A Controversial Topic

[hotdog1846]

<deleted for brevity>

What is any understanding of genetics going to do to help the treatment of homosexuals in our society and others?

If you claim it's to give scientific backup to the claim that sexuality is hard-wired into our genes, that theory is destroyed when you consider other factors such as skin pigmentation, which IS hard-wired into our genes and nevertheless is the cause of EXTREME prejudice around the world (or, rather, a person's reaction to another person of a different skin color).

Science, in this case, is ONLY working to understand if somehow sexuality is hardwired into our DNA or not. It is NOT working to understand what societies then DO with that information, and THAT is where this research is failing us.

<deleted for brevity>

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I enjoy reading about scientific research into the biological underpinnings of homosexuality, in part because I find it reassuring that there's some reason for my state of being besides the propaganda of the Religious Right.

The question of "what's all this being used for", though, is a great question. I think science is generally helpful here, because many people look more kindly upon GLBTs when they hear messages that there's something physiological going on, rather than that we're willingly committing sin just for fun or whatever.

Science can help us understand whether homosexuality is "natural", but it can't help us know whether it's right, and that's where even gay activists are falling into a trap. Just because something's natural doesn't make it right. That's called "naturalistic fallacy". As an example, there's scientific evidence for biological underpinnings of a lot of sociopathologies, and that they're biological in origin doesn't make a sociopath's actions in committing murder right.

In the end, morality, acceptance, and gay rights hinge on the right to personal choice, individual liberties, and whether those choices hurt anyone else.

 

[Swellegant]

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.

Why not? What purpose is served by alienating readers with controversial words? What precisely are you trying to prove? That you're smarter than me because you can Google sciencey stuff? Or are you merely being controversial in order to get a lot of attention, which I like an idiot am always here to provide?

Yes, I know what deviance means in some scientific studies. Statistics, for example (I know my IQ and my height are two standard deviations from the norm, though I'd probably be pissed about it if I was on the left end of the bell curve instead of the right), and epidemiology (which is still statistics), and behavioral sciences. I'll give you genetics, I can't say I've studied it...despite my access to the internet. I just don't find it interesting.

But I do know that real science doesn't pose bullshit theories to the popular press without studying them for a good long while first and then translating it into the closest approximation to layman's terms they can find. And a good theory really does have to cover the majority of the question, if not the whole question.

See, I'm talking about language used in publication. You can call something H1N1 all you want, but it's still swine flu; you can call a chromosome by whatever ten-digit code the geneticists have come up with for it, but when you're talking about it outside the halls of MIT and Genentech, one has to use different words. Or just shut up about it until one knows more.

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?

The gaping holes are:
1) Complete failure to account for female homosexuality (any of the genetic studies I've heard about so far; if I'm wrong please enlighten me).
2) Complete failure to standardize a norm. The assumption you've posited and which seems to be implied in what I've read is that there is a tiny number of exclusive homosexuals and huge number of exclusive heterosexuals with a sprinkling of bisexuals for flavor. Has this actually been studied? When Kinsey's research (which posited a bisexual norm and exclusive sexuality was three standard deviations from the norm) was discredited (on rather vague grounds, throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you ask me), did anyone establish another scale that we can measure against? Or are we just taking a traditional viewpoint and/or using the not very scientifically reliable US Census data?
3) Complete failure (in the birth-order theory) to account for the staggering number of male homosexuals who were not third and fourth sons. We did a poll here on JUB when that theory was published in the mainstream media, and just on this board, only about forty percent were farther down the order than second sons. My very existence as both my parents' first child blows that theory right out of the water, but they keep hammering away at it like it means something.

But as I said before, I will certainly concede that I haven't read any of these "studies"...I don't interest myself in these things. Why I'm homosexual really doesn't matter. Why I'm bipolar interests me like ninety, though what I can do about it interests me much more...and that's what makes these studies politically charged: everyone is more interested in 'what to do about it' than they are in the pure 'why'...maybe not the pure scientist, but certainly those who would use his work.

