A Controversial Topic

[yeeeaaahhh]

Science exists to broaden understanding. We [scientists] study things in order to better understand how they work, especially how they work in contrast with a norm.

Now, with homosexual men constituting roughly 4% of the population, there is no denying that we are a sexual deviant. That is not offensive or homophobic language, that is just how it is.
That being said, there is something different in us, that is not different in that other approximately 96% of the population.
Furthermore, that thing that is different puts us in an evolutionary paradox. We, as homosexuals, do not reproduce quite as well as our heterosexual counterparts. We can override our attractions and breed with a woman, but typically a gay man does not have interest in this. Thus, we are less fit than heterosexuals. Being less fit should then, theoretically, reduce our numbers. However, homosexuality has been a constant in the population as far back as we can see in human history.
Clearly something is going on here. Clearly something is driving homosexuality to remain in the population. And science has been looking to see what that is. That is what science does.

In addition, we've seen these connections with homosexuality. The correlation with gender non-conformity, for example. Or the correlation with the number of older brothers increasing the rate of homosexuality. Or even the connections with the Xq28 region in our DNA. There are many other social and biological connections with homosexuality. Science exists to understand those too.

Understanding is not the same as homophobia. Examining is not the same as oppression. We, as gays, should not be ignorant to what current science is saying about us. We should be involved and active in the science, because that will only make it better and stronger and more representative of who we actually are, and what exactly is going on in our bodies, brains, and social environments.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

Evolution takes place within populations, that some individual members don't reproduce isn't a disadvantage for the species as a whole; it might easily be an advantage when the no-pros take care of their siblings and kin.

Think about the species that reproduce most; they're invariably the dumbest and are basically convenient food for other animals.

 

[yeeeaaahhh]

Evolution takes place within populations, that some individual members don't reproduce isn't a disadvantage for the species as a whole; it might easily be an advantage when the no-pros take care of their siblings and kin.

Think about the species that reproduce most; they're invariably the dumbest and are basically convenient food for other animals.

Oh I know the science behind homosexuality. But we homosexuals are less fit than heterosexuals, generally speaking. We could have non-reproductive benefits, of course, and there is research to support that (Kirkpatrik, 2000). But, since fitness describes ones ability to survive and reproduce, then our fitness would be impacted by our lack of reproduction.

 

[2243]

Oh I know the science behind homosexuality. But we homosexuals are less fit than heterosexuals, generally speaking. We could have non-reproductive benefits, of course, and there is research to support that (Kirkpatrik, 2000). But, since fitness describes ones ability to survive and reproduce, then our fitness would be impacted by our lack of reproduction.

Ok, but what's your point?

It's not like only homosexuals reproduce more homosexuals.

Straight people can make gay people too.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

But, since fitness describes ones ability to survive and reproduce, then our fitness would be impacted by our lack of reproduction.

Evolution isn't about individuals, it's about genes.
And for crying out loud! Get rid of these 20th-century heteronormative misconceptions. They are not science.

 

[VICTORIADON]

I figure as a gay man, that has not produced any spawn, I have the right to drive a SUV, burn energy at my pleasure and eat meat.

My carbon foot print compared to a "breeder" in the long term, will be much smaller, AND, after I am gone, I don't care, my elements will just blend back with the enviroment...eventually.

Who wants to go 4X4ring and get some meat?


The title of the thread is A Controvesial Topic.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8[/ame]

 

[Seasoned]

Where does the 4% come from?

 

[Tbot91]

I've also heard somewhere about having some sex-chromosome influence (i.e. influenced by the X chromosome). If a woman has this influence on one of her x chromosomes, she can pass it on to her sons/daughters. It may have no affect on women or it might make them really like men. When a son gets it, it increases the likelihood that he will be gay. This would make the gene beneficial to women because they really really like men but not so useful if a male inherits the gene.

 

[jizzeater]

We need a new study. I'm not buying this 4% thing anymore. It has to be higher than that.

 

[luminum]

Well, 10% seems to be an overshoot, but Kinsey's figures were based on anyone having any same-sex attracted fantasy or act.

4% actually seems to be a lot more reasonable.

BTW, populations evolve, not individuals.

I think there's a great bevy of research out there about queer populations. We do a Journal Club every month about relevant queer health research. It's a lot more refreshing than most other studies that only involve MSM populations because they're great research populations rather than because the researcher is genuinely interested in the health of queer populations.

