New Scientific Explaination of Origins of Homosexuality.

[Kulindahr]

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.

In scientific terminology, it is. It may be a poor choice of words in terms of popular communication, but then scientists are extremely good at such poor choices -- the ones they've made for talk about evolution are a big reason many people don't accept evolution, because the common meaning of the language used (e.g. "adaptation") is plainly wrong. So any "intrusion" is that of the popular term into a very dry scientific one, and any hindrance is from ordinary people understanding that it's a very dry scientific term (to a biologist, "masculinized" and "feminized" have no more emotional or subjective content than "monopolar" v "bipolar" or "liquid" v "solid").


Since in raw genetic terms, since the genetic purpose of sex is reproduction, a male should be attracted to females, period -- that's the characteristic orientation. So any male which exhibits any attraction at all to other males has been feminized, and that is, in the scientific sense of the term, a characteristic, no more having to do with social aspects of life than, say, a low temperature tolerance that requires someone to cool his coffee five degrees below the norm before drinking or a tendency to absorb twice the iron from a given food than is typical.

 

[Laufey]

Just being attracted to men is considered "feminine" in science, even if you have no feminine mannerism.

No need to be offended.

I think we all have a more feminine brain, even if it doesn't show in your mannerisms.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

sum cultures wanna go suck sum RansR

thankyou

 

[bankside]

Yes, I take your point and the point made by swelled any ...

... And of course "swelled any" is how iSpell "Swellegant."

 

[star-warrior]

The article says the following

http://scienceblog.com/58411/epigenetics-not-genetics-underlies-homosexuality/

Epi-marks constitute an extra layer of information attached to our genes’ backbones that regulates their expression. While genes hold the instructions, epi-marks direct how those instructions are carried out – when, where and how much a gene is expressed during development. Epi-marks are usually produced anew each generation, but recent evidence demonstrates that they sometimes carryover between generations and thus can contribute to similarity among relatives, resembling the effect of shared genes.

Read more at http://scienceblog.com/58411/epigenetics-not-genetics-underlies-homosexuality/#9oHCqg1wWCkfPVUq.99

Do note that 'epimarks' is in the plural, and some may transcend generations. In other words, it may be that several epimarks together in combination may be necessary to propagate the same-sex attraction trait, so if the mix isn't quite right, you get a straight offspring.

Later in the next paragraph

Different epi-marks protect different sex-specific traits from being masculinized or feminized – some affect the genitals, others sexual identity, and yet others affect sexual partner preference.

So epi-genetic factors from the epi-marks show their role in moulding a whole host of individual human characteristics.

 

[bankside]

In scientific terminology, it is. It may be a poor choice of words in terms of popular communication, but then scientists are extremely good at such poor choices -- the ones they've made for talk about evolution are a big reason many people don't accept evolution, because the common meaning of the language used (e.g. "adaptation") is plainly wrong. So any "intrusion" is that of the popular term into a very dry scientific one, and any hindrance is from ordinary people understanding that it's a very dry scientific term (to a biologist, "masculinized" and "feminized" have no more emotional or subjective content than "monopolar" v "bipolar" or "liquid" v "solid").


Since in raw genetic terms, since the genetic purpose of sex is reproduction, a male should be attracted to females, period -- that's the characteristic orientation. So any male which exhibits any attraction at all to other males has been feminized, and that is, in the scientific sense of the term, a characteristic, no more having to do with social aspects of life than, say, a low temperature tolerance that requires someone to cool his coffee five degrees below the norm before drinking or a tendency to absorb twice the iron from a given food than is typical.

The clearest parallel is in the field of Romance languages. Learning French, an anglophone may be startled to discover that a chair is allegedly female. I have hitherto not noticed breasts and a vulva on any chair I've ever used, exclaims the startled language student...

Of course the linguist and the second language teacher will explain that grammatical gender have nothing to do with actual gender for most nouns treated in that way, and it would be just as useful to think of "grammatical classification" or some other synonym or neologism introduced to break the association with genetalia. The better ones though will tell you that it once did mean something about the implied sexual characteristics of everyday objects, and it tells you something about a culture that thinks that way.

So yes; terms like that can have a precise technical meaning unrelated to common parlance, in principle. The idea of studying sexuality as an academic discipline is still quite new, and to me that implies the separation may be less rigorous than supposed. I accept this may be an artefact of the reportage. And that it may be unambiguous terminology in the field. But I'd like to leave it there as a caution for all who conduct or review this research, given its eventual/potential social consequences.

And I reiterate that the ways in which males are attracted to males do seem to me to differ from the ways in which females are attracted to males. I don't think it warrants divergent social or legal treatment of those two relationship categories.