We already know that homosexuality is inherent and inalterable, other branches of science have already proven that; hammering away at the genetics of it is certainly of interest, but to do so in the current political climate strikes me as peculiar. And that peculiarity, in today's political climate, makes words like "deviant" and "unfit" stand out like blood spatter. It makes me wonder why this is being studied: just to know, or to find a cure? It makes me wonder who is funding the research, because as we all know from government dietary guidelines almost entirely lobbied by the beef industry and wheat industries, follow the money and you'll find the motive.

And no, I'm not angry at you trying to prove a point. I am angry because you keep trying to shove these words down our throats, defending them as if they were your own little babies, despite so many of us telling you that they're inescapably offensive. So instead of using a different word (the English language is ripe with synonyms...that was my field of study) that is less politically charged, so that we might take interest in the studies themselves, you're hammering away at the words and making us very suspicious of the motives of the studies you so love.

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

"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."

That's not a citation. That's not even science, that's guessing. As I asked before, whence do those number come? How did the Janus Report come up with the 9%? I can't be bothered to buy the thing, and I didn't find the text online. I know who posits the 2%, that was Focus on the Family, one of those reputable scientific sources.

And why I asked that particular question is, like I wondered above, who did the counting? Was this counting done in a full-on scientific study, a study with at least a fraction of the research work Kinsey put into his, or are we just taking estimates? I mean, the Gallup Poll puts the number as high as 21%, but they were just asking people on the phone; and the US Census puts it down to 1%, but that's just couples in households who felt comfortable admitting it to the government before Lawrence v Texas happened.

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.

I'm sure Joseph Mengele would have told us that science works to understand things. I'm sure the participants in the Manhattan Project thought they were developing portable nuclear fission for the sheer joy of the research.

If we're talking about pure science for the fun of the thing, let's stick to topics which are not politically controversial...the migrations of butterflies or curing the common cold. Because the minute you take up a study that gets a lot of enemies interested, it's going to get coopted--usually the side with the most money. These geneticists are being paid by somebody; and until I know who, I don't buy anything they say any more than I buy the California Egg Council telling me I can eat all the eggs I want or the American Cattlemen telling me that beef is what's for dinner.

Anyway, I'm kind of over the words. Yack all you want about deviations, and I'll just pretend you said watermelon; yack about unfitness and I'll just pretend you said rutabaga (those are the words drag queens mouth when they forget the words to their songs). It will make the whole thing more entertaining.

 

[yeeeaaahhh]

Okay, so in the last evening I've had a lot of responses. Rather then quote all of you, I am just going to make this easier.

Deviance: Sexuality has been graphed and male sexuality tends to be bimodal, with a huge spike in the 0-1 range, then it drops down for the 2-4 and then a little jump again at 5-6. Women, on the other hand, graph more linearly, with a taper from the high end of 0 to the low end of 6 (Bailey, Dunne & Martin 2000).
The high end shows the median score, which will be defined as average. Without getting to far into statistics, anything that is more than one standard deviation away would be considered "deviant" from the "average". Since homosexuality does exist more than one standard deviation away, it is deviant from the average.
Kinsey suggested a more noticeable sex difference (LeVay, 1996), however he exaggerated his measures and his sampling was haphazard (Laumann et al., 1994).

Kinsey: On that subject specifically, you need to realize that there has been a lot of research done since Dr. Kinsey, and focusing on him specifically is unintelligent.

Female sexuality: Unfortunately not nearly as much work has gone into studying lesbianism. That is just a result of the sex bias world that we live in. Most research on almost any subject has more work done with man than with women.

Bankside: You really need to read the paper "Evolution of Homosexual Behavior" by Kirkpatrick. It was published in 2000, and it is an excellent analysis.
I think that you will find that the science agrees with you more than you think it does.
(Specifically "non-reproducive benefits")
And before you say that I am wrong, you should probably read the papers that I cite.

