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. 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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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”.
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. 😎
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.
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.
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. 😎
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.
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.
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.
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! 😎
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.
Michael, scroll up to 92369…
If nothing is “busted” then why are they at the clinic?
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?
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.
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.
Michael Bussee
Real scientists begin with a question (not presumptions and prejudices), then a hypothesis, then scientific inquiry and (hopefully unbiased) observation and finally a conclusion as to whether the data proved or disproved their theory.
Agreed.
It is my strong opinion that the data suggests that something in the outside environment is reponsible for SSA.
In the words of Dr. Michael Bailey (from 2002)
“Greg Cochran has convinced me that this theory [of a gay germ] is at least tenable, which puts it way above competing theories. Most of the evolutionary speculation about homosexuality has been quite lame, even speculation by respected thinkers. The persistence of homosexuality despite the fact that gay and lesbian people clearly reproduce less often than straight people is perhaps the most striking paradox in all of human evolution.”
Drowssap asked: “I don’t see what you are getting at. Scientists have studied that for years. Why can’t they study SSA?”
It’s obvious that you don’t see what I am getting at. Let me try one more time. It’s not that one “can’t” study “SSA”. Anything can be studied. It’s that real scientists don’t begin their inquiry with negative presumptions about their subject. — and you seem to have a truckload.
Real scientists begin with a question (not presumptions and prejudices), then a hypothesis, then scientific inquiry and (hopefully unbiased) observation and finally a conclusion as to whether the data proved or disproved their theory.
Marty posted: “Michael — you seem so very defensive at the idea that something might be “busted”. Yet you never attempted to explain why the two lesbians who are perfectly fertile women still found themselves standing in front of a fertility clinic>”
I don’t get it. What lesbians? What fertility clinic? Did I miss the story?
Evan
Wait a minute, I thought about this over night.
Human sexual attraction probably depends on something(s) similar to a VNO organ. It might be smell, it could be vision, or hearing or all of these things or something different.
What if a common Flu or Cold virus zaps this developing organ in a 1 year old. As shown with the mice an entire lifetime of gender development would be altered. That’s a really easy biological hypothesis of why SSA might develop. This wouldn’t have been a common problem in hunter gatherer societies. But in the modern era with our large cities and rapid movement of people it would be a huge issue.
I’m not saying that’s anything more than hot air but I believe it’s the way that juts about everything is headed. Every time I google germs are connected with more and more things that were previously thought to be geneor lifestyle related.
Evan
From the mice story
“Dulac says the researchers wondered if the mice behaved oddly because they had grown up without a functional VNO, which altered their brain development.”
That is absolutely, 100% fascinating. They screwed with the lab mice’s genes to eliminate the VNO organ. Without a functioning VNO the mice couldn’t smell properly and their male/female development went haywire. It is amazing that something as simple as smell could create such a profound effect. But apparently mice depend on it.
HOWEVER I would counter with this… in the wild scientists aren’t damaging genes. The only time a mouse would lack a functioning VNO is because of environmental damage. In other words, without disease the mice grow up with intact gender identities.
I don’t think it’s a stretch AT ALL to assume that something like this is afoot with transgenderism in humans. Probably one neurotransmitter isn’t signaling properly and a perfectly healthy man ends up feeling like a woman.
Evan
Interesting post. I can see your point but I’m just not sure how the terms are being defined.
“there are at least three times more people with same-sex attractions than self-identified gays”
Whatever the case may be I think we’ll have our answer sooner rather than later. And by sooner I mean in the next decade or less.
Here is what I’m waiting for.
A) They discover a neurotransmitter that flips an OSA/SSA switch in sheep.
According to the gay “germ” theory the specialized neurons that produce the chemicals that create sexual attraction have been damaged or altered. By reintroducing the “sex” chemical a gay sheep will become straight. Take the same chemical away from a straight sheep and he becomes gay. Interestingly enough that’s exactly how it worked in the bi-fruit flys. One chemical seperated straight and bi.
It’s probably a bit more complicated in humans because of socialization but if it works in sheep it will probably work in people. That’s what I’m waiting to see. Is it true, or not.
jayhuck
The fact that homosexuality is found in so many different geographical and family environments lends a good deal of support to a biological cause.
I am with you in that I believe that SSA has some sort of biological foundation. What it is… I dunno.
Well, Marty, if you replace broccoli with rocks, you will understand why you definitely need some biological cues for whatever liking is developed.
Evan:
Heh, again proving what we all already knew — men are typically just horny pigs.
And some of them, given repeated exposures, will develop a liking for certain things — I’ve personally never met a child who was born liking broccoli, have you? And yet by adulthood, we wind up with a certain percentage of self-proclaimed “vegetarians” who absolutely crave the stuff…
I don’t think we need scientists or “genetic causes” to explain this sort of thing…
Wow, I’ve missed so much.
Ken, forgive me — I must have missed when we stopped talking abut humans and started talking about sponges.
Michael — you seem so very defensive at the idea that something might be “busted”. Yet you never attempted to explain why the two lesbians who are perfectly fertile women still found themselves standing in front of a fertility clinic…
You don’t go visiting a medical specialist when everything works as it should…
And little boys and girls DON’T grow up motherless or fatherless, short of a tragedy.
Jayhuck,
As for gene expression – I thought we had already covered that as well – there are many, many ways gay genes could spread in a population.
Logic follows event; we will always be lagging in front of reality. We do have a lot of imagination, but science will always be limited by sight and language. The subject we are discussing here is in front of our eyes, but still too slippery to grasp. You know, the rest is decided in different types of society: scientific or not. Were there gay genes two hundred years ago? What about spousosexual genes?
Drowssap,
I’m not convinced that left-handedness is a stable trait or that it has something to do with sexual “orientation” (there are examples of people who have shifted to dextrality, ie right-handedness). Let’s see some figures on left handedness regardless of sexual orientation and then compare them with left-handedness among people with same-sex attractions — the correlation is weak. Adextrality has also been linked with dyslexia. It could be a random consequence of absence of dextrality.
Again, there are at least three times more people with same-sex attractions than self-identified gays (and there are actually more declared MSM). Yep, that is documented, just check the Bailey et al. Australian twins registry research paper (the one published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour in 2000, Vol. 29, No. 6, I can’t find the link right now). In that study, 14.5% of all males reported having SSAs (ever). A segment of them, 46.3%, preferred to see themselves as heterosexual. A 60.7% subset of people with SSAs (8.8% of all people) also reported same-sex behaviour. 85.6% of the sample reported never having SSAs. 7.5% of males who never had SSAs had at least one same-sex partner and experience. 15.2% of all males reported same-sex behaviour. In that studied sample, the number of males who reported at least one same-sex experience (15.2%) was slightly larger than the number of males who reported ever having SSAs (14.5%) and more than double the number of males who self-identified as homosexuals (6.4%). Now you understand that self-report has a complicated relation with self-concept and with behaviour. What about handedness?