If anyone attended this year's APHA, there were some really awesome studies going. I sat in on the panel concerning queer youth. Really enlightening!

 

[hotb0d]

LOL. are you kidding me? If anything, homosexual's fitness is on the rise. I mean if you look at the number, I am sure there are more gay people now then there were 10-20 years ago. The use of 'reproduction' as a measurement of a species/group of people's fitness is just a very very old standard that nobody uses anymore.

And I'm sure if the use of the term 'deviant' is an accurate term to describe homosexuality. I mean....technically speaking, heroes/people that perform good deeds are also called social deviants.

 

[yeeeaaahhh]

Evolution isn't about individuals, it's about genes.
And for crying out loud! Get rid of these 20th-century heteronormative misconceptions. They are not science.

Evolution is about genes, but genes are passed by individuals. Fitness describes an individuals ability to pass those genes. Nothing I am saying is "20th-century heteronomative misconceptions"... it is simple biology.

I don't understand what you mean by 'less fit'. How, by saying that by not reproducing, are we less fit? There is nothing to imply anything about fitness at all.

Right. Homosexuality has been around forever, by all the evidence. It occurs repeatedly and without exception. This is why I think the term 'deviant' doesn't apply. It would be a deviant if it wasn't a constant. Do you disagree?

Fitness, in the biological sense, describes an individuals ability to survive and reproduce (pass on genes).
And we are sexual deviants because homosexuality deviates from the median, or average, sexual orientation.

Where does the 4% come from?

Well, there is a lot of variance in the numbers when it comes to prevalence. You have papers suggesting higher numbers, near or upwards of 8 or 9%, and then you have some studies suggesting very low numbers, below 1%. I go with 4%, because it is the number that I see most often in the literature. Furthermore, it seems like a happy compromise between the high numbers and the lower numbers.
Really it just comes down to the study, what the sample ended up yielding, and what they defined as "homosexual". A big flaw with prevalence studies is that they define sexuality by action, not attraction. I can post some citations if you'd like to read some studies, but I'll have to refresh my memory on them.

I've also heard somewhere about having some sex-chromosome influence (i.e. influenced by the X chromosome). If a woman has this influence on one of her x chromosomes, she can pass it on to her sons/daughters. It may have no affect on women or it might make them really like men. When a son gets it, it increases the likelihood that he will be gay. This would make the gene beneficial to women because they really really like men but not so useful if a male inherits the gene.

I am unfamiliar with this, but it sounds like you could be talking about immune response? Which has a great deal of empirical support.

 

[yeeeaaahhh]

LOL. are you kidding me? If anything, homosexual's fitness is on the rise. I mean if you look at the number, I am sure there are more gay people now then there were 10-20 years ago. The use of 'reproduction' as a measurement of a species/group of people's fitness is just a very very old standard that nobody uses anymore.

And I'm sure if the use of the term 'deviant' is an accurate term to describe homosexuality. I mean....technically speaking, heroes/people that perform good deeds are also called social deviants.

The entire field of biology and every subfield there out defines fitness as the ability to survive and reproduce. Fitness is a huge part of evolution and biology. Reproduction will always be a huge measurement for evolution, because evolution requires reproduction.

 

[DiamondSkin]

Fitness, in the biological sense, describes an individuals ability to survive and reproduce (pass on genes).
And we are sexual deviants because homosexuality deviates from the median, or average, sexual orientation.

Sweetie, I get what you're saying but it make me ALOT more eager to listen to what you say if you would stop calling us "sexual deviants"....

 

[blackbeltninja]

Evolution isn't about individuals, it's about genes.
And for crying out loud! Get rid of these 20th-century heteronormative misconceptions. They are not science.

19th century, actually, with Darwin. Still relevant, though.

We do a Journal Club every month about relevant queer health research. It's a lot more refreshing than most other studies that only involve MSM populations because they're great research populations rather than because the researcher is genuinely interested in the health of queer populations.

Personally, I think it would be a useful exercise to publish some links (if you have them) to these works - I for one would quite like to give them a read, and I'm sure there would be interest from some of the other boys and girls in here. Would you mind putting them up? Alternatively, please bomb me a PM with some in.

Sweetie, I get what you're saying but it make me A LOT more eager to listen to what you say if you would stop calling us "sexual deviants"...