Transpogue: You'll be happy to know that most scientists studying homosexuality think that there are a jumble of causes which effect us at varying degrees. Some it's more genetic, some it's more hormonal, some it's more environmental. The "black and white" mentality in sexual orientation went out the door a long time ago.

PabloZed: In evolutionary biology you are always comparing the fitness of one group or individual, to that of another group of individual. That is how traits are passed. If we didn't look at the individual, then dominant mutations would never be accounted for, and we would just see random and spontaneous changes in the population, when in reality there would be one random change, and then reproduction would do the rest.

hotdog1846: I like what you said. The reason that I am so passionate about studying sexuality is actually because when I started learning that I wasn't just some sinner who lost his way, that I was a person who was just built differently, it helped me tremendously. I'd like to share that with the up and coming LGBT people.

Swellegant: First of all I get my information from empirical research articles, not the mass media. I don't wait for the research to come to me, I just go and find it. That is kind of my job. And you compared my use of "deviant" and "fitness" to using a 10-digit genetic code. I think that is a bit extreme.
You bring up this idea that I could just chose different words. Please inform me, what is another word that describes a lack of passing your genes onto further generations" (And don't use "unfit"). Or perhaps a word that means "existing away from the median average" (that is not deviance). I guess I could say "not typical" or "not normal" but do you think that you would respond any differently to those words? I am not saying these things to piss people off, I am saying them because that is what people say. That is what science says. This argument with you is about words, and honestly I think that you just need to get over it.
As for your assessment of the gaping holes in the studies that you've never read... I refuse to even dignify that with a response. Read some papers, find some gaping holes, and we'll talk. But right now I cannot discuss with you about this, if you will be defending something that you don't even know exists.
When it comes to percentages, it depends on a lot of things. Did they get their sample from the Castro, or did it come from Mississippi? Did it come from both? All of this will effect the data. Furthermore, is the scientist defining homosexuality as only action ("Have you had sex with another man (if you are a man) or woman (if you are a woman)")? Or is the scientist including feelings and attraction in his measure ("Are you attracted too..."). That makes a HUGE diference in the data.
Here's some citations: Risch et al 1993; Kirkpatrick 2000; Kirk, Bailey, and Martin 2000; Kendler et al 2000; Dunne et all 2000; Blanchard & Lippa, 2007.
It is good that you are skeptical. Science thrives under skepticism. So, way to go. But rather than just being skeptical and getting upset, why don't you look into the science. See if there is as much to be afraid of as you think there is. Maybe you will be surprised by what you find?

 

[blackbeltninja]

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.

You've hit the nail on the head. We are not normal. Natural, sure. Homosexuality is definitely natural. But not normal.

Have we "deviated?" Connotation aside, yes we have. Surely no inheritable trait which doesn't preserve itself (since we opt not to procreate so the gene/s, if they exist in us, cannot be passed on) can be considered desirable and surely must be considered defective or deviant. I'm sorry we don't like the term, but I'm not entirely sure how else to describe a process which for all intents and purposes effectively terminates itself. The terms you've suggested above - wrong, defective and disordered - certainly seem appropriate.

Still, it's a semantic point - people have been using terms like this forever when discussing genetics. I'm not sure kicking up a stink about the terms just because we're now discussing gay genetics actually helps anyone's cause whatsoever.

Here's some citations: Risch et al 1993; Kirkpatrick 2000; Kirk, Bailey, and Martin 2000; Kendler et al 2000; Dunne et all 2000; Blanchard & Lippa, 2007.

Dude, if you have links to full-text copies (or synopses or discussions) of these, post them. You and I and some others are au fait with searching NLM and PubMed; the average member here probably is not and wouldn't want to wade through a million citations trying to find these ones.

If we're talking about pure science for the fun of the thing, let's stick to topics which are not politically controversial...the migrations of butterflies or curing the common cold. Because the minute you take up a study that gets a lot of enemies interested, it's going to get coopted--usually the side with the most money. These geneticists are being paid by somebody; and until I know who, I don't buy anything they say any more than I buy the California Egg Council telling me I can eat all the eggs I want or the American Cattlemen telling me that beef is what's for dinner.