 

[Kulindahr]

The clearest parallel is in the field of Romance languages. Learning French, an anglophone may be startled to discover that a chair is allegedly female. I have hitherto not noticed breasts and a vulva on any chair I've ever used, exclaims the startled language student...

Of course the linguist and the second language teacher will explain that grammatical gender have nothing to do with actual gender for most nouns treated in that way, and it would be just as useful to think of "grammatical classification" or some other synonym or neologism introduced to break the association with genetalia. The better ones though will tell you that it once did mean something about the implied sexual characteristics of everyday objects, and it tells you something about a culture that thinks that way.

So yes; terms like that can have a precise technical meaning unrelated to common parlance, in principle. The idea of studying sexuality as an academic discipline is still quite new, and to me that implies the separation may be less rigorous than supposed. I accept this may be an artefact of the reportage. And that it may be unambiguous terminology in the field. But I'd like to leave it there as a caution for all who conduct or review this research, given its eventual/potential social consequences.

And I reiterate that the ways in which males are attracted to males do seem to me to differ from the ways in which females are attracted to males. I don't think it warrants divergent social or legal treatment of those two relationship categories.

That's not a parallel at all -- in biology, things that are called female are called that because they are female.

And studying "sexuality" "as an academic discipline is as old as biology: most advanced critters come in male and female, and that's been studied right along with everything else, because it's part of the biology.

The ONLY social or subject meaning in the scientific term is imported by non-scientific types. "Feminization" as a scientific term goes back fifty years or more; probably far more, because the phenomenon has been observed halfway back to Gregor Mendel.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

I usually say the same things when somebody posts an article (from ANY source -- I actually came across it on Salon.com) claiming to have found a scientific basis for homosexuality.

1. Be very cautious before believing any science journalism. The people who write these articles don't always understand the original study.

2. Even when they're reporting correctly, doesn't mean the actual study is correct. Studies are a dime a dozen. In most areas of science, it takes many studies and many years before scientists come to any kind of consensus.

3. Particularly with studies of gayness, read down a little further. At least half the time you'll find a sentence that says something like "and that's how boy babies become more like their mothers, and therefore gay." This one is no exception. Makes you wonder how many gay people these scientists actually know.

All of this research is still in its infancy. I think homosexuality is too complex a phenomenon to be boiled down to a single cause. And I'm not even convinced they have a valid working definition of "gay". How do you know if someone is gay? I guess we'd all agree if a man has had sex numerous times with men and never with a woman (like me). But how about if he's had 100 men and 1 woman? Bisexual, or still gay? What about 100 women and 1 man (and that was in prison)? What about trade and/or bi-curious guys? You begin to see where single-cause explanations don't really cut it.

 

[bankside]

That's not a parallel at all -- in biology, things that are called female are called that because they are female.

if. that. were. true… then homosexuality would be impossible because of the paradox i mentioned earlier. no gay man would ever be attracted to another gay man because that quality which you refer to as female would be off-putting. since there are gay couples, it implies your definition is not as air-tight as you might suppose.

 

[GregKII]

It was interesting, but not grasping. I'm gay, and I've accepted it, so I don't need a scientist to tell me there's something wrong with my genes. I say I lucked out.

 

[Swellegant]

Expanding on a point from thatgirl, on the topic of feminization and masculinization (which really isn't the topic as posted), I wonder how much objection to those words is based in misogyny. What exactly is wrong with being feminine or feminized? Are those bad things? I've got all kinds of typically feminine traits and loads of typically masculine traits, and think I got a pretty damned good mix going on. I guess I don't see femininity as a loss of masculinity, that everyone is either/or. I see these terms as adjectives for typical or prototypical behavior culturally or scientifically considered as belonging to the female or the male in general.

For example, hating to ask for directions is considered a masculine trait. Do all men hate asking for directions? Do no women hate asking for directions? Well, of course not... but it is most frequently observed in males and so is considered a male behavior. Much of this is based in biological hard-wiring paired with cultural self-esteem: men's brains are usually wired to be better at reading maps than women's brains usually are; therefore it would be an admission of weakness to ask for directions. Whether or not you ask directions is really neutral, it doesn't make any difference if you ask someone or look at a map, you'll get there either way.

Just as I think sexuality is really neutral, gay or straight or trans or whatever, it's all the same... but the rest of the world doesn't seem to think this way, and so people are interested in understanding it... some to condemn, some to embrace, but all to know why. "Why" is always the first question, rather than "What do we do about it."