I can concede that a subset of the gay-identified people might have something to do with the hormonal hypothesis, because the research track shows limited correlations. There is no absolute and failsafe correlation between “gayness” and left-handedness; how do you measure “gayness”? There could be a mosaic of cases coming from all sorts of backgrounds, including different biological and social make-ups. Some of them may confirm the theory, others may not. You are left with the same conclusion: no grounds for predictability. How do you predict the presence of a pathogen agent then? You would have to have to find the same patterns that apply to general epidemiology: some people are infected and show symptoms, others are just carriers and the rest are unaffected. It doesn’t seem that sexuality strides across such simple lines.
In fact, the whole discussion about brain and prenatal hormonization is not proven beyond doubt, it’s just a dominant assumption. Some researchers disagree; you know what Catherine Dulac has found on her lab mice: it’s not the brain that decides sexual dimorphic behaviour, but the input from a sensory organ. Are humans really unique in this respect? I don’t know, we’ll see…
Drowssap –
For some reason men just sort of know that they like pretty girls. I think it’s a multi-faceted instinct we are born with and I’m sure it comes back to having healthy babies.
But what is pretty to one guy is not necessarily going to be pretty to another – and just because a girl is pretty does NOT mean she is healthy. Women are actually designed to carry around more fat than men – the women you see in the media – the models,etc – are often not healthy and may not be capable of carrying children because they are so thin. So I’m not quite sure what your point is.
As for sexuality and genes – didn’t we resign ourselves, many threads ago – to acknowledging that we don’t know what causes heterosexuality or homosexuality, but that they are both likely caused by a combination of genetics and nature???
As for gene expression – I thought we had already covered that as well – there are many, many ways gay genes could spread in a population. The fact that homosexuality is found in so many different geographical and family environments lends a good deal of support to a biological cause.
Evan
Fair enough, but why do you suspect there is a strong increased incidence of left handedness among gay people? That says environmental input BIG time.
Michael Bussee
what if I approached the study of skin color with Drowssap’s preconceptions and frame of mind?
Skin color is strongly associated with geography for reasons of fitness. If Europe was devoid of people and Africans moved into it they would eventually have skin just as white as Swedes do right now. This is in fact what happened the first time around as people migrated and natural selection worked it’s magic. I don’t have a link handy but the process of turning Africans into Europeans only took 20,000 or 30,000 years. Maybe not even that long.
I don’t see what you are getting at. Scientists have studied that for years. Why can’t they study SSA?
For women… I dunno. I have never understood women.
Drowssap,
FUNNY! 🙂
Unfortunately, because it could have thrown some light on what their needs are and how much sexual orientation differentiation (and sexuality, in general) depends on vision.
Evan,
Right – that is what I am referring to. It seems that this would be interesting to learn.
Drowssap,
If someone is blind, like Ray Charles, they can feel bone structure, etc. and then whatever vision they have about that is what attracts them. Ray Charles also had a point of reference because he didn’t go blind until he was about 6. How much is visualization part of how we form our preferences? I am wondering if sight, along with numerous other factors, has an effect on how we determine who we are attracted to. Also, I am wondering if we did not have sight, is there a biological factor that directs us (default) to heterosexuality? I know I am talking about things I really don’t know anything about and it may sound choppy but I do think it it something to be considered or have research done on.
Drowssap,
That goes back to the questions of what caused the initial deficiency? And if it’s a serious enough deficiency to create changes that are fitness reducing in all environments how could any genes responsible survive or spread?
It’s the power of the social pattern. If you grow up on an island of homosexuals (secretely brought by visiting boats), you probably grow up with the knowledge that it’s been like this since immemorial times. But if you are born in a society where most people start families and reproduce, there is some pressure to act likewise. Even among gays. So they start families and have children of their own, although they have discordant attractions for the social pattern. It’s not even necessary to be enforced by rules. Once society gets “liberated” people separate sexuality from reproduction and you get an increasing number of gays and reproduction for its own sake, rationalized, as it were. There is a psychological reason for reproducing too. It’s about perceived liveliness, living intentionality etc. People cannot contain/understand life in themselves so they feel the need to pass it on. It’s an instinct.
What balances “gay” genes in the population is probably some females seeking low-level aggressiveness males. We are not talking about clear-cut distinctions here: there is no frontier in sexuality to separate “gayness” from “straightness”. Obviously many people’s rationality is at each other’s throats with their limbic system, and the result is some improbable percentage we see here and there. Yeah, belief systems play a legitimising role in that…
Evan: Yes! I would certainly agree that “research is not forced to come up with politically correct conclusions, only with empirically tested hypotheses.”
I was just pointing out that strong, preconceived, negative beliefs (that something is “busted”, “a crazy fluke”, part of nature’s “gutter system”, etc.” are not science. Those are attitudes, and not supported by research. Real scientists need to be very careful not to cofuse their prejudices with emperically established facts.
Again, I ask, what if I approached the study of skin color with Drowssap’s preconceptions and frame of mind? Wouldn’t you deduce that it was prejudice and not just “scientific curiousity?
Michael,
Let’s calm down here. Neither do I like gay people’s references to whatever sexual practices they have, but I refrain from giving my opinion on that. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and we all do that on this or other blog, to the best of our information and ability to think. Research is not forced to come up with politically correct conclusions, only with empirically tested hypotheses. Do you agree on that?
Ann,
When I started reading stuff on this issue I thought just about the same question: how about congenitally blind people? The issue is very interesting theoretically, but there is no dedicated research on the sexual orientation of congenitally blind people (acquired or partial blindness still has to do with some visual cues, whether reminiscent or present). Unfortunately, because it could have thrown some light on what their needs are and how much sexual orientation differentiation (and sexuality, in general) depends on vision.
Drowssap: I beg your pardon, but I am not at all convinced that you are “0% homophobic” and that you just find all of this “interesting on a scientific level”.
From your tone and style of speech, it’s not just “interesting” to you. You have definite negative beliefs about it. Real scientists don’t approach a subject of inquiry with the presumption that what they are studying is “a disorder”, a “crazy fluke”, the result of “infection”. a “fitness reducer”, an example of Nature’s “gutter system” or an indication that “something is busted”.
