A new study by Andrew Francis of Emory University in the Journal of Sex Research casts doubt on both the fraternal birth-order effect and reparative drive theory.
Here is the abstract:
Using a nationally representative sample of young adults, I identify the family-demographic correlates of sexual orientation in men and women. Hence, I test the maternal immune hypothesis, which posits that the only biodemographic correlate of male homosexuality is the number of older brothers, and there are no biodemographic correlates of female homosexuality. For men, I find that having one older brother does not raise the likelihood of homosexuality. Although having multiple older brothers has a positive coefficient, it is not significant. Moreover, having any older sisters lowers the likelihood of homosexual or bisexual identity. For women, I find that having an older brother or having any sisters decreases the likelihood of homosexuality. Family structure, ethnicity, and education are also significantly correlated with male and female sexual orientation. Therefore, the maternal immune hypothesis cannot explain the entire pattern of family-demographic correlates. The findings are consistent with either biological or social theories of sexual orientation.
The sample is large and the measures of sexual orientation, while brief, cover behavior and attractions. Here is more on the sampling:
I use the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), a nationally representative study of adolescent health in the United States (Udry, 2003). Adolescents in grades 7 through 12 were initially interviewed in 1995 and 1996 (Waves I and II) and were reinterviewed in 2001 (Wave III). The sample size of male respondents is about 5,000, and the sample size of female respondents is about 5,600. Table 1 displays summary statistics. At Wave III, all respondents in the sample were 18 years old or older. About 88% were between the ages of 20 and 24.
Sexual orientation was assessed with this item:
‘‘Choose the description that best fits how you think about yourself: 100% heterosexual; mostly heterosexual, but somewhat attracted to people of your own sex; bisexual, that is, attracted to men and women equally; mostly homosexual, but somewhat attracted to people of the opposite sex; or 100% homosexual.’’
As noted, the theory that the likelihood of any homosexuality is enhanced via more older brothers is not supported by this large, representative sample. In addition to a look at older brothers, Francis also examined other family demographics. Although unrelated to homosexual behavior or attraction, having older sisters was associated with a slightly reduced identification as less than 100% heterosexual. This finding contrasted with the 2002 Bearman and Bruckner study which found an elevation in homosexual romantic attraction for fraternal twin males with a female twin.
For females, Francis found that having siblings decreased slightly the likelihood of most same-sex outcomes. None of the correlates predict sexual orientation well. In every case, the size of the differences were trivial. With large samples, one does not need a large difference between groups to attain statistical significance.
Francis also examined family structure and found more trivial associations. For instance, he found a 3.8% increase in the likelihood of ever having a same-sex sexual partner among those who did not live with either parent. In contrast to reparative theory expectations, he reported that identifying as less than 100% heterosexual for males was associated with living with only dad. No romantic attraction or same-sex behavior was reported for males living with only mother.
There were other factors which Francis reported but the real take home point from this study is how little any of these variables predict sexual orientation. This study undermines reparative drive theory due to the unremarkable performance of the parental variables to predict orientation. One would expect to find great differences between male heterosexual participants and same-sex attracted participants if fathering/mothering were crucial to male sexual orientation as Joe Nicolosi teaches. In fact in this YouTube video, Nicolosi says that the main factor in the development of male homosexuality is a distant or hostile father.
The Francis article finds very little predictive power in family dynamics of any kind. There is no predictive power at all for those whose parents are separated. Living with dad should insulate against a homosexual outcome and living with mom alone should enhance the likelihood of same-sex attraction and/or behavior. In this sample, it does not.
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!
Jayhuck,
Would this also apply to the pre-born child in jeopardy of losing their life because of a decision their mother is making for them?
Why do you always change the discussion to abortion?
Yes – Ann – it should – abortion is NOT something to be taken lightly and any parent thinking about this should make sure to give it plenty of thought – and ethics should play a part in that discussion
However – we already have laws on the books regarding this issue – and its a complicated and emotional one
Jayhuck
Why don’t you answer any questions? You complain that others don’t answer your questions. Then I answer your question and you tell me you can’t answer mine until I answer another question. Then I answer it and then you move on to something else.
Patrick
Well then lets get back to the point of the this discussion. Assuming that Cochran is correct do you believe parents should be allowed to vaccinate their children against the “Gay Germ” so that they can grow up straight?
Drowssap – What question(s) are you talking about???
No – no more than I think parents should be able to change the race or height of their children if it is not medically-necessary to do so
Please forgive me for this Patrick – but it was worth reprinting
Jayhuck,
You said in answer to me…
You are right–only a small % of the world’s pop. is gay and so the species itself is not going to take a fitness hit. The species will not perish because of homosexuality.
However, we were talking about the hypothetical situation of parents being presented with an option to vaccinate a mother (even before she was pregnant perhaps, hypothetically again) so that her child would not be infected with a germ that infected brain cells. Thus, this is a very personal decision for parents. A man and a woman thinking of conceiving a child or who are already pregnant are thinking about their son or daughter, not about the population of the world, not about a child they might have one day years down the road, but about a child who is about to be conceived or about to come into the world in a few short months. Theoreticals are totally out the window in this instance. They mean nothing. A distant future and the clear present are rarely treated the same by the mind and the heart.
At that moment, their decisions are based on what they believe will be the best for their child. Killing brain cells sounds pretty darn scary. I don’t think most parents would consider this to be the “small hit to fitness” as you describe it.
You ask if it’s a “bad thing.” Anything, and I do mean anything that a mother or father thinks will cause their child extensive hurt, biological or emotionally…are you kidding? Forget the brain cells, actually. They don’t care what the “hit” is, homosexuality or deafness or being born with one kidney or a birthmark that covers the face or crossed eyes or a cleft palate or an infection that leaves a small lesion that one day will result in stuttering…the list is endless.
Yes, I know that you would argue that if the world were a fairer place, then the parents wouldn’t be likely to view homosexuality as something that would be problematic for their child. I know that you don’t think it fair that homosexuality be compared to a cleft palate or being born with only one kidney, but that’s not the world parents and prospective parents live in. Anything that they feel might cause a world of pain for their child is not considered something small, not considered a “small hit” to their child’s emotional fitness. Most of them, thank God, dearly love the child that is born to them. They love them with cleft palates and with one kidney and with birthmarks and with their stammering and with their homosexuality, but that’s not the scenario of our hypothetical.
The world is a tough and unforgiving place. Your comments tell me that you are very aware of that. While those with enlightened views can speak with certainty about how it would never matter to them, once they find out they are pregnant, suddenly the realities of the world hit them. No longer are they speaking of a hypothetical child living in an enlightened, hypothetical world that operates under Arthur’s code of chivalry. Reality hits. That’s their child, a child for whom they are responsible, and that child has one and only one shot at life, and in but a few months, that child will be born not into the world that exists in their imaginations or in their dreams, but into the world they know can be very cruel.
You can spurn these parents, detest their ideas, loathe their “cowardice” if that’s what you might want to term it, deride their decision, but they do it for their child. They would not call it cowardice. Surely you can see they would call it “protection.”
In this hypothetical situation we have created in this dialogue, these parents are not changing the child; he or she has either not even been conceived or has only recently been conceived. I don’t want to forget, lest we get too carried away, that this is indeed hypothetical. It could come to pass or it could be complete rubish, but you have asked questions and because I have participated in raising the topic of infectious causation, I feel obligated to respond as best I can. I don’t seek to change your mind, only to make my thought process clearer.
It’s my belief that no matter the idealistic ideas of the parents…when push comes to shove, no parent sacrifices his or her child to a cause, however noble. They may themselves sacrifice themselves, but not their child, not their child. Parents chose a path they feel gives their child the best chance at happiness from the earliest age. Given a choice, they would remove not the hurdles their child must one day jump, but any walls they feel might enclose them.
As for your friend’s answer to your hypothetical, I myself would have answered exactly as she had when I was young, a decade before I was ever pregnant. I can think of two reasons I would have answered that way: one, I would have really meant it….being a non-parent and being one about to be a parent is like the difference between oil and water; two, if I suspected my gay friend would not have accepted any other answer without being very hurt or very angry, I would have said what he wanted to hear.
However, you, not I, observed her so I will accept that she was telling you how she really felt.
BTW, the irony of your posing the topic to her and your being happy about her plans to discuss this hypothetical with her classmates was not lost on me. The topic is interesting to her, I take it, as she was eager to share it with others, and you understood that and accepted it, but you have not been understanding of it when others on this board have discussed the same issue. You eyed us suspiciously for raising the issue and discussing it, yet you are quite happy that your friend is about to do the same thing. That’s confusing to me.
