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

291–300 of 495 posts

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

#291

Post by slavik81 »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #144
lultimouomo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that non-reproductive insects don't have specific set of genes that make them non-reproductive - it is not an inheritable trait. If it was, then it would have evolved into extinction.

Of course they do (have genes that make them non-reproductive) and of course it hasn't (evolved out of extinction). There is nothing about a possible genetic basis (whether complex and indirect or simple and direct) for an individuals non-reproductiveness that implies it has to result in extiguishing itself. Humans are social enough that genetics which benefit the group at the expense of the individual are perfectly…

A more formal description:

> If a gene copy confers a benefit B on another vehicle at cost C to its own vehicle, its costly action is strategically beneficial if p_B > C, where p is the probability that a copy of the gene is present in the vehicle that benefits. Actions with substantial costs therefore require significant values of p. Two kinds of factors ensure high values of p: relatedness (kinship) and recognition (green beards).

The Selfish Gene is probably the most famous way of looking at that concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolutio...

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

#292

Post by ridaj »

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…

Assuming that there are some actions that it is morally just to punish, if not the individual's ability to exert free will to avoid them, then what (in your mind) sets apart those actions from those that it is not morally just to punish?

Or are you making the claim that it is never morally justified for any action to be punished?

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

#295

Post by rexpop »

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... There is nothing special about sexuality in that respect

You seem to be suggesting that it would be radical, then, for us to object to forced homosexuality in a culture that practiced it alongside "conformity".

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

#296

Post by robin21 »

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’s very common for people to make decisions that they regret for the rest of their lives.

If someone is straight and they have a gay experience that is something that could haunt them for the rest of their life. This seems to be less of a thing in the other direction. Maybe this is societies fault though. The lack of acceptance causes the inner shame.

But the notion of letting people be free to choose is pretending that there is nothing that will influence the choices they make. Most people will be straight genetically and that is the way society leans today.

Encouraging experimentation can have negative consequences.

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

#297

Post by kergonath »

KMag wrote: post #256
kergonath wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 atten…

> 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.

Right, but that’s a problem. Particularly when the same people are up in arms any time they perceive a threat to their freedom of religion, without realising that they impinge on others’.

> 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.

This is terrible, though I understand where she’s coming from. I hope she will find the strength to put some of her beliefs aside and accept her brother for what he is. Life is too short to fight about that.

> 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?

That is one of my problems, yes. I have accepted that I might not be popular and that people in the future might look down on us as repulsive barbarians. You can’t please everyone, and I won’t pretend that I have no prejudice.

> 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.

The core principle is freedom, tolerance and human rights (which are itself not too far from classical Christian values). Everything comes from there. You don’t want other people imposing you their moral principles? Don’t do it to others. You want the freedom to have your religion? Accept that other people will follow another one, or none at all. Most people just want to live in peace without being persecuted or discriminated against. Even the Catholic Church got the message after centuries of religious wars.

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

#299

Post by jancsika »

KMag wrote: post #278
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You’d have to argue that any behavior is a crime in order for it to be legitimate for perpetrators to suffer consequences. Okay, but there was a time when homosexuality was a crime in the majority of Western countries, and in some places around the world, it still is a crime. What then/there? Moral reasoning based on current law is partially circular reasoning, and also tends to ossify current law/state of moral pr…

> Okay, but there was a time when homosexuality was a crime in the majority of Western countries, and in some places around the world, it still is a crime. What then/there?

One easy place to start-- are the laws are based on kinds of dubious claims that our own social and scientific history has rejected?

And at least in Africa, Western evangelicals have spent a lot of time and effort exporting their same stupid ideas about homosexuality. So our Western approaches should be pretty easy to copy-paste there. :)

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

#300

Post by ReptileMan »

aphyr wrote: post #262
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…

As a gay person who periodically wades past the dialectical peat bog that is Hacker News, I am begging you to stop digging. I cannot tell you how disheartening it is to find comments like this at the top of a thread, let alone anywhere . Perceived mutability is one aspect that affects perceptions of marginalized groups. Neither perceived nor actual mutability justifies discrimination. A world in which gender transiti…

Sorry but they are. It is a bit like evolution. The only measure for success for a society is survival and perpetuation. As long as the system works it is legitimate. I will give you that it may be cruel and oppressive and terrible.
Post reply on HN