I can tell you quite honestly that there is no money for this anymore and hasn't been for a while. Speaking as a published scientist, I'd like to volunteer that any research published in a decent journal has been through an extensive externally-reviewed process prior to publication and one hopes the journals retain a sufficient level of scrutiny prior to publication. Additionally, nothing published ever stands alone - take it from me, if you publish something blatantly dubious or which is perceived as inaccurate it will not go unnoticed and unchallenged. I've seen fights picked at conferences in recent times where someone on the floor has challenged a speaker over just such things.

-d-

 

[GM1985]

Perhaps we are merely a step in the evolutionary process between the original and inefficient Sexual reproductive process and Asexual reproduction!

Hey, its a possibility!

 

[yeeeaaahhh]

Dude, if you have links to full-text copies (or synopses or discussions) of these, post them. You and I and some others are au fait with searching NLM and PubMed; the average member here probably is not and wouldn't want to wade through a million citations trying to find these ones.

Hmm... everything I read I get off of databases from my school. I am not sure how I could link them, since you have to pay to have access to the databases. I could try and find some articles that are in the public domain, but that might be difficult.

I can tell you quite honestly that there is no money for this anymore and hasn't been for a while. Speaking as a published scientist, I'd like to volunteer that any research published in a decent journal has been through an extensive externally-reviewed process prior to publication and one hopes the journals retain a sufficient level of scrutiny prior to publication. Additionally, nothing published ever stands alone - take it from me, if you publish something blatantly dubious or which is perceived as inaccurate it will not go unnoticed and unchallenged. I've seen fights picked at conferences in recent times where someone on the floor has challenged a speaker over just such things.

I don't think that people realize how much competition there is in science. Everyone wants to be the one to publish groundbreaking research, and everyone is reviewing and reviewing and trying to find fault in other people's research so that they can be the smart one who caught the mistake. It is just like any other field, if you preform a shitty study people will see, and they will call you out on it. Sometimes viciously lol.
You sound send me a PM... I'd love to know more about what you study and such.

 

[GM1985]

Pubmed and even google scholars have a keyword search function, failing that you could always post links to those articles you find interesting.

You could even post the abstracts to some of these articles...

 

[hotdog1846]

I don't think that people realize how much competition there is in science. Everyone wants to be the one to publish groundbreaking research, and everyone is reviewing and reviewing and trying to find fault in other people's research so that they can be the smart one who caught the mistake. It is just like any other field, if you preform a shitty study people will see, and they will call you out on it. Sometimes viciously lol.

Boy, is that the truth! You have to have a thick skin, and impeccable research, to survive in science. And, that constant scrutiny is what makes science so valuable in advancing our understanding of things -- questioning things is encouraged!

 

[DiamondSkin]

You've hit the nail on the head. We are not normal. Natural, sure. Homosexuality is definitely natural. But not normal.

We're natural but we're not normal?

What about homosexuality would not be considered 'normal' genetic traits when we're entirely natural?

Have we "deviated?" Connotation aside, yes we have. Surely no inheritable trait which doesn't preserve itself (since we opt not to procreate so the gene/s, if they exist in us, cannot be passed on)

You're assuming homosexuality is an inheritable trait via reproduction. You're disregarding genetic mutation and genetic drift. Many genetic traits are identified that have nothing to with reproductive fitness yet still pass on. We've just mapped the genetic code and we don't understand it completely.

Heterosexual couples create homosexuals all the time. There is nothing wrong or disordered with our reproductive systems. We can choose to procreate if we wish.

Since homosexuals continually exist, we can assume that the genetic trait is either activated by some form of mutation or drift or it is in fact a desirable trait.

Genetic fitness is not simply who can reproduce the most. It's more than that.


If homosexuals were sterile, than you would have point in regards to

can be considered desirable and surely must be considered defective or deviant. I'm sorry we don't like the term, but I'm not entirely sure how else to describe a process which for all intents and purposes effectively terminates itself. The terms you've suggested above - wrong, defective and disordered - certainly seem appropriate.