Patrick, you said…
“A bad outcome” certainly depends on the parent’s view, yes. It’s my belief as I detailed above , that most parents would feel that their child would be at a disadvantage. I am no seer, no researcher so it’s only my opinion. That is why this hypothetical was best answered, I think, by those who said it would be each parent’s decision.
Patrick, you said also…
And Mary, you said…
Yes, the result does have to be judged separately. We weren’t, however, simply talking about the existence of a microbe, but microbes that left cells without nuclei and/or damaged the function of neurotransmitters, that is, an infection that destroyed cells. Yes, it would be up to each person to determine if the result of the damage mattered to him or her.
carole
Realistically speaking if Cochran is right the virus involved is a common cold or flu virus or something along those lines. Perhaps it’s not one virus but the result of pathogen overload.
But in any case I think there is a decent chance that society won’t have a serious debate about a gay germ vaccine. Scientists are about to release a universal “A” flu vaccine. A universal “A B” vaccine won’t be far behind. Strep Throat, Herpes, and Epstein Barr vaccines will be on the market in another decade. Gene splicing has radically improved the ability of scientists to produce effective vaccines. Beyond that scientists are creating a technology where they shake pathogens to death with sound waves that shoot through our bodies. The future does not look bright for pathogens that infect humans.
If a “gay germ” exists there is a good chance that over the next 10 to 30 years we’ll wipe it out and never know.
Jayhuck,
Is it safe to assume from now on that you do not answer questions but insist that other people do so?
Carole,
I don’t ever remember about talking about a vaccine that infected brain cells – help me refresh my memory on this.
Otherwise, you seemed to completely miss my point – You appeared to ignore all the terrible things I listed that parents have done and continue to do to children “in the name of protecting them”. The discussion we need to be having is whether or not parents should be able to do anything they see fit as long as they feel it will protect their child. The clear answer to this is a resounding NO! This is about ethics – bioethics if you will.
You also didn’t say anything about my point about a small hit to fitness being good for a world that is just starting to wrestle with the problems of over-population
AH – but the world already is changing to some extent and is definitely headed in a more progressive and forward thinking direction – think about all the strides made by gay people just in the last 20 years – there will be a time when even the most paranoid and controlling of parents won’t feel the need to alter their child as they see fit in order to “protect” them.
And you are absolutely wrong about parents – not ALL parents feel or act in the way you say they do – apart from all the gay parents I know, I know several parents of gay children – and they do not seek any type of therapy or see a need to alter their children in any way – so don’t try and lump ALL parents under one afraid-that-their-child-will-be-homosexual umbrella, because that is not reality either!!!
It is not the parents who seek safety for safety’s sake who change the world (although you are right, they do exist) – It is those parents who instead of feeling the need to blend into the world, who seek homogeneity, are able to stand as individuals and are not afraid to be different
I’m reprinting this just because I think it bears repeating
Carole,
I feel as if I’m repeating myself, but if the HYPOTHETICAL pathogen causes bodily or mental injury along with conferring same-sex orientation, that would be VASTLY different than a pathogen that simply causes someone to be gay but causes no harm. Depending on the nature of the pathogen, that would change this discussion.
Jayhuck,
You know, if a germ is found to cause men to be gay, it could be used as a weapon of mass destruction. It’s a matter of state interest to combat that germ and get it out of the environment once and for all. The alternative is too risky, ie all men being turned into homosexuals.
So if a gay germ is found, homosexuality is kaput. No need to ask parents, it’s a biological hazard.
BTW, check out the news these guys have been producing. They talk about biological feminisation caused by pollutants, but there are other news in the media on some kind of a “boy crisis”. If they are connected, it spells environment.
Evan
Yep, the more a boy is exposed to PCB’s in the womb the more feminine he will become.
Effects of Perinatal Exposure to PCBs and Dioxins on Play Behavior in Dutch Children at School Age
Evan,
LOL – that has GOT to be funniest thing I have ever heard.
Evan
Holy smokes I had never thought of that. If there really was a gay germ agressor nations could release it in high concentrations on their enemies.
They could weed out undesirables and repopulate with loyalists without ever firing a shot. All they’d need is patience.
Nobody in the middle east likes the Kurds. If this was available you can bet Turkey would use it on them. Arabs would certainly attempt to use this on Israel. Nations would be forced to develop a countermeasure.
Jayhuck,
Fasten your seatbelt, then. Gay genes are coming next and it’s going to be a thrill, either way.
LOL! Stop guys – you’re killing me
This is better than listening to Pat Robertson
You guys should take this show on the road – seriously!!!
Drowssap,
Right, but think about this scenario: gay scientists could become gay germ terrorists.
No way, too risky, gay germ manipulation would probably be severely punished.
Are you really being serious about a ‘gay germ’ bomb – drowssap ?
I thought the point was it was a ubitquous pathogen that only caused gay kids in susceptible individuals. Thus a ‘gay germ bomb’ wouldn’t work anyway.
I am with Jayhuck – this is a really really stupid idea. It isn’t April 1 afterall.
Carole,
An additional note – I really do understand your concerns, and I see where you are coming from, but if the strides that gay people have made over the last 20 years are any indication, all this talk about a gay germ and vaccinating children, may be a moot point!!!
Patrick,
They are just being ridiculous – if they ARE being serious then they are only shooting themselves in the foot and its still funny
Patrick,
Relax, this thread was getting into Fantasyland anyway.
Evan,
You and I couldn’t agree more on that!
If you were an Arab and you had a “gay germ” why WOULDN’T you release it on Israel? It works on every level.
Patrick
Get the dose high enough and probably anything would work. Of course they’d have to wait a generation to see the results because it’s not going to affect adults.
But if possible would rogue nations use this? Of course. Even the USA experimented with the concept of a “gay bomb.” Although I think in our case the goal was to make something that worked immediately.
Jayhuck,
Oh my, my , my. What do I have on my hands here? Whew ! You are a marvel, Jaychuck.
Here’s one example of how I don’t think you read the posts carefully: the original discussion involved the un-proven theory that an infection zapped brain cell nuclei, probably in the hypothalamus, causing homosexuality. Hello??? From the discussion of that so-called “gay germ” hypothesis of Greg Cochran someone began this hypothetical scenario of, “What if that hypothesis were true, and what if a vaccine could prevent such an infection–either in the mother (who then couldn’t transmit it in utero to her fetus) or to an infant who had not yet been exposed to said pathogen?”
Here’s another example of a tiny, itty bitty little thingy I said in my post that did iindeed address your notion of overpopulation–when a man and a woman find out they are pregnant, it is not the overpopulation of the world they are thinking about. NOT! Trust me. You said you will soon be a father? When your son or daughter comes down with a fever of 104, you will NOT be thinking about the overpopulation of the world.
Here’s another little example of my addressing a point of yours…when people decide to get pregnant, the “causes” of the world , the social injustices that exist (i.e. overpopulation, HIV and malaria in Africa or hunger in Appalachia, Puerto Rico deserving to be the 51st state, the inequality of the distribution of wealth and resources among the peoples of the world, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the fact that the Oakland A’s never have a salary structure that can compete with the New York Yankees, embracing homosexuality for justice’s sake) means absolutely nothing! Trust me! Pregnant? Bringing a new life into the world? You have a lot on your mind, and while the world’s problems don’t disappear, you have a helpless little person in front of you that has to have your total attention.
Oh, and you know how I said that a cleft palate wasn’t analogous to homosexuality. Well, after I had already sent the post, I realized that it was actually very much like homosexuality in many ways: it isn’t chosen; it is totally unrelated to a person’s character; it doesn’t cause a fitness hit to the species; it’s not contagious; it leads to teasing, harrassment, bullying, emotional pain, and it happens to children, who happen to be physically and emotionally vulnerable to such treatment even though the child is wonderful and has loving, supporting parents and may also have an extended, supportive family. Ever seen the stats on who has an effect on children and teens that rivals, by adolescence even surpasses in power and influence a loving and supporting family? The peer group.
Think a parent wants to throw the dice on that one by hoping their child encounters none of that kind of treatment? Oh, and what about a child who happens to be especially effeminate? Think parents can wave a magic wand and make society treat the kid with respect?
We parents do all we can to fix a cleft palate or a hare lip or facial disfigurements. Now, do you think parents around the world are unfair, that they are cruel and unenlighened, that they are controlling because they have their infant sons and daughters cleft palates fixed? Their big birthmarks removed from their faces? A hare lip softened by cosmetic surgery?
Okay, I might as well sink further: If a doctor told parents that a shot to the mother would prevent a facial disfigurement from ever forming in the fetus to begin with and would save the baby surgical procedures down the road, would you think taking that action would be controlling by the parents? (Oi vey. What am I doing here?)
