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

471–480 of 495 posts

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

#471

Post by rcoveson »

valarauko wrote: post #466
rcoveson wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By default, let’s assume that homosexual men have the same distribution of all other traits as heterosexual men. In N-dimensional space, they are biased slightly away from dead center of the male cluster towards the female cluster because of the female bias of the attracted-to-men trait. You could say the same thing about long-haired men. It doesn’t mean you’re implying that any other traits are more feminine, becaus…

I suppose this is true along the dimension labelled "attracted to dudes". There are probably many many more dimensions where homosexual men are not biased towards the female cluster, while many heterosexual men are. > By default, let’s assume that homosexual men have the same distribution of all other traits as heterosexual men In some ways, homosexual men might very well cluster away from females, even more so than…

> In some ways, homosexual men might very well cluster away from females, even more so than heterosexual men.

Aren't we back to what the person I was originally replying to would describe as "dangerous stereotypes"?

The point I was trying to make is that the only thing you can say about homosexual men without invoking stereotypes is that they are attracted to men. And in a statistical sense, that is a feminine characteristic.

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

#472

Post by valarauko »

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…

My understanding is that people who self identify as gay are a much smaller subset within the group of people who engage in homosexual activities. For example, in my Asian country a large segment of the guys you meet cruising are married men (to women) who identify as completely straight. Perhaps the wife is unwilling to engage in acts you enjoy, and sex with men is low effort high reward. I also knew many guys who preferred sex with men but couldn't fathom a romantic relationship with one, and identified as mostly straight. It's highly likely that most (though not all) of these men were truly gay/bi/pan, but unable to accept it due to social conditioning.

I agree that a single encounter probably shouldn't count for the terms of the study.

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

#473

Post by valarauko »

cwkoss wrote: post #289
fredley wrote: post #23

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 my EvoBio class a decade ago, my professor told us the theory that homosexuality could be adaptive based on birth order because it would reduce fraternal rivalry: the family would have an additional adult to care for the young without being a reproductive competitor.

This doesn't make much sense, though. Every additional human is a very expensive investment of time, resources, and effort on the family, and offers no material return on investment for at least a decade in terms of productivity. True, while the gay son might not produce offspring to compete with his brother's kids, it also means he brings no additional mate and offspring to help out the family.

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

#474

Post by valarauko »

rcoveson wrote: post #471
valarauko wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose this is true along the dimension labelled "attracted to dudes". There are probably many many more dimensions where homosexual men are not biased towards the female cluster, while many heterosexual men are. > By default, let’s assume that homosexual men have the same distribution of all other traits as heterosexual men In some ways, homosexual men might very well cluster away from females, even more so than…

> In some ways, homosexual men might very well cluster away from females, even more so than heterosexual men. Aren't we back to what the person I was originally replying to would describe as "dangerous stereotypes"? The point I was trying to make is that the only thing you can say about homosexual men without invoking stereotypes is that they are attracted to men. And in a statistical sense, that is a feminine charac…

I think your initial premise is flawed - that males and females form neat clusters with perfect Gaussian distributions, on any reasonable number of dimensions. Yes, on the axis for attraction to men, gay men are shifted towards the female group. On the majority of dimensions, males and female are probably hard to distinguish. On some dimensions, gay men may indeed cluster away from women.

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

#475

Post by aspaceman »

wombatmobile wrote: post #378
aspaceman wrote: post #346

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?

It's cause I said it with vitriol. I also included vulgar language like ass-fucking and dick-sucking. These phrases likely made more squeamish readers who wanted to continue talking about "the homosexuals" in abstract uncomfortable for a reason they didn't quite understand.

But I couldn't keep my anger in my throat. Saying a woman's body would want the boy to be more effeminate and therefore gay, is an idea made of swiss cheese. It's constructed nonsensically. But folks eat it up, cause "sucking dick is feminine"

Should I calmly let the emperor know that they are wearing no clothes? Be quiet, polite, deferential, and be sure to respect the politeness of this space? I'd rather scream he's been an idiot - you go out angry but at least you keep your pride.

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

#476

Post by the_af »

circlefavshape wrote: post #423
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.

/me blinks Liking Jane Austen is effeminate?

While on the subject, is liking Downton Abbey or Anne of Green Gables effeminate? That's news to me. Huge fan of "Anne with an E" here -- still can't get over the fact they canceled it.

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

#477

Post by Animats »

Inufu wrote: post #434
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)

Interesting. The direct correlations seem to be weak, though.

I wonder if biology will turn out to have something comparable to the "hidden units" of machine learning, where less specific inputs from DNA combine in some way to produce intermediate - somethings? - that key specific functions. Probably something that will be explored over the next few decades.

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

#478

Post by rcoveson »

valarauko wrote: post #474
rcoveson wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In some ways, homosexual men might very well cluster away from females, even more so than heterosexual men. Aren't we back to what the person I was originally replying to would describe as "dangerous stereotypes"? The point I was trying to make is that the only thing you can say about homosexual men without invoking stereotypes is that they are attracted to men. And in a statistical sense, that is a feminine charac…

I think your initial premise is flawed - that males and females form neat clusters with perfect Gaussian distributions, on any reasonable number of dimensions. Yes, on the axis for attraction to men, gay men are shifted towards the female group. On the majority of dimensions, males and female are probably hard to distinguish. On some dimensions, gay men may indeed cluster away from women.

You're overstating my premise. I was not saying very much, and you're implying I was saying a lot. Who said the clusters were neat? Or that characteristic distributions were Gaussian?

"Women" and "Men" are words that we associate with observable characteristics. They are extremely messy, so much so that there isn't even one characteristic in all of the many dimensions that we would all agree evenly cleaves the "Men" set from the "Women" set. And yes, most observable characteristics are far more shared than not; that's why it's easier to tell a human from a cat than it is a man from a woman.

Please, stop trying to enlarge my claims. The idea that males and females form clusters that could be described as "neat", or that the distribution of any human characteristic is Guassian, are extremely large claims that should be backed up with evidence. I don't know how they even made their way into this discussion.

To restate: Male homosexuality can be described as a trait that male homosexuals share with women. If we assume the default about all other characteristics, i.e. that they are distributed in the same manner as they are in other males, then that would mean homosexual men are ever so slightly skewed female in distribution. That's it. Note that the "if" clause isn't a claim I am making, it is simply a proposition on which the argument is predicated. If it is false, the argument no longer stands. I am not making any judgement about that claim, I am only building on it in the hypothetical universe where it is true.

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

#479

Post by coldtea »

ravi-delia wrote: post #459
coldtea wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hello, 1990 called. It's 2021, gender (including sexuality) is fluid. And yet, it's the other commenters who seem backwards to you?

I'm really not seeing anything in the above comment that indicates they don't see gender as fluid.

"pushing the environmental case when presented with evidence to the contrary"

Parent wants to push the "fixed gender" case instead.

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

#480

Post by wutbrodo »

billyruffian wrote: post #419
wutbrodo wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's fair. I suppose I just find it plausible that the parent commenter made a minor misnomer between feminine and effeminate, instead of jumping to conclusions about stereotyping. But I know I usually have a terminal case of being too charitable, so maybe this is just a blind spot for me.

Edit: apparently my assumption was correct, per the commenter in question elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26076929

Post reply on HN