The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019) • Hacker News Board

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#181

Post by suizi » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:25 PM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #158

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #94

People latched onto the idea that sexuality is genetically determined because it seemed like the only viable way to defend themselves against rampant religious bigotry and oppression. It was a rope dangling into the well you were trapped in, and the well was filling with acid, but if you could just manage to climb that rope then you'd make it out. The reasoning went something like "if I can prove that sexuality is ge…

Amusingly, before I moved to America and understood it, I thought "sexuality is a choice" was a defence of homosexuality because I believed Americans believed "humans should be free to make choices about themselves". Funny, eh? But it seemed obvious to me. After all, maybe some people are genetically predisposed to eating babies. Doesn't mean I'm going to be okay with that. Sucks for them but they can either suppress…

It's more that some people think "people choose to do things society greatly disapproves of", that is going out of their way to be difficult, and they want to punish them for this.

But, then you would have to consider why it is they greatly disapprove of it in the first place, is it as unhealthy and dysfunctional as they think? Is it even their place to complain about someone else's affairs?

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#182

Post by throwanem » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:27 PM UTC

meibo wrote: post #177

Makes me wonder if there was a lot of thought given to ethics when planning this study. If we've learned anything, we should know that people will be terrible enough to want to "cure" homosexuality or detect it before birth, like trisomy 21, if it ever will become possible - and research like this will lead to that.

What they're describing is a very broad range of variations across multiple genetic loci with subtle effects that do not predict, only relatively vaguely correlate with, sexual behavior. They say as much, too, although at much greater length and complexity.

I get the concern for potential risk around selective abortion, IVF, etc; I was around for the "gay gene" debate in the 90s. This isn't that. This disproves that. And what they're reporting could not be used in that way.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#183

Post by SunlightEdge » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

flowerlad wrote: post #49

dominotw wrote: post #26

Does it mean people are socialized into being gay ?

Hopefully, no. Because if true then it legitimizes conversation therapies.

I think most likely some men are 'born gay' (whether through genetics or developmental changes in the womb etc.) while there are also men out there who are socialized to be gay - and that is ok too. But certain parts of society finds the later a lot more scary (when really its not a big deal).

On an aside, I have heard 'straight' men in prisons can have intimate relationships with other men (its not just brutal gang rapes). I can't cite a reference here though.

Sexuality is messy...

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#184

Post by suizi » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:32 PM UTC

coding123 wrote: post #39

I'm curious if they instead focused on a simple neural net that is fed genes + gay/straight flag if the NN would actually successfully predict it.... in other words, NN's don't care about "finding" that specific gene, they kinda include everything and it "finds" the gene without actually pointing it out. That's very different from the human approach which is to try to find something specific. I mean compare it to blo…

I don't think it is entirely genetic. There are other factors like development within the mother's body, levels of hormones / chemicals, and so on which could contribute to a different sexuality later on.

This doesn't mean you can change it, and messing with chemical levels in the hope of finding a configuration which leads to "normality" would be very unethical in my eyes.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#185

Post by throwanem » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

bsder wrote: post #155

est31 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that one shouldn't support the genetic predetermination theory of sexuality just as a defense for oppression. That's not how science should be done. That being said, I still doubt that people really have a choice over their sexuality. Otherwise there would be far more stories from people who have "successfully" turned straight or something, instead of stories from people who have tried to suppress their true…

> That being said, I still doubt that people really have a choice over their sexuality. My response to people who argue about this is generally: "So, when did you decide you liked long legs more than large breasts?" Choose whatever pairing of sexual characteristics drives home the choice to the person involved. Like so many things about "sexuality", at some point we notice them, but rarely do we actively choose them.

That's not much of an argument. A preference for long legs vs. large breasts is just that: a preference. What if Long Legs is a meth addict and Large Breasts is the mother of your children? Or likewise. At that point it sounds pathological.

That's why I don't like the "gay gene" argument and never did, not even when it was the hot new thing among assimilationists. It's fundamentally flawed, and not only because it suggests an easy solution to the problem by just making sure no more gay people get born. It grounds the discussion in a "we can't help it" attitude that's ultimately self-defeating because it's always vulnerable to the response that "of course you can help it, even alcoholics have AA, do you have no control over yourself whatsoever?" and there's just no good answer to that.

The form of the argument cedes to the hostile interlocutor that an excuse is required for why we are like we are. I've never understood why anyone thinks that is a good idea.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#186

Post by imnotlost » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:36 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #176

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #94

People latched onto the idea that sexuality is genetically determined because it seemed like the only viable way to defend themselves against rampant religious bigotry and oppression. It was a rope dangling into the well you were trapped in, and the well was filling with acid, but if you could just manage to climb that rope then you'd make it out. The reasoning went something like "if I can prove that sexuality is ge…

You're collapsing a huge societal design space into a narrow, ultra-individualistic western viewpoint. Your point only makes sense in societies that take it as a given that individual autonomy trumps the right of society to enforce behavioral, moral, and social norms. That approach is not morally required and almost no non-western society embraces that viewpoint. Almost all of Asia and Africa accepts that requiring c…

There's a huge difference between "policing of social norms" and equal rule of law for all regardless of who they choose to have sex with.