A happy baby with as few major obstacles placed in his way in early life is what parents hope for their babies.
I think I gave this link before, but maybe you didn’t read it. I’ll offer it again. Marc is a frequent poster. His observations about the basic discussion we are having here is very interesting. You disagree with him, but you might be interested in the “enlightened” views some have in that discussion. The comments start off in one direction and as people begin to think over things…..well, look for yourself.
There are 94 comments and the ones relative to this topic start about half way down. but you might be interested in all of them.
http://search.comcast.net/?cat=web&con=betab&form_submit=1&q=gene+expression&top_SearchSubmit=
Drowsapp said
Maybe you’ve seen this, but at the end in a post, he mentions the kind of bug it might be or at least the kind of critical size community it would have.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050305131514/http://thrasymachus.typepad.com/thras/2005/02/cochran_intervi.html
Carole,
“Oh my my” – And “Hello??” “tiny itty bitty thingy”…THESE are the marks of intelligent conversation?? It sounds as if you may be misreading my comments.
You did miss my point because when I was talking about overpopulation I wasn’t talking about how parents felt about it – I was talking about fitness taking care of itself so to speak.
You also keep failing to address those many parents who can and do do terrible things to their children with the idea that they are “protecting them”. I never said anything about cleft palates – that was you. What I did talk about parents doing was doping their kids, educating/driving them out of a childhood, having medically unnecessary plastic surgery performed on them. Do you really think those things are ok? If not then we agree that not ALL things parents do with the idea of “protecting” their kids are good. You may choose to be like these parents Carole, but I won’t, my friends who are gay and have children will not, and many if not most of my friends – the people I care about and choose to spend time with, will not be (are not) either
And lets not forget that science has a long history of people using its process to further bigotry and prejudice.
There are many discussions we need to have Carol – some we are already having – and while so many people spend so much time speculating just how homosexuality has come to be, gay people are making inroads around the world – soon the idea of whether or not we can implicate a pathogen in the cause of homosexuality will be moot
The same thing could have easily been said of being African American not all that long ago
Jayhuck,
Yes, all right! My description of how those people with those conditions were treated and how African -Americans were treated because of their skin color (cruelly and unfairly) helped. Hooray! And gays have been treated unfairly too! So, see, you DO agree by the end of your post! The beginning of your post was, however, full of diversionary tactics.
Race is not caused by a cell-destroying infection. Race is not a maladaptation; it’s an adaptation. Race (unlike skin color) cannot be changed or prevented as can facial disfigurements and the hypothetical homosexuality that results from the hypothetical infection.
The question debated /discussed has always been, “What would happen if it did turn out that homosexuality was caused by a pathogen that infected and killed brain cells, a condition which led to homosexuality—what if an effective and safe vaccine of the mother and/or the new-born were offered to parents, a vaccine which gave immunity to the pathogen?
Seriously now, Jayhuck, we each know the other’s position by now so there is no sense in going further. I understand where you stand, and that’s all we can really hope to accomplish here–to effectively communicate where we stand. We cannot hope to persuade. We can assume effective communication has taken place when we can correctly re-state the other’s position.
So, in fairness to you, I will state your position as objectively as I can so that you can at least know that I have listened to you and have heard you correctly. Here goes: your position is that if parents could prevent this infection from occurring, they should not opt for the vaccine to prevent it unless such an infection caused not just homosexuality but damage of another sort, a sort you would consider a serious threat to the health of the child. Your position is that as long as the infection caused only homosexuality, nothing else, parents should not say “yes” to the shot.
Similarly, I do trust that you are clear about my position. Here goes: My position is that almost all parents presented with the option of a safe vaccination would have the doctor administer it.
In addition, I understand that you believe that many parents, a growing number, would not do this, and you take issue with my saying that almost all parents would have the vaccine administered.
I think I have accurately summed up both your position and mine. Hopefully we have both been heard.
But your positions here Carole are not addressing the same thing.
Jayhuck is saying that such a vaccine should not be given – he is making a moral statement about the use of a vaccine.
You on the other hand are just stating that most mothers given the choice – would choose to have a vaccination that would prevent homosexuality. Perhaps true, I have no idea, but it is worth pointing out that your positions are not really addressing the same thing.
I think Evan really hit the nail on the head here though – this conversation has just gotten rather too fantastical.
There is no positive evidence that a pathogen causes homosexuality
Even if there is, there is no idea about what this pathogen is, when it strikes or how it would be prevented.
There is no reason to believe that even if the pathogen was known, anything could be done about it (consider for instance how long they have been working on a HIV vaccine – which gets far more dollars).
Gay people are probably safe for mine (38 years old) lifetime – and probably for all of our lifetimes – from erradication.
It might be fun and challenging to talk about what-if statements – an imagine some future state of affairs – but for now and the foresee able future gay people are here to stay (and in this gay man’s opinion the world is better for it). It could also very well be that by the time this is even possible – whether a child is gay or straight becomes a moot issue.
Carole,
Why nother. Jayhuck uses distraction, attacking the commentor (sp?) etc… to avoid answering anything real to the conversation. He will go round and round in some loop de loop logic trap he has set up.
Please see above. He has refused to answer any of my questions with science.
It is okay for him to use Kinsey as a resource but should anyone refer to a NARTH scientist or resource – all hell and “morality” questions break out.
Patrick, you said
The parents’ very decision to get the shot implies such a choice, Patrick. They would be aware they were innoculating to prevent their child from getting a pathogen that might cause homosexuality. They would not see such an action as either immoral or amoral. In fact, for all the reasons I have listed before about how and why parents make decisions about their children, I will state that they would see their choice to innoculate as a moral imperative. Why? Because as I said before, they’d believe that to do otherwise would put their child’s happiness at risk.
Going even further, I will state that if there were a cure for homosexuality announced tomorrow, it would virtually disappear over the next few decades. Of course, that would depend on the safety of such a cure. I don’t even think an expensive cost would stop people–only the safety of the cure would give them pause.
I think it incredibly naive to believe otherwise. After the Navratilova gay sheep flap, a Connecticutt state rep tried to float a bill that would outlaw any medical attempts to cure homosexuality should that become a reality. It didn’t get off the ground. No support–no surprise there. Even if one country actually were to outlaw a cure, others would allow it. There’d be no way to stop parents from doing as they wanted.
As fewer and fewer gay babies were born and grew into adulthood, the choice to prevent it would become even easier for what few parents there were who did happen to feel the moral outrage you might want them to feel.
Gays could, of course, do as some in the deaf community have done. Some in that community have taken measures to preserve what they call their deaf culture by refusing to allow coclear implants in their children.
So, gays (or straights) could have babies, hoping to keep alive homosexuality, but if a pathogen really were the cause–big trouble–you’d almost have to inject babies with that pathogen to keep the numbers up, right? That wouldn’t go over too well, and all the while, as people were immunized against the pathogen, the numbers of gays would shrink to the point that gays themselves would realize the pool of like children was so small as to be a huge problem for a gay child. This presumes, of course that most gays wouldn’t want to innoculate from the get-go along with the straights. I don’t know.
This is indeed one of the concerns parents, gay and straight, would have about gay children. They know how difficult it is to eventually find a person whom they love and who loves them back and with whom they can share their lives. A parent thinking about the numbers would be upset by their child’s prospects: 2.5%-4.5% gay ( I think those numbers pretty much cover the range) of boys in a high school of, say, 1800 kids? A kid who is 16, a sophomore, has a “choice” of how many suitable dates? On the low end, about 22 in the whole school. On the high end, about 40. A straight kid theoretically has 50% of the school available. In actuality, we know kids stratefy themselves based on age, looks, interests, etc. but you see the point.
After you factor in those variables, the kid has few choices; later in life, when settling down with a special person becomes important, he still has that problem. Yes, he can increase his mate choices by moving to gay enclaves, which is what many do today when they move to the cities, but again, that places geographic limitations on the person, and thus career limitations. This is the parents’ kid, you see? Parents are always thinking of their child’s future advantages and disadvantages in life. A parent doesn’t want to do anything to limit the child’s options in life. This is a big, limiting option to a parent. To you, maybe no… to the parents, yes.
Then, there’s the theoretical, “You had a chance to insure I was straight, and you put me through this hell?” Don’t think a parent wouldn’t wonder about the child’s reaction to the parental choice. How many straight kids at the age of 16 would turn to their mom and dad and accusingly say, “You had the option to increase my chances to be gay and you didn’t do it? How dare you.”
Of course, there are all kinds of other things a parent would consider, but availability for mate selection is a big concern. The homosexual boy/man will actually have a greater selection choice for sex, yes, more than the heterosexual male population, for the gay man hasn’t the strictures of women/marriage that a straight man does in his late 20s, 30s but not for mate selection.