Of course, there is a cultural bias inherent in thinking of the whole world in terms of male and female; but in human genetics, that is the only way genes are transmitted, so it tends to dominate the point of view. I mean, even electronic components are called male and female by whether they plug in or are plugged into. But any assignment of more or less value to the male or female is purely individual, and I believe wrong.

I guess the point is, I don't mind being called feminized, because I see nothing wrong with femininity. If you do mind being called feminized, I find myself at a loss to understand why. Which is why I think I've been belaboring this point.

 

[Kulindahr]

3. Particularly with studies of gayness, read down a little further. At least half the time you'll find a sentence that says something like "and that's how boy babies become more like their mothers, and therefore gay." This one is no exception. Makes you wonder how many gay people these scientists actually know.

Yes, it is an exception. "Boy babies become more like their mothers" is a behavioral assertion; this is a biological one. Nor does it even say they become more like their mothers, it says that a genetic switch (or, more likely, several) is switched. It makes no difference "how many gay people these scientists actually know", because it has nothing to do with what gay people are like, it has to do with biology on the cellular level.

The thing that gives this impact and real credibility is that it explains all the research results so far -- the sibling studies, the twin studies, the empty search for a genetic cause. It also can explain the range of gay behaviors, from extremely feminine to near-redneck except for attraction to males: epigenetic mechanisms can affect multiple genes or a handful in different degrees.

 

[Kulindahr]

if. that. were. true… then homosexuality would be impossible because of the paradox i mentioned earlier. no gay man would ever be attracted to another gay man because that quality which you refer to as female would be off-putting. since there are gay couples, it implies your definition is not as air-tight as you might suppose.

You're talking social level -- this is biological. It has nothing to do with apparent behaviors, it has to do with attraction. That attraction is not to behaviors, but to physical gender. There's no paradox at all.


I thought this was basic biology, high school or college. <sigh>

 

[Kulindahr]

It was interesting, but not grasping. I'm gay, and I've accepted it, so I don't need a scientist to tell me there's something wrong with my genes. I say I lucked out.

Who's saying there's "something wrong" with your genes??? If you read the article, they're saying this is quite normal and ordinary -- it's just standard biology, found across the mammal realm.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why would this "quality" (a feminized sexual orientation) be off-putting to gay men?

It's what's attracting them to each other in the first place.

The only thing that's feminized is their sexual attraction, not their physical traits. Hence why they don't find each other "off-putting."

Good explanation.

 

[Kulindahr]

Expanding on a point from thatgirl, on the topic of feminization and masculinization (which really isn't the topic as posted), I wonder how much objection to those words is based in misogyny. What exactly is wrong with being feminine or feminized? Are those bad things? I've got all kinds of typically feminine traits and loads of typically masculine traits, and think I got a pretty damned good mix going on. I guess I don't see femininity as a loss of masculinity, that everyone is either/or. I see these terms as adjectives for typical or prototypical behavior culturally or scientifically considered as belonging to the female or the male in general.

Exactly. To a cell biologist, it isn't good, it isn't bad, it just is, the same as with skin color, hair color, foot size, or anything else -- they're just data.

 

[cgymike]

Homosexuality comes from wearing undies too tight.

Prove me wrong.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

Yes, it is an exception. "Boy babies become more like their mothers" is a behavioral assertion; this is a biological one. Nor does it even say they become more like their mothers, it says that a genetic switch (or, more likely, several) is switched. It makes no difference "how many gay people these scientists actually know", because it has nothing to do with what gay people are like, it has to do with biology on the cellular level.

The thing that gives this impact and real credibility is that it explains all the research results so far -- the sibling studies, the twin studies, the empty search for a genetic cause. It also can explain the range of gay behaviors, from extremely feminine to near-redneck except for attraction to males: epigenetic mechanisms can affect multiple genes or a handful in different degrees.

Too bad it's not based on any actual research -- just a mathematical model.

 

[xbuzzerx]

A lot of people seem confident in there being a gay gene although it has never been discovered.

I think the most logical theory is the hormonal womb one (which only applies to gay men).

The pattern of gay men being more likely to have older brothers (with the same mother) is too strong to ignore.

Perhaps someone more in touch with the field of study will know the research I'm referring to, but I'm 90% certain when I took psych in undergrad that in a study done of identical twins raised in different households from birth (adoption or whatever other circumstance), if one twin was gay the other had something like a 70% chance of also being gay, even being raised in different households.

I wasn't aware the genetic role in homosexuality was still controversial or surprising.

 

[Laufey]

Ok fair enough.

But if it's "just" 70% chances... it means it's a mixture of genetics and environment.