New Scientific Explaination of Origins of Homosexuality.

[oakpope]

Because it's still a lottery.

It's kinda like the first birth you buy one ticket. The second birth you buy 5 tickets. Third birth 10 tickets and so on (I don't remember the exact percentage from the study, this is just an example).

If you loose the 3rd time despite winning the 2nd time... it still does not make the theory flawed. The third birth still has increased chance, more than the 2nd... it's just that all the births still have a 80+ percentage chance that the baby will turn straight.

I'm aware it seems to improve the odd, but as it's not systematic, it's still problematic. What causes this ? Is this a substance that accumulates in the mother body ? And wouldn't it make the 10th boy practically automatically gay ? I don't think it is the case.
I have no clue.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

this a fo gay 2012 GAD or HBC or othda?

ha

thankyou

 

[mikey3000]

Loki, you've missed the point.

I believe that the article has at least some element of verisimilitude. No debate there.

What I do object to is Benvolio's choice of a source. Let me put it to you this way: Would you believe a single cotton-pickin' word that Andreus told you? The credibility of the messenger is everything.

Credibility of the messenger means nothing when the exact message is reported by 20 different sources, all saying the exact same thing. Loki, your links were just fine.

 

[Swellegant]

If we assume that gayness is an indicator of feminization, then to have two feminized men in a relationship, wouldn't that make them lesbians? It's completely paradoxical.

You're thinking of masculinity and femininity in a social context, not a biological context. If, in this context, you are a "feminized" male, you don't think of yourself as female; rather you are attracted to the gender that women are usually attracted to: men. In a relationship, both of you are men, and both of you are attracted to men in the same way women are attracted to men.

I once had a real knock-down-drag-out shindy with a couple of other JUBbers (including blackbeltninja) about the use of terms like "masculine" and "feminine," or "normal" and "abnormal," in discussions of sexuality. And in the literature we were arguing over, there was no attempt to neutralize those words. In this article, however, it was clarified that what was being "feminized" in gay men and "masculinized" in lesbians was the expected gender of attraction, not an individual's gender identity.

A gay man feminized in attraction is attracted to what females are expected to be attracted to, in a purely advancement-of-the-species context (in this case, reproduction). From a standpoint of the continuation of a species, male is attracted to female and vice versa, because that's how babies are made. But we also know that there is a whole hell of a lot more involved in human sexuality than mere reproduction. Nevertheless, in a reproductive sense: if a female is expected to be attracted to a male, then being attracted to males is viewed as a feminine trait. See?

The language is loaded no matter how you go about it; but I think the author of that article made a valiant effort to not let his or her message be negated by the weight of the words.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

got planet

nice

thankyou

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

I think the article still confuses whitepicketfencesuality with sexual reproduction.

I've heard that lion males, for example, tend to eat their own cubs.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

I think the article still confuses whitepicketfencesuality with sexual reproduction.

I've heard that lion males, for example, tend to eat their own cubs.

add lot stuff dat

-
for who a WDO
folk dress up in uniform calls umselfs woteva real wanna check feet any century

thankyou

 

[bankside]

You're thinking of masculinity and femininity in a social context, not a biological context. If, in this context, you are a "feminized" male, you don't think of yourself as female; rather you are attracted to the gender that women are usually attracted to: men. In a relationship, both of you are men, and both of you are attracted to men in the same way women are attracted to men.

I once had a real knock-down-drag-out shindy with a couple of other JUBbers (including blackbeltninja) about the use of terms like "masculine" and "feminine," or "normal" and "abnormal," in discussions of sexuality. And in the literature we were arguing over, there was no attempt to neutralize those words. In this article, however, it was clarified that what was being "feminized" in gay men and "masculinized" in lesbians was the expected gender of attraction, not an individual's gender identity.

A gay man feminized in attraction is attracted to what females are expected to be attracted to, in a purely advancement-of-the-species context (in this case, reproduction). From a standpoint of the continuation of a species, male is attracted to female and vice versa, because that's how babies are made. But we also know that there is a whole hell of a lot more involved in human sexuality than mere reproduction. Nevertheless, in a reproductive sense: if a female is expected to be attracted to a male, then being attracted to males is viewed as a feminine trait. See?

The language is loaded no matter how you go about it; but I think the author of that article made a valiant effort to not let his or her message be negated by the weight of the words.

I don't think a person can credibly address a study on human sexuality by restricting themselves just to the element of reproduction. And I don't think attraction and identity can be separated or should be.*


I'm reading but not seeing….


...if the point of the study is to look at the effect of reproductive drives in isolation, then a feminized male and a a masculinized male should still be attracted to each other for the purposes of reproduction, futile as that drive might be.

It is a treatment of sexuality based inherently on heterosexual presumptions about attraction.

*which puts me offside most thought on equal marriage for gays I suppose; I don't enjoy homosexuality because it is the same as heterosexuality; I enjoy it because it's different.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

I don't think a person can credibly address a study on human sexuality by restricting themselves just to the element of reproduction. And I don't think attraction and identity can be separated or should be.*


I'm reading but not seeing….


...if the point of the study is to look at the effect of reproductive drives in isolation, then a feminized male and a a masculinized male should still be attracted to each other for the purposes of reproduction, futile as that drive might be.

It is a treatment of sexuality based inherently on heterosexual presumptions about attraction.

*which puts me offside most thought on equal marriage for gays I suppose; I don't enjoy homosexuality because it is the same as heterosexuality; I enjoy it because it's different.

