I have been way busy of late, more than usual, hence little time for the real important stuff – like blogging. The thread regarding sexual orientation theorizing has been pretty active, although for reasons that I did not anticipate. I thought perhaps readers would discuss the APA statement and how researchers are backing away from strong statements about causation. I thought some additional discussion might occur regarding NARTH and the prominence of psychoanalytic concepts there.
However, the discussion has revolved around definitions of sexual orientations. I have observed that the concept of sexual orientation is multi-faceted and continuous. However, we persist in wanting discreet, categorical labels to aid communication. These are understandable tensions; scientists want something to measure and everyday usage requires description to facilitate common communication.
So here is something to keep us occupied until the sexualorientationomometer is invented – how do you define the terms? No critical comments, please. Simply bring us definitions and/or descriptions of sexual orientations and SO itself. If you find the definition somewhere, like in a textbook (sexual orientation is…), then please cite the reference for us all to review.
Drowssap,
If chicken pox does not eliminate itself by showing up as sores on the body, it can attack inside the body. I know of two people who, as children, lost hearing in one ear and this is what it was attributed to. I know there is a vaccine available now since the mid 90′s.
Drowssap: I still don’t think you understand me. It’s not the notion that “something in the outside environment” might be “responsible for SSA” that offends me. That very well could be. By the same token, a virus might also cause another fetus to become heterosexual. Who knows?
I don’t. You don’t. No one knows for sure what factors play a part. Lots of ideas. Lots of theories, guesses, stories, hypotheses, fables. Some “evidence” of what might be going on — but mostly, a lot of speculation.
What really offends me is the language you use and the prejudicial attitudes you display — terms like “busted”, “Natures gutter”, “disorder”, etc. Can’t you just study something without piling on your personal, negative bias about it? That’s what a real scientist would do.
Michael,
I’m trying to put myself in your shoes and maybe I can understand your worry. But we all have biases, I think you know that; it’s impossible otherwise. Still, I don’t think that any of the people around here, including Drowssap, would harbour a grudge against gay people. We are talking about general and theoretical issues, we certainly are not speaking against individuals or categories of individuals. I believe in choice and respect other people’s choices even when I don’t agree with them. But I would probably say what’s on my mind. Do you think it’s OK?
Michael, scroll up to 92369…
If nothing is “busted” then why are they at the clinic?
Michael Bussee
What really offends me is the language you use and the prejudicial attitudes you display — terms like “busted”, “Natures gutter”, “disorder”, etc. Can’t you just study something without piling on your personal, negative bias about it? That’s what a real scientist would do.
Mike you misrepresented what I said. You are the only person who didn’t get my point.
Ann
If chicken pox does not eliminate itself by showing up as sores on the body, it can attack inside the body. I know of two people who, as children, lost hearing in one ear and this is what it was attributed to. I know there is a vaccine available now since the mid 90’s.
You are exactly correct. A lot of things work like that and different genes offer varying rates of susceptability to such things. That’s why genes correlate with almost everything.
Just two decades ago scientists thought that cancer was almost never caused by common infections. Last I read the rough, scientific guestimate is that about 20% of human cancers are a result of infection. That percent will grow every single year. I have no doubt that eventually most cancer (particularly in young people) will be pinned on pathogens. It’s all headed that way.
Wash your hands!
Evan said in post 93003:
The problem with the argument you’re espousing is that reproduction is not just a biological device which promotes or benefits society.
Except when I was talking about over producing children I wasn’t espousing an evolutionary argument about why homosexuality may have arisen. I was merely giving a counter argument to Drowssap’s claim that same-sex attraction is never beneficial in environments that want to produce children.
So I don’t think it makes a plausible argument to say that same-sex attractions appeared as some kind of a side advantage for overpopulated societies that needed resources from non-reproductive individuals
You don’t have to have a society for overpopulation to occur. You just have to have more people (or whatever type of species you wish to discuss) than the surrounding environment can sustain. I never said anything about societies so I don’t know where you got that from. Although your post seems to be conflating different points I’ve made in different posts into one argument.
Drowssap said in post 93325:
Mike you misrepresented what I said. You are the only person who didn’t get my point.
Mike isn’t the only one to notice your negative bias towards gays. I agree with him on that. I simply didn’t think it necessary to repeat what he said. However, apparently it does need re-iterating. People are much more prone to believe what they agree with and to argue against (or at least demand more proof) things they disagree with. And looking at the arguments you have made here, it certainly seems to me you have a negative (perhaps not consciously so) view of gays. You have argued that homosexuality is the result of disease; that same-sex attraction is detrimental to society. You have made misleading and incorrect statements about genetics and gays to support these arguments. I have yet to see you present an argument that homosexuality might be beneficial or even acknowledge other arguments that have. It seems to me (and I believe Michael, possibly a few others) that you don’t have a very good opinion of gays, whether you realize it or not.
