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

341–350 of 495 posts

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

#341

Post by est31 »

throwanem wrote: post #280
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that if you defend your actions (regarding all sorts of things, not just limited to where you stick your dick) with "because I f-ing feel like it and I'm an individual with free will" you will be inundated with people claiming you don't or shouldn't have free will or that it should be some entity's job to make the consequences of your preference so miserable that you choose something else. Pretending l…

I've found it necessary at several points in my life, not recently, to deal with people who were genuinely interested in arguing - or insisting, or enforcing - that I shouldn't behave in accord with my romantic and sexual desires for male partners. I've never found the argument under discussion here to be of any use in convincing them. In fairness, though, the "because I feel like it" argument hasn't worked any bette…

> everyone else in the class - all straight as far as I knew then and, with one exception, as far as I know now - they said everything I would have and more besides. Louder and more persistently than I would have, too. And yeah, in theory there was a power differential there, Authority vs. School Kids, but you know what? That woman turned out not even to have what it took to stand up to a room full of teenagers talking. She fled in disarray, and I have never in my life before or since felt more safe than I did at the end of that half hour. Or felt less alone.

That's such a heart warming story to read. Thanks for posting it here. I read up about Matthew Shepard. He died 20 years ago, which means your story is equally old. Impressive!

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

#342

Post by kgwgk »

klmadfejno wrote: post #322
kgwgk wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many things that we’re not tolerant of (like rape or murder) may also be an inherent natural part of human nature.

That's a different semantic definition of human nature, and, as an aside, is likely just not accurate. Close relative primates don't murder and rape other primates within their own social group. Rape is a strategy of desperation for males who can't get any and are likely outcasts from an effective group. Social cohesion is really important for survival. There may be coups to be the top dog, but intra community killin…

We don’t tolerate rape and murder between social groups either, do we?

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

#343

Post by the_af »

mc32 wrote: post #308
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.

That... seems unlikely. That implies a woman's reproductive system knows and remembers or at least keeps a tallies of the sex of the offspring it has produced...

The article in Wikipedia seems to imply the mother's womb does "remember" prior pregnancies; after all, what are antibodies and the immune response if not a form of memory?

From Wikipedia:

> The mechanism is thought to be a maternal immune response to male fetuses, whereby antibodies neutralize male Y-proteins thought to play a role in sexual differentiation during development.

The article states even interrupted pregnancies are thought to generate this response.

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

#344

Post by musingsole »

xivzgrev wrote: post #335

I found the conclusion to be misleading, based on this “ The researchers split their study participants into two groups — those who reported having had sex with someone of the same sex, and those who didn’t. ” So apparently you are gay if you have had sex one time with someone of same sex sometime, anytime in your life. Bisexual, bicurious, some one straight who experimented, etc would all then be “gay”, which are al…

Harsh bucket boundaries are always the catch with studies like this. If you grew up in a smoky house or have had at least one cigarette in your life, you fall into a gray area of studies where you don't qualify as a smoker or a non-smoker.

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

#345

Post by marc_abonce »

antattack wrote: post #19

Honest question: what is being gay? Is it physical attraction? Emotional attraction? Both? Is it dislike, fear(?) of opposite sex?

If this question is strictly about the study in OP and not a broader philosophical question, then it's worth pointing out that the study doesn't actually use the word gay but instead:

> In this study, we use the term “same-sex sexual behavior,” which is defined as having ever had sex with someone of the same sex.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/eaat7693

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

#346

Post by aspaceman »

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.

Comments like these are so hilariously idiotic. Props for making me guffaw out loud.

“A meta level mechanism to reduce competition in the community” what the fuck is this saying. Why would gay men reduce competition? In a society that doesn’t accept homosexuality, they would still be with women. In a society that does, why would the woman’s body find it any more favorable to produce.

This kind of navel gazing about evolution really pisses me off. Never feels reasoned in the slightest but works great on so called “rational” people. Just vaguely allude to evolution.

