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)

#231

Post by dwohnitmok » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 11:32 PM UTC

kergonath wrote: post #225

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…

> Saying that it's "genetically determined" (or at least innately determined) very nicely sidestepped that But nature does not care whether it’s convenient or not. If this gets disproven, then what?

Indeed nature does not care. But the point of the parent comment, summarized in a single sentence as far as I understand it is "the issue of whether homosexuality is innately determined is irrelevant, policies and attitudes should be entirely unaffected by whether it is innately determined."

Taken at face value that is a far stronger statement than "nature does not care about convenience." This is saying "in this instance, we should not care about the truth of nature. There is no policy value to be attained by finding out the truth of the matter."

We certainly should not let convenience dictate our policies. That a statement happens to be convenient should not be why we accept its truth. But that's a different statement than the parent comment. All I'm trying to explain is why certain segments of the population would believe it valuable to figure out whether innateness is true or not.

EDIT:

> If this gets disproven, then what?

There are significant policy repercussions if this were to be conclusively disproven (the unlikely extreme would be if it turned out that sexual orientation was entirely mutable given the right external situation). In education alone, arguments of whether certain curricula or environments "turn people gay" or "turn people straight" would take on a far more urgent tone for large swaths of the population.

Could a local government mandate exposure to effective gay conversion therapy in a school environment (just exposure, not forcing a course of therapy)?

Culturally whether conservative parents would allow their children to play with gay children or children from gay families would likewise take on an additional urgency.

Many issues of policy have basically been decided on the assumption of "whether you like homosexuality or not, it's immutable so you may as well as treat it as if it were to stay," which is already controversial enough. If that's not true, then policy must grapple with the question of whether sexual orientation is an intrinsically valuable thing (and given that mainstream society is predominantly heterosexual, that would inevitably morph into whether homosexuality is an intrinsically valuable thing, since I suspect most people who identify as heterosexual value their own heterosexuality), which is an even more divisive topic in the U.S.

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

#232

Post by rayiner » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 11:33 PM UTC

kergonath wrote: post #218

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.

> 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 immutab…

> But you’re basically using the reasoning the OP found unhelpful, just swapping immutability instead of genetics.

There are many things that are (practically) immutable that aren't rooted in genetics, so no, the distinction isn't unimportant.

> 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?

"As long as both parties consent" is a particular view of human sexuality that is not even fully embraced in the west, and is largely rejected everywhere else. It's perfectly legitimate for societies to enforce what libertines might regard as "narrow" and "reactionary" sexual norms--so long as they don't discriminate against protected classes. A society could decide, for example, that the destructive effect of adultery on families and children warrants its prohibition. That's a choice a society can make, or not make. We can debate the merits of it, but human rights does not require a society to accept the values of the western sexual revolution.

The story is quite different when it comes to immutable sexual characteristics. That elevates it into the realm of issues such as discrimination based on race or ethnicity--into a human rights issue. We regard those very differently.

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

#233

Post by sdenton4 » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 11:34 PM UTC

est31 wrote: post #149

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 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…

This. Not genetic does not mean it's a choice.

The pretty abject failure of gay conversation therapy underlines this. Lots of people went into these therapies personally wanting to change, exactly because of societal pressure and expectations.

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

#234

Post by lordgroff » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 11:35 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…

It never made sense. Hitler (yes, sorry to go there) also thought that homosexuality was genetic, which is why it made sense to him to mass murder homosexuals.

Something being genetic/inherent has very little to do with whether it should be viewed as morally acceptable.

Of course, I am well aware of how troublesome it is to find empirical grounding in morality, but it always seemed to me that sexual relationship between two consenting partners was nobody else's business, least of all mine. Choice, genetics, curiosity, etc: what difference does it make?

I am about as "straight" as it comes: I for the life of me can't figure out the sexual appeal of men, but it also isn't at all obvious to me why I should be offended by the idea that there are people that think otherwise. And even if tomorrow Casanova came out and decided publicly that he is making a conscious choice to from now own only sleep with men, after decades of sexual adventures with women--well, what difference does it make?

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

#235

Post by kergonath » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 11:35 PM UTC

klmadfejno wrote: post #190

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 s…

What we should respect it what is not harmful. Hate and homophobia are oppressive and destructive. People having sex is not. So some things deserve to be fought and limited whilst the other does not.

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

#236

Post by blintz » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 11:35 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…

> Almost all of Asia and Africa accepts that requiring conformity in voluntary lifestyle and personal expression is legitimate.

Everyone has a right to not be executed or go to jail for their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is sadly not the case in many countries.

The sand trap of moral relativism is not the point - people in the 'west' are making the normative claim that this is a fundamental human right.

New information about possible genetic determinants of sexual orientation (or lack thereof) is not fundamental to determining if this is in the "realm of human rights". What is key is: people who are LGBT emphatically cannot choose to 'convert' to some other sexual orientation or gender identity. Thus, any private or public policy that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is wrong.

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

#237

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 11:39 PM UTC

blintz wrote: post #236

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…

> Almost all of Asia and Africa accepts that requiring conformity in voluntary lifestyle and personal expression is legitimate. Everyone has a right to not be executed or go to jail for their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is sadly not the case in many countries. The sand trap of moral relativism is not the point - people in the 'west' are making the normative claim that this is a fundamental human right…

[deleted]

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

#238

Post by rayiner » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 11:40 PM UTC

blintz wrote: post #236

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…

> Almost all of Asia and Africa accepts that requiring conformity in voluntary lifestyle and personal expression is legitimate. Everyone has a right to not be executed or go to jail for their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is sadly not the case in many countries. The sand trap of moral relativism is not the point - people in the 'west' are making the normative claim that this is a fundamental human right…

You and I agree it’s a human right, and the reason why. I said its a human right because it's a "characteristic that cannot easily be changed." You said it's because "people who are LGBT emphatically cannot choose to 'convert' to some other sexual orientation or gender identity."

If there's a difference between that phraseology, I don't mean it to be substantive--I agree with what you said. It's OP who rejects that premise.

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

#239

Post by klmadfejno » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 11:41 PM UTC

suizi wrote: post #210

klmadfejno wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Is there any reason they shouldn't have adoption rights? What's the harm in that?

In the INCORRECT alt world where being gay is a choice? The implication is that gay parents would demonstrate parenting that encourages gay children. spiraling into some stupid ideas about feedback loops which can't be supported by real world data because this isn't a real thing. The real world just can't be explained by plausible mechanics with homosexuality secretly being a choice without some fairly extreme side effects.

Imagining it were a choice has so many additional implications, which, while dumb, are genuine fears of some conservative worldviews, but I guess would be real problems. Frustrating, circuitous logic.

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

#240

Post by epidemian » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 11:42 PM UTC

dwohnitmok wrote: post #192

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 th…

> The big question that this viewpoint misses is what to do with fears that certain things "turn people gay"

I think "the big question" some people still have is whether being gay is perfectly fine or not. If it is, then that question of things "turning people gay" is not so important. It's like asking if watching the Simpsons will make people like the Simpsons. Well yeah, it might, but there's nothing wrong with liking the Simpsons, so what's the problem?

Put into other words: thinking that having more gay people is a problem depends on thinking that being gay is problem in the first place, and that is the primary issue.

> and the flip side of that fear: that the straight community might use successful conversion therapy to eliminate the gay community.

Nobody will bat an eye if someone discovers they are straight after thinking they were gay. I don't know, maybe they saw one of the million heteronormative movies that are constantly produced and it somehow clicked on them; whatever, it's fine.

What is objectionable though, is to try to force someone into a given sexuality, instead of letting them be and discover their sexuality in their own terms.