I think that the idea of some sort of cure down the road really does seem possible to many in the gay community, and that is why they reject such theories of causation. At one time they wanted, understandably so, to find a biological cause because it really is true that as people accept the biological causation model, they are more tolerant of homosexuality. This acceptance on the part of many that homosexuality is not a “sick choice” as some have demonized it, has led to political gains and changing attitudes about rights. That is a whole other issue, however.
Political and social attitudes which have evolved concern how the recently enlightened feel about homosexuality and about the gay friends and colleagues they know—who are other people’s kids–not theirs! Prevention for their kid? A cure for their child when the child is but an infant or toddler? That’s a totally different story, and it’s what parents will do as individuals that will matter in terms of numbers.
So, if a biological cause is actually identified, gay leadership now worries that there will be efforts for a cure, and they are right. That’s how science works. That’s how people think. They don’t consider the condition of homosexuality to be “natural,” (intended by nature in the developing fetus or child) no matter how liberal their politics. They know enough science to believe that something went out of whack. Growing numbers harbor no ill will toward gays although, truth be told, they still find the behavior (sexual and otherwise) incredibly odd and I’d be less than truthful with you if I didn’t tell you that straights, even women (since we do know men are less accepting) still think in terms of the “ick factor” when they think of men having sex with men or men being romantic with other men and the same for women. These “ick” reactions may be biologically based themselves.
Nevertheless, millions have grown to accept and promote the movement for equality. However, their political attitude doesn’t affect their attitude about their child–the one who could be insured of being hetero. Guys, to parents, hetero IS the natural state. When gays argue otherwise, straights roll their eyes. When my close gay friends try that one on us, we are honest enough to let them see the eye roll. When someone who isn’t that close to us tries it, we do an invisible eye roll. I mean, come on–it’s one thing to fight for rights, another to try to tell intelligent people that homosexuality is simply a variant trait for diversity.
One doesn’t need a biology class to see how things were designed to work so such arguments do more damage than they are worth.
Last point–. We have spoken of a hypothetical pathogen. Let’s toss that out and pretend it will not be a pathogen at all. Okay, the same efforts to find a cure will occur if any biological cause is actually identified–hormonal, genetic, combo–any.
People don’t stop science. They just don’t. Science can proceed very, very slowy or just slowly or sometimes quickly, but it does eventually find answers.
If the cause is discovered and it’s very complicated, why then, it will take longer, maybe so long as to be out of thinking range for any of us, but I think a few of you have your heads in the sand on this issue.
Most parents could make a very long list of reasons for their choice, but when asked to sum them up, they would say, “I want him/her to be happy and this gives him the best chance. It’s what’s natural. It’s why we are designed the way we are.”
They might ask of you who disagree, “What is so great about homosexuality that I should not insure that my child is hetero if I can do that safely?” I can’t think of any answers that would sway too many parents.
carole
I think I understand the disconnect. Some people view homosexuals as a distinct and seperate type of human being instead of a simple trait. Some deaf activists are on the same page. Hearing loss isn’t a trait, but instead the definition of a distinct type of human being. Anything that treats hearing loss appears like genocidal hatred to those on the fringe.
Carole,
I appreciate what you wrote in #149398 – you addressed some very core issues that are not always talked about but certainly should be. Thank you.
Carole,
You are right, it comes down to numbers. The odds are against gay children being born either through natural selection or otherwise.
Patrick,
I do see now what you meant when you said that Jayhuck’s position that “parents should not” and my position that “but parents will” are addressing two different things. Yes, I didn’t say what I thought parents should or shouldn’t do; rather I stated what I believe they would do and why they would do it. Got it. Thanks for the observant clarification.
I am sure what I would do is easily seen in light of my comments, but like many others, I feel it would be up to parents, not me nor anyone else.
Drowsapp,
That’s a point to be considered. For some, this topic would take into consideration not only the very personal , but also the social and cultural —as in the deaf community.
Ann,
Sure, thank you.
I have often wondered about the parallels (sp? ) drawn between deaf society and gay society, where deaf people seek to preserve their “heritage” as a unique trait and as do gays.
I cannot believe that my parents would have made the choice for me to experience this pain, both coming and going.
carole,
Could a germ cause both male and female homosexuality or should there be two different germs? If it’s one, you (Drowssap or Cochran) should explain how could the same germ produce different changes in different genders, causing a mirroring effect in sexuality.
Eddy wrote a great post that deserves reprinting and commenting (see #144499).
It’s amazing how short social memory is and how strong exposure to socially accepted views can influence how we build our expectations of entitlement. For instance, if you read most media on women’s ideas on what a good husband or partner would be, they state it clearly right from the start that physical attraction is a must. For women, love must be the basis of marriage or relationships today. Even in the debates we have here, most of us assume that physical attraction must have been the basis of pairing and reproduction during much of our past. This socially accepted belief influenced scientific practice too. Scientists tried to live up to this belief and produced evidence to support it. Helen Fischer, an anthropologist, proposed an influential model of mating that started from lust leading to attraction and proceeding to attachment. She might be right about our very distant past, but this view is very recent in modern times. How many would be willing to accept that most people did not believe, less than one century ago, that attraction and love must precede marriage? Historians already know that very well (I recommend anyone interested in the subject to read ‘A History of Private Life’ coordinated by Georges Duby and Philippe Aries, Volume V, Riddles of Identity in Modern Times). Actually, marriage during the Middle Ages was a contract with lots of provisions for property management and political significance for rich people, whereas for poor people it was mostly about sharing resources. A marriage based on attractions was one lucky shot for both man and woman, rare enough to inspire folk stories and legends.
I’m sure that a binary logic of sexuality imposed by society forces mainly binary orientations. But I’m not as sure that it greatly impinges on one’s biological workings.
Roughly speaking, first came the psychodynamic explanation, then followed many decades of research on hormones, more recently genetic research asserted itself and now there is some discussion on environmental chemical influences. The subject of sexual orientation looks like one big Rubik cube that many hands are trying to solve using different moves. Probably the solution is very simple in its model, but there are many ways to influence one’s development to get to a particular outcome. Social factors could produce some irreversible changes in one’s biology, which would in turn produce social effects (traumatic memory cannot be erased yet). We are used to think about the social and biological as being distinct and working separately, but they may have unexpected ways to influence each other.
Men and women today live in enclosed spaces and lead mostly sedentary lives; one intruding creature like a small animal or a spider can alarm a brain developed by many hundreds of years of evolution but habituated to less exciting encounters. Growing up in crowded environments and depending on the modern comforts of life exerts very different pressures on ancestral instincts of aggressiveness and arousal to threatening stimuli than it used to when the man had to club his lunch. Did the instinct change? We can still see aggressive displays today, but it’s not a matter of survival for each individual as it probably was thousands of years ago. It’s a radically different setting: men and women are equal in rights, each individual is protected, men are still expected to pursue women but are also taught to respect them as equals, people use remnants of instincts that were developed back in an ancient and violent past. These instincts have not adapted to a more pacific and stressful environment like ours. Social expectations further complicate how instincts are channelised.
Anyway, I wanted to react to a good comment that Eddy wrote.
Evan
Cochran doesn’t know, clearly I have no idea. But if I had to guess it wouldn’t be the germs per se. It would probably be triggered by the bodies immune reponse. How it might work in men and women I have no idea. It’s all pure speculation. The increased incidence of left handedness (and potentially the hair whorl difference) is the only clue that something is going on.
Evan, you said,
I know that GC has said in the past that he didn’t feel as if male homosexuality and female homosexuality would necessarily have the same cause or trigger. Essentially he points out that from an evolutionary point of view, women who self-identified as lesbian or bi-sexual still had a lot more kids than did male homosexuals. In other words, the fitness hits were different.
Maybe you have read this, but here’s a link to an interview several years old.
He answers some follow-up questions too that specify his position He also addresses a question about imprinting since I notice that many people believe that somehow an experience or series of experiences “imprint” on a human’s brain and that somehow accounts for a biological switch to SSA. He is not a proponent of that at all.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050305131514/http://thrasymachus.typepad.com/thras/2005/02/cochran_intervi.html
I also know that he has additionally said that 1) he hasn’t studied female homosexuality and that resources/studies about it were rare in the literature and 2) differences between the male and female brain don’t surprise him at all.
I don’t think he has excluded that a pathogen could do the same to some women, and I don’t think it surprises him at all that there are fewer lesbians than male homosexuals.
Thus, far be it from me to explain. I don’t know.
