The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019) • Hacker News Board

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

#431

Post by hypertele-Xii » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 1:05 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #407

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.

The only way to 'nudge' the chances of a girl baby is to select the sperm based on which sex genes they carry. Any hormonal or such changes induced in the fetus down the line is too late to have any effect on genetic gender.

Today I learned that human sex is determined at sperm production! Didn't know that, thanks.

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

#432

Post by hypertele-Xii » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 1:06 PM UTC

Zardoz84 wrote: post #393

wyldfire wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems more likely for it to be an emergent property of children serving as hunter/gatherer resources but not competing for procreation. It is either a novel mutation or something that is selected for.

> It is either a novel mutation or something that is selected for. You know that homosexuality it's very know to happen on many animal species ? It's not a "novel mutation"

The mutation may not be, but perhaps the selection for it is. Few species hunt and gather.

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

#433

Post by watwut » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 1:11 PM UTC

scythe wrote: post #358

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.

>To me this sounds like the mother's body is trying to "nudge" the odds towards a daughter But if that were true, it must succeed sometimes. Evolution doesn't select for things that don't work. We should see an equally strong correlation with sex of offspring and birth order. We don't. One possibility is that the effect reduces the harmful effects of sibling rivalry by making second sons more empathetic. However, thi…

> possibility is that the effect reduces the harmful effects of sibling rivalry by making second sons more empathetic.

Is there any reason to believe that gay men are more empathetic?

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

#434

Post by Inufu » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 1:13 PM UTC

coding123 wrote: post #39

I'm curious if they instead focused on a simple neural net that is fed genes + gay/straight flag if the NN would actually successfully predict it.... in other words, NN's don't care about "finding" that specific gene, they kinda include everything and it "finds" the gene without actually pointing it out. That's very different from the human approach which is to try to find something specific. I mean compare it to blo…

This sort of approach is known as Genome Wide Association study, finding the correlation of hundreds or thousands of genes that will predict a trait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study

If you are interested in the topic, I recommend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint_(book)

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

#435

Post by MaxBarraclough » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #384

jdgoesmarching wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread seems very insistent on pushing the environmental case when presented with evidence to the contrary. It’s like I stumbled into a Republican convention in the 90s. Baseless theories: people do this to feel better about LGBT discrimination or the idea of sexuality being out of our control is too scary for dudes who haven’t come to terms with their own masculinity. The latter isn’t necessarily shade, I’m not…

To be honest, as a gay man, I find the opposite is often true: that somehow insisting on homosexuality being genetically preordained is needed in order to argue against sexual-orientation-based discrimination. That is, if it is an inborn trait then gay people shouldn't be discriminated against because they "can't help it". I've always found that somewhat offensive, because it somehow takes the sub/unconscious opinion…

Also, there are already protected classes that are partly or wholly matters of choice. Religion, pregnancy, familial status, veteran status.

On a related note, I don't see that the is it a choice? question is even meaningful in the first place. Preferences aren't generally something we get to choose. I could probably learn to like some unfamiliar genre of music simply by listening to a lot of it, but you could offer me a heap of money to like the PHP programming language and I'd still be unable to do so. My opinion of it isn't something I can so easily will to change.

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

#436

Post by KozmoNau7 » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 1:42 PM UTC

csin wrote: post #412

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I know the struggle, I've completely abandoned three separate circles of friends due to moving cross-country and interpersonal drama, over a period of 10 years.

Building up a new circle of friends where I live now took some time, and was initially kicked off by reconnecting with a childhood friend. A huge positive is that we're all mid-30s to mid-40s and more mature, less concerned about outward appearances, so it feels more real and down to earth.

Just being able to be yourself in the company of others is refreshing, because you can relax and lower your guard.

Round of beers, one friend asks for a diet soda? Sure thing. Heck, I have a standing agreement with another friend that I'll bring him a soda even if he asked for a beer and I think he's had one or two too many, because he knows he has a tendency to drink a bit too much. He'll grumble about it, but because we've talked it through, he knows I'm looking out for him.

My best friend is a huge metalhead, but also loves sugary J-pop with a burning passion. And nobody thinks less of him for it. We don't believe in guilty pleasures, you like what you like.

Honestly, and I know this doesn't apply to everyone, I would rather have no friends at all if I couldn't be 100% myself around my friends :-)

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

#437

Post by NateEag » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 1:45 PM UTC

serverholic wrote: post #217

nicwilson wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because sexual orientation is immutable, Not entirely true, I remember there was a case where an English rugby player received a concussion and was put in an induced(?) coma and was gay after he woke up. However we certainly don't have the capability to change it.

I think you're interpreting immutable too literally.

I think OP should not have used "immutable" if it isn't what he meant.

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

#438

Post by imtringued » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 2:12 PM UTC

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…

>In that context, whether something is a choice, versus a characteristic that cannot easily be changed, is tremendously important. It elevates the issue from ordinary policing of norms into the realm of human rights.

Religious affiliation is a choice and yet it is protected by human rights.

You are on pretty thin ice. Discrimination is a shitty thing to do, against anyone, even criminals. If someone is engaging in morally questionable behavior then there are ways to influence the morals of that individual that do not involve discrimination or at least we hope there are such ways.

Arresting criminals is just a pragmatic response to prevent future crime because in many cases there are no other options. If there was a way to suppress criminal behavior through a simple and voluntary one time treatment (theoretical rehabilitation program with 0% recidivism rate) then prison would be considered extremely cruel or it would be reduced down to a glorified retirement home for the few individuals who refused the rehabilitation.

If there was a treatment for lack of heterosexuality (as opposed to a treatment for homosexuality) it would still not be the right thing to force it upon people. We do not force people to convert their religion so why forcibly change sexual orientation through discrimination?

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

#439

Post by tgb » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 2:19 PM UTC

klmadfejno wrote: post #198

tgb wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the other side: if someone is a homicidal psychopath due to their genetics, then I still do not want them to roam free. So genetically predetermined is not a good argument to use in favor of gay rights. People should be allowed to determine their own sexuality, regardless of whether that determination was preset by their genetics or not, just as people should not be allowed to commit murder regardless of…

That's cheating. A person is only a homicidal psychopath after they have committed homicide. Locking up a psychopath who has committed no crimes is just as fucked up as locking up someone for being gay.

Whether we lock them up or punish them afterwards is besides the point: in either case the "I'm genetically programmed this way" is not a defense that would (or should) fly when it comes to murder.

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

#440

Post by zaarn » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #373

strken wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> 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. A one-child policy with exceptions available if the first-born is a girl is a “comically evil level of control” that is h…

A one-child policy is ethically achievable by making the parents rich or otherwise making retirement care a non-concern. If you look at studies, rich people or people who have retirement taken care of are more likely to produce less children. A socialised retirement plan along with a good safety net for those unemployed would likely drive down population massively within a few generations.