You're implying that homosexuality is a genetic disorder?

You said that classifying homosexuality as 'wrong', 'defective', or 'disordered ' is acceptable.

Ignoring the sheer bigotry in this post, what proof do you have homosexuality is a genetic illness on par with Sickle cell anemia or down syndrome?

A genetic disorder or illness is caused by 'abnormalities' in the gene sequence that is not 'normal'. It's defective, disordered and wrong. It deviates from what is desirable in human reproduction. It always causes a host of problems for the host of this condition.

People with Tay-Sachs syndrome for example suffer from a relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities at an early age.

What do homosexuals 'suffer' from due to their 'genetic disorder'? We're not attracted to the opposite sex. Other than that, a homosexual born can be born in perfect health. We don't go blind, we're not retarded and we don't suffer from muscle deterioration. Homosexuals do not share any common 'symptoms' that link us all.

Thus, you're saying that since we're 'wrong', 'disordered' and 'defective', homosexuals are really no different from this guy:

 

[Swellegant]

OK, yeaaahhhh and blackbeltninja, you guys know the science. You can talk to each other and understand every word. We can't fucking understand you, and you alienate us with your politically freighted words. No use not meaning to, it happened.

You read scientific papers, but the most of us don't have the skill or inclination to read these papers, so we get the stupid versions that are released to the mass media. Being in a position to understand the reports on which the mass media is feeding, you might be able to show us where they misunderstood some key thing. And you could do it by translating for us.

Your scientific term "deviation" can be translated into the layman's term "variation," and the scientific term "unfit" can be translated to "counterintuitive." I could probably think of more alternative phrases if I set my mind to the task... "obscured utitility," I just thought of that.

Words really do matter, you see. You can say that your words are neutral until the end of time, but they just aren't, not in a layman's context. I can get over your use of those two words, but I ask you to consider your defense of them. They aren't necessary to your point (whatever your point was, I've quite forgotten... empty-headed, you know).

I know language, not science...or rather, I understand science but I don't understand the language scientists use; I get scientific method, I have my basic training...but not the dense jargon. I know Kinsey because I read his books, which were written for lots of people to read, not just the scientific community. I also know Margaret Mead for the same reason. I know lots of things that are written to be read by laymen. Scientific studies that have been reformatted for the layman to understand. That's not dumbing down, that's translation.

I asked you to translate it into layman's terms and tell me where you got it so I can go look for this information if I wish to see it. I point out the holes in what I've seen and heard abroad in the world, and you refuse to discuss it because I haven't read all the things you've read. You give me some words I can use on Google, and I've tried them out with little success. But obviously even if I found the studies, I wouldn't understand them because I don't have a BS in ScienceSpeak.

But I did read the Kirkpatrick paper (I could find it with Google, the other citations took me to pay sites, like most porn searches do, maybe I typed them wrong; I really am interested in knowing about a standardized table of sexual expression statistics, but not enough to pay to read Bailey, Dunne & Martin 2000...though the extract indicates that was a twin study and does not have a nontwin population).

I had a hard time with it. And reading isn't difficult for me, it's this type of writing that is difficult for me. I can read Shakespeare, I can read James, I can read Burroughs, but I can't read Kirkpatrick.

So you are in a position to help me understand something that you think is important. But I'm not understanding anything, I'm feeling attacked and defensive and very angry. So what purpose of yours has been served?

You say that you were aided by reading this type of research in coming to terms with your sexuality; I wonder how many people are going to read words like "deviant" and "unfit" and feel comforted? People who lack scientific training, I mean. Mead and Kinsey did that for me because I could read them, and they told me that I was perfectly normal. After that I don't really care why I'm gay. Others, I suppose, need more science. I hope they're getting it.