That’s not science. That’s NARTHian. That’s prejudice. What if I were to approach the subject of skin color with those attitudes? Would that be “scientific”?
Evan
I find it very improbable that SSAs could be biologically strictly caused by pathogens.
I don’t mean to imply that a virus DIRECTLY causes SSA. It might. But it might just set someone up so that SSA becomes likely later in life.
It would be the physical component of SSA which would not exclude other factors like genes, personality, socialization, etc.
Even so, perhaps without the physical componenent none of it would be possible. The increased incidence of left handedness is a strong clue that SSA is due to some sort of environmental input. The only thing I know of that has been around for thousands of years is a common virus. Exposure probably wouldn’t make most people gay, just some depending on dose, natural genetic susceptability and a million other factors that go into making us who we are.
Ann
Ya know, it’s funny. The new governor of New York is mostly blind and yet he still picked a very pretty wife. I bet the story isn’t any different for guys who are COMPLETELY blind like Stevie Wonder. For some reason men just sort of know that they like pretty girls. I think it’s a multi-faceted instinct we are born with and I’m sure it comes back to having healthy babies.
For women… I dunno. I have never understood women. 😎
Evan
“deficiencies in expressing one gene – fru – leads to differences in expressing dopamine in some neural circuitry”
That goes back to the questions of what caused the initial deficiency? And if it’s a serious enough deficiency to create changes that are fitness reducing in all environments how could any genes responsible survive or spread?
If homosexuality showed geographical patterns natural variation would make more sense. Maybe a gene that creates super-straights in Kenya has the opposite effect in Sweden. We’d see patterns, like we do with Sickle Cell. But SSA is everywhere. The fact that it effects young people is another indicator that we aren’t talking about genetics or natural variation. Natural selection is too good a fine-tuner. If you Google for genes that dramatically reduce the fitness of 2% of a given population you will never find a single example. I know that Michael Bussee and probably others take great offense at that comment but there is no other logical way to describe it. Mother Nature doesn’t care if you have less kids because you are gay or your heart explodes at age 5. Any genes responsible get slowly chipped away in every generation.
The only reason that genes survive that appear to offer increased susceptability to something is because they also provide an equally strong fitness increaser on the opposite side of the equation. These genes are ballanced for every given environment.
Drowssap,
I read about the new governer this morning – perhaps it is a hazzard to the job 🙂
The new governer is legally blind, however, not completely blind. Are you curious as to how people conclude their sexual preferences, exclusive or not, if they cannot visualize what they are attracted to? What is their point of reference?
Ann
I’m not sure how it works for blind people, but one thing is for sure, it does work.
The new BLIND governor of New York is already admitting to an affair.
Michael Bussee
Mike you gotta understand something. I am 0% homophobic.
This is interesting to me on a scientific level.
Drowssap, Evan,
I am still curious about those without sight – if they have no visual reference point then how do they know what orientation they are or what their preferences are (I know these two words are still in debate)? Is it a process of elimination as to what feels good or sounds good rather than what others are visually attracted to? I have often heard from those with same gender attractions that if they “see” a man and a woman walking down the street, they are drawn to the man rather than the woman. This is strictly what attracts them without the emotional elements of bonding, etc. What happens to those who do not have the ability to see – without the influence of sight, what is it that they reference when describing their orientation to the same sex and/or their exclusion of any attraction to the opposite sex and how did they arrive at those conclusions and when?
Errata:
“deficiencies in expressing one gene – fru – lead to differences in expressing dopamine in some neural circuitry”
“Different expression of genes which leads to differences”
Speed accounts for error, lol.
Drowssap,
I always appreciate your ideas and I’m interested in very novel lines of thought on the subject, but I find it very improbable that SSAs could be biologically strictly caused by pathogens. You would have to make a case for sufficient spread and continuity for a great deal of space and time. I don’t discount this possibility, of course, even for a subset of more recent cases, but in the general landscape of evolution, I think it’s highly unlikely that a pathogen agent would be so resistant and commonly spread as to affect populations across the globe in a uniform way. Pathogens could play some role when trends change (eliminating the vulnerable and selecting for a new type of fitness), but the problem is: how is this type of attractions actually possible? My bet is that it has to do with a basic characteristic of the mammalian brain that researchers are reluctant to advertise: bisexual wiring (brain dimorphism may be restricted to areas that do not have decisive input in the attractions-producing process so we may be missing the point about it). Given some environmental influences, this wiring might be tilted to function in a way that sometimes produces exclusive “orientations” (here we already have extensive research from the Drosophila camp showing that deficiencies in expressing one gene – fru – leads to differences in expressing dopamine in some neural circuitry and to radical differences in mating behaviour). Different expression of genes which lead to differences in producing and using some neurotransmitter — that has already been proved to work in model animals and sounds pretty plausible to me. Of course, in humans it may be found to be linked to the visual system(s).
I’m still pondering over how would this connect with differences in levels of aggression. It’s probable that one thing makes attractions possible and other genes make some people more vulnerable to the same gender.
The idea is that whatever explanation is proposed must explain the whole picture of “orientations”, and it should not force reality to fit into discrete categories in order to prove some foregone categorizing. That line of research failed to bring results.
Drowssap urged: “At least keep your mind open to the possibility that the physical component of SSA is due to the bodies [sic] response to a common, childhood infection.”
Sure. I will do that, as long as you keep your mind open that heterosexuality may also be the result of such an infection. As you said, “It might be hogwash… but it might not be.”
Try to keep your mind open to the possibililty that homosexuality is not a disorder, a “crazy fluke”, the result of “infection”. a “fitness reducer”, an example of Nature’s “gutter system” or an indication that “something is busted”. It might just be a naturally occuring variation among countless variations — like different colors of butterflies… And your theory may just be homophobia in disguise.
ken
You seem to be missing the fact that there may be multiple different ways to develop specific conditions. You are only focusing on one possibility.
Ken, you are missing the point. The Autism gene theory and the Schizophrenia gene theory are dead concepts. It isn’t that genes aren’t involved in these things, but they don’t cause common versions of these disorders. In some cases a gene might be damaged by something in the environment, in other cases neurons might be altered or damaged by something in the environment. Sometimes our own immune systems zap us (google molecular mimicry for one reason). In even screwier cases something in the parents might be damaged and in some way passed to the children.
