will this thread ever die?

11/30/2008 11:58:46 PM

I agree with GoldenViper.

It is very easy to fall back on "It's not a choice. It's genetic!" when dealing with the closed-minded because that's the only condition under which they will accept it, and then they can pity the poor soul afflicted with the gay.

And, GV, people don't really get to choose their environment. So it still stands that most people don't choose to be gay in the same way that most people don't choose to be straight.

12/1/2008 12:00:05 AM

^ That is very true, but it still helps, IMO, to have good solid evidence.

12/1/2008 12:02:00 AM

Quote :

"Here is an older study that discusses yet even older studies, but it touches on homosexuals identifying themselves at early ages, usually against hostile backgrounds."

Uh, okay. That sure ain't much evidence for folks being born gay. Culture dominates those accounts. The text even notes how few of the gays and lesbians involved had exclusively homosexual attractions and experiences. Sexual orientation is a strange and unnecessary invention.

Quote :

"And, GV, people don't really get to choose their environment. So it still stands that most people don't choose to be gay in the same way that most people don't choose to be straight."

Do people actively choose preferences or attractions to anything? Did I choose to like lime juice? I don't think of it that way. But this taste isn't opposed to enjoying lemon. And if my passion for lime wanes in the future, I won't suffer an identify crisis. What's the point of sexual orientation? If we're simply talking preference, why the aura of immutability and weighty baggage? I say it's an tool of the patriarchy.


[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 12:12 AM. Reason : wth]

12/1/2008 12:03:51 AM

^I still agree.

Quote :

"GoldenViper: Sexual orientation is a strange and unnecessary invention."

I have to remember this. That's a really good way of expressing it. Whenever I've heard people try to say this, they always sound a little crude.

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 12:29 AM. Reason : sss]

12/1/2008 12:11:32 AM

^^ culture can't dominate the accounts, I can't see how you're reading that in when the explicitly say otherwise.

The first link specifically says most gays exist against a hostile background.

And you should know just by living here, at least in any part of the US that's not San Francisco, most people are not going to be too accepting of gays, it doesn't make logical sense for culture to be the determining factor.

Considering though it's difficult to prove empirically that people are gay at the age of 2, it probably won't be "proven" for a while that they're born that way. But you can tell from the accounts there that upon looking back on their preadolescent selves, it fits with their adolescent identity of themselves, which highly suggests it is an innate property.

Quote :

""And, GV, people don't really get to choose their environment. So it still stands that most people don't choose to be gay in the same way that most people don't choose to be straight." Do people actively choose preferences or attractions to anything? Did I choose to like lime juice? I don't think of it that way. But this taste isn't opposed to enjoying lemon. And if my passion for lime wanes in the future, I won't suffer an identify crisis. What's the point of sexual orientation? If we're simply talking preference, why the aura of immutability and weighty baggage? I say it's an tool of the patriarchy. "

You seem to be operating under the assumption that all human traits have the same etiology, which is clearly not the case. Tastes!=orientation.

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 12:19 AM. Reason : ]

12/1/2008 12:16:16 AM

Quote :

"culture can't dominate the accounts, I can't see how you're reading that in when the explicitly say otherwise."

The first part I read went on and on about gender non-conformity. That's intensely cultural. If we didn't have gender, this wouldn't be an issue. Furthermore, the author repeatedly notes how t3h gh3ys have to learn about homosexuality as category before they can identify. That's socially constructed. In a different world, they'd simply be people.

Quote :

"But you can tell from the accounts there that upon looking back on their preadolescent selves, it fits with their adolescent identity of themselves, which highly suggests it is an innate property."

I guess I was born a geek, then. I persevered in my love for computer games, Magic cards, and comic books dispute scorn from my peers, so it can't be cultural. Eventually, once I learned more, I came to identify strongly with the subculture. Looking back, I can see that I exhibited geeky tendencies as child. Case closed.

Quote :

"Tastes!=orientation."

You really need to stop using this technique.

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 12:30 AM. Reason : geek]

12/1/2008 12:23:21 AM

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n518663m16636v1k/

Quote :

"Sexual Orientation in Women with Classical or Non-classical Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia as a Function of Degree of Prenatal Androgen Excess Abstract: 46,XX individuals with classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) due to deficiency of the enzyme, 21-hydroxylase, show variable degrees of masculinization of body and behavior due to excess adrenal androgen production. Increased bisexuality and homosexuality have also been reported. This article provides a review of existing reports of the latter and presents a new study aimed at replicating the previous findings with detailed assessments of sexual orientation on relatively large samples, and at extending the investigation to the mildest form, non-classical (NC) CAH. Also, this is the first study to relate sexual orientation to the specific molecular genotypes of CAH. In the present study, 40 salt-wasters (SW), 21 SV (simple-virilizing), 82 NC, and 24 non-CAH control women (sisters and female cousins of CAH women) were blindly administered the Sexual Behavior Assessment Schedule (SEBAS-A, 1983 ed.; H. F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg & A. A. Ehrhardt, Privately printed). Most women were heterosexual, but the rates of bisexual and homosexual orientation were increased above controls not only in women with classical CAH, but also in NC women, and correlated with the degree of prenatal androgenization. Classifying women by molecular genotypes did not further increase the correlation. Diverse aspects of sexual orientation were highly intercorrelated, and principal components analysis yielded one general factor. Bisexual/homosexual orientation was (modestly) correlated with