Anyway, something interesting I brought away from (attempting) Kirkpatrick's essay: it seems that the problem is trying to fit homosexuality into the context of reproductive Darwinism... "In the Darwinian view of natural selection, individuals should seek to maximize reproductive success," he writes. And homosexuality isn't fitting in there. So people are trying to make it fit, rather than wondering whether or not homosexuality shows that the Darwinian model might be a little bit askew. That maybe humans as a species have evolved out of pure Darwinian evolutionary constructs. We throw out Kinsey (yes, I'm a big Kinsey fan... great movie, by the way) but we still worship Darwin.

But I suppose that's philosophy. Maybe metaphysics? I don't know. I don't care anymore.

 

[luminum]

Swellergent, I think you're just as guilty of alienation by claiming what you think the readership here wants or what does or doesn't interest them. It certainly interests me. I engage in scientific study and academia in my personal and professional life and several other members here do, even if others don't. It's even more salient for me because my focuses are on scientific research for queer populations. I appreciate the thought going into this thread and the discussions arising from it. If you don't, what's your point? Read a different thread. No one is forcing you to engage in this discussion, and the argument that "most people don't know or care about this anyway, so go away" is rather disappointing coming from you.

I post about sports, comic books, and politics, but does that mean I should desist because some people here don't understand politics or enjoy sports? Does that invalidate the discussions held within that thread because someone doesn't like it or understand it? I don't care for Zac Efron, but that doesn't mean that I disagree with threads about him being on JUB.

Your arguments about language seem odd coming from someone like you. As someone educated in literature, you should understand that language is contextual, even from one author to another. Are you offended because Twain has a character named "Nigger Joe"? How would you respond if you were giving a talk on "Huckleberry Fin" and its characters and a sociologist argued with you about how offensive that name is? It would be ridiculous.

In scientific terminology, "fitness" is what they defined above, ad nauseum. It is an evolutionary term to describe the measure of the ability of an individual to reproduce. Traits are either "fit" or "unfit" and describe an individual as being either well-suited to reproduce or poorly-suited to reproduce. Any stigma associated is a product of mixing different context. I think both Yeaaaah and blackbeltninja have explained rather well what those terms mean and what the limitation their use is restricted to. Mathematicians have adapted the term "sexy" to also describe characteristics of prime numbers (prime numbers that differ by 6), but should a prude conservative have basis to disagree with using that term because he or she finds the term "sexy" (as they know it) offensive? I think we agree that that individual is not on the same wavelength and that those terms mean different things in different settings.

I'm disheartened that you're this offended, because I really see little reason for you to have been in the first place. You thought a term meant one thing, when in this context, it was defined as clearly not meaning anything at all. That should end it. Now it seems like you're nursing a bruised ego.

------------------------------------

I also think that "science" is an umbrella term, encompassing both genetics, biology, sociology, health, and anthropology. "Science" is only a term to describe a rigorous method used to expand understanding of our surroundings. It's not just genes and DNA. And even so the information garnered in a study from one field can form a framework or support for studies in another. For example, a conclusive study on genetic basis for sexual orientation could provide argumentative support to promote educational campaigns or local government initiatives that would otherwise be impossible due to beliefs that sexual orientation is chosen. Analysis and evaluation of those efforts could then support sociological research on interventions and programs that must confront long-standing prejudices in the face of established fact.

If there's one thing I learned, what constitutes scientific research is broad and applicable to cross-support for all sub-branches. "Science" is only as useless or useful as you make it. You can either believe that its implications only reach the immediate field of study, or you can believe that it triangulates understanding beyond itself.

If I'm going to study effective ways to reduce rates of HPV transmission and anal cancer in MSM populations, then all the biological literature on HPV in men, HPV transmission through anal sex, psychological perspectives on men's reactions to disease and screening, sociological studies on MSM's barriers to access or treatment of diseases (and specifically sexually-based diseases), publications on social stigma's effects on health, and the biology of sexual attraction will be invaluable to inform that study.

It's silly to think that abstracts like art and literature are limited to aesthetics (hence applications of art in physical and psychological therapy), and it's just as silly to assume that science is limited to sterile knowledge.

 

[hotb0d]

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.