Maybe you can argue that it's fine for someone to choose not to be friends with gay people but it shouldn't be OK for the government withhold rights/law/healthcare/social security/education/electricity/water/etc because of it. Who cares if it's genetics or a choice.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#187

Post by dwohnitmok » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:36 PM UTC

jodrellblank wrote: post #130

stemlord wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have never worked. It's a well-known truth amongst gay people that the conversion therapy "success stories" are people who chose to go back into the closet for the rest of their lives.

I think my comment isn't clear enough. That they don’t work is why they shouldn’t be legitimised. They are offering a fraudulent or misleading service to anyone choosing to attend, and forcing someone to attend is a cruelty. I read the parent comment as saying “I hope homosexuality isn’t learned /because/ that would legitimise conversion therapy”, but I say that would be a fine hypothetical world - it’s objecting to…

> conversion therapy isn’t inherently a bad thing, it’s only bad in worlds where it doesn’t work, like the real world

I think large sections of the gay community would disagree. Many gay people view homosexuality as a trait with intrinsic value (this is the whole point of pride).

A similar dynamic plays out in the deaf community, where there is a proven equivalent of conversion therapy, namely cochlear implants. Cochlear implants are very controversial in the deaf community. Part of this is because it's cochlear implants don't yet fully replicate normal hearing, but there are many objections to the very purpose of cochlear implants and in that sense, perfect cochlear implants would be even worse. Certain segments of the community liken cochlear implants to cultural genocide.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#188

Post by throwanem » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:37 PM UTC

bostonsre wrote: post #170

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #94

People latched onto the idea that sexuality is genetically determined because it seemed like the only viable way to defend themselves against rampant religious bigotry and oppression. It was a rope dangling into the well you were trapped in, and the well was filling with acid, but if you could just manage to climb that rope then you'd make it out. The reasoning went something like "if I can prove that sexuality is ge…

> People shouldn't be oppressed for their sexuality full stop, regardless of reason. Completely agreed. I don't think we should shy away from trying to understand and explain it though. It's been a puzzling question that people have tried to grapple with for a long time now. I think it would be interesting to understand humans better. And.. if it is definitively proven that it is nature and not nurture, it might make…

If people changed their minds in the face of the science, we'd have been putting real work into decarbonization since 10 years ago at least.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#189

Post by threatofrain » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:39 PM UTC

imnotlost wrote: post #186

rayiner wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're collapsing a huge societal design space into a narrow, ultra-individualistic western viewpoint. Your point only makes sense in societies that take it as a given that individual autonomy trumps the right of society to enforce behavioral, moral, and social norms. That approach is not morally required and almost no non-western society embraces that viewpoint. Almost all of Asia and Africa accepts that requiring c…

There's a huge difference between "policing of social norms" and equal rule of law for all regardless of who they choose to have sex with. Maybe you can argue that it's fine for someone to choose not to be friends with gay people but it shouldn't be OK for the government withhold rights/law/healthcare/social security/education/electricity/water/etc because of it. Who cares if it's genetics or a choice.

> Who cares if it's genetics or a choice.

Society cares, that’s the point. Society cares about who you have sex with, and society cares about whether something is genetic. If society didn’t care we’d be having a different discussion.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#190

Post by klmadfejno » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:40 PM UTC

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #94

People latched onto the idea that sexuality is genetically determined because it seemed like the only viable way to defend themselves against rampant religious bigotry and oppression. It was a rope dangling into the well you were trapped in, and the well was filling with acid, but if you could just manage to climb that rope then you'd make it out. The reasoning went something like "if I can prove that sexuality is ge…

I read this as well intentioned but ultimately poor reasoning. Things that are intrinsic about a person are a good baseline, no-question quality that we should not antagonize people for. Sexual orientation, race, disabilities, gender, appearance etc. These seem like important issues to get right on civic protections.

Saying we must offer respect to everyone's choices is just wrong. We certainly don't want to ensure someone's right to be a homophobic asshole in a workplace for example. And it's not as simple as just saying being LGBTQ is a private thing that doesn't affect others either. Trans bathroom rights, marriage license rights, adoption rights, etc.. The argument to ban gay conversion camps seems much harder to make if one believes identity is purely a choice. If homosexuality is perceived as a choice, then onlookers will wonder who influenced someone to make a choice to be gay, which muddies the perception of being gay being a personal private thing.

Homophobia is bad, but wishing it weren't a thing doesn't change the reasoning that intrinsic qualities are a lot more important to protect than choices.

Sexual orientation is more deserving of protection than, say, holocaust denialism. Religion is the only protected class that is a choice, but for many people, it's not so much a choice as an inherited identity and similarly fixed.