Also yeah, gay doesn’t mean effeminate. Some gay men are more effeminate. This is usually social. It’s actually pretty funny you assume that. Why would gay men become more effeminate?

Do you think the woman’s body sends lady cooties at the baby once they have too many? Like magic lady fairy dust that makes you girly and gay?

Why would wanting to suck dick mean I’m girly? Or feminine? Some gay guys will act girly and feminine _because_ they want to suck dick and that’s one way to do it. Similarly, why is wanting to fuck another mans ass girly and feminine? Would love to hear your answers to these questions.

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

#347

Post by mc32 »

the_af wrote: post #343
mc32 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That... seems unlikely. That implies a woman's reproductive system knows and remembers or at least keeps a tallies of the sex of the offspring it has produced...

The article in Wikipedia seems to imply the mother's womb does "remember" prior pregnancies; after all, what are antibodies and the immune response if not a form of memory? From Wikipedia: > The mechanism is thought to be a maternal immune response to male fetuses, whereby antibodies neutralize male Y-proteins thought to play a role in sexual differentiation during development. The article states even interrupted pre…

This goes beyond that an implies "counting" and that the reproductive system in addition wants to achieve an output balance in a non random manner.

That said, it would be very interesting if the body did actually count and take measures to keep things even.

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

#348

Post by Sebb767 »

This may be a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyway: How did gay people live in pre-historic times?

Arguably, in our current culture, it is pretty obvious that gay people will produce less offspring than heterosexuals. However, looking on an evolutionary timescale, this culture is rather young. In tribal times, most males did not reproduce - lessening the impact of homosexuality. Maybe the higher female-to-male-gene reproduction rate is factor?

This is just rough speculation, my knowledge is really limited. But it seems plausible at first glance.

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

#349

Post by jodrellblank »

suizi wrote: post #191
jodrellblank wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if they worked they wouldn’t be objectionable? Being forced into them would be objectionable, but being forced into your family farm doesn’t mean farming itself is bad. If conversion therapy was a thing that worked and you could choose it if you wanted, it would be like any other life choice - changing career, religion, nationality, etc.

My question would be closer to, how would you feel if someone high up decided to strip away your attraction to women, and replace it with an attraction to men, because they deemed this more "appropriate", or positive to society. And now, for the rest of your life, you view having sex with women as disgusting. Would this not be the slightest bit alarming and distressing?

How would you feel if someone high up decided to shave all your hair off? Can we agree it's not the existence of hair clippers which is the bad thing in this scenario, and that it's the "forcing things on people without their consent" which is bad?

So if conversion therapy actually worked, and was just a thing you could freely do or not do - like you can migrate and become a citizen of another country, or join another religion, or learn another language, or get a tattoo, or participate in consenting BSDM, or any other personal choice about your body or life, would it be automatically worse because it's conversion therapy?

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

#350

Post by arp242 »

Sebb767 wrote: post #348

This may be a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyway: How did gay people live in pre-historic times? Arguably, in our current culture, it is pretty obvious that gay people will produce less offspring than heterosexuals. However, looking on an evolutionary timescale, this culture is rather young. In tribal times, most males did not reproduce - lessening the impact of homosexuality. Maybe the higher female-to-male-gen…

I think it's a mistake to see homosexuality as a binary on/off switch; in many cases it's a gradient.

I'm generally heterosexual, but I've also had sex with a man. It's was okay, I guess, but I'd prefer women. On a scale of 0-100 my "gayness score" is probably about 10-20. A hard strong 0 or 100 is probably a lot less common than it's often portrayed: it's more of a bell curve.

One explanation I've read is that gay men are more likely to be left alone with women as they're perceived to be less threatening; giving the gay man a chance to propagate his genes through infidelity (infidelity is fairly common throughout human history). The ever-eqloquent Richard Dawkins once called this "the sneaky fucker strategy".

Something similar could also apply to women.

It's hard to be sure of these kind of things, since it's, well, pre-history, but there are some models which can explain the propagation of homosexual genes and/or behaviour.

Post reply on HN