But except in the rarest of cases it always comes down to environment and Pathogens are at the top of the list. That doesn’t exclude the possibility of radiation, toxins, pollution, regular old damage, etc. etc.
Warren asked in post 92989:
Just realized the other questions were probably directed at me as well.
Bonding is a pretty cool development but what is it for? If you assume a naturalistic world view, does it seem reasonable to think bonding would evolve for novelty or pleasure. Bonding in that scheme would support survival, no?
Bonding wasn’t simply sexual (male/female) bonding (although that is likely how it started). With internal (coital) reproduction comes the notion of parentage and family. Parents now know who their offspring are and start forming familial bonds.
Nor is internal reproduction the only way to form bonds. As I said in the previous post, many fish use external reproduction, yet they still form groups (schools).
Ken,
The problem with the argument you’re espousing is that reproduction is not just a biological device which promotes or benefits society. Society is a later development of the human species; the horses come before the carriage. 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. It’s really pushing logical circularity beyond its limits. And it doesn’t say anything about the actual biological course whereby this turn might have occured. How could same-sex attractions come into being in an organism because society pressure selects more and more less reproductive individuals? I thought gay people would want to have children just like any other members of society. Probably even before there was any idea of a larger society that transcends observable kin. So it seems if there were any inheritable component, that would continue to float around without having any determining relation to scarcity of resources or overcrowding.
Here’s an interesting alternative explanation the basis of which Freud laid out in a letter to Einstein. I’ll just do the theoretical DJ-ing job. Freud wrote that, in the later stages of society, the aggressive instinct tends to become introverted, leading to a morbid state which can impair the sexual reproductive function (remember, Freud also argued that the aggression instinct was necessary to the primeval man to subdue its mates in order to reproduce). Freud claims that there are benefits and dangers to this evolution: the introversion of the aggressive instinct creates greater awareness (self-consciousness) and pacifism, but also greater morbidity and a tendency to replace the former bonds created by the common exercise of violence (in war, in confrontation) with other types of bonds: erotic or religious (feelings of community). Since the latter is considered unattainable by ordinary men, the aggressive instinct is discharged in wars and confrontations. Let’s replace wars with rough-and-tumble play (modern sports), suppose that diminishing levels of aggressiveness can pass down in some genes (you can even have a curve in the population that folds around varying degrees of occupational violence: hunters, gatherers; warriors, tradesmen, artisans, clerks, clergymen; etc) and start growing up children in mixed gender enviroments. Kind of looks like Bem’s developmental trajectory, isn’t it?
Marty asked in post 92979:
What on earth are you talking about?
Originally, reproduction was asexual (cell division). However, as sexual reproduction (i.e. mixing of genes) developed it wasn’t initially via intercourse, that evolved later. Even today, many species of fish reproduce without intercourse. The female will lay the eggs and the male fertilizes them.
Sorry Warren, I read the essay over 10 years ago (long before I learned to keep references to interesting stuff I read :)). All I remember about the author was she was female and a biologist. And it was an essay, not a research paper.
Drowssap said in post 92943:
Ok, those are all disorders but what about left handedness? Meningitis (or any slight damage) can alter children from a right to left handed orientation and it sticks for life.
And is this the only way to become left handed? You seem to be assuming that. I looked at your link about Schizophrenia. It was clear that the article has found a correlation, but doesn’t state causation. Further, the study suggest childhood is a link, not the only one. I.e. people who never had childhood infections could become schizophrenic. Even if causation is proven, having these infections are not the only pathways to developing the conditions studied. You seem to be missing the fact that there may be multiple different ways to develop specific conditions. You are only focusing on one possibility.
Ken – Do try to find the reference – I would be interested in seeing the basis for that idea.
Marty – I think Ken is referring to sponges and the like. Bonding is a pretty cool development but what is it for? If you assume a naturalistic world view, does it seem reasonable to think bonding would evolve for novelty or pleasure. Bonding in that scheme would support survival, no?
Ken:
What on earth are you talking about?
Michael Bussee
…and it doesn’t necssarily mean that “something is busted.
My mind is open to the possibility that in some way that we can not currently detect or understand SSA is part of Mother Nature’s genetic design for humans. Obviously I lean HEAVILY against that notion but my mind is not shut to the possibility. Morover if that’s what scientists determine I’ll march in that parade. The truth shall set us free, whatever it is.
But aren’t you the least bit curious about all of the recent scientific discoveries that pin scads of things on common childhood or early life infections combined with genetic susceptability? Schizophrenia, Autism, OCD, Tourettes, Narcolepsy come to mind immediately. Ok, those are all disorders but what about left handedness? Meningitis (or any slight damage) can alter children from a right to left handed orientation and it sticks for life. At least keep your mind open to the possibility that the physical component of SSA is due to the bodies response to a common, childhood infection. It might be hogwash… but it might not be.
Marty said in post 92811:
Same with sexual attraction. It exists so we’ll reproduce
While this argument about why we have sexual attraction sounds very compelling, if you examine sexual attraction from an evolutionary viewpoint you see it isn’t about reproduction. Effective reproductive methods existed long before sexual attraction (and intercourse). *Given reproductive methods existed without sex (including those that involve genetic mixing), what does sex bring to the species? Bonding. It brings members of the species together to form social units. And for many species, strength in numbers helped them to prosper and thrive. Although, there is also a reproductive benefit various mate selection processes (i.e. the fittest mate with the fittest), that also occur in reproduction that doesn’t involve sex as well.
*I want to note that this idea didn’t originate with me, but I can’t remember who wrote the original essay I read on this topic.
Drowssap said in post 92789;
That is actually a good point. The problem with it is that gay men don’t show an obvious instinct to be worker bees for other people’s children. For that equation to work gay men (on average) would need to posess about twice the maternal instinct of the average mother. No research has ever shown that to be true.
The argument I made about worker bees was to show you were incorrect about traits that reduce the ability to have offspring represent a “fitness reduction” and would eventually die out and that you were too focused on an individual level when considering traits. I gave no equations, so I’m not sure what you are referring to by that part. However, I’ll give a simple example of how gay men, with no interest in raising children, can still contribute to the family/societal unit in a positive way. In general, people who do not have children tend to be wealthier (which can be measured in dollars, fur skins, number of spears etc) than those that do raise children (because the ones that don’t have kids can devote more resources to building wealth). So if a couple with children fall on hard times, and they have a wealthy relative who can help them, they (and their children) are much more likely to survive than a couple with no such relatives. Note, this is just one example off the top of my head. It is not intended a proof of anything, merely an example to show how it is possible for gays to have desirable attributes to contribute on a societal level to the propagation of the species, rather than an individual level. Just as worker bees contribute to the hive. I’m sure if you really tried you could think of your own examples.
