender differences can bring about differences in behavioral responses cross-species, do you honestly think there is no evidence to suggest that such differences in gender chemistry/anatomy can not elicit unique responses in human behavior as well? Furthermore, if human sex pheromones ARE responsible for gender-specific sexual response in humans (which they must be, why else would humans have sex pheromones?), then any genetic abnormality in the receptors for these pheromones would lead to genetic-linked abnormal sexual behavior. In other words: females give off sex pheromones that stimulate a behavioral response in "normal" human males but not "normal" human females. If there is any genetic variation in the physiology of a male (either in signaling hormones, or hormone acceptors, which can be linked to a whole bunch of different genes), then they would have altered response to female sex pheromones. Since hormones often share chemical similarities, it is not so much of a stretch to believe that a male could be born with a genetic predisposition to respond to male pheromones by mistake. That's a plausible, if very simplistic, hypothesis to explain homosexuality.
Again, that's speculation, but it's speculation based on scientific fact. We KNOW humans have pheromones that can affect the behavior of nearby animals, and we KNOW many species, humans included, have pheromones specifically link to sexual behavior. Failure to acknowledge this just shows you have more interest in your agenda than what the facts are telling you.
Anyway, you claimed there was no evidence for biological/genetic basis of homosexuality. I showed you evidence. You claimed there is no evidence for sexual-specific biological-based behavioral patters. I showed you evidence. Really it makes little difference to me what you believe.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 09:50 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:01, 21 May 2014.
|
There's a difference between findings and evidence. Findings suggesting that homosexuality is caused by genetics or other biological influences, doesn't prove it. Like I wrote in the original post, I am going to assume that sexuality is constructed (though partially on the basis of natural instincts such as arousal) untill its been proven that it's not.
artu said:
We do, it's called getting horny. Sexuality exists because that's the way we reproduce. You were not going to feel a sexuality if you were a specie that reproduces by mitotic division.
You are acting way too blind about this for a kid with good intelligence.
Okay, I concede on that one. We do feel sexually aroused and the biological purpose of that is probably for us to reproduce. But like I said, and I think you agree, we are not slaves to instincts because we are capable of social construction. My point that there aren't essentialist labels of sexuality still stands though. Though arousal is natural, what we're aroused by is not. Atleast not completely.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 09:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Though arousal is natural, what we're aroused by is not. At least not completely.
Of course, some people are fetishists and they get aroused by high-heel shoes and some prefer horses. 
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 10:13 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:27, 21 May 2014.
|
So this is where I stand now:
Sexuality is a social construction. It is based partially on human instinct (arousal), partially on social needs (particularly reproduction). That arousal exists because of reproduction is true, but again, we don't feel a need to reproduce. Demands to reproduce are constructed. Untill modern times, these demands could only be fulfilled by sex between a man and a woman. This created heteronormativity and thus, opposition towards same-sex relations.
Same-sex relations can sexual or emotional. People are more likely to embrace same-sex emotional relations (such as the phenomenon of bromance) because these aren't as sanctioned against by heteronormativity as sexual relations. The oppositon is stronger towards sexual relations because these are a greater threat to reproduction.
Today, the social need to reproduce can be fulfilled in non-traditional ways. This means that people will be more free to act on their natural instincts. Social limitations against non-heteronormative arousal won't be as strong, meaning a lot more people are going to embrace same-sex relations.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 10:20 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
There's a difference between findings and evidence. Findings suggesting that homosexuality is caused by genetics or other biological influences, doesn't prove it. Like I wrote in the original post, I am going to assume that sexuality is constructed (though partially on the basis of natural instincts such as arousal) untill its been proven that it's not.
LOL, then you understand nothing about science or the scientific method. Science doesn't prove anything, ever. Everything I presented to you is evidence. From evidence you draw conclusions. Then you test something else and draw new conclusions. That's the way it works. If you want to close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, that's fine. But that's really the problem, isn't it? Too many people closing their eyes and sticking their fingers in their ears. You're really no better than the people you call bigots who think homosexuals are deviant psychopaths who are out to corrupt the world's children. They've got their eyes closed and ears plugged too, waiting for "proof" that they're wrong. Is it any wonder that there's no progress made, when everyone has isolated themselves in their own beliefs, waiting for proof that they refuse to define? In fact, they aren't waiting for anything. It's chicanery meant to convince themselves and the rest of the world that they have an open mind.
Let me ask you this: what would "proof" look like to you? Tell me an experiment and outcome that would change your mind. If you can't, then maybe you should think about what that is telling you about your beliefs.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 10:25 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:26, 21 May 2014.
|
I'm refering to the every-day usage of the word "proof". Like how we commonly say that we have proven that the Earth is round. I am aware of that if another theory about the Earth's geometric shape gets sufficently supported, then people will claim that we've proved that. Science isn't dogmatic and neither am I. Currently, there is no broadly supported theory regarding the origins of sexuality. There are only findings pointing in different directions.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 10:28 PM |
|
|
I'm with Cor on this one. Everything he said has just hit the nail on the head.
Xerox you are not interested in the truth or real scientific findings. You have just jumped on the bandwagon and will relentlessly pursue your agenda - hoping that the loudest voice wins.
You can't grasp the fact that you could be wrong. I've said you are naive and I have said you are biased. And you are. And worse of all you can't even try to take in the clear information laid before you, because it doesn't back up your cause.
I am through with this thread now. Its pointless. We would all do better in talking to a brick wall.
BTW it would have taken some time or Cor's part to research that for you.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 10:30 PM |
|
|
I heard a hypothesis that homosexuality is more prone among children from older parents and that this is ~nature's way~ of avoiding overpopulation.
No idea if it's true, but I quite like tht theory and as far as i'm concerned it makes sense and is true.
Regardless, there's nothing wrong with or unnatural about homosexuality. It's a matter of sexual preference, something that develops itself organically in each and every single one of us.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