Ken & Michael
Mike isn’t the only one to notice your negative bias towards gays. I agree with him on that.
You are both substantially wrong.
I advise you to skip my posts if they distress you.
Ann (or anyone interested in genes)
Here is a simple tool I learned that might come in handy the next time you read a story about genes and illness. All of this can be googled but ya won’t find it in one place. So here it is in one place.
A) Genetic disorders tend to occur in about 1 in 10,000 people or less. Most of these are disorders that almost no one has heard of.
B) A handful are more common than that, but few of these are more common than about 1 in 1,000 people.
Exception 1:
Sickle Cell is more common than 1 in 1000 but it’s regionally specific. In the very worst part of the Malaria belt 1 in 30 kids get this disease. No genetic disease is more common than Sickle Cell which is no surprise because Malaria is the biggest killer of humans of all time. Until a better genetic mutation comes along (and it will) this is the best defense against Malaria that our genes have come up with.
Exception 2:
Hereditary deafness occurs in about 1 in 2,000 children. It breaks the 1 in 10,000 barrier for a few reasons. Reason number one is that deaf people tended to have childen together and this kept the genes going.
Ok, so if genetic disorders are rare or regionally specific, whats up with the million news stories that connect genes with common illnesses? The answer is simple. Natural selection predicts that genes should correlate with illness and they do. Each gene in our bodies offers pluses and minuses on what can zap us and how much environmental damage we can absorb before problems set in. As an example a gene that offers excellent protection from the flu, might also offer increased susceptability to a particular cold virus. Without spending 10 pages explaining every detail and possible exception that’s what is going on around us. Almost everyone has genes that work fine in the environment they were designed for. The key in common disease is environmental damage. Most of it is the result of pathogens (germs and viruses) but pollution, radiation, poor nutrition, stress, etc. etc. also take their toll. The next time you see a news item that scientists found the gene for Diabetes, or leukemia in children always read the fine print. The gene may increase or decrease the risk of disease, but it rarely IF EVER, causes it.
Side Note:
That’s not to say that genes can’t be damaged or altered. But that too comes back to environmental damage.
So I guess what I’m really saying yet again is… wash your hands.
Drowssap – my own condition is thought to be 1 in 3.5 million. But that’s a guess, as we know of only about a dozen cases worldwide. It’s certainly under-reported.
The 5ARD and 17BHDD syndromes are kind of similar in effect. All babies born with either of those look female at birth. About half masculinise later in life. But that’s relatively common, about 1 in 100,000 in the general population, and an astounding 1 in 180 in the Dominican Republic. 1 in 90 males have it.
Going the other way is much rarer.
In 1985, my diagnosis was that I was an undervirilised male, based on some simple tests at a Fertility Clinic. In 2005, my diagnosis was changed to severely androgenised female, based on very extensive tests, many not available in 1985.
For most intents and purposes, I can be considered a transsexual woman. My life story follows the “classic transsexual narrative”, and there always was a feeling that having a male body was just… wrong. I lived with it though because I had to. When my syndrome hit, I didn’t have to any more, and it was an immense relief.
I had to have some surgical “tidying up” due to dysfunctional glands becoming cancer risks; but the only Sex Reassignment Surgery I could have in law would be to male, something that has caused me some difficulty. For a woman to have SRS and end up a woman would be an absurdity, even if her birth certificate says “boy”, as mine does.
I try to make a virtue out of necessity, and to educate people who have the mistaken belief that questions of gender identity are always simple and commonsense, rather than usually. I’m sure God doesn’t make mistakes, and there’s a reason why I am as I am. Maybe to, if you’ll pardon the expression, knock some sense into the blockheads of the various hate groups who are unaware of, or choose to deny, medical realities.
Zoe,
And maybe God is using others to knock sense into other blockheads and pro-gay hate groups that not everything is a medical reality and that for some things can and do change to give individuals a better live than they had while being caught up in an incorrect idea about themselves.
Zoe Brain
“my own condition is thought to be 1 in 3.5 million. But that’s a guess, as we know of only about a dozen cases worldwide. It’s certainly under-reported.”
I’m sorry about the Zoe, that’s a tough one. A condition like your’s is sort of like winning the reverse Powerball lottery. These things happen but nobody ever expects it to happen to them.
The 5ARD and 17BHDD syndromes are kind of similar in effect. All babies born with either of those look female at birth. About half masculinise later in life. But that’s relatively common, about 1 in 100,000 in the general population, and an astounding 1 in 180 in the Dominican Republic. 1 in 90 males have it.
You are right, that’s amazingly common. Anything that breaks 1in 10,000 gets a lot of scientific attention. Because the error is common in a new population (Dominican Republic) the disorder is almost certainly the result of a phenomenon known as Founder Effect. Put simply, a few people with a rare genetic disorder move to a new area and fill it up with their genes before everyone else can dillute it down to less than 1 in 10,000 again. It could take a thousand years for that to happen, maybe more. If the gene offers a fitness benefit counterweight, it could slow the process further.