I am fully aware genotype and phenotype but I’m trying to keep it simple for the thread.
then why did you give a misleading and incorrect example?
If SSA was due to the expression of a recessive gene this mystery would have been figured out long ago.
No where did I say or imply that sexual orientation was determined by a recessive gene. My statements were to illustrate how your claims about genetics and heritability were wrong.
Drowsap: Regarding your idea ot “Mother Nature’s natural “gutter guard sysytem” (I assume you are including gayness in that gutter) where “behaviors and traits that exist outside of the system indicate a crazy fluke (gene mutation) or that something is busted.”
Makes me wonder if you ever really look at nature. Those traits don’t exist “outside of the system”. They are part of the system. God is incredibly creative. Wonderful, beautiful and amazing variation is everywhere — and it doesn’t necssarily mean that “something is busted”.
Marty
Jayhuck
I have to take off right now so I only have time for one quick post.
Marty is exactly correct.
Have you ever seen little kids bowl with “gutter guards” that line each side of the lane? As long as the kid is strong enough the ball almost always gets to the pins.
That’s how life work. Nature programs animals with a range of behaviors that exist inside of some boundaries. The boundaries on either side are the limits of what works in a given environment. Large numbers of birds don’t fly north for the winter because that’s outside the boundaries of normal behavior. Humans aren’t any different. Poop smells bad, food tastes good, sex feels good, etc. etc. Those are examples of Mother Nature’s natural “gutter guard” system. Behaviors and traits that exist outside of the system indicate a crazy fluke (gene mutation) or that something is busted.
Marty,
And if overproduction happens in certain populations of animals they will die too – not sure what your point is.
A “straight gene” heh — good one.
You do know why food taste’s good, don’t you jayhuck? It’s so we’ll eat it. Cause if we don’t eat it we’ll die.
Same with sexual attraction. It exists so we’ll reproduce — cause if we don’t reproduce, our species will die.
Flavor is to nutrition as “attraction” is to reproduction.
Drowssap –
I borrowed this from Wikipedia’s article on homosexuality – it briefly discusses some of the twin studies – I wouldn’t say that they point to a “weak” genetic link necessarily:
“In 1993, Dean Hamer found the genetic marker Xq28 on the X chromosome. Hamer’s study found a link between the Xq28 marker and male homosexuality,[83] but the original study’s results have been disputed.[84] Several mutations have been identified in flies, such as changes in the fruitless gene, cause male flies to court and attempt to mate with other males; however, when a modified male fruit fly is isolated with only female fruit flies, then he will attempt to mate with them.[85]
Twin studies give indications that genes may predispose some men to seek partners of the same sex. Hamer commented “From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psychosocial factors.”[86] One common type of twin study compares the monozygotic (or identical) twins of people possessing a particular trait to the dizygotic (non-identical, or fraternal) twins of people possessing the trait. Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic brothers and 22% of the dizygotic twins were concordant for homosexuality.[87] Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.[88]”
Drowssap –
Let me just remind you that we’re dealing with a complex trait here – not something as simple as hair color. There is absolute NO evidence for a straight gene either, and none will probably ever be found for those same reasons you listed above for a gay gene. Twin studies are interesting, but they are not the final say when it comes to genetics.
ken
You are only focusing on an individual level. Worker bees are sterile, yet they exist. Why?
That is actually a good point. The problem with it is that gay men don’t show an obvious instinct to be worker bees for other people’s children. For that equation to work gay men (on average) would need to posess about twice the maternal instinct of the average mother. No research has ever shown that to be true.
Apparently you don’t understand the difference between a gene and a trait.
I am fully aware genotype and phenotype but I’m trying to keep it simple for the thread.
Recessive (genetic) traits are traits that only occur if a specific combination of genes are present.
If SSA was due to the expression of a recessive gene this mystery would have been figured out long ago. According to Dean Hamer’s own research there is no pattern of inheritance for SSA.
Outside of all that (and a thousand other things) the gay gene has one, big problem. Nothing like it has ever been found in all of human biology. If a reporter ever asked Dean Hamer what OTHER genes work like any of the popular versions of the gay gene he’d be forced to say…. none.
I am not saying that genes aren’t involved on some level. Twin studies suggest there is a weak genetic component to SSA.
Thank you Mary and Ken for showing how SSA can have other desirable traits – I’d like to add that having kids isn’t ALWAYS a desirable trait in a population anyway.
Thank you Ken for pointing that out. Sociobiology suggest the same for many species – ie: wolves, bees, ants, people ..etc…
A person may not even be gay but be unmarried and help in a family cooperative such as an aunt, widow/widower who shares income and expenses and helps with children etc…
Drowssap said in post 92395:
SSA is a trait that never comes in handy in any environment for producing children.
This statement ignores the possibilities that SSA may have other traits desirable for the survival of a species/community/family unit. You are only focusing on an individual level. Worker bees are sterile, yet they exist. Why? According to your arguments they shouldn’t.
Further, you are wrong about SSA not producing children. Many have and still do. Being gay does not eliminate the desire for off-spring. And there are many gay parents that took steps necessary to have children. SSA is a trait that comes in very handy in an environment that doesn’t want to over produce children.
If it reduced the number of offspring by an average of just .01% any gene that caused it would diminish in frequency each generation and ultimately disappear in a thousand years or so.
Apparently you don’t understand the difference between a gene and a trait. Particularly, the concept of a recessive trait. Recessive (genetic) traits are traits that only occur if a specific combination of genes are present. If a recessive trait reduced the number of offspring that survived to puberty (i.e. to be able to reproduce) by 90%, the genes that cause it would not necessarily be eliminated from the gene pool and the trait could still re-occur a thousand years later.
Not only is sexual orientation an elusive concept, one that is vaguely defined and almost immeasurable in a non-communicating individual. But, what is more, science did not really provide a full account that connects attractions with sexuality. We don’t know yet whether gender attractions are necessarily sexual or not. How many individual “sexual orientations” are really sexual? Let’s take the concept of preferred partner: there are people who have attractions towards one gender but prefer having intimate relations with another (I know at least a few), even after actually having had sexual relations with the gender they are attracted to. Still, they make a choice based on experience, actual physical preference. What role can attractions play in such individuals? How sexual is their orientation?