Uh Just because homosexuals can't produce via penal-vaginal penetration doesn't mean they have low fitness level than the rest of the hetero. Otherwise, why do you think there are still homosexuals around? You would think they would extinct by now if they have low fitness level.

and furthermore, fitness level is determined typically through phenotypes. Field studies are used to observe something like: beak size, color, length of teeth...etc then fitness level of a species or subspecies is determined. For example, if female rats favor male rats with dark color fur vs. rats with grey fur then the next generation, you will see more rats with dark fur. Reproduction is a mean to show that dark fur is favored....and in the big picture evolution will occur blah blah blah

You can't use reproduction and evolution to measure something like homosexual because the way I see it...homosexual is not a phenotype.

 

[Reika]

Hgnnnn!!! Genetics, science and all that hooplah....why can't they stop...i want some mystery left in the world :|, i know who i am, i know what i am, i know where i'd like to be going (no guarantee on that though lol).

I don't need a scientist telling me "oooooooooh you're gay cuz yer mother had a hyperactive chromosone" or whatever :|

and 4%? What about the gay men who married staright to please parent's/religion and so forth?(presuming the study was carried out on openly gay men) If everyone was just bloody honest about themselves, there would be a bigger number than 4% lol

I know i shouldn't read stuff like this if i don't like it, but it draws me in haha.

Science, please leave some mystery in the world, not everything needs an explination, we're gay cause we're gay, and thats the only explination i need

*sigh*
</rantcents>

 

[Swellegant]

Luminum, I have this bad habit of confusing posts in different threads, or rather talking about something as if everyone has read the same threads I have and conflated them the same way I have. This thread has conflated for me with previous threads in which we've gone over the same ground as well as another thread that's going on right now about fetal testosterone deficiencies.

For that conflation I shall apologize. I also apologize if I gave the impression that I thought all of JUB was not able to read and understand scientific research language: I simply meant those of us who are hurt and angered by the incessant use of those two motherfucking words are not on your wavelength but could perhaps be considered as having a valid point of view, that our feelings might be taken into account. For many of us, emotionally weighted language is weighted with connotation no matter how neutral it's meant to be, no matter how frequently you tell us a different definition. If you call me a faggot but tell me you meant I was tall, you still called me a faggot and it still hurts.

And as an English major, I did have a lot of trouble with Huckleberry Finn and William Faulkner. In fact I never read the former and avoided the latter as much as possible (and I have a feeling that if I was African-American, I'd have more of a problem with it). But we had lengthy discussions about the use of the word "nigger" in those contexts, and many of us (like me) felt that the value of that literature wasn't worth the incendiary language it contained; we didn't want to censor it, but we did feel that very little would be lost if we skipped over those words when we read aloud, and that there were enough other books in the world to read that syllabi would not suffer from their omission.

And tell me, have any of the movies made from Huckleberry Finn actually list that character as "Nigger Joe" in the credits and used that name in the film? That's definitely a context issue.

But yeah, I felt hurt and angry and so my responses were rather more vituperative than necessary. Again I apologize. But I don't think I gave any worse than I got. None of my questions was answered directly, no idea I posed was addressed, I was just picked at. Perhaps I did the same thing, I know I skipped a lot of posts in between and might have missed some points that would have clarified. I skim sometimes. But I did try to explain myself and my meanings and my motives. And I haven't said word one about anybody's faulty grammar, because that's my speciality and not something I consider everyone thinks is important.

Anyway, I've learned some interesting things, but I'm tired and I've said all I have to say on the subject, so I'll leave you to it.

 

[hotdog1846]

Y'know, there's such a diverse audience at JUB that these kinds of discussions will always be difficult. The audiences come from completely different backgrounds and interpret things very differently.

No wonder our political adversaries are able to gain support -- they play off the same diversity in audiences to capitalize on underlying emotional issues and build political opposition to civil rights. Not only do our adversaries damage our civil rights, they also undermine our emotional health.