Ya know 99% of genetics can be explained in a few simple pages. The remaining 1% that focuses on the exceptions might take 100 Encyclopedias.
Drowssap: If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck — it just might be a duck. Your anti-gay bias — and yes, Evan, everyone is biased and has a right to their opinion — comes across loud and clear, in spite of your protestations to the contrary. I hear “quack”.
Michael Bussee
I hear what you are saying and I’m sensitive to your point of view. In the strongest possible terms I don’t condemn anyone for SSA.
I think what we’ve got here is a generational difference. I’m a reasonably young guy who grew up in a time when being gay wasn’t a dirty word. You might have grown up in an era when the exact opposite was true. So I think your natural defenses are WAY up.
If SSA is due to a gene it needs to be discussed as an inborn trait, much like blue eyes.
If SSA is due to an outside pathogen it needs to be discussed as some strange type of environmental damage. In this case it merely represents that some cells or a gene were zapped. This is no reflection on the person in any way. People are about 99% more than sexual orientation.
Until we know what is going on people shouldn’t be afraid to discuss this topic in accurate terms from all sides.
My opinion from looking at all the data is that SSA is the result of a very subtle and common type of environmental damage. Even so I know full well that I could be 100% wrong. But even if I turn out to be right I won’t criticize any person for SSA. I disagree with lots of things that I read but I don’t condemn anyone, least of all gay people. We’re all trying to make our own way.
Dorwssap: Fair enough. You think that gayness means that something is damaged. I do not. I see it as just another variation in a universe filled with amazing variety. I don’t think genes or pathogens “caused” it . You do. I think it is part of my soul — created by God — not an indication that something is broken, disordered or wrong. When you insist that it is — that “gets my defenses up”.
You see it as a disease. I don’t. Nothing’s “busted”. It isn’t evidence of “nature’s gutter system.” Those are value judgements, baggage, personal prejudices that you bring to the discussion. I don’t have those negative value judgements about it. You obviously do.
It’s not that I am not “afraid to discuss this topic in accurate terms from all sides”. I just object to your language, not the idea that homosexuality is an interesting subject worhty of discussion and study. The terms you use are offensive because they are loaded with negative emotional connotations and preconceptions — and not just for old gay guys like me.
Your bias sticks out like a sore thumb. I don’t think you see it — just like you can’t see your nose. I wonder, are you at all curious about what “causes” heterosexuality? Or do you know what “causes” that?
Michael Bussee
I see it as just another variation in a universe filled with amazing variety. I don’t think genes or pathogens “caused” it . You do. I think it is part of my soul — created by God — not an indication that something is broken, disordered or wrong.
Now I see our disconnect. I believe in God, no doubt about it. But I believe God created the systems that create who we are. I don’t think he painted an end result, I think he created a machine of constant change and we all live in it.
So that’s why I try to understand gayness, or blue eyes, or anything else in terms of how the machine works. To me it’s all a huge numerical system that we can understand if we study it long enough.
I don’t believe God painted an end result, that we see. When I see gayness (or anything) I try to understand how it exists and survived in the system. And that’s why I have come to the conclusion that it couldn’t survive through the spread of genes. It must be something else.
But as always… my mind is open. Whatever scientists ultimately figure out, I’ll go along with it.
Dowssap :
Except that if it’s too rare, there’s no money for research.
As for the rest, the “Founder Effect” is exactly right. We even know the name of the originator. The same thing happened in a village in Italy, in a region of New Guinea, and on several Pacific Islands.
You’re also right about genetics.
Exactly.
You got that right!
BTW one of the first symptoms, one that really caused me a lot of disorientation, was that my eye colour changed. I’ve since found out it happens to a number of girls at puberty, caused by soaring hormonal levels. But at the time it was inexplicable.
I still haven’t received a (pardon the pun) straight answer from any religious authority on what my sexual orientation should be under these circumstances. They have enough trouble with the standard-model hermaphrodite.
If we’re lucky, they ignore people like us as beneath consideration; if we’re unlucky, they erase us.
Drowssap. Believe it or not, we seem to agree! I agree with your comment:,
“I believe God created the systems that create who we are. I don’t think he painted an end result, I think he created a machine of constant change and we all live in it.” Only I see that system more as a living thing, something organic — not simply a machine.
I believe system created both order and variety. I believe that my gayness is part of that God-created “system that creates who we are.” How marvelous is that? Variety, overwhelming variety everywhere! Not broken — anymore than a blue bird is”broken” becasue she is not red.
No. Just another amazaing difference, neither good nor bad. It exists, It has power, Like fire, I can use my sexuality to warm and give light — or to destroy. But isnt that that’s true of heterosexuality as well?