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

411–420 of 495 posts

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

#411

Post by dragonwriter »

Zardoz84 wrote: post #401
dragonwriter wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are other factors like development within the mother's body, levels of hormones / chemicals, and so on which could contribute to a different sexuality later on. Those could still be influences if it was purely genetic. Biological sex is approximately fully genetic (not quite, but very close to it), but womb environment (I remember pH differences specifically being identified as an influence) play a role in wh…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile#Reproduction On many complex species, the genere isn't defined by the genes.

I meant “in humans”; yes, there are places where that isn’t the case.

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

#412

Post by csin »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #406
irrational wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely. I'm straight and I love watching Jane Austen, Anne of Green Gables, Musicals, Hallmark, Downton Abbey, Romcom, etc. movies with my wife. But I'd never let any of my male friends know.

Why wouldn't you let them know? One would think that standing by your choices and not trying to hide then away, would be the assertive and self-confident approach. If your friends are really so fickle as to think less of you based on the TV shows you watch and the love you show for your wife, are they really worth keeping around?

Friends don't exactly grow on trees.

My best friend died in his 20's. So, I have a cynical view on friendship.

It's very time intensive to find new friends and filter out the one's that don't make the cut. Not to mention the awkwardness that comes with breaking up with the one's that don't make the cut.

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

#413

Post by MaximumYComb »

kepler1 wrote: post #381
jabberwcky wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> effeminate male > gay son This is a dangerous stereotype that is equally harmful to people of any sexuality, I'd encourage you to correct it. Most of the gay folk I know personally tend towards the athletic end of the spectrum

You're really swinging to the opposite end of credibility, bending over backwards to put on blinders and assert that gayness has absolutely no relation to some effeminate qualities. It goes against people's own ability to observe facts and undermines your position. Maybe it's not true for every gay male, but it is certainly an observable phenomenon.

I'm really masculine. I'm tall, reasonably heavily muscled, assertive, hyper competitive, dominant, etc. I've still had some friends tell me that they wouldn't have been surprised if I was gay/bi. The only explanation I have is that they struggle to understand my refusal to conform to norms and I'm interpreted as "different".

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

#414

Post by maxmcorp »

That is hardly correct. A genetic disposition to mate with the opposite sex would be a very strong force for reproduction.

In other words: Genes that make you have sex with the opposite sex would be a huge advantage and so would be selected for.

Even insect knows what to do instinctively.

I would need VERY strong evidence to accept that it is not gentically encoded.

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

#415

Post by rcoveson »

rayiner wrote: post #320
aphyr wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nobody here is saying that discrimination isn't wrong. But why that discrimination is wrong matters. In the west, you can appeal to notions of individual self-determination: "We shouldn't care about peoples' consenting sexual conduct." Those rationales have little meaning in Asian or African societies. That's why the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice people make one day, but is instead something they are b…

If I follow you, you're suggesting that these Asian and African societies you have in mind would be more accepting of LGBT rights if they were convinced that it was something biological and immutable.

I present the counter example of birth sex, which is quite genetic and practically immutable for most people. Do those same countries afford women and men equal freedoms and opportunities, considering the biological nature of the trait?

A model individualist society would. A model collectivist society might not. With my collectivist hat on: Whether or not something is "a choice" doesn't have any bearing on whether it is good for society. Even a biologically, incorrigibly gay person should reproduce sexually, for the good of the collective.

I can speak to this pretty confidently as somebody living in Utah and raised Mormon: The biology argument does not matter. Religious people acknowledge that some are born with predispositions, even strong ones, to commit certain sins. They consider them challenges to be overcome. They absolutely do not exempt you from the responsibilities of a member of that society.

Like it or not, sexual actions and lifestyles are a choice. Muslims and Christians know this. Fighting the biology battle might lose us ground (to the extent that any evidence at all comes up against it), and it will never gain us any.

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

#416

Post by pharmakom »

Zardoz84 wrote: post #399
corin_ wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might be misunderstanding a valid criticism, but your complaint is about the parent comment's using "are" rather than "is"? That's simply the plural version: if one person is asexual, multiple people are asexual.

I was trying to point that a person can't become asexual (on the same way that no body can change is sexual orientation). Asexuals are born asexuals. Like a homosexual is born homosexual, etc.

I don't think this is true. People's sexual orientation can shift over time, and that might be to being asexual.

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

#417

Post by pharmakom »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #388
LatteLazy wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is good evidence that gay males are much more involved with their neices and nephews [0] and that their sisters are more fertile[1]. [0] https://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2010/02/05/study-su... [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15539346/

I've seen this hypothesized and studied before as how homosexuality exists in the face of evolution. That is, some combination of (a) without children of their own homosexuals are better able to help raise their other family members, (b) homosexuality is strongly correlated to higher fecundity of female family members, and (c) homosexuality is just a fluke in sexuality in general, similar to how other complex biologi…

Do the numbers even add up? a whole extra child just to help out doesn't seem very efficient to me.

And it's only depressing if we define a person's worth by the number of children they have, so let's not do that :)

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

#418

Post by pharmakom »

rayiner wrote: post #320
aphyr wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nobody here is saying that discrimination isn't wrong. But why that discrimination is wrong matters. In the west, you can appeal to notions of individual self-determination: "We shouldn't care about peoples' consenting sexual conduct." Those rationales have little meaning in Asian or African societies. That's why the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice people make one day, but is instead something they are b…

> So it’s important that, even then, LGBT rights have a solid justification in the fact that it’s biology, not choice.

... and if the science turns out otherwise? We just ignore reality so people are not harmed? it would be preferable if individual rights are protected regardless. Sorry, just my "western" view.

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

#419

Post by billyruffian »

wutbrodo wrote: post #403
Zardoz84 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You know that a homosexual not are "effeminate males" ? Man, try to revise these stereotype that you have.

I'm not sure the parent comment meant effeminate in demeanor. There is some indication that the brains of homosexual men have some similarities to female brains[1]. The GP's speculation doesn't need to rely on "stereotypes" to describe the homosexual male brain as closer to (heterosexual) female than the heterosexual male brain. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-says-brains...

'Effeminate' is an adjective of demeanor.

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

#420

Post by rcoveson »

jabberwcky wrote: post #331
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.

> effeminate male > gay son This is a dangerous stereotype that is equally harmful to people of any sexuality, I'd encourage you to correct it. Most of the gay folk I know personally tend towards the athletic end of the spectrum

Isn’t “being attracted to males” a predominantly female characteristic in animals that reproduce sexually? On the “sexuality” dimension, do not gay men fall closer to the female cluster than the male cluster?
Post reply on HN