?

interesting thankyou

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

it no need debate eva

all thang wot is around fa eons

man wanna discova where a balls is ans sort out real stuff world ova

thankyou

 

[star-warrior]

Post number 3

I'm not sure the study fundamentally changes when reported by a different source... http://scienceblog.com/58411/epigenetics-not-genetics-underlies-homosexuality/

Post number 29

I found the article (on the science blog, not the news) very interesting. The author was very clear that the epigenetic element is only one of multiple probable elements in creating sexuality; its description of masculinization and feminization is completely without value-judgement: it describes a gender identity, gender expression, and/or gender attraction that would in the majority of cases belong to the other gender... not that gay men are feminine or lesbians masculine, with all the sociopolitical baggage that comes with those words.

It struck me, as I read, that the study was not made with a bias; it was not looking for "What is Wrong with the Gays," but was rather an attempt to quantify (assign numerical value to) a genetic phenomenon that has thus far defied quantification. The authors of the study (NIMBioS) are devoted to creating mathematical values with which to measure biological findings, rather than to proving a preconceived notion (i.e., it's inborn or it's a choice... the desire to prove a particular point, rather than simply finding the truth without a preferred outcome, is the basis of all bad science).

I'm quite surprised by the way this article was written. It (mostly) avoided hot-button words and looked at possible explanations for a behavior, with no notion that we are "afflicted" in some way, but are simply a naturally-occurring part of the diversity of the species.

I read the scienceblog article too, and wasn't struck by its unbiased style of writing, but rather the implication that being gay is not a straightforward conscious choice between being gay or straight without any other consideration. Since the study also states that a gay gene hasn't been found and epigenetic factors work to affect humans no matter where they are raised, we ought to be glad that each hormanal soup babies are born in is currently not tampered with since the epigenetic influence protects the mother from hormonal changes that the foetus itself produces rather than the other way around. There's gonna be gay people born for a long time to come, without fear of there being a cull based on genome factors.

 

[Ram]

Thanks for the article.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not sure the study fundamentally changes when reported by a different source... http://scienceblog.com/58411/epigenetics-not-genetics-underlies-homosexuality/

I found eight other non-political sources, too; took me all of twelve seconds.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wow -- seems to me that no one but Swellegant and star~warrior actually read the article!

It wasn't research into sexuality, it was research into the why of sexual orientation, so all it cares about is the "arrow of desire", or attraction. It made plain that there is no evidence at all that orientation is inherited; it is not in your mother's genes or in your father's. It explained that all the evidence in hand so far is covered by the epigenetic explanation.

As far as that explanation, it's almost amusing that the cause seems to be the mother's biology's reaction to her offspring's biology -- almost as though the guys who end up gay have more testosterone than the rest right from the start.

 

[Kulindahr]

One thing that troubles me is that the haters will jump on this and say, "See, God didn't make you gay -- the Devil invaded your mother's body and did it to you!"

Except there are some Bible passages that don't fit well with such an argument... not that they care.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

shadow shadow on da wall wot shadow got a balls?

anyway

thankyou

 

[bankside]

Two points; on the "neutrality" of the article, I don't think an epigenetic factor should be described as "protective" with respect to the development of any characteristic of human sexuality. One might equally say that straight women were "deprived" or "inhibited" by an epi mark which "prevented" them from benefitting from a full measure of testosterone. The article (though perhaps not the study) is still operating on the premise that heterosexuality is the optimal outcome.

And it's clear that the machinery of sexual orientation and any aspects of sexuality are genetic, by the simple observation that I am not a hydra and I do not bud in my polyp stage. This research adds the useful knowledge that the settings on the machinery are as important as the machinery of sexual orientation itself.

But I come back to the observation that you can't break out one trait, imply it is feminised, and then have a coherent model of sexual orientation and attraction.

 

[blackbeltninja]

Loki, you've missed the point.

I believe that the article has at least some element of verisimilitude. No debate there.

What I do object to is Benvolio's choice of a source. Let me put it to you this way: Would you believe a single cotton-pickin' word that Andreus told you? The credibility of the messenger is everything.

Is there suddenly something non-credible about Andreus?



-d-

 

[Kulindahr]

Two points; on the "neutrality" of the article, I don't think an epigenetic factor should be described as "protective" with respect to the development of any characteristic of human sexuality. One might equally say that straight women were "deprived" or "inhibited" by an epi mark which "prevented" them from benefitting from a full measure of testosterone. The article (though perhaps not the study) is still operating on the premise that heterosexuality is the optimal outcome.

And it's clear that the machinery of sexual orientation and any aspects of sexuality are genetic, by the simple observation that I am not a hydra and I do not bud in my polyp stage. This research adds the useful knowledge that the settings on the machinery are as important as the machinery of sexual orientation itself.

But I come back to the observation that you can't break out one trait, imply it is feminised, and then have a coherent model of sexual orientation and attraction.

I don't know what your problem with the term "feminized" is; it's a scientific term with a specific meaning. It popped up in my botany courses; you can have feminized apples, feminized poppies, even feminized marijuana. Feminization can occur naturally or be induced. All it means, generally*, is that a genetic male is expressing traits expected from a genetic female. So there's no "implying" going on, just scientific observation. In this case -- to use your analogy -- it means that apparently the "settings on the machinery" are in fact the "machinery of sexual orientation itself".



*I say "generally" because a flower blossom, which has both male and female aspects and parts, can be said to be "feminized" if environmental factors have caused it to exhibit more female traits, just as it can be said to be "masculinized" if it exhibits more male traits (e.g more than the normal number of stamens).

 

[bankside]

Yes, I take your point and the point made by swelled any on the same theme. Standard scientific language. But I think the terminology actually reflects the intrusion of commonplace stereotypes about gender into the language of science - and that the intrusion may hinder scientist from being able to consider the data on its face or present it objectively.

An affinity for or attraction toward men is not a feminine/female/feminised characteristic.