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

281–290 of 495 posts

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

#281

Post by tofery »

frant-hartm wrote: post #173
Udik wrote: post #60

> The study authors also point out that they followed convention for genetic analyses by dropping from their study people whose biological sex and self-identified gender did not match. As a result, the work doesn’t include sexual and gender minorities (the LGBTQ community) such as transgender people and intersex people. I don't get it, isn't this the whole point of the study? The G in LGBTQ stands for "gay", did they…

Last time I checked gay wasn't a gender. So they likely excluded transsexual men (biological women) who are attracted to men and vice versa.

> Last time I checked gay wasn't a gender.

"Gender" is quite ill-defined, I've found. In fact, some cultures do believe that male homosexuality is a gender, like the Samoan concept of "fa'afafine".

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

#282

Post by danbolt »

tomp wrote: post #223
suizi wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you think that? I’d say it’s very much cultural... these days, bisexuality is much more acceptable for women than for men, and more women identify as bisexual... in Ancient Greece, men having sex with men were much more common than these days (AFAIK).

I feel like the culture seems to be the big variable there than the preferences, to be honest. Or, people are going to express what they like based on their environment and how they perceive it will respond.

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

#283

Post by throwanem »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #226
throwanem wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

First, you're assuming those things are preferences. We don't actually have any real evidence that your statement is true for anyone, much less that it's true for everyone. Second, people are very drawn to having excuses for things, it's much more comfortable to say there's nothing that you can do as opposed to saying there's something you can do but you just didn't. Both of those things are more comfortable than agg…

> you're assuming those things are preferences

I mean, if they're not that, what are they? It's not like favoring long legs impairs performance with someone who doesn't have them, does it?

> Not everyone wants to fight everything all the time.

No, of course not. But it takes more than one person to not have a fight.

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

#284

Post by bsder »

throwanem wrote: post #185
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.

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 s…

> That's not much of an argument. A preference for long legs vs. large breasts is just that: a preference.

The point is that you didn't consciously choose it. It just "happened".

I don't like cooked bell peppers. I didn't make a conscious choice to dislike cooked bell peppers, and I got forced to eat them as a kid. It's still a "preference" even though I never "chose" it.

Saying that someone "chose" something simply because it isn't written in their DNA is completely off the mark.

> 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.

The hostile interlocutor may be someone willing to vote against your rights. You don't necessarily have a choice but to engage them and having a decent argument that hits their own experience can sometimes provoke a change of thought.

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

#285

Post by droopyEyelids »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #250
rayiner wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Even if it were an easily changeable characteristic, we should consider it wrong for any society to threaten harm or punishment or ostracization for this. That the characteristic is or isn’t easily changed is not relevant. It’s not a question of moral relativism. You’d have to argue that any behavior is a crime in order for it to be legitimate for perpetrators to suffer consequences. Otherwise, it is wrong that someo…

Here we're getting into another weird issue where you say "we should consider it wrong"

Why should we consider the moral choices of a culture to which we do not belong wrong? What benefit comes to the people affected, or to us through this mental finger wag?

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

#286

Post by jodrellblank »

dwohnitmok wrote: post #187
jodrellblank wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Coch…

The term "cultural genocide" is clickbait; the main bad part about genocide is all the humans who die, I don't get as upset about nobody making the traditional baklava recipe anymore especially when they could if they wanted to. Culture isn't alive, it doesn't die, it can't be killed; it can be lost to history and that can be sad, but shouldn't have the same connotations as acutal murder.

"Cultural genocide is the systematic destruction of traditions, values, language, and other elements which make a one group of people distinct from other groups" - having a cochlear implant does not stop someone using sign language, does not inherently change their values or force them into different traditions, and giving one person an implant they asked for is not a systematic destruction. If they do willingly want to use sign language and so on after getting an implant, the culture won't be lost. If nobody willingly wants to use sign language of their own free choice, the culture may be lost and that's better than the alternative of forcing people against their will into a state where they have no choice but to keep the culture going, for the sake of the culture. That is, hearinged people forcing cochlear implants on unconsenting deaf people would be bad, deaf people forcing deaf people to stay deaf against their will (e.g. by getting cochlear implants banned) would be bad. Medical people (hearing or deaf) offering cochlear implants, and deaf people making a case to tempt deaf people to stay deaf, and the result being a free choice for invididuals, isn't genocide. You could move the point to hearinged parents of deaf children, and say that they will never let the child experience deaf culture, but parents always have the right to act as a proxy for their young child - if deaf people can't convince the parents that deafness has value, what right do they have to take the choice away, anymore than a Christian has rights to force atheist parents to raise their child as a Christian and then let the child decide, for the sole purpose of not letting Christianity be lost?

> "Many gay people view homosexuality as a trait with intrinsic value (this is the whole point of pride)."

And nobody should be forced out of that situation unconsentingly, or discriminated against for being homosexual - regardless of whether it was nature, nurture, or free choice. Neither should people be forced to stay in that situation unconsentingly if there was another option and they wished to take it. You could say that the choice isn't free and fair in a world where there is a dominant heterosexual society which discriminates and abuses homosexuals, and that of course that would "force" (indirectly) people to opt for conversion therapy unfairly (if it worked) and without freely given consent. But I'd turn that round and say that forcing someone else to stay homosexual against their will, to increase the overall numbers in an attempt to redress the bad treatment that way to improve the chances of a better life for the forcers, is bad; if the dominant society is abusive it could be noble to fight against that, but it's valid for an individual to choose to join it instead to have an easier life. People saying "baldness should not be a problem" have a point; people taking Finasteride and having hair transplants don't have to agree with that.

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

#287

Post by danbolt »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #272

Fascinating! To me this sounds like the mother's body is trying to "nudge" the odds towards a daughter after several sons, but sometimes the process "fails" and produces an effeminate male instead - a gay son. Alternatively, some kind of meta-level mechanism to reduce competition over women in the community, ultimately improving its collective health and well-being.

Given the number of comfortably-masculine gay men I've known, I have a feeling the womb isn't necessarily trying to ensure it eventually creates a Disney Princess. It feels a bit far-fetched, to be honest.

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

#288

Post by geoduck14 »

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…

Yup. Same here.

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

#289

Post by cwkoss »

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 my EvoBio class a decade ago, my professor told us the theory that homosexuality could be adaptive based on birth order because it would reduce fraternal rivalry: the family would have an additional adult to care for the young without being a reproductive competitor.

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

#290

Post by asiachick »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #250
rayiner wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Even if it were an easily changeable characteristic, we should consider it wrong for any society to threaten harm or punishment or ostracization for this. That the characteristic is or isn’t easily changed is not relevant. It’s not a question of moral relativism. You’d have to argue that any behavior is a crime in order for it to be legitimate for perpetrators to suffer consequences. Otherwise, it is wrong that someo…

I'm mostly on your side. I agree that choice or not, it should not matter.

But, if I wanted to try to push back, ... your nachos require cheese. Cheese requires cows. Raising of cows are a major source of greenhouse gas etc... Therefore you should not be allowed to eat nachos as it's bad for society at large and you should be forced to stop eating them. (substitute beef or whale meat or whatever it takes to see the point).

Post reply on HN