Connotations aside, you gotta describe things in cold, factual science-speak. It makes the literature a little dry, but it does ensure that everyone is always on the same page. It's the same reason they say "penis" in journals instead of "winkie," which I'm sure you'll agree is a great pity.

I'm with the OP. Let's embrace the science.

-d-

 

[DiamondSkin]

Connotations aside, you gotta describe things in cold, factual science-speak. It makes the literature a little dry, but it does ensure that everyone is always on the same page. It's the same reason they say "penis" in journals instead of "winkie," which I'm sure you'll agree is a great pity.

I'm with the OP. Let's embrace the science.

-d-

The word 'sexual deviant' is a negative term used to describe homosexuals. There's nothing remotely neutral about it.

I understand the full meaning of the word and I understand it's meaning in both the field of sociology and biology.

However, using 'sexual deviant' to describe homosexuals implies a negative bias. And I would see science be free of bias.

Penis is penis. It's neither negative or positive. It just is.

The word 'deviant' implies that the subject that is 'deviant' implies defect, disorder, wrong, imperfect, etc. In biology, deviance means it's something that is not normal or desirable for evolution. Thus by implying deviance, we're implicating a bias that something's wrong, defective or disordered in a way that made us 'deviate' from the correct path of evolution.

When performing a study, we must get rid of bias. Deviance already denotes a negative bias. Because in order for something to deviate, something must go wrong.

If we call homosexuals 'sexual deviants', we must otherwise engage in sexual deviant behavior.

Which makes us on the same level as paraphilia, zoophiles, necrophiles and pedophiles....

If we allow scientists to call us 'sexual deviants' we encourage a negative bias in their studies. So yes, connotations matter.

A more appropriate, less biased term should be "other", "alternative" or "separate"

 

[Swellegant]

Here's what I want to know: how is it important?

Yes, science exists to find out the whys and the wherefores and figure out how things work. And that's OK, though I expect there are a lot of topics of greater import. Like diseases and shit.

But why are we talking about it? We're not scientists, mostly. Why do we even care? And why do we insist on bandying words like "deviant" and "unfit" on a board that is not full of scientists? This is a board mostly of laymen, and those terms are negatively connotated to the layman. So why use them? Unless you're trying to piss people off.

I know lots of big words that I don't use in everyday speech because they're specialized, and only the people who study the same specialty as me will know them. I know lots of French and Italian words that I don't use when speaking to people who don't understand French and Italian. Therefore, if someone is going to talk about scientific research to someone who doesn't speak sciencese (like the media, for fuck's sake), I expect him to bring his language out of the lab and use plain English (or German or whatever).

No, being studied is not oppression. However, being treated like a subhuman life-form while being studied is. When these dicks start yawping about feminized hypothalami and hormone deficiencies, while completely ignoring the giant gaping holes in their theory and completely missing the point of what homosexuality is and how it manifests, I get a feeling they're working from a bias, with or without fancy scientific language. It makes me wonder who's funding said research. It sure as hell ain't us homos.

And I'm also curious about where'd this 4% come from. Cite your sources, man, if you're going to be all scientificky.

But OK, to play along like anyone else with any kind of education, the question of how a trait that tends to reduce procreation gets passed along is certainly an interesting one (and you don't have to say "deviant" or "unfit" to get that point across). It's also interesting how warlike aggression gets passed along, since aggressively warlike people do rather tend to get killed by the thousands in wars before they reproduce much.

And another query: my dear darling yeeeaaahhh, you haven't suggested an avenue of possibility or even why the research is important: you've just posed the question in the most offensive words you can find. What's that all about? Why and wherefore? Scientific minds want to know.

 

[yeeeaaahhh]

Here's what I want to know: how is it important?

Yes, science exists to find out the whys and the wherefores and figure out how things work. And that's OK, though I expect there are a lot of topics of greater import. Like diseases and shit.

But why are we talking about it? We're not scientists, mostly. Why do we even care? And why do we insist on bandying words like "deviant" and "unfit" on a board that is not full of scientists? This is a board mostly of laymen, and those terms are negatively connotated to the layman. So why use them? Unless you're trying to piss people off.

I know lots of big words that I don't use in everyday speech because they're specialized, and only the people who study the same specialty as me will know them. I know lots of French and Italian words that I don't use when speaking to people who don't understand French and Italian. Therefore, if someone is going to talk about scientific research to someone who doesn't speak sciencese (like the media, for fuck's sake), I expect him to bring his language out of the lab and use plain English (or German or whatever).