As for Eddy’s comments which you pointed out…I think it’s reasonable to believe that one cannot come up with a hypothesis that accounts for all human experience, and GC has made it clear that that is not what his hypothesis is about–he is not trying to offer an explanation for all homosexual activity, but, yes, for the majority of preferential homosexuality. He is concerned with why from a relatively early age, gay boys are physically attracted to and aroused by men and are not physically interested in or aroused by women.
I have read remarks from him since these, much more recent remarks and his position about a viral cause had not changed. In fact, he seemed to have grown even more adamant that that was the trigger.
Now, having said this, I admit that I haven’t seen any GC comments on this topic within the last year; however, I haven’t really searched either. Maybe Drowssap knows.
Drowssap,
I see you mentioned that GC believes that males and females are born with circuitry for mate attractions and that in a male, one circuit should shut down and in a female, another should shut down. Is this a GC hypothesis or something someone else said or proved? I am unaware of this except, of course, with the fruit flies.
Also, I was unaware that there were rumors, as you said, that GC had received private funding for a study. Can you elaborate on the time frame of when you came across this? Thanks.
and I don’t think it surprises him at all that there are fewer lesbians than male homosexuals.
Carole,
Do you know of any research that has been done on this as to why? So much is talked about regarding males but not females. Also, I’m wondering why autisim shows up more in boys than girls.
Carole
I have no connection to Cochran on any level. I read on a blog somewhere that he had asked for funding. Whether that is true and whether he got it or not is an entirely different matter.
However, my gut instinct tells me that work by him or others is probably underway. A lot of people want to figure this out and as of right now all the popular theories have been exhausted. It just makes sense that somebody (or a lot of somebodies) somewhere is working on this. Whoever figures out the first big clue that sticks will surely end up in the history books.
Ann, I wish I had an answer for you.
Let’s face it, science and government have had a long and unfair history: research dollars on men’s health issues in the past far exceeded money spent on women’s issues. The dollars were NOT spread around at one time. Women were an after-thought. Only after a big stink was made about how much money had been spent on prostate cancer research versus breast cancer research did this country change its funding practices and move to a more equitable distribution of dollars.
As I recall, Congress was given a very public tongue-lashing and that led to some changes.
Remember when heart disease and digestive disorders were considered “men’s health” problems? True, in the 50s and 60s, more men than women were dropping dead of heart attacks, and that was probably because more men than women were very heavy smokers, but women also suffered from ulcers and digestive disorders, and women also suffered from heart disease, cancers, but they were not included in the research. As we know now, symptoms of ailments like heart disease often present differently in women than in men. We only know that now because science was finally shamed into studying women’s health problems.
Same goes for race. Example: many African-American men who suffered from hypertension were given drugs that weren’t working in controlling their high blood pressure. Doctors were baffled. Turns out that many medicines for HBP that work on Caucasian men don’t work at all on much of the black population of the country. However, the sample subjects in the research were white males. Whites, Asians, Blacks….react differently to many medications.
As for why there has been such a paucity of research on lesbianism, I can guess at several things,but admittedly, some guesses:
1. Bias in scientific research–men first!
2. Science and research in general was and still is (but to a lesser extent ) populated by men and those men are/were more likely to see male homosexuality as more “abnormal” than lesbianism. First, male homosexuality is more common, they believe. (I think a lot of scientists just look at women who love women as “Hey–that’s women for ya–ya just can’t explain ‘em!” I say that only in partial jest–I do think that men see the primal male sex drive and lust for women as something much stronger than a woman’s drive…thus, male homosexuality is more anathema to them.
3. Regarding the last point–I do think that researchers and theorists like Cochran start with the male because of the evolutionary notion that the male was/is indeed led by his sex drive–nature’s way of seeing to it that males impregnated enough women to keep the species going. After all, a lot of women might have been sterile; a lot of impregnated women and their babies never would have survived pregnancy and the birth process; so, the men had to be fit enough, and that meant a very lusty sexual appetite to do their part. All I’m saying is that I think they look at a man’s lack of desire as much more of a problem to the species than to a woman’s lack of desire. A woman needn’t have lust/desire to have sex and get pregnant. (Of course, sure is better if she does!)
4. The in-progress and very large UCLA DNA study of twins does indeed include women. I think it’s the first study of its kind to do this. Perhaps this study will open doors into the entire field.
5. Autism? You know, I have wondered the same thing, but then again remember that multiple sclerosis affects more women then men.(hey, great new findings on ms that may prevent it and even help reduce symptoms in those who have it)
Perhaps the key to why some things strike men more than women and women more than men (other than say exposure to toxic agents) is that a woman’s immune system and a man’s may not be the same, but there are so many variables at this point, who knows?
I keep thinking about the alcoholism studies. A woman is much more susceptible to the effects of alcohol not just because she is generally speaking lighter with less body mass than a man, but because her stomach lining doesn’t give her as much protection as does a man’s. It’s thinner and more readily absorbs the alcohol.
My question would be, why has the incidence of autism shot up as much as it has? What the heck is going on? One kid in 150 falls on that spectrum? Wow.
Is it an environmental agent that wasn’t around decades ago? Infection? What?
Sorry I haven’t been able to answer your questions. Here’s to research!
Drowssap,
Here is an interesting post from one M.E. Howell on the blog “Was Darwin WRong.”
Scroll down to the the email from Howell about half way down the page–the Jan. 4th, 2005 post.
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof6.htm
Carole
Yep that’s where they are ask for money.
So I figure if they asked for money in 2005 they got in 2006. These are guys with careers and other responsibilities so lets say it took another year to get situated. So maybe they got started sometime in 2007.
I don’t know how long it takes to get results. Maybe 2 or 3 years? So who knows, maybe sometime in 2009/2010 we’ll hear something.
Patrick
Thank you so much for understanding what I was trying to say. And yeah, I agree , the whole talk about a vaccine/cure became very fantastical – we still don’t have a cure for the common cold for crying out loud, not to mention a vaccine for HIV, despite the fact that research on that retrovirus has been heavily funded and studied for at least 25 years
Carole,
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by gay leadership, but the important word in your quote above is NOW. Attitudes are changing everyday, and I think the pontificating that goes on regarding the causes of homosexuality and what some parents might or might not do will be moot in the near future. After being witness to so many different theories as to the cause of sexual orientation, I’ve come to believe that there isn’t going to be any one factor that makes a person gay – or straight for that matter. The entire process is likely very complex, and we’ll never have an answer at least in our lifetimes.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have discussions about the morality of changing our children – having “designer” children, because we believe it will improve their lives or ours.
Carole,
I’m sorry to tell you this, but this is definitely not true across the board. Several female friends of mine have shared with me that they secretly WANT to see two men together. I’m sure not all females feel this way. I’ve also known a few men in my life who have publicly declared their ill feelings for homosexual relationships and then privately and usually secretly engaged in them – LOL! That happens more than I probably even realize.
You are right however the, what did you call it, “ick factor” still exists, but thanks to education is slowly being done away with – we are moving, slowly but surely, from tolerance to acceptance, which seems to be the normal progression of these things
Carole,
As a side note – our discussion reminds me of a similar one in a movie called The Family Stone with Diane Keaton, Sarah Jessica Parker, Rachel McAdams, Luke Wilson, etc… Its not my favorite movie by far, but the holiday dinner table discussion when SJP talks about not wanting a gay child because of the hardships it might face is very interesting. If you haven’t seen it, check it out and let me know what you think!
we are moving, slowly but surely, from tolerance to acceptance
Jayhuck,
Is this to verify that acceptance is knowing that same gender sex exists or that it is accepted as right and normal in society? I don’t think tolerance equals acceptance in most instances for many things.
Jayhuck,
I don’t know how you or others feel about the word “tolerance” – when used to describe an individual’s sexual preference or love interest, I do not like it. One should never feel they are being tolerated because of this. Jag taught me this.
This one is for you, Drowssap, since I know you follow this kind of thing closely, and I didn’t know how to put it on another thread.
Behavior and pathogens, again, this time a parasite manipulating behavior by interfering with neurotransmission.
It reminds me of the rats and toxoplasma gondii infection. Those rats (or were they mice?–those rodents) who were infected weren’t frightened by the smell of cat urine as that toxo manipulated them to get near their ultimate host, the cat.
Truly amazing stuff.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16283-prozac-may-counter-parasite-mind-control.html
carole
Good find! I’d never heard of such a phenomenon until I ran across Cochran. Somewhere Cochran mentioned another parasite that caused “Whirling Disease” in fish. To my utter amazement this phenomenon is everywhere.
Another Example:
Parasitiod Turns Its Host Into A Bodyguard
If this is what SSA is… excuse my language but holy freakin’ crap.
Somebody is going to figure out gay sheep and odds are it’s the result of some type of infection. If it turns out to be a mind control parasite instead of an innocent imune response gone awry… EEEEEEeeeeeee.
