371–380 of 495 posts
hmm sounds like it could be related to a parasitic influence then. Many behavior modifying parasites infect mammals,wouldn't be surprised on its affects on humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That weird caveat about right handedness actually makes me think this is a spurious correlation.
Sexual orientation has a known association with handedness (same-sex-attracted people of either gender have higher odds of being left-handed/ambidextrous than do straight people) so it’s reasonable a priori for a correlation to exist in one sub-population and not the other. Splitting by handedness reduces variance for many sexuality questions — it’s not a sign of p-hacking.
That sounds so strange I had to fact-check, and it appears you're right, there does seem to be a measurable association [0].
Perhaps even more interesting, that same article reports: '...the strongest handedness nding for both sexes was a marked tendency for participants who described themselves as ambidextrous also to describe themselves as bisexual'. How weird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the ingredient most of this discussion is missing. People here seem to mostly believe "If it's not genetic then it's nurture", but that's not the case. It can be all sorts of other things. My (rusty) recollection of the literature is that our best guess for what most causes homosexuality in human males is the hormone profile given in utero. This is not caused by the fetus's genes, but it will interact with th…
Given the pretty strong birth order effects in play when it comes to gay men[0], you could probably stop about a quarter of the gay male population from being born just by banning consecutive male births, assuming you were willing to enforce a comically evil level of control over the population. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male...
A one-child policy with exceptions available if the first-born is a girl is a “comically evil level of control” that is hard to imagine being applied in the real world?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or.. there is no such thing as a gayness gene. Genetics are generally not a strong predictor for human behavior. Gestational environment, what sort of environment you grew up in, whether or not you've suffered any head injuries or have another developmental disorder, internal hormonal environment, the culture you live in... these are all much better predictors.
There are enough twin studies out there to rule out environmental factors as the sole cause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 addition, one suggestion is that a possible “gay gene” would be something that causes extremely strong attraction to men in both men and women with that gene. Women with this gene would then be more likely to father children, which could counter the evolutionary pressure resulting from the male offspring with that gene not having any offspring. (I’m massively oversimplfing of course, my bio knowledge is fairly lim…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Identical twin studies point away from genetics very hard. Pretty much all genetic anomalies will affect both identical twins 100% of the time. The fact that it's less than 40% points much more to environmental effects rather than genes.
My nephews are monozygotic twins. One is very straight, and the other is very gay. They happen to be mirror image twins. This points towards genetics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 lik…
> I think "the big question" some people still have is whether being gay is perfectly fine or not. I think this is very true and is a more fundamental question than what I've posed here. Another way of stating my point is that the question of "innateness" allowed large swaths of the community to sidestep this question. And this question is a very deep rabbit hole for the current cultural and political situation in th…
I guess my personal gripe with most arguments against freedom of sexual orientation is that they all seem axiomatic or circular. Like, "because it's bad", "because it's anti-natural", "because this god says so", or some other chain of these that inevitably gets circular.
Your example comparison with religion seems on point, but also super thorny hehe. And since i'm not religious, it doesn't resonate too much either. Sorry.
I don't know if an analogy with musical preferences would be apt. Yes, it seems much more banal, but people also develop their identities around musical preferences sometimes, so it's not completely off!
And if, say, i was a metalhead, then, it wouldn't matter all that much if i've felt immutable love for metal all my life, or my preferences changed over time, or i chose it for some reason, or even if i love other styles! (maybe i'm extending this analogy too much) All that matters is that it doesn't harm other people. On the contrary: i'd share my love for metal with other metal lovers. Win-win.
Maybe it's a super dumb argument, but TBH that's kinda how i feel about sexual orientation or other important preferences. I just don't see the point in invalidating or not accepting other people's preferences and desires, as long as they are not harmful to others.
Thanks for the exchange, and i hope this wasn't too rambly!
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 e…
Why?
Sexual Assault Risks among Gay and Bisexual Men - NCBI - NIH
"One half of men (50.8%) reported childhood sexual assault"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4117833
Similar: https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/3949087/Abused-more-likely-to...
Here is the speculation part: the more older brothers one has the older they will be from you and entering into sexual experimentation with younger brothers. A quick google shows that this is normal behaviour but the sings are normally similar ages.
I tend to think its probably a mix between nature and nurture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 e…
You’ve made valid points cogently, and asked relevant questions that could be answered using scientific methods, but you’re getting downvoted, which is a polemic response. Why?