I love what luminum said about using the results of research to design effective interventions to advance acceptance of GLBTs by society. It gives me hope for a better future.

 

[2243]

You're assuming homosexuality is an inheritable trait via reproduction. You're disregarding genetic mutation and genetic drift. Many genetic traits are identified that have nothing to with reproductive fitness yet still pass on. We've just mapped the genetic code and we don't understand it completely.

Heterosexual couples create homosexuals all the time. There is nothing wrong or disordered with our reproductive systems. We can choose to procreate if we wish.

Since homosexuals continually exist, we can assume that the genetic trait is either activated by some form of mutation or drift or it is in fact a desirable trait.

Genetic fitness is not simply who can reproduce the most. It's more than that.


If homosexuals were sterile, than you would have point...

I pointed this out somewhere in the beginning of this thread, but it was not replied to. I don't think it was the point of the the thread anyway. The point here seemed to something more like, "I like science. This is some stuff I learned and this stuff is just how it is. If you're offended by these words then you are wrong and probably don't like or understand science. You should like science.".

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

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.

I reject your reasoning and theory. As we are not a seperate species that can be studied through fossils your point that the population of homosexuals has remained constant through out human history at about 4% can not be proven and is pure speculation and opinion. There simply is not enough material to test or prove and psychological state of human populations spread across the globe of past civilizations, and in fact today (2009) this part of human behavior lags far behind almost all other science in known fact.
Nor would dated records properly record accurately on whats going on in another humans brain.

Science is a fluid constantly changing principle and you state things with such fact as if this is already written in stone, it is not and it will take many generations of study and research as our technology and knowledge to increases to make and such proven claims that could give a view as to earlier human populations mental states.

I would say clearly human behavior is similar to the Universe, Galaxy and there is much to learn even about the Earth's moon still before we can claim we know it.

It is the manner- wording in how you printed your post that almost sounds like some bible thumping homophobe "we will fix you" regime trying to use science to legitimize the approach instead of the bible. Total bull shit.

 

[Zingerific]

Okay, I guess I'll wade in here.

Your arguments about language seem odd coming from someone like you. As someone educated in literature, you should understand that language is contextual, even from one author to another. Are you offended because Twain has a character named "Nigger Joe"? How would you respond if you were giving a talk on "Huckleberry Fin" and its characters and a sociologist argued with you about how offensive that name is? It would be ridiculous.

Sure language is contextual. So lets look at the context. It is the responsibility of anyone using any technical or specialized argot to be aware of the different connotations terms have in casual or general contexts. If they care a jot about communication, they will adjust accordingly.

As great as the scientific method is, it has never completely prevented idiocy to rear its head from time to time under the aegis of "science." And after disasters like the eugenics craze, the general public is rightly skeptical of any claim that simply hides behind the moniker of "science" (a skepticism, incidentally, completely in accord with the principles of science).

My point is that it seems that on one is actually defending the use of the term "deviant"; they are really just appealing to the authority of science: "It's what science does," "it's how science talks." Apparently the whole apparatus of empirical science will collapse without the term.

 

[2243]

...

Science is a fluid constantly changing principle and you state things with such fact as if this is already written in stone, it is not and it will take many generations of study and research as our technology and knowledge to increases to make and such proven claims that could give a view as to earlier human populations mental states.

I would say clearly human behavior is similar to the Universe, Galaxy and there is much to learn even about the Earth's moon still before we can claim we know it.

It is the manner- wording in how you printed your post that almost sounds like some bible thumping homophobe "we will fix you" regime trying to use science to legitimize the approach instead of the bible. Total bull shit.

Exactly.

That was the beauty I always found in science and somehow that was taken away in the first post. I had the same image in my head of, like a bible thumper, a "scientist" knocking on my door asking, "Excuse me, but have you let 'Science' into your life? Have you been enlightened?".

 

[yeeeaaahhh]

Comparing science and religious is absurd.

Science comes from studying nature. What is actually out there. Religious is a set of ideas based off of nothing, except maybe human experience. You cannot study or test religion.