Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 495 posts

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

#211

Post by Supermancho »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #141
sjg007 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm... Men have nipples because they form before sexual differentiation occurs.

I don't see how this makes their illustration invalid. This is, or could be, just the how not the why.

The recapitulation theory (Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) is based on observation. The tendency of creatures to develop in stages that roughly correlate as to how their ancestors evolved, is not related to sexual preference. There's no evidence that homosexuality shares the same root cause(s) as to why men have nipples, theoretical or otherwise.

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

#212

Post by NoImmatureAdHom »

suizi wrote: post #184
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.

This is the ingredient most of this discussion is missing. People here seem to mostly believe "If it's not genetic then it's nurture", but that's not the case. It can be all sorts of other things.

My (rusty) recollection of the literature is that our best guess for what most causes homosexuality in human males is the hormone profile given in utero. This is not caused by the fetus's genes, but it will interact with the fetus's genes. Hormone levels could be influenced by the mother's genes[0]

I think what HN-ers are really interested in is, "How much control can we humans practically exercise over this?", the answer being "very little" in both the case of "genes control sexual preference 100%" and "in utero hormone levels control sexuality 100%".

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_effect

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

#213

Post by dwohnitmok »

suizi wrote: post #209
dwohnitmok wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I don't think it is possible to turn someone who is straight gay, anymore than it is possible to turn someone who is gay straight. The exception would be where they're bi, but they would already have had some interest in the same sex, and it wouldn't have come from social conditioning.

> I don't think it is possible to turn someone who is straight gay, anymore than it is possible to turn someone who is gay straight.

Indeed if that's true, i.e. that there is an innate immutability between the two, then the whole question is conveniently moot and we can instead turn our attention to figuring how to combat these fears at a rhetorical and cultural level (still a Herculean task but at least a step forward).

The fear, on both sides of that coin, comes from if that's not true.

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

#214

Post by rectang »

snet0 wrote: post #178
rectang wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm quite (socially) liberal and I thought your post was simply wrong, for starters. Among the places you can ask the question "what is being gay" without getting "dogpiled" are countless gay sites. Aren't gay sites part of the internet?

How can a question be wrong?

The statement I take issue with is "[...] this might be one of the last places left on the internet you can ask a question like this without getting dogpiled."

There are lots of places on the internet where asking honest questions about the gay experience is not scary and will not get you flamed. Indeed, the existence of such venues is crucial to the self-discovery of gay people — especially gay people who live in hostile environments, and who may be in great need of a kind confidant.

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

#215

Post by klmadfejno »

pessimizer wrote: post #166
klmadfejno wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, maybe this is a pointless semantic argument, but being justified by a choice sounds like its just passing the ball to justification for the choice. In a world where identity is proven to be 100% just a choice, that sounds like its not justified, and while not deserving of discrimination, to some extent committed to being non-normative. This paper suggests genetics control at least 25% of variance in sexual orien…

If pedophilia turns out to be 26% determined by genetics, would the existence of pedophiles be more "justified" than the existence of homosexuals? The reason we should be tolerant of homosexuality is because it's as healthy and harmless as heterosexuality, not because it's some sort of handicap.

I do feel rather strongly that we should not persecute people suffering from pedophilia, especially as a lot of it seems to come from suffering from abuse as a kid. That doesn't make you an active child rapist. You may hate that about yourself. Well, at least I assume that to be the case. I can't say I'm familiar with it.

The predictability of something isn't the issue though. It's whether or not something is actually in your control. Being gay is not a choice.

If homosexuality were purely a choice then there would be great perceived harm in allowing gay individuals to influence other individuals to be gay. It's hard to construct examples of this because being gay is not a choice, and any hypotheticals here would come off as very bigoted. There's people in this very thread already jumping on the opportunity to suggest that if it's not all genetic that maybe we're culturally encouraging kids to be trans. Consider for a moment that opinions like this aren't out a desire to oppress people, but fear that kids are being manipulated into sex change operations. That's FALSE, but in an alternate universe where its just a choice... it's arguably true. The harm is dependent on the nature of it. Trans suicide rates are really high. In this INCORRECT alt world where we're 100% its just a choice, people being supportive of trans gender folks look like they're the ones at fault for leading people down a dark path.

> The reason we should be tolerant of homosexuality is because it's as healthy and harmless as heterosexuality,

I agree. But the reason we MUST be tolerant of it is because its an inherent natural part of human nature.

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

#216

Post by [deleted] »

danbruc wrote: post #207
rayiner wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is wrong with polygamy? And how do we know that this involves more free choice than to which sex one feels attracted?

[deleted]

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

#217

Post by serverholic »

nicwilson wrote: post #200
rayiner wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're interpreting immutable too literally.

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

#218

Post by kergonath »

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.

I don’t think it is that uncommon to have phases and be heterosexual for a while and homosexual for another. I haven’t seen a convincing proof that it is immutable, though I think you’re right when you say that it’s not (necessarily) a choice.

But you’re basically using the reasoning the OP found unhelpful, just swapping immutability instead of genetics. You should not be protected from discrimination because you are something you did not chose; you should be protected because you’re a human and deserve the same opportunities as any other. Who cares with whom you want to have sex?

> As to things that are choices, such as polygamy and adultery, the government can certainly punish people for those, even in western countries.

It is just as wrong when it’s done to enforce narrow moral norms and a reactionary view of sexuality. Again, who cares, as long as both parties consent and nobody gets hurts?

Polygamy is different and raise more issues than just 2 humans having sex.

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

#219

Post by tomp »

suizi wrote: post #201
tgb wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's another side. Conversion therapy of any form is inhumane. It makes someone deny their very identity. It may even drive them to suicide. And for what, so someone doesn't get offended by their existence?

Why? In particular, why if it’s voluntarily chosen?

Surely if men can want to become women, then so can homosexual people want to becomes straight? (Whether or not they can succeed is of course a different issue.)

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

#220

Post by serverholic »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #161
bsder wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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. I feel like there is a clear middle ground. I cannot choose to believe in God, but I wouldn't call it in in-born either. It seems like some things develop through a myriad subtle interactions a…

Just because it changed doesn't mean you had a choice.
Post reply on HN