I also meant to add that the way a certain person decides to use the word Orientation may very well not be the way others – scientists and psychologists use the term.
Eddy,
My understanding is that Identity is PART of orientation but also separate – in the way feelings and behaviors are also separated – The definition I borrowed from Wikipedia talks about that as well. You are right though – the definition you gave definitely belongs in the mix 🙂
Jayhuck–
LOL! Are you saying that we’re not even considering the Merriam-Webster definition?
Let me reiterate. By this definition, self-identification is part of homosexual orientation. If you don’t self-identify, the term doesn’t fit you. Your definition is substantially different than this because you’re saying the orientation exists apart from the self-identification.
If the purpose of this thread is to gather various definitions, then I believe this definition qualifies to be in the mix we’re considering. So, let’s not get hung up here. It’s something I found that I added to the discussion with my comments about why I like it. I understand that you have some variance with it. That’s totally fine. But while we’re in the gathering stage, I’m trying not to debate the various theories…just to hear them presented and clarified as necessary.
Ann,
Thanks – That may be a first, huh? – me being succinct and easy to understand 😉
Its my understanding from the definitions we’ve given that Identity is something that is chosen whereas Orientation is not.
Jayhuck,
From all the discussion about this I really feel your statement is a very good foundation for any further discussion. Very succinct and easy to understand.
Eddy,
In my opinion, if a person is a homosexual but doesn’t choose to identify as a homosexual there is absolutely no need to force him to do that – but if not aligning with his orientation is causing him and others harm there would be good need for therapy. That’s something separate, though, from him having a homosexual orientation. Its my understanding from the definitions we’ve given that Identity is something that is chosen whereas Orientation is not.
If 92503 goes to the definition I presented from Merriam-Webster, it seems to have missed the question I closed with in my elaboration for Marty:
I’m thinking that’s a valid question that goes to the subtle but important distinction in our application of the term.
I just want to reiterate my definition of sexuality above – sexual orientation and sexual identity are considered somewhat separate things – one’s sexual identity doesn’t always match with their sexual orientation – and there’s nothing wrong with that, but there are plenty examples of this happening. Men who identify as heterosexual who sleep with other men and homosexual men who sleep with women. Its difficult to understand the distinction sometimes, but understandable given all the variables involved. 🙂
Napoleon/Marty:
That’s exactly why I like it. A person may have homosexual feelings or inclinations but if they choose not to act on them and don’t choose to identify by that label then they don’t have this construct called a ‘homosexual orientation’. I believe the term originated because people just wanted a term that would distinguish them from other sexualities but now, some are demanding that everybody must identify themselves by these terms– by their orientation– and that they are limited to one of those three choices. (Celibate doesn’t make the choice list because it’s presumed that celibates have one of the other orientations, they’re simply not acting on it.) Are there compelling logical reasons to torce a person who isn’t behaving homosexually and doesn’t choose to identify as homosexual to accept a homosexual orientation for themselves?
Interesting thoughts Eddy. I’ve personally been wanting to find an “archaic” dictionary, if such a thing even exists. Like you know how it makes the news every year when M-W adds new words to the dictionary — is anyone keeping track of the words that were removed? I read a lot of ancient books, and sometimes need an ancient dictionary…
Anyway, you say that def #2b — self-identification is key. I won’t disagree that it seems to be “key”, and yet self-identification has never been considered “innate”, “unchangeable” or “genetic/biological”. Terms that are commonly associated with orientation in the general propaganda.
Yours truly,
Napoleon Bonaparte 😉
From Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:
(I honestly just discovered this site tonite when I googled: ‘words, added to dictionary’. I’ve only begun exploring but it seems absolutely fascinating. It would be great if they could somehow build an index where you could not only find when words were added to the dictionary but also when established words took on new meanings–like in what year did the meaning ‘homosexual’ get officially added to ‘gay’…And we’ll all be gay when Johnny comes marching home.” And I wonder if the rankings change. Does definition 3 ever outrank definition 2 and push it down a notch?)
As for the definition, I strongly agree that self-identification is key.
Drowssap,
Thank you!
Ok, hopefully these two links will come through. I fear my post was too long. The basic point of it was that stories like this are MUSHROOMING!
Risk for Schizophrenia From Childhood and Adult Infections
Herpes virus linked to high blood pressure in pregnancy, preterm births and cerebal palsy
Ann
Uggh! I wrote you a long response but I fear the spamkiller zapped it.
I hope it comes through.
If not, let me just say that yes. It is my strong opinion that a very common infection combined with genetic susceptability is responsible for the physical component of SSA.
Drowssap,
Do you think that childhood diseases – measles, chicken pox, mumps, or their vaccines could shut down or turn off or diminish a component for heterosexuality in some children/babies? I know about the strep for ADHD and OCD and find it very interesting.
Marty
Michael Bussee
I think Michael Bussee just proved my point. His homosexuality had nothing to do with his ability to reproduce, while his heterosexuality had everything to do with it.
Bingo.
SSA is a trait that never comes in handy in any environment for producing children. If it reduced the number of offspring by an average of just .01% any gene that caused it would diminish in frequency each generation and ultimately disappear in a thousand years or so.
I don’t want to get into a big gay gene debate because
A) They’ve never found one
B) Dean Hamer said there is no pattern of inheritance
C) Identical twin concordence is extremely low
D) No gene in the history of all human biology has ever worked like any version of the gay gene.
E) All evidence points to something in the environment as the trigger. What it is, we don’t know.
That’s not to say that genes play zero role. They probably do on some level but they clearly aren’t a driving force.
Bah, I’m a terrible proofreader. “…they don’t need any help at all when things are working properly.”
In any case I would like to respond to Michaels final question:
Not if it’s by their own choice. But those straight couples who try to have children but fail, and seek the medical services of fertility specialists are conceding that no, they are not “fit” in the reproductive department. Healthy people don’t require the services of medical specialists — they need any help at all when things are working properly.
Which makes it all the more peculiar when two lesbians show up at a fertility clinic hoping to become pregnant. Ostensibly everything is in perfect working order — it’s just that they aren’t even trying to become pregnant. The sole purpose of the medical intervention is to shield them from the inherent heterosexuality of human reproduction. Not to try to correct any medical or reproductive “fitness” issue…
I think Michael Bussee just proved my point. His homosexuality had nothing to do with his ability to reproduce, while his heterosexuality had everything to do with it.
Drowssap said: “Fitness reducer is the word I use (to refer to homosexuality) because technically speaking it always reduces the chances of having kids.”