I don’t know how societies around the world would respond to that but it might get scary.
carole
I think this might be a good example of how the average person’s math gets messed up. The more common an anomoly is the less likely it is to be genetic. Most people would guess that since 100% of fish are doing something counterproductive, the behavior must be genetic. In fact it’s strong evidence that it couldn’t possibly be genetic.
Google: “Darwin”
Carole
I just came across this mention of the fish parasites again on a science blog. It’s really an amazing phenomenon.
The Puppet Master’s Medicine Chest
Thanks, Drowssap,
Funny you should bring this up again because over the holiday, I saw my nephew, an avid outdoorsman, and I mentioned an infection in fish that was causing odd behavior. Before I finished, he interrupted with its name. He was quite familiar with it and has witnessed the behavior. (We live in CA).
On a related topic, here’s a link to this ’08 summary of a study done by C. Roselli along with the UCLA researcher, Bocklandt. I know Roselli works with sheep all the time and that his research is certainly not limited to the “gay sheep” angle but rather to all facets of the neurobiology/physiology of sheep, but the fact that this particular study was done with Bocklandt makes me think that they decided to take a look at whether prolactin is involved in the orientation of rams.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18223310
Yeah that is fascinating. Interestingly enough last year scientists figured out how to switch sex orientation in flies by changing one chemical. No doubt Bockland and Co. are testing that on gay sheep as we speak. Maybe it’s a different chemical but I doubt it’s any more complicated. I remember Cochran mentioned that the system that regulates sexual orientation in humans was probably 100x less complex than the system that regulates a function like hearing.
I remember Cochran mentioned that the system that regulates sexual orientation in humans was probably 100x less complex than the system that regulates a function like hearing.
I recall that comment also. That would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, wouldn’t it? If the system that drove reproduction was too complicated, the species would have a heck of a hard time surviving.
The one thing that has revolutionized research into all kinds of things since about 1999 is the acceptance that we were very wrong in our assumption that the blood-brain barrier was just about impenetrable. That incorrection conclusion had led studies in the wrong direction for a hundred years. T
Of course, parts of the brain , the ones that often are thought to be implicated in orientation, aren’t protected by it at all.
Carole
Our comments keep getting progressively squished so I’m going to reply out here.
I knew that was true but I’ve never read articles on that. Do you have any links handy?
BTW, not only do pathogens zap our brains but our own immune systems zap our brains when they try to protect us. That’s one common route to Schiz. Flu virus gets into a pregnant mom and her immune system shoots out Interleukin-6 which zaps her babies developing brain.
Not long ago there was speculation that perhaps in ancient cultures people with Schizophrenia were thought to posess magic and they rose to power as Shamman. This accounted for how a gene that would cause Schiz could survive at the 1% level. Nope… it’s just flu virus, Toxoplasma, TBE and probably many others.
Carole
If it is ultimately proven that SSA is the result of some type of infection I don’t think people realize how quickly scientists will have a fix available at least in a lab setting.
Brain Birth Defects Successfully Reversed Through Stem Cell Therapy
In this case scientists didn’t even need to target a specific part of the brain. They injected the mice with neural stem cells and these cells automatically found the damage and repaired it.
Drowssap,
Thanks for that link. Amazing, really. Now that a new President is about to take office, I am sure the stem cell issue will be reintroduced, and I wonder what that will result in.
There was/is indeed a good article on the BBB, but in doing a quick Google, I can’t find it. I’ll give it a look later. There are lots of Google searches that result in lot of good reading material. Just type blood brain barrier or more specifically, pathogens and the blood brain barrier.
The research in this area is a kind of two-birds-with-one-stone thing–in gaining a greater understanding of the strengths of the BBB, we have also gained knowledge of its vulnerabilities. Delivering therapies that reach things like brain tumors has been difficult as the BBB has kept out the very chemicals that could save someone’s life where tumors lie in unoperable areas. However, studying how some bacteria and especially viruses sneak their way through the gatekeeper has helped researchers come up with ideas for how to deliver chemicals that can cross it and get to the area they want to treat.
One thing that absolutely amazes me is how wily viruses are. Man, can they evolve or what? And, they disguise themselves so craftily.
I’m actually laughing right now remembering the visceral reaction I once had to a virus. The flu was doing its thing in my town that year. Mid January came, and I thought I had escaped it. Nope. I have never gone from feeling so perfectly well to so perfectly sick ( temp of 104) so quickly, with every muscle in my body, including my fingers, aching. I got ill on a Friday night, saw the doctor on Monday. A chest film confirmed pneumonia. He treated me at home for two weeks with two different antibiotics, and I just got worse. He hospitalized me and tuned me over to a lung specialist who explained that the virus that had been infecting people had simply grown stronger as it spread and that I had gotten its very virulent lastest incarnation. I was out of work for 5 weeks.
I know it’s stupid, but as I lay in that hospital bed, I came to feel as if that virus was a person, a person I detested. Had it been 1918 when that flu pandemic hit, I would have been a goner. I can still remember the people who came to take blood gases; there was one incompetent who couldn’t get the needle in the artery. Ugh, the knowledge they were going into an artery grossed me out. I about passed out watching. Veins, okay, arteries, ohhhhh!
Yes, I wash my hands a lot now, but the old rhinovirus has gotten me this winter!
Mega-Uggh! Ya know, when someone is sick enough to be in the hospital the only person who feels worse is his/her parents.
Speaking of “bad forces” beating us up sometimes I wonder if that might actually be real. I generally imagine that their is one, productive/positive force in the universe guiding things. Then other times when I’m getting my butt kicked I wonder if their is an anti-force working in the opposite direction. I guess I’ll know on the other side.
Time to do some BBB googling.
Carole
BTW if these neural stem cells really work they’ll radically change the world. No more mental illness of any type… ever. WOW! If they aren’t harmful they could inject every 2 year old and even the slightest scratch would be healed. Heck, inject everybody and the world would be 1000x safer place.
In the meantime they’d be great to test on gay sheep. Inject them full of neural stem cells and if they turn straight that’s a dead giveaway it was damage related. If they stay gay it’s evidence in the other direction.
Something tells me that this is going to be in the history books in just a few more years.
Drowssap,
Thanks again for that link. I went to the NY Times Science section and didn’t find reference to the Science Daily article, which didn’t make sense. Then, I did a search for it in the last few issues of the NY Times Science section, didn’t find it, which made even less sense. Then, I Googled it and found several articles from several sources, each saying the same thing as your link.
I wondered why it wasn’t in a recent edition of The Times, and then I paid closer attention to the article. This group of researchers had released their findings a while back so I would guess the Times did cover the story at that time. Perhaps this recent Dec. 30, 2008 article was meant to be a year-in-review article? I wonder.
The team will appear before the annual meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell Research this coming July, where they will present their findings to their peers. After that, we should be reading quite a bit about their research, and you can be sure the requests for funding further research on EVERYTHING will come pouring in.
You are right. This is truly revolutionary for investigation into…well, EVERYTHING!!
I think it deserves its own link for discussion since I am sure the people who often post on Warren’s blog and Warren himself (and all people, really) are likely to have strong opinions about stem cell use. Perhaps that is best left to this coming July. What do you think?
I can’t wait for July. I hope these guys get a billion dollars and I hope 100 other researchers copy their work. Why work on Parkinsons, Depression, OCD and Autism seperately when a shot of Neural stem cells knows how to cure them all?
If there was a new thread on this subject the only thing I would have to add right now would be WOW WOW WOW!!!!!!! I have a hunch that if we eliminated all mental illness, even subclinical illness the violent crime rate would drop to almost nothing. Sure, there would still be crimes of passion, but there wouldn’t be any more psychos or unstable people.
Ok, maybe I’d have one thing to add. I don’t think Neural stem cells have anything to do with aborted fetuses. I think these are just regular stem cells.
@Drowssap: Sorry, I don’t think the research community is going to get a bailout.
DOH!!!!
One thing that stood out to me was that these scientists are working out of Israel. You’d think the Arabs could stop bombing the Jews at least long enough so that they could cure mental illness. Don’t the Arabs have handicapped kids that need help too? Please! If the Palestinians ran out the Jews what would they use that space for? The former science lab would probably turn into an empty lot for 50 years. If mankind was lucky maybe we’d get a used tire store in exchange.
Ok, one last wild observation.
5 years from now during clinical testing scientists attempt to cure depression in a man who has suffered in it since his teens. Just by chance this man happens to be gay. Scientists inject him with neural stem cells and his depression is cured. In addition his attractions begin to change almost immediately. Over the course of a few weeks he realizes that he has become completely straight.
Ok, the big question.
