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

491–495 of 495 posts

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

#491

Post by ravi-delia »

anaphor wrote: post #486
ravi-delia wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, yeah? It's still fairly strong evidence against there being literally no genetic component to homosexuality, which I definitely saw a lot of in this thread. Unless I misunderstand your comment?

Not disagreeing with your original point, just adding that if you were controlling for environmental factors (everyone has equivalent environment), then you'd see more contribution to variance in phenotypes from genetics than environment. So for homosexuality, I'd bet the reason genetics don't contribute as much is because of the heterogeneous environmental conditions (just think about where you grow up and what reli…

Ahh got it, thanks for clarifying. That definitely makes sense, and clicks with my intuition that genetics and the environment are sort of both 100% responsible.

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

#492

Post by dang »

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.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26070754.

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

#493

Post by poppejans »

rayiner wrote: post #444
rayiner wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason to treat "social liberalism" as practiced in western countries in 2020 as some inextricable bundle, where each change must be considered "progress" independently. For example, while the sexual revolution tries to ride the coat tails of equal legal rights for women, there is no reason a society can't have equal rights for women without embracing the premises of the sexual revolution. (Don’t forget t…

I'll also add a striking data point--even in the United States, conservatives are happier than liberals: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/conservati... > Fifty-two percent of married, religious, politically conservative people (with kids) are very happy — versus only 14 percent of single, secular, liberal people without kids. In Bangladesh, where I'm from, it's taken for granted that getting married,…

Oh wow, the people that are are happy with things as they are and want to "conserve" those things are happier than the people that are downtrodden under the current system and thus want to change it.

Who could've guessed.

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

#494

Post by throwanem »

bsder wrote: post #284
throwanem wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not much of an argument. A preference for long legs vs. large breasts is just that: a preference . What if Long Legs is a meth addict and Large Breasts is the mother of your children? Or likewise. At that point it sounds pathological. That's why I don't like the "gay gene" argument and never did, not even when it was the hot new thing among assimilationists. It's fundamentally flawed, and not only because it s…

> That's not much of an argument. A preference for long legs vs. large breasts is just that: a preference. The point is that you didn't consciously choose it. It just "happened". I don't like cooked bell peppers. I didn't make a conscious choice to dislike cooked bell peppers, and I got forced to eat them as a kid. It's still a "preference" even though I never "chose" it. Saying that someone "chose" something simply…

I've been thinking it over off and on for close to a week now, and I'm still no nearer understanding how casting anything about the way I am in terms akin to those of sin, deviance, or culpable personal weakness aids me in convincing a hostile interlocutor not to be so.

In any case, to vote is to exercise power. As I discussed elsewhere in the thread, when reason fails, the best thing with which to counter power is power. Arguments exist on a gradient of rhetorical power, too. And handing someone a rhetorical stick to beat me with just seems like giving a lot of that power away right up front. Why on Earth would I do that in an argument I need to win? Why would anyone?

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

#495

Post by serverholic »

NateEag wrote: post #437
serverholic wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're interpreting immutable too literally.

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

I think you should try to be less of an autist and read into what people are trying to say.
Post reply on HN