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)

#261

Post by strken » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 12:19 AM UTC

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #212

suizi wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is entirely genetic. 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. This doesn't mean you can change it, and messing with chemical levels in the hope of finding a configuration which leads to "normality" would be very unethical in my eyes.

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...

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

#262

Post by aphyr » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 12:20 AM 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…

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 transition were a trivial weekend occurrence would not excuse the gender wage gap. If conversion therapy were effective, it would still not be moral to imprison people for being gay. Being able to lighten one's skin does not, and should not, excuse the shooting of Black people at traffic stops.

For some of this, this isn't an armchair "design space". Some of us still have people shouting "faggot" at us from passing cars. Some of us have strangers threatening to kill us in the supermarket. Some of us have been fired when our old names were found out. Some of us are trying to figure out how to tell our children how not to be murdered. These kinds of discrimination are not "perfectly legitimate" social choices. They have impact on actual human beings.

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

#263

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 12:20 AM UTC

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #250

rayiner wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and I agree it’s a human right, and the reason why. I said its a human right because it's a "characteristic that cannot easily be changed." You said it's because "people who are LGBT emphatically cannot choose to 'convert' to some other sexual orientation or gender identity." If there's a difference between that phraseology, I don't mean it to be substantive--I agree with what you said. It's OP who rejects that p…

Even if it were an easily changeable characteristic, we should consider it wrong for any society to threaten harm or punishment or ostracization for this. That the characteristic is or isn’t easily changed is not relevant. It’s not a question of moral relativism. You’d have to argue that any behavior is a crime in order for it to be legitimate for perpetrators to suffer consequences. Otherwise, it is wrong that someo…

[deleted]

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

#264

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 12:20 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#265

Post by xxpor » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 12:21 AM 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.

I've got bad news for you then, that's basically what the Baker act does.

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

#266

Post by kergonath » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 12:24 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #232

kergonath wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neither of those things is okay, because sexual orientation is immutable, not a choice. I don’t think it is that uncommon to have phases and be heterosexual for a while and homosexual for another. I haven’t seen a convincing proof that it is immutable, though I think you’re right when you say that it’s not (necessarily) a choice. But you’re basically using the reasoning the OP found unhelpful, just swapping immutab…

> But you’re basically using the reasoning the OP found unhelpful, just swapping immutability instead of genetics. There are many things that are (practically) immutable that aren't rooted in genetics, so no, the distinction isn't unimportant. > It is just as wrong when it’s done to enforce narrow moral norms and a reactionary view of sexuality. Again, who cares, as long as both parties consent and nobody gets hurts?…

> There are many things that are (practically) immutable that aren't rooted in genetics, so no, the distinction isn't unimportant.

Yet in this case it’s used for the same purpose, building an argument saying that people should not be punished for it because they can’t change it. It’s moving the goalposts and it is not productive in the long run. There are much better reasons to accept homosexuality.

> "As long as both parties consent" is a particular view of human sexuality that is not even fully embraced in the west, and is largely rejected everywhere else.

Indeed, if you believe in human rights and that having pleasure does not give someone the right to harm someone else. The fact that there are some horrible people or repressive societies does not make that any less true.

> It's perfectly legitimate for societies to enforce what libertines might regard as "narrow" and "reactionary" sexual norms--so long as they don't discriminate against protected classes.

That is very US-specific. Protected classes in itself is a device to afford protection to some people whilst keeping the moral right to be arbitrarily repressive in any other way. Discrimination is wrong regardless of whether the reason is in a list of things politicians feel like protecting.

> A society could decide, for example, that the destructive effect of adultery on families and children warrants its prohibition. That's a choice a society can make, or not make. We can debate the merits of it, but human rights does not make.

Yes, and the loss of freedom is balanced against the gains. If serious studies show evidence of harm from adultery, you have a point. Otherwise it is as sensible as forbidding video games or kitchen knives.

> We can debate the merits of it, but human rights does not require a society to accept the values of the western sexual revolution.

Not being punished for something that is not wrong or for a victimless act is not a concept born during the sexual revolution. It has a long tradition from antiquity, and was quite popular during the enlightenment, and is part of the bedrock of the democratic ideal.

If you accept the concept of human rights, it implies that you accept not to punish people for their choice of sex partners (again, as long as that choice does not violate the human rights of said partners).

> The story is quite different when it comes to immutable sexual characteristics. That elevates it into the realm of issues such as discrimination based on race or ethnicity--into a human rights issue. We regard those very differently.

I know you like to say you do (collectively; there are many examples in this thread), but it does not make it right. It’s also, again, a very US-specific concept.

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

#267

Post by dctaflin » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 12:24 AM UTC

Brian_K_White wrote: post #147

lultimouomo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If there was a genetic cause for shortsightedness, why is it still around?" - because myopia doesn't significantly affect your chances to produce offsprings. It seems reasonable that being gay does significantly reduce your ability to have children; therefore it is reasonable to expect that if it was an inheritable trait it would have been selected against.

Everyone keeps saying that, but it's simply not true. We have understood how this is not true for decades or even hundreds of years, and it's not even some impossible concept to grasp. All that's required for a trait to persist, is for it to benefit the pool, not the individual. The only way the seemingly obvious but incorrect idea you descibed applies is, a trait which is good for the group at the expense of the ind…

And everybody keeps saying THAT. The problem is, that's a secondary effect. A secondary effect is going to have to be pretty strong to counter an obviously anti-competitive primary effect. You can construct scenarios, but I haven't seen any that seem particularly compelling. It seems to me that the default position of "it's not genetic" is much better supported by the data.

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

#268

Post by xxpor » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 12:26 AM UTC

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #169

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…

> But that's always been a fucked up idea. It shouldn't matter whether it was predetermined or otherwise not in your control. Yep, that’s why I simply don’t care anymore what rhetoric modern social movements use. Not only usually it makes zero sense, they are ready to ditch it anytime it benefits them. There is no point in having a serious discourse with anyone who treats it only as a weapon to achieve their goals.

What does anyone ever do if not in service to means to an end?

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

#269

Post by dwohnitmok » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 12:26 AM UTC

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #254

dwohnitmok wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed nature does not care. But the point of the parent comment, summarized in a single sentence as far as I understand it is "the issue of whether homosexuality is innately determined is irrelevant, policies and attitudes should be entirely unaffected by whether it is innately determined." Taken at face value that is a far stronger statement than "nature does not care about convenience." This is saying "in this ins…

> given that mainstream society is predominantly heterosexual, that would inevitably morph into whether homosexuality is an intrinsically valuable thing Society presently allows extreme leeway on providing value in every other way imaginable. We allow people to work in ad-tech for crying out loud. Ok, that was a bit of a joke, but the point is that society not only allows people to not contribute to the social good,…

> Singling out sexuality on this particular front is patently perfidious.

Perfidious it may be, but the question of innateness has very real policy effects. The best comparison is probably religion. Parents are allowed to send their children to religion camps. Should they be allowed to send their children to conversion therapy camps? Perhaps therapy is too coercive, but what about something less coercive, but more effective?

If it is innate then conversion therapy can be easily banned on grounds of inefficacy and therefore active harm. If sexual orientation is entirely mutable then the question shifts altogether.

> I think it's more likely that "value" is an inapt word

I very intentionally chose "value" because I think many members of the homosexual community value homosexuality in the same way that I think many members of the heterosexual community value heterosexuality. This is the whole point of why "pride" is more than just a simple slogan.

Indeed I think even the very act of calling "singling out sexuality to be perfidious" demonstrates just how much value it holds for people. If it were as simple as whether one liked broccoli or not, why would anyone ever care?

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I think an illuminating example is the Deaf community's attitude towards cochlear implants, where large swaths of the community actively reject cochlear implants and value their own Deafness as an intrinsic attribute to be celebrated on its own. Indeed among members of that community there is a tendency to try to value Deafness as an immutable attribute and to shun attempts to make it mutable (it is extremely controversial for parents to outfit children with cochlear implants, even were these cochlear implants to perfectly replicate normal hearing and for people born Deaf segments of the community view it as a sort of betrayal for them to attempt to use cochlear implants).

The question of mutability remains an important one that has many implications.

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

#270

Post by strken » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 12:29 AM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #69

ohduran wrote: post #2

Not an expert here but, IF a gay gene existed, wouldn't have it been evolved into extinction?

The trouble with that argument is that it also works with, "If there was a genetic cause for shortsightedness, why is it still around?" "If there was such a thing as a genetic disease, why haven't they evolved out?" "If not having X-ray vision was genetic, wouldn't the absence of X-ray vision have been selected out?" You really can't expect evolution to accomplish its "goals," per se. It is sort of a gentle flow down…

A much better example of counter-intuitive evolution, one that's literally textbook, is sickle-cell anaemia. It's a genetic disease (bad) that offers protection against malaria (good), so it's more common in areas where malaria is a fatal problem for significant numbers of people. This illustrates the principle that genes do more than one thing, and can be simultaneously adaptive and maladaptive at the same time. As a hypothetical example, maybe the same genes that make a man fractionally more likely to be gay could protect his sister from ovarian cancer or stop him going bald.