Does his depression come back?
Here’s another article about the Israeli research with a bit more info.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1229868807017&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Equally likely: five years from now scientists inject him with neural stem cells and he become a giraffe.
Does anyone ever consider how homosexuality will look in the younger generation in 10 or 15 years? Will therapists who work with unwanted SSA see different issues being presented with their clients?? Will this force therapist to readjust their paradigms of working with clients??? I think culture has a huge amount to do with how people grow up sexually. It’s not just mom amd dad that are putting the screws to kids but the culture in which they are raised. And though (I believe that homosexuality is part biological) will we ever really get the connection to how a sensitive person is interpreting the surrounding culture?? Just wondering. Maybe older brother in a new culture will have a different influence on the sensitive younger brother …??
Regarding my previous post, it appears the researchers involved in that study are not the same as the ones who injected the stem cells in mice and reversed the birth defects. Since they are colleagues at the same university and experts in this very specialized field, I imagine they work closely together; it looks as if they have several different projects going. As the one researcher pointed out, the discoveries are coming at a rapid pace.
You know, Drowssap, I still think that Ewald and Cochran are so right about research –it seems that the people who have received the very big bucks for research may not actually be climbing up the “wrong tree” since it’s probably true that every tree tells them something worth knowing, but it surely seems that pursuing a more direct line to unraveling the mystery (climbing the tallest tree, so to speak) has been avoided–I suspect the touchiness of the subject has, as Cochran pointed out, caused this.
It seems to me that since the 1999 Atlantic article in which Cochran’s idea first got major attention, the studies have increased ,even though none of them seem to explicity suggest they are looking for pathogenic etiology.
However, in just doing a quick Google search and noting the dates of the studies, one can see that after that ’99 article and the subsequent attention paid to Ewald’s, Cochran’s, and Hamilton’s insistence about the link between pathogens and a multitude of diseases, notice how many studies of things like schizophrenia, depression, MS, even Alzheimers. etc. began to concentrate on pathogen triggers and particularly on common viruses. Researchers finally “got it”–the BBB couldn’t keep up with many pathogens’ ability to re-invent themselves in order to sneak through that barrier.
Timothy Kincaid
IMHO gay and straight men (or whatever the specific part is that makes us either gay or straight) is probably a tiny thing. I don’t think the increased “female wiring” that apparently gay men have on average is anything but a tertiary byproduct. So I dunno… I could be 100% wrong but I bet scientists will find a way to switch attraction just like a light switch, just like they did with flies last year.
A giraffe switch…. that one I dunno.
Cool finding. This wave of research is about to end a lot of human misery. Yet again more evidence that the Arabs need to leave the Jews alone. Freakin’ A, at least stop bombing them until after they’ve cured all physical and mental disease. Is that too much to ask?
That reminds me of a Churchhill saying from WW2.
“You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else.”
I suppose science is the same. Socialization, genes, hormones and everything else has failed to explain SSA. Like it or not scientists will eventually have to look in the right direction.
Mary said,
Mary, you raise a very intriguing question. I think that when we speak of homosexuality, we probably need to keep in mind the difference between what they call preferential homosexuality and that which is the result of learned and shared cultural practices.
Certainly we know of cultures in which what we would term homosexual behavior, particulary involving men, has been part of the culture of at least certain segments of a population (ancient Greeks, certain tribal groups in which a homosexual act was part of an initiation rite into manhood, prison populations of both men and women, boarding schools, etc.)
So yes, culture plays a very important part in whether or not men and women feel those behaviors are encouraged or supported as a matter of tradition especially. However, in almost all of those instances in which we find a cultural tradition, the people were not exclusively homosexual in either their behavior or more importantly, in their DESIRES. Men in prison revert to heterosexual behavior once they are no longer incarcerated, for example. The greatest percentage of women do as well. Boys in boarding schools turn their lust to members of the opposite sex once they have access to the opposite sex. I think biologists see most of these behaviors we term “situational” in the same way they view masturbation–a way of finding sexual release and pleasure rather than an indication of one’s type of attraction.
The kind of behavior that biologists are trying to put a finger on is the kind in which a person does not desire the opposite sex when the opposite sex is availabe. Yes, he or she may be capable of performing with the opposite sex (through the use of fantasy, for example) but that person doesn’t feel that powerful sexual attraction to the OS partner nor does he or she prefer the OS partner to the SS partner. Of course, there are many who can’t perform at all; so it is the desire, the nature of primary attraction that they are interested in.
Perhaps there will always be a gray area between the biological and the culturally learned.
On the other hand, perhaps not. It is not at all out of the realm of possibility that, in the case of some tribal groups, for example, that a male, a tribal elder who had some power w/in that group was SSA and that he himself may have actually begun a practice of initiaton which satisfied his needs. In that way, a tradition may have been born and incorporated into a culture. That is a possibility. Many traditions develop simply because of the power of one individual or a few.
I think that in the next 5 years, we will know a great deal more, and that will of course, change the discourse between the patient and the therapist tremendously.
If the cause is identified, and I believe it will be in the not-so-distant future, the nature of all discourse on the subject (and a huge number of other subjects) will change. This subject does not exist in a vacuum. Studies of how the brain works , new technologies enabling us to examine this organ in ways unavailable to us before, are raising innumerable questions about human behavior period.
That point can’t be overstated.
For example right now Obama could make anything cool just by associating himself with it. Of course there would be a backlash from the other side. But in a nonDemocratic society there isn’t the potential for backlash.
Drowssap,
If Obama starts pouring money back into the genetics research relating to this behaviour, you can bet it will become more acceptable and media driven. That will not make it any more scientifically sound, but then how often is the society misled by charismatic leaders only to find that they have been following the wrong path. Science is not immune to this problem either. For that reason it is extremely important that all ideas are being presented and examined in an open forum and it is recognized that anyone who tries to silence these ideas is only trying to push or justify their own agenda.
Mary said,
Mary, I did not mean to slight this point of yours, yet in re-reading what I said, I think I may have so I’d like to add some things. You certainly make a valid point.
In thinking of one gay man I knew (actually he was a close friend of my mother), I often wonder about the very individual experiences that some people have that may nudge them in a direction. If ever there were such a person who found himself in an environment that might do that, it was he. Not to bore you with all the specifics, but I can see that some events of his very young life might have led him to feel as if women were traps (they had to be cared for perpetually, sacrificed for), that women were either Madonnas who ought not be touched/lusted after (like his mother) or whores (like the women who earned their money in the boarding house in which he was raised.) Yes, his dad had abandoned the family , and he was the only child old enough to have felt the tremendous weight of his father’s loss and the sting of that abandonment as rejection; yes, when he was quite young he was made fun of for his weight; yes, he was a responsible kid who tried to earn money for the family and acted as a surrogate husband to his mother (who relied on him emotionally–never a good thing for a child) and a surrogate dad to his younger sibs, always sacrificing for them as he wished his dad had for him; add to that the fact that the one really enjoyable experience of his young life–the church acting productions and plays at school where he found himself around a few closeted gay men who befriended him–and one can imagine that he fit the stereotype gay boy that NARTH pushes in all these ways and in some I haven’t mentioned.
So, I would never discount that there are people whose individual experiences put them in places that might influence their sexual experimentation and thus fashion what they are emotionally and physically comfortable with.
However, while I am sure many such people exist, I can’t see that they account for a huge % of the homosexual population. I can understand why certain experiences could drive someone AWAY from being physically intimate with a member of the opposite sex more easily than I can understand how certain experiences could drive them TO being physically intimate with the SS.
However, at the risk of falling back on a stereotype, I will say that I think it is true that boys/men do seek physical outlets much more readily than girls/women do. So, in that regard, if a man was averse to being with a woman because of something in his past, then perhaps being with another man as a physical act is not so hard to understand. (For example, it never ceases to amaze me that men often want to have sex when something is troubling them and life is chaotic while women least want sex when they are emotionally upset and their world is spinning. I am forever confounded by men. LOL.) On the other hand, I could argue that it would take a heck of a lot for a young man who, for whatever reason, was averse to being with women, to then turn to men, since doing so results in such derision and scorn.
So, I do think the specifics of one’s life can account for many things and no formula fits all, for sure. However, I don’t think it accounts for the % of homosexuals we think there are. When one considers the horrendous, traumatic experiences that have visited the billions of people who have inhabited the earth, if those experiences were the major reason people wound up SS attracted, the % of homosexuality would be much, much higher. Nature has found a way to see to it that ,in spite of just about everything we face, men and women are attracted to one another in order to propagate the species.
Thus, while for some, the SS attraction surely must be rooted in their own individual experiences, for the greater %, I think biology must be at work.