Hogwash. I know many, many gay men and women who have kids. I have one myself and my lover had three. So you might want to rethink your comment. Would you say that straight people who don’t have kids are not “fit”?
I say that gay is as gay does. If a gay man has sex with women every so often, then he’s not gay — he’s bisexual. Same for the married suburban father who occasionally cruises the park for an illicit romp in the bushes. He’s not gay nor is he straight.
How he “identifies” is a fairly useless concept. I might “identify” myself with Napoleon Bonaparte, but so what?
As for the subject of orientation versus “attraction”, I think we should drop the former in favor of the latter. To speak about “homosexuality” is to talk entirely about same-sex attraction. But when we talk about “heterosexuality” we can be discussing attraction and a lot more — the full range of ordinary human reproduction that not even homosexuals can escape. They are not flip sides of the same coin.
I come from a different – and fortunately rare – perspective.
In order to define such terms as androphilia, gynaphilia, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality – at least in the context of humanity – you first have to define sex – and that means within a bi-sexed model.
OK, this is simple stuff, obviously there are males, and females. Someone who is male is expected to have certain chromosomes (46xy), a certain configuration of genitalia, there’s the expected effects of large doses of testosterone and DHT on the skeleton, musculature, build, brain (and so tendencies to engage in certain stereotypical patterns of behaviour) and so on.
The trouble is, though we all “know it when we see it”, there’s no good, standard and universally applicable definition that covers everyone. Attempts to define sex based on genital configuration alone – a fairly obvious solution – meet problems when faced with those with ambiguous genitalia, genitalia that has been removed surgically or as the result of injury, and even when genital configuration changes over a lifetime – as in the 5ARD and 17BHDD mutations, where all infants are born looking like little girls, but about half masculinise later in life.
How can we define “same sex attraction” (for example) without defining the two sexes. I’ll leave aside multi-sex models for now, though for a very small minority, they may be appropriate.
This is not a hypothetical problem for me. I have dual UK and Australian citizenship. In Australia, I’m considered female, and because of legislation that explicity defines marriage as “between a man and a woman”, can only marry a man. In the UK, by similar legislation that forbids same-sex marriage, I can only marry a woman, as I’m considered male.
It’s not just legal authorities that have issues in this area – medics disagree, and so do various religious authorities. For what it’s worth, I consider myself a relatively normal woman with an unusual medical condition, but I’m rarely consulted on the matter.
Basing a definition of sex on self-perception alone is unsatisfactory – perceptions may be distorted by various psychiatric conditions, or even environmental conditions such as upbringing.
It gets even more problematic: in a recent study involving cloacal extrophy of xy infants – a condition traditionally treatable by constructing an approximately female genitalia ab initio, as they lack any form thereof – and raising the infants as female – 13 patients identified as male and 7 as female in later life. It;s hypothesized from this and other evidence that gender identity is a neurological feature, set in the womb, which causes later brain development along pre-determined lines.
Perhaps the best definition is based on self-perception backed up by evidence – from physical anomalies, or a long-standing history of behavioural anomalies indicating a cross-gendered brain. But then we face the problem of someone who is unmistakeably male-gendered (as evidenced by chromosomes, brain scans, vestigial internal testes, lack of ovaries, self-identification and behaviour…) but who looks externally like a curvacious “blonde bombshell”. Is someone attracted to such a person androphillic or gynaphillic?
I’m good at questions, not so good at answers I’m afraid. But I think before we can define the terms, we need to answer such questions, and also determine whether any attraction is to the physical shape (including smell and taste from pheremones), or to behaviour patterns.
Michael Bussee
Jayhuck
This is the Tsunami of evidence that I’m talking about.
Who in their right mind would associate O.C.D. & Tourettes with a strep throat infection? Well, guess what? That’s exactly what causes both.
OCD Contagious?
mounting evidence suggests that strep infections can trigger OCD in those who are genetically prone
I don’t care what you look up, it’s the same story over and over again for young people.
Ok?
Funny. I’ll keep this in mind.
Sorry Mary – I guess I actually didn’t say ” I agree” above – I just said I liked it. But yes, I pretty much agree with it – I like how comprehensive it is. I’m sure information will be added to it as we discover more about the subject.
I already said I did Mary!
Just out of curiosity Jayhuck, do you agree with the definition you provided above??
jayhuck
But really, all we can say with any amount of certainty right now is that sexual orientation is a combination of nature and nurture.
Yep, ageed. We certainly DO NOT know.
But I’m throwing my lot in with the, “stuff works like other stuff” crowd. And by crowd I mean I’m the only one in the crowd. 😎
Drowssap –
I think it would help to acknowledge that fitness reduction doesn’t, by any means, have to be a bad thing – as I said above. There are several real advantages to having some small level of fitness reduction going on in a population. 🙂
Michael Bussee
I hear ya, and believe me I would use different words if I could just find them.
I don’t believe SSA is a disease. That isn’t the right word. But it’s definitely something because it reduces the chances of having offspring in every conceivable environment.
If SSA worked in some environments, but not in others (like light or dark skin) it would be a trait. But SSA is a trait that never comes in handy.
Soooo…. I don’t know how to classify it. Fitness reducer is the word I use because technically speaking it always reduces the chances of having kids.
No offense is ever intended I just don’t know what word to use and remain scientifically accurate.
I feel like I need to end each of my posts with that Seinfeld quote, “not that there’s anything wrong with that.” 😎
Reference to post 92213 above:
Bi-Gay, Bi-Straight, and Bi-Bi: Three Bisexual Subgroups
Identified Using Cluster Analysis of the Klein Sexual
Orientation Grid p 109 -139
James D. Weinrich
Fritz Klein Journal of Bisexuality
Volume 2
Number 4
2002
Jim,
That’s really just another way of talking about Kinsey’s continuum, isn’t it?
James D. Weinrich and Fitz Klein are two researchers who feel the dichotomization of sexual orienation is arbitrary. In fact, based on their research they classified orientation into 5 groups: heterosexual, bi-heterosexual, bi-bisexual, bi-homosexual, and homosexual. Findings based on responses from the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid
Good point Michael – even if it somehow fit the fitness reducing label, the term fitness reduction doesn’t, in any way, have to mean something bad. There are definite social and environmental advantages to fitness reduction. 🙂
Drowssap –
A gene increases susceptability (usually for unknown reasons) and something in the environment triggers the fitness reducer.