No, being studied is not oppression. However, being treated like a subhuman life-form while being studied is. When these dicks start yawping about feminized hypothalami and hormone deficiencies, while completely ignoring the giant gaping holes in their theory and completely missing the point of what homosexuality is and how it manifests, I get a feeling they're working from a bias, with or without fancy scientific language. It makes me wonder who's funding said research. It sure as hell ain't us homos.

And I'm also curious about where'd this 4% come from. Cite your sources, man, if you're going to be all scientificky.

But OK, to play along like anyone else with any kind of education, the question of how a trait that tends to reduce procreation gets passed along is certainly an interesting one (and you don't have to say "deviant" or "unfit" to get that point across). It's also interesting how warlike aggression gets passed along, since aggressively warlike people do rather tend to get killed by the thousands in wars before they reproduce much.

And another query: my dear darling yeeeaaahhh, you haven't suggested an avenue of possibility or even why the research is important: you've just posed the question in the most offensive words you can find. What's that all about? Why and wherefore? Scientific minds want to know.

I realize that I am writing on a forum of people who are largely not scientists. I also know that I am writing on a forum, and anyone on here has access to the internet, and can do a quick Google search of what deviance is. Or what fitness is. You may have some odd negative connotation with those words, but in reality all deviance means is not average, and all unfit means is not passing on genes. I am not going to dumb things down for adults who can access the internet.

Furthermore, these gaping holes that you speak of. What exactly are you referring too here? Which theory or hypothesis? Which study specifically? ...Basically what I am getting at is have you actually read the research, or are you just angry at me and trying to prove a point?

I already explained the "4% thing", so take the time to read my other posts.

And I said very clearly that science works to understand things. Why is this research important... to better understand the world we live in. I made that very clear in my post.

 

[PabloZed]

I think we can dispense with the term deviant because one must first establish the mean and science has not done that. Heterosexuality would fall at the other end of the spectrum if a form of bisexuality defined most of the population. But I have never heard of sexuality defined in terms of deviations, which can be measured, but rather in terms of degrees which are not as easily defined.

Also, when one speaks of fitness in terms of survival I thought it was generally in terms of comparing species not comparing groups within a species. For example, blondes as a group are headed for extinction. I don't believe there is an argument that blondes are not fit (well maybe there is in the current events forum where even facts are disputed). OTOH, there is also ongoing research into the evolution of man and the current understanding is that different species of man (or man-like creatures) evolved but only one survived. Homosexuals are not like neanderthals. We are not a different species and thus our existence is not dependent on our own ability to reproduce. That is indeed an irony, but not as much as it seems since we are not a different species no matter what Foxnews and Pat Robertson say.

 

[bankside]

Oh I know the science behind homosexuality. But we homosexuals are less fit than heterosexuals, generally speaking. We could have non-reproductive benefits, of course, and there is research to support that (Kirkpatrik, 2000). But, since fitness describes ones ability to survive and reproduce, then our fitness would be impacted by our lack of reproduction.

Bold, clear, and totally wrong.

First of all, a population with diverse gender expression will be way more robust than a population with "mono-expressive" gender traits. Gender expression does not have to be entirely random for this effect to work, you can have clusters of behaviour with examples that stray close or far from the average for different "gender poles" you may choose to define (they need not be binary, and you may choose to define them empirically and statistically). But it is absolutely critical for survival that not all members of a species have the identical propensity to react to a situation. Gender expression is just one part of the necessary diversity in our species so that we don't go bust.

Second, in terms of reproductive fitness, wow. We're smart enough to outsource our breeding and this somehow makes us less fit?

Let me draw your attention to the cowbird:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowbird
It is clever enough to have discovered daycare for its offspring. It outsources the raising of its young to a completely different species. We go one step further.

Gay people have found other ways to contribute to a strong community, but we usually leave reproduction to breeding specialists within our society that we call "heterosexuals."

They are our cousins, nieces, nephews, brothers and sisters. They have the job of making sure that our genes get passed on in our communities. We have the job of making sure those communities trounce any obstacles. It may be indirect but we're still responsible for a lot of our own reproductive success, and reproductive fitness.

It is not heterosexism that is clouding your view, but even a quick look at the complex, intricate reproductive strategies of just a few other species will show the possibilities.