You are pretty much onto something with that. Next month Bailey is going to release his genetics study. You can bet if they found even the slightest correlation with SSA and a particular gene the media is going to have a field day. We’ll have to endure months of gay gene silliness before it all dies down.
Not to worry, the rate of scientific advancement increases every year. The truth (whatever that is) won’t be able to hide much longer.
carole,
You separated experiences from biological factors in your argument. However there is no proof that experiences can shift attractions. On the contrary, I think experiences are biological too and one may be drawn to them because of certain biological givens. There is evidence for this in PTSD. But I would agree with you that shyness in men in an age of women’s empowerment might lead some men to give up on their OSA potential and take the shortcut to uncommitted and easily available free sex.
Another one on the experience factor. I find myself a lot more attracted to women dressed in the understated style of the 80s (which was probably overstated compared to what came before) than the present style of the noughties. I think this is due to the ongoing pornofication of women, that dampened some of their attractiveness by overexposure. One friend of mine says he thinks we as generations are very different in one major respect: the more recent the generation, the shorter the attention span. I see a link between the instant reactions needed in a video game (like a first-person shooter), the emotional extraversion of the “ADHD generation” and the instant gratification using pornography (which he calls it “already pop culture”).
One more observation – men are being gayfied in the entire media: body piercing and tattoos, flamboyant hairstyles, intensive cosmetic care, the body beautiful, flashy clothes, and so on. That might create in some different experiences of attractions on a biological background similar with their parents’. But I don’t think we’re talking about major changes. Biology must lie at the foundations of feelings, keeping in mind that humans are in a way biologically cultural, meaning that they use their biology in different ways according to culture, historical age, climate, etc.
Evan said,
Precisely, Evan, and that is why I was so careful with my language. (I have added some emphasis below to illustrate.)
There is no rigid language there, for sure. I figure that there are exceptions to just about everything. Also because there is no “proof” for much of anything at this point, we leave open all kinds of possibilities, especially for a small %.
My example of my mother’s friend was meant as a musing about the possibility of such a thing existing for a few, thus the “I wonder….”. And of course, I added that if experiences such as his were the key, there would be a high % of SSA which there isn’t.
Yes, “if” and “how” experience contributes to biological expressions constitutes a growing fied of study. I recall that post I offered several days ago about the epigenetic markings on the brains of suicide victims who had been abused as children. There were interesting findings, but more study is needed as the researchers say.
As to your other points: 1) I’ve a close friend whose two sons are in their late twenties. My friend and I have talked at length about how the women chase these two to the point of her sons being disgusted. These young men are bright, educated, respectful of women, and both are looking to settle down now that they have completed their educations and have good jobs. However, their mother, certainly no prude herself, has shared with me how disgusted they are by the behavior of the …I’ll call them “girls” rather than “women” since their behavior reminds us of the behavior of teenage girls. It was my generation that inaugurated “women’s lib,” but let me tell you, this is not what we had in mind. I could go on at length about the lack of respect young women have for themselves, but I’d be preaching to the choir probably.
2. Now, my personal opinion on what you refer to as a gayification of men. It is my very strong opinion that most women detest the idea of a man trying too hard to look “beautiful.” It’s an absolute, total turn-off, and yes, my apologies to the non-straights on the blog, but straight women have adopted a saying, fair or not— “Ug, gay,” when they see a man who is seen as trying hard to be noticed through his clothing, hair styling, accessories, etc. Confession time–yes, we see such “showing off” as a woman’s job, not a man’s, and to a straight woman, the guy loses a sense of masculinity in our eyes. WE’ve been witnessing the result of marketing, I’m afraid, and most women are not impressed.
BTW, this is indeed a topic among women who have reached the age of 30 and beyond. Oh, and the sic-pack abs????? I wonder if straight men really know that that too is not a turn-on for most women? We like a strong physique, but one that doesn’t look as if it took hours of lifting weights and hours of checking out one’s self in the mirror. We like natural just as most men really don’t like heavy make-up on a woman.
If a man looks in a mirror longer than the little time it takes to comb his hair neatly, most women are not impressed! Vanity in a man over his looks is not a trait we like. No peacocks!
Drowssap, you said,
I am confused. Perhaps you or someone else can enlighten me. Directly below are three paragraphs from Baily’s Northwestern website. They speak to the the NW research.
Thus, in Bailey’s words, the study was to involve MZ twins discordant for homosexuality.
However, this link ( http://www.gaybros.com/brochure.pdf ) I thought initially was about the same research, but perhaps I am mistaken, for it suggests that the Sanders/Bailey team is studying families with at least two gay brothers, not MZ discordant twins.
So, are these two separate studies that are being conducted simultaneously? Anyone know? What gives?
This piece about the UCLA research refers to Sanders’ research. As I initially understood it, the NW study was an effort to find a sample size big enough to fined out once and for all if what Dean Hamer said he found was actually there and this article confirms that.
Holy moley! Ten million dollars to map a base pair of 46 chromosomes! Wow. I had absolutely no idea it was still that expensive.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=
As for the Baily reference to the study at NW of discordant MZ twins, I’m lost.
What the heck? My brain must be confused as well. I thought there was only one gay gene study underway.
Carole,
Your second post was closer to what I was trying to communicate.
Of course, there are cultures which dictate homosexuality and that is one conversation. Then there is the culture that is interpreted by the sensitive individual who almost abhors the idea of the sexuality, sexual roles, etc.. that are the norm. For example, there are girls growing up today whom I know are in lesbian relationships – GIRLS – not women. And many will respond with the… I just don’t want it …. mentality when it comes to the sexuality of boys and men and how it is in their schools, on tv etc… In case anyone has not noticed we are inundated with sex. And so their response has been to be with a girl friend. I wonder how this culture facilitates that option and how these girls will respond later in life – when they have more control over thier own “culture” And then Carole, there are men like the one you describe. They just have grown up with an outlook of the opposite sex that they do not desire that for themselves. So while we can talk about germ theories etc… being inseminated with a parasite or germ etc… while exercising through the course of cultural influences (and culture and influence change over a short period of time btw,) we have a dynamic that is interactive and not isolated in a gene or molecule.
You mean all this moisturizer and couture clothes I wear isn’t going to attract the women – ah darn it
Seriously though I wonder how many women are attracted to metrosexual men. I suspect there is more to this movement than marketing. I suspect most women would prefer a well groomed man to one that is – well – a slob. How far the balance between the two extremes is – I couldn’t say.
It is interesting that in subcultures of the gay community (specifically Bears and the Leather community) – the gay metrosexual look is shunned – rather harshly. I like the bears, I really do (ie my partner is a bear) – but sometimes I think they go out of there way to look like plumbers
Drowssap said,
Where’d you hear this, that it’s going to be released next month?
I keep thinking back to that horrid, inarticulate Lyn Sher report on the study. From what she said, one would have thought that Sanders told her they had found a connection, a link, but she was only able to say “it’s very complex” and smile, happy to “know” that it was “genetic.”
Now, as I said before, she was so inarticulate, so unable to explain what the team had found “so far” that I couldn’t determine if she herself had reached her own conclusions, if she was incapable of understanding what they had shared with her or if they had actually shared anything with her other than their belief that there was indeed a biological component to SSA. I have a feeling she had confused “genetic” with “biological” but who knows.? Her report was useless. I know that “complex” is usually a term used when no firm connection has been established.
Ya know at this point I don’t know what’s coming out next month. I know a genetics study is due out in very early 2009 but beyond that… EEEEeeeeeeeee.
As for the gibberish from Lyn Sher I can only imagine how bad it’s going to get if they find so much as a weak correlation. Genes probably correlate with everything including all of the things that have nothing to do with genetics. Cochran’s Leprosy and TB examples comes to mind.
No doubt most of you have heard today about the findings that a certain adenovirus (one of many such respiratory viruses) causes fat cells to multiply. If not, consult any of your local newspapers or turn on the tv! Actually, this finding has been out there for some months, but only today is getting big press. Yes, one reason, but only one, some people are fat is that they have contracted a virus that causes an increase in fat cells.
One of the networks interviewed their medical specialist who pointed out that the discovery of how the virus does what it does resulted from their studies of a girl with diabetes. Furthermore, researchers studied why one member of an identical twin pair was fat while another was thin, and that also led them to the virus.
Just a reminder about omnipresent pathogens and what they can do.
Carole
I looooooove the fat germ story. I wonder if the extra fat cells that the virus triggers us to produce are food or shelter for it in some way.
Dr. Throckmorton – did this study get any publicity? I did not see anything about it. It seems like it would be hard to explain for those who believe the father-son relationship is at root for SSA.
I can’t seem to post on another thread no matter how hard I try so this is just a test to see if this goes through.