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)

#191

Post by suizi » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

jodrellblank wrote: post #86

flowerlad wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But if they worked they wouldn’t be objectionable? Being forced into them would be objectionable, but being forced into your family farm doesn’t mean farming itself is bad. If conversion therapy was a thing that worked and you could choose it if you wanted, it would be like any other life choice - changing career, religion, nationality, etc.

My question would be closer to, how would you feel if someone high up decided to strip away your attraction to women, and replace it with an attraction to men, because they deemed this more "appropriate", or positive to society.

And now, for the rest of your life, you view having sex with women as disgusting. Would this not be the slightest bit alarming and distressing?

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

#192

Post by dwohnitmok » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:41 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…

The big question that this viewpoint misses is what to do with fears that certain things "turn people gay" and the flip side of that fear: that the straight community might use successful conversion therapy to eliminate the gay community.

All of a sudden both of those camps have ammunition for their points.

Saying that it's "genetically determined" (or at least innately determined) very nicely sidestepped that. To the extent that that is not true, then you have to grapple with those other questions.

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

#193

Post by ben_w » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:42 PM UTC

fredley wrote: post #23

ohduran wrote: post #2

Not an expert here but, IF a gay gene existed, wouldn't have it been evolved into extinction?

Not neccessarily. Humans are social creatures, our genes' survival is not solely dependent on our individual ability to pass them on, since we share genes with our siblings and parents as well as offspring. For example, families with some non-reproducing offspring may fair better due to having a higher adults/children ratio. If such a gene existed (which perhaps it doesn't), it might benefit families who had members…

In addition, one suggestion is that a possible “gay gene” would be something that causes extremely strong attraction to men in both men and women with that gene. Women with this gene would then be more likely to father children, which could counter the evolutionary pressure resulting from the male offspring with that gene not having any offspring.

(I’m massively oversimplfing of course, my bio knowledge is fairly limited).

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

#194

Post by rayiner » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:43 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.

Neither of those things is okay, because sexual orientation is immutable, not a choice.

As to things that are choices, such as polygamy and adultery, the government can certainly punish people for those, even in western countries. It could set the age of consent to 25 if it wanted to--it would certainly have a rational basis for doing so. That's true even in the west, much less anywhere else.

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

#195

Post by kabirgoel » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:43 PM UTC

ravi-delia wrote: post #58

I'd definitely be surprised if a significant portion of homosexuality wasn't environmental, but to my knowledge there is a degree of heritability shown in twin studies. Actually reading the article shows that they found several genes that each contribute, but no single gene. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone, considering that almost every complex trait is somewhat affected by a huge number of genes each tweaking…

Tangential to your point, but I enjoy the comparison you draw between DNA mechanisms and Rube Goldberg machines. It’s an apt metaphor because DNA, and the body as a whole, is constructed quite randomly according to the demands of the environment.

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

#196

Post by p1mrx » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:43 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…

I'm just waiting for the Impossible Baby.

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

#197

Post by tick_tock_tick » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:48 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #194

imnotlost wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Neither of those things is okay, because sexual orientation is immutable, not a choice. As to things that are choices, such as polygamy and adultery, the government can certainly punish people for those, even in western countries. It could set the age of consent to 25 if it wanted to--it would certainly have a rational basis for doing so. That's true even in the west, much less anywhere else.

> Neither of those things is okay, because sexual orientation is immutable, not a choice.

How do you actually know that? You can't just state something like that as a fact and assume people are going to accept it especially in response to an article call "No 'gay gene'".

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

#198

Post by klmadfejno » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:49 PM UTC

tgb wrote: post #172

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…

There's also the other side: if someone is a homicidal psychopath due to their genetics, then I still do not want them to roam free. So genetically predetermined is not a good argument to use in favor of gay rights. People should be allowed to determine their own sexuality, regardless of whether that determination was preset by their genetics or not, just as people should not be allowed to commit murder regardless of…

That's cheating. A person is only a homicidal psychopath after they have committed homicide. Locking up a psychopath who has committed no crimes is just as fucked up as locking up someone for being gay.

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

#199

Post by krapp » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:50 PM UTC

abeppu wrote: post #110

Bostonian wrote: post #22

"Ganna and his colleagues also used the analysis to estimate that up to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors — a figure similar to the findings of smaller studies." An argument for gay rights has been that people are "born that way". That appears to be false. Does this suggest that it may be possible to shape the environment to reduce the…

Others are pointing out that non-genetic biological factors (e.g. prenatal hormones) can still mean that a person's sexuality could still be determined (or significantly predisposed) at birth. And others are pointing out that gay people shouldn't need to argue that they were born gay, with the implication that if a choice were possible there would be a right or a wrong choice justifying marginalization or shaming or…

> What is the source of some people's persistent desire to legislate, regulate, punish, mock or vilify other people's loving relationships?

Western morals are still primarily rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs which see any sexual expression other than heterosexual, monogamous sex within Christian marriage to be sinful, or at least taboo. The Bible condemns homosexual sex but in theory not homosexuality itself, as the "heterosexual/homosexual" dynamic is a modern invention which would not have existed at the time, but in practice Christendom considers any orientation besides heterosexuality to be at best a form of sexual deviance and immorality, sometimes seen as equivalent to pedophilia and bestiality, and at worst and affront to God.

LGBT sexuality is also often seen as undermining the mainstream paradigms of masculinity and femininity, and by extension gender roles, and by further extension the traditional foundations of society itself.

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

#200

Post by nicwilson » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 10:52 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #194

imnotlost wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Neither of those things is okay, because sexual orientation is immutable, not a choice. As to things that are choices, such as polygamy and adultery, the government can certainly punish people for those, even in western countries. It could set the age of consent to 25 if it wanted to--it would certainly have a rational basis for doing so. That's true even in the west, much less anywhere else.

> because sexual orientation is immutable,

Not entirely true, I remember there was a case where an English rugby player received a concussion and was put in an induced(?) coma and was gay after he woke up.

However we certainly don't have the capability to change it.