That is true for almost all traits Drowssap – from heterosexuality, to homosexuality to fitness reducing conditions. You can’t take homosexuality out of the mix and say it is operating somehow differently than every other complex trait we possess.
The problem scientists are going to have with homosexuality and any influencing environmental aspect, is that it is found in so many different and varied environments. Finding some constant or combo of constants will be incredibly difficult.
But really, all we can say with any amount of certainty right now is that sexual orientation is a combination of nature and nurture.
Dorwssap: It’s not the idea that environmental factors (like pollution, radiation, etc.) can negatively impact one’s health that is offensive. It’s this — referring to homosexuality as a “fitness reducer”. You talk about gayness as though it were some sort of illness or disorder. That’s offensive.
Michael Bussee
There isn’t a Tsunami of evidence regarding SSA and the environment. It’s more like a small wave. But there is CERTAINLY a growing Tsunami of evidence that relates to virtually every other fitness reducer that impacts young people.
It doesn’t matter what you look at. The template is genetic susceptability combined with negative environmental input (pathogens, pollution, radiation, etc.) This is the world that scientists are finding and it’s also the world that natural selection predicts.
I am MORE than aware that some people in the gay community find this concept offensive. Heck, the entire scientific community is tip-toeing around this right now. But Mother Nature doesn’t care what our feelings are. Whatever the truth turns out to be, that’s what it is. If you start reading the science blogs and science related sites you might be amazed. In young people it’s always the same story. A gene increases susceptability (usually for unknown reasons) and something in the environment triggers the fitness reducer.
Jayhuck
My personal guess is that SSA won’t be a special case. But… it could be, time will tell. Whatever scientists ultimately determine, I will march in that parade.
Drowsap: I don’t know if I would fit your definition of a “leader of the gay community”, but you are right. I do find your suggestion that gayness is a “fitness reducing condition” very offensive>. I also object to your claim that there is a “tsunami” of evidence that it may be “caused” by pathogens, pollution or radiation. Where is this evidence?
Drowssap –
There’s a very real possibility that homosexuality may not be in the same class of “fitness reducing” conditions as other things. Talking about some causes for fitness reduction and then trying to lump homosexuality into the mix could be problematic.
Jack Dresher, et al. in Kaplan and Sadock’s 2005 Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry discusses sexual orientation definition (pp. 1936-1969): While they agree that it refers to the person’s erotic response tendency or sexual attraction, they realize this may not be binary. Further, they realize that the assessment of one’s orientation has several parameters that not only include fantasy, but physiological responses, sexual partners, etc. and further, they distinguish that orientation does not necessarily equivocate sexual identity. For example, they recognize that while one person may have homosexual fantasies, that same person may reject a gay identity. There is a lot of data there and worth reading for those interested in this topic.
I thought perhaps readers would discuss the APA statement and how researchers are backing away from strong statements about causation.
IMHO I believe the APA and other leaders in the field are in a weird spot.
A) A mountain of evidence shows that gay and straight men have a variety of very slight biological differences.
B) Every popular theory (genes, hormones, socialization) lacks strong evidence to support itself. Morover there is plenty of contradictory evidence that goes against each of these theories.
C) Just offshore a TIDAL WAVE of evidence is building that suggest that just about EVERY fitness reducing condition in young people is a result of negative environmental input (pathogens, pollution, radiation, etc.) combined with genetic susceptability.
Leaders in the gay community find this concept extremely offensive. So the APA doesn’t say a word, battons down the hatches and awaits the Tsunami. Most probably hope they can retire before it hits.
For me, “orientation” refers only to the prevailing direction of the sexual/romantic desires as in, “the house is built with a north/south orientation.” Think of a compass.
When I use it, “oerientation” does not refer to identiity or behavior. A person mayor may not accept homosexuality as their “identity”. I certainly don’t. For me, identity is much more complex. And a person with prevailing attractions to the same sex may not act on those feelings — for a variety of reasons.
When I say that a person is heterosexual, I only mean that their attractions are toward the opposite sex. I am saying nothing about their values, politics, lifestyle, identity, self-concept or behavior. Similarly, when I say that someone is bisexual or homosexual, I only mean that their attractions are towards both sexes or only towards their own sex.
I readily acknowledge that others may define these same terms in very personal, private, idiosyncratic ways — which is why it is so important to say what you mean when you use complex or ambiguous terms.
Regarding the the APA statement and how researchers are backing away from strong statements about causation — I applaud such a move. The truth is, we simply don’t know. Regarding NARTH and the prominence of psychoanalytic concepts there, I only want to point out that theories are not facts — a truth that NARTHian “scientists” don’t seem to grasp.
Ok, here it is
Sexual orientation is two distinct things
A feeling (how you feel about others)
An action (how you act towards others)
Most of the time these things match up, but sometimes they don’t.
Notable examples:
Straight guys in prison
Larry Craig
Yeah – I know – bad idea to link the entire quote – that’s an awful lot of red 🙂
Warren,
I found this at my favorite, general, go-to source for information, Wikipedia – its lengthy, but sexual orientation being as nebulous as it is, probably warrant’s it – I like it and think its fairly comprehensive – all the references for this information are at the bottom of the Wiki page – The quote is also a link 🙂
“Sexual orientation refers to “an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others,”[1] usually conceived of as classifiable according to the sex or gender of the persons whom the individual finds sexually attractive. The most common forms exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex) to exclusive homosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the same sex) and includes various forms of bisexuality (being sexually attracted to members of either sex).[1]
Most definitions of sexual orientation include a psychological component (such as the direction of an individual’s erotic desire) and/or a behavioral component (which focuses on the sex of the individual’s sexual partner/s). Some prefer simply to follow an individual’s self-definition or identity.
More recently, scholars of sexology, anthropology and history have argued that social categories such as heterosexual and homosexual are not universal. Different societies may consider other criteria to be more significant than sex, including the respective age of the partners, the sexual role played by each partner (such as active or passive), or the social status of the partners.
Sexual identity and sexual behavior are closely related to sexual orientation, but they are distinguished, with identity referring to an individual’s conception of themselves, behavior referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual, and orientation referring to “fantasies, attachments and longings.”[2] Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.[3] People whose sexual identity does not align with their sexual orientation are sometimes referred to as closeted.
Sexual identity may also be used to describe a person’s perception of his or her own sex, rather than sexual orientation. The term sexual preference has a similar meaning to sexual orientation, but is more commonly used outside of scientific circles by people who believe that sexual orientation is, in whole or part, a matter of choice.”