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

251–260 of 495 posts

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

#251

Post by klmadfejno »

kergonath wrote: post #235
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…

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.

A group of people getting sex changes is arguably destructive if it's just due to a whim. Look at the suicide rates. In the real world where it's not a choice, I'd look to blame bigots for a lot of those suicide rates. In the world where it is completely a choice, I'd look to blame people who encouraged them along that path as the proximate cause.

That's a pretty gross perspective to write out, and I don't really want to write such things anymore, so I'll likely stop. But there's a perspective, and from what I casually observe, is a genuine concern among some more conservative leaning folks. People are concerned that young people are being pushed into harmful surgeries. To some dumb extent, they have a point if trans feelings are "just a choice". They have no point in reality, because it's not a choice.

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

#252

Post by eeZah7Ux »

BurningFrog wrote: post #156
readams wrote: post #53

It's unlikely there's a gene that codes for being gay. Homosexuality instead is better thought of as more like why men have nipples. Obviously the nipples are not useful to the reproductive success of men, but genetics and natural selection are messy and there's likely no easy path to not having them in men while maintaining their function in women. For homosexuality, the systems of sexual attraction in the brain nee…

> We don't measure the worth of a person by their reproductive success. We don't measure human worth that way, but evolution measures nothing else!

Nature does not measure things, has no purpose and no goals, success nor failure.

Imagining success, failure, and purpose is psychological projection.

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

#253

Post by erostrate »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #145
ohduran wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Say I'm shortsighted, and still a potential mating partner due to a variety of other traits (being a billionaire, or looking suspiciously similar to Ryan Gosling). In that case, I would be able to transmit my genes to my eventual offspring. The case with gay genes is different. Regardless of any other trait, I'm genetically prone to not have any offspring. Thus, eventually my genes would be less and less…

Incorrect. All that's required for a trait to persist is that it benefits the pool. If the pool benefits from have 1% of members being blind, then so they shall be. We don't have to understand the benefit for it to exist either.

You're presenting group selection, natural selection at the level of the group, as an established theory. But that's not the case.

From Wikipedia, quoting evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne: "Group selection isn't widely accepted by evolutionists for several reasons."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection

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

#254

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

dwohnitmok wrote: post #231
kergonath wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ins…

> given that mainstream society is predominantly heterosexual, that would inevitably morph into whether homosexuality is an intrinsically valuable thing

Society presently allows extreme leeway on providing value in every other way imaginable. We allow people to work in ad-tech for crying out loud. Ok, that was a bit of a joke, but the point is that society not only allows people to not contribute to the social good, it perniciously promotes people perpetuating palpable public harm for personal profit. Singling out sexuality on this particular front is patently perfidious.

> since I suspect most people who identify as heterosexual value their own heterosexuality

You may be correct about the percentage of people with this particular value, but I think it would be because of something other than mainstream predominance. I think it's more likely that "value" is an inapt word and that most people just don't ever imagine any alternative as being realistic given their...uhh...predicament.

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

#255

Post by blacksmith_tb »

denkmoon wrote: post #246
threatofrain wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

A segment of society. Other segments of society don't care. "Society" is not a homogenous blob, it's just 7 billion individuals.

Clearly there are multiple societies, with varying cultural norms (as we can see from the range of opinions here). While you can't have societies without individuals obviously, you can only barely have individual humans without societies (and they're usually not doing too well, a few hermits and mystics notwithstanding).

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

#256

Post by KMag »

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…

> Again, who cares, as long as both parties consent and nobody gets hurts?

The problem is that there are some people who honestly believe that homosexuality is self-harm and/or harms society. If everyone believed nobody was getting hurt, then it would be a much easier conflict to resolve.

Certainly there's a lot of plain bigotry in these arguments, but, for instance, I have a friend who was really torn up about attending her brother's gay wedding. She's respectful of her brother's husband and loves her brother deeply, but is honestly concerned about non-provable harm to her brother's eternal soul. She's probably in the minority of those who oppose gay marriage, but as far as I can tell, it comes from a place of pure compassion.

Also, getting back to polygamy, what's your specific objection? That true informed consent is difficult to ascertain? In 50 years, will we be looking back on this as duo-sexual bigotry?

I agree that we shouldn't be discriminating against homosexuals, but it's surprisingly difficult to translate that gut feeling into robust reasoning from widely agreed first principles.

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

#257

Post by mrslave »

denkmoon wrote: post #246
threatofrain wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

A segment of society. Other segments of society don't care. "Society" is not a homogenous blob, it's just 7 billion individuals.

> it's just 7 billion individuals

Maximum deconstruction here, and a failure to recognize patterns. I wonder where this thinking will take us?

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

#258

Post by nashashmi »

hyperpape wrote: post #77
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…

The "born that way" argument was always a compromise/simplification. The true argument is that gay relationships, regardless of cause, are just as worthwhile and life affirming as straight relationships. But, if you're stubborn, and refuse to acknowledge that, "they're born this way" might temporarily get you to acknowledge the absurdity of your position. It feels cruel to condemn someone for something they can't con…

If that is true then the far right are correct to say this was a lie and a hoax.

We reconstructed laws and systems worldwide to make an accommodation that as per you had no genetic basis or reason.

In other words, this has been the greatest fraud to humanity and all those who went down this path in belief that it was a gene they could not change.

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

#259

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN