[Alikchi]

This may not be the place to post this but I find this article in the New Yorker fascinating.

http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/

Here are some quotes:

One study, involving tape-recordings of gay and straight men, found that 75 percent of gay men sounded gay to a general audience. It’s unclear what the listeners responded to, whether there is a recognized gay “accent” or vocal quality. And there is no hint as to whether this idiosyncrasy is owed to biology or cultural influences—only that it’s unmistakable.

Immunological response is the ascendant theory, in fact. We know from a string of surveys that in any family, the second-born son is 33 percent more likely than the first to be gay, and the third is 33 percent more likely than the second, and so on, as though there is some sort of “maternal memory,” similar to the way antibodies are memories of an infection. Perhaps she mounts a more effective immunological response to fetal hormones with each new male fetus. To determine whether the fraternal birth order might also suggest that baby brothers are treated differently in a way that impacts their sexual expression, researchers have studied boys who weren’t raised in their biological families, or who may have been firstborn but grew up as the youngest in Brady Bunch–type homes. In every permutation, the results were the same: What mattered was only how many boys had occupied your mother’s uterus before you.

The stereotypes—that lesbians tend to commit to relationships early and have little interest in casual sex; that gay men have more sexual partners than their counterparts—turn out to be true.

...researchers think they may be narrowing in on when gayness is set—and identifying its possible triggers. They believe that homosexuality may be the result of some interaction between a pregnant mother and her fetus. Several hypothetical mechanisms have been identified, most pointing to an alteration in the flow of male hormones in the formation of boys and female hormones in the gestation of girls. What causes this? Nobody has any direct evidence one way or another, but a list of suspects includes germs, genes, maternal stress, and even allergy—maybe the mother mounts some immunological response to the fetal hormones.

“We’re reaching a consensus on a broad question,” says J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University. Is sexual orientation “something we’re born with or something we largely acquire through social experience? The answer is clear. It’s something we’re born with.”

"Every man and every woman has all the genes to make a vagina and womb and penis and testicles. In the same way, arguably, every man and woman has the genetic code for the brain networks that make you attracted to men and to women. You activate one or the other—and if you activate the wrong one, you’re gay.”

If we identify how sexual orientation is set in utero, doesn’t that suggest a future in which gay people can be prevented?

[Mefustae]

If we identify how sexual orientation is set in utero, doesn’t that suggest a future in which gay people can be prevented?

I honestly don't know what to think of that. I mean, i'm all for in utero manipulation to better a child's life, such as taking out disease or whatever, but... I don't know, the prospect of 'preventing the gay' feels wrong, but the cold hard fact is that it could be advantageous given the direction some societies are going in regards to tolerance.

Damn, this issue - if it pans out scientifically - is going to become real murky, real fast.

[Flipside]

So if you can't blame the gay community, blame their mums?

What makes me laugh is that if the siutation arose where it was possible to detect that a child would be homosexual, but impossible to stop it, what would Hard-line opinion be on Abortion then?

EDIT: And someone PLEASE do something about that banner ad!

[Mefustae]

What makes me laugh is that if the siutation arose where it was possible to detect that a child would be homosexual, but impossible to stop it, what would Hard-line opinion be on Abortion then?

I predict a sharp rise in the number of head explosions.

[Goober5000]

I read an article or a blog once that predicted that if homosexuality was ever proven to be an inborn trait, the homosexual lobby would come out solidly against abortion.

It reminds me of how the feminsts' heads are exploding over the fact that gender-selected abortion is becoming increasingly prevalent in China and India.

[Maxwell]

Personally I get tired of the fence sitting.  If you recognize that a child has a deformity or illness, and are willing to play God to correct these things, why not also correct social problems that could lower its quality of life?
If people are willing to prevent a criminal from the womb then it makes sense to also prevent homosexuality or... other undesirable traits (Read into that what you may  ).


Then again you could take the *whole* fundy argument that these are secrets we're better off not knowing. Lowering the lid on Pandora's box and walking away.

[Alikchi]

The question is how we define undesirable or negative traits. Personally I think that we as a society shouldn't legislate that - that should be the decision of the mother. If a deeply socially conservative family decides not to have a gay child, well.. that child probably would have been miserable anyways. At the same time, how will that family ever come to accept homosexuals if they can prevent themselves from ever having the chance to know and love one?

The moral ramifications are mind-boggling. As a gay dude, it would have been easier for me if I'd been born straight, but would I be a better person? I doubt it. But then again, I don't consider homosexuality a negative trait, and many people do.

[Flipside]

Maybe because homosexuality is not a 'Genetic Fault', the assumption is that because it happen while the fetus is developing that it is a 'mistake' by the body in some way.

I don't see any evidence to suggest that whatsoever, just because it doesn't fit into someones vision of an ideal world does not mean it is not a natural thing.

We tend to define 'natural acts' as traits we assign to ourselves, not to humanity.

[Alikchi]

Maybe because homosexuality is not a 'Genetic Fault', the assumption is that because it happen while the fetus is developing that it is a 'mistake' by the body in some way.

I don't see any evidence to suggest that whatsoever, just because it doesn't fit into someones vision of an ideal world does not mean it is not a natural thing.

We tend to define 'natural acts' as traits we assign to ourselves, not to humanity.

True. If it occurs in nature, it's natural, and it's well documented that it does occur in nature. But nature can make mistakes, surely?

There's reasoning for both sides I think.. I certainly wouldn't blame a mother who chose to "switch off the gay" for the sake of protecting her child. Abortion.. I don't even know where I'd stand on that. My gut says against, but my brain says for. Do anti-discrimination laws apply to a fetus? It's so confusing. 

[Mefustae]

Do anti-discrimination laws apply to a fetus? It's so confusing. 

Technically a foetus isn't a person, and is thus not afforded the same rights as any given human being. Which is perfectly alright in my eyes. The foetus should be considered part of the mother until it's out, and thus the mother holds the ultimate vote in terms of the fate of the foetus. I don't see how you could fault that plain, simple logic.

Just like abortion, it should ultimately be the choice of the mother. I may not like it, but if a mother chooses to prevent homosexuality in an otherwise gay baby, it's her choice to make. Anyway, if a mother is prepared to tamper with her baby to block out homosexuality, chances are the household isn't exactly well-suited to bring up a gay individual anyway.

[Alikchi]

Do anti-discrimination laws apply to a fetus? It's so confusing. 

Technically a foetus isn't a person, and is thus not afforded the same rights as any given human being. Which is perfectly alright in my eyes. The foetus should be considered part of the mother until it's out, and thus the mother holds the ultimate vote in terms of the fate of the foetus. I don't see how you could fault that plain, simple logic.

Just like abortion, it should ultimately be the choice of the mother. I may not like it, but if a mother chooses to prevent homosexuality in an otherwise gay baby, it's her choice to make.

I think I'd have to agree with you, knowing that. It's her body. Still, I'm sure there are some GLBT activists that won't be as easily persuaded.. maybe a small fraction but they'll be there. And it is going to cause all sorts of trouble. 

[Flipside]

Yes, Nature can make mistakes, but from the sound of the description, it's more along the lines that the oldest male gets the 'Alpha' treatment, the first-born is the heir to the family, the younger 'heirs' do not have that same level of 'Alpha-intensity'.
That, to me suggest it is more like a familial defence mechansim than an 'error'.

I suppose for it to make sense you have to look back at humanity before we started building cities etc, from a biological point of view, the over-expansion of a single family gene can actually be quite dangerous, inbreeding is a dangerous thing, and in the times of tribal-humanity, travel wasn't widespread enough to prevent it happening.

So, yes, even though I'm the youngest of 3 boys, I think that the more children a female has, in many cases, the later children will not have the intesity of 'maleness', for want of a better word, than the older ones. Indeed, homosexuality may just be Natures way of preventing family gene from spreading too far.

So I do think homosexuality was 'part of the plan', the fact that some people are uncomfortable with it isn't really evidence that it is wrong, in my opinion.

[Bobboau]

it could be something as simple as later children have more exposure to the same gender and be totally an environment. I've really come to not buy the 'you'r just born that way' line of thought, there are probably genes that contribute in one way or another, but from my personal experiences, it seems as though it is governed by the same rules of reinforcement as everything else.

[Mefustae]

it could be something as simple as later children have more exposure to the same gender and be totally an environment. I've really come to not buy the 'you'r just born that way' line of thought, there are probably genes that contribute in one way or another, but from my personal experiences, it seems as though it is governed by the same rules of reinforcement as everything else.

It's possible that there's a reinforcement component to homosexuality, but you can't just dismiss the entire idea that it's inherent to your genes just because... hey, do you even have a reason to dismiss it out of hand? And what do you mean by 'personal experiences', are you gay?*

*Serious question, possibly for the first time ever in the history of the internet

[Bobboau]

no, but I've considered it, and I find if I don't limit myself by any preconceptions I can go to just about anything. I find that my dislike of the male form is little more than any other of my dislikes and not particularly based on anything hardcoded, it has the same feel to it as my aversion to pork, it's just something I don't like.

I hate getting into conversations like this cause if I'm honest everyone instantly starts going, 'oh, are you gay?'. to be honest, I'm hardly anything and I tend to find everyone else's preoccupation with sex and the importance people place on it absurd.

and who's dismissing anything, I said, genes probably play a role, I just think people have a much greater ability to form themselves than most people for whatever reason seem comfortable with.

[Mefustae]

I hate getting into conversations like this cause if I'm honest everyone instantly starts going, 'oh, are you gay?'. to be honest, I'm hardly anything and I tend to find everyone else's preoccupation with sex and the importance people place on it absurd.

Given that society is based almost entirely on sex, what with the drive to procreate motivating almost every action we take, i'd say it's pretty damn important! Anyway, there's no need to get all uppity, it was just an innocent question.

and who's dismissing anything, I said, genes probably play a role, I just think people have a much greater ability to form themselves than most people for whatever reason seem comfortable with.

I don't get quite what you mean. Saying you can fight against your genes - effectively your nature - is getting dangerously close to "pray the gay away". I'm not saying all actions are dictated by our genes, just that trying to change our base coding is just going to do you a world of psychological harm.

[karajorma]

it could be something as simple as later children have more exposure to the same gender and be totally an environment. I've really come to not buy the 'you'r just born that way' line of thought

researchers have studied boys who weren’t raised in their biological families, or who may have been firstborn but grew up as the youngest in Brady Bunch–type homes. In every permutation, the results were the same: What mattered was only how many boys had occupied your mother’s uterus before you.

I'd say that tends to speak against that. Someone who is a 3rd male child brought up as an only child should not be any more likely to be gay then but that quote seems to suggest that they are.


EDIT : You know something? This gives a whole new spin on that old "First son for the military, second son for the priesthood" thing.

[Bobboau]

oh, that is interesting.

anyway, I didn't say fighting against your genes, I said... ok let's put it this way, there are genes that cause you to be more likely to get cancer, but what you do in life has a great effect on the actual outcome. your opinions are formed in your brain which is built from genes, so your genes will have an effect on what and how you think, but they are just a basic template for the structure, and that structure is designed for a great deal of flexibility, it seems to me that it would be pretty easy for someone born with every gay gene and hormonal influence to develop into a heterosexual as would the converse, given proper environment.

further, the psychological 'world of hurt' comes from self loathing brought up by you finding you have a sexual preference that goes against what you think should be right, the only reason you'd loath yourself over having the wrong preference is if you place a lot of importance upon that preference, were once again, my 'sex isn't really very important' attitude once again comes to save the day.

[Black Wolf]

Yes, Nature can make mistakes, but from the sound of the description, it's more along the lines that the oldest male gets the 'Alpha' treatment, the first-born is the heir to the family, the younger 'heirs' do not have that same level of 'Alpha-intensity'.
That, to me suggest it is more like a familial defence mechansim than an 'error'.

I suppose for it to make sense you have to look back at humanity before we started building cities etc, from a biological point of view, the over-expansion of a single family gene can actually be quite dangerous, inbreeding is a dangerous thing, and in the times of tribal-humanity, travel wasn't widespread enough to prevent it happening.

So, yes, even though I'm the youngest of 3 boys, I think that the more children a female has, in many cases, the later children will not have the intesity of 'maleness', for want of a better word, than the older ones. Indeed, homosexuality may just be Natures way of preventing family gene from spreading too far.

So I do think homosexuality was 'part of the plan', the fact that some people are uncomfortable with it isn't really evidence that it is wrong, in my opinion.

Don't really think so TBH. I don't think species wide evolution could really work like that - it makes very little sense to put any kind of self limiter on your potential as a reproductive individual, particularly when that means hamstringing the offspring that you're going to put all the energy of giving birth to and raising (particularly not in a species like humans, where you're looking at at least ten odd years of almost complete dependence - that's an investment you're going to want a return on). No, I suspect this is some kind of genetic overhang, if it exists at all. I mean, think about the numbers.

Estimates for the homosexual population range from 1% to 10%. So, being generous, I'll go with the middle ground and say 5%. Now, if this steady 33% increase exists, the actual chance of being born gay should be slightly lower than that, say, around 3.5% - 4%. So, if you've got a 3.5% chance of being born gay as a first born son. A secoind born son, therefore has around 4.666% chance, a third born 6%, a fourth son 8.3% and a fifth son 11%. But, realistically, how many people know of families with five male kids? Realistically, you're going to struggle to get solid data for the fourth son and above groups, so you're trying to analyze a 2.5% difference. Depending on the size of the sample group, that's quite possibly well within the margins of error. Now, granted, there's supposedly a "string of surveys" to support this, but I'm not going to trust the New York Magazine on a 2.5 percent difference.

[IPAndrews]

I sat near two gay blokes on the bus today, both with the sqeaky voice and the downward hand movements, having a lover's tiff. I think it's just a cultural thing, you adopt the manerisms that serve you best in your particular environment. The trick is not to assume the stereotype applies in 100% of cases. For instance I'm from Hull but have always disguised my Hull accent. The result is an accent that sounds confusingly non-specific northern, I'm told. The point is that 95% of the people who live here haven't gone to the trouble of trying to pretend otherwise, so they all sound like stereotypical Hull types. Making use of stereotypes is playing the odds. It's akin to abstraction, a concept the human mind relies on a great deal in order to make sense of a very complex world. Stereotyping has a purpose, there's nothing wrong with it, people just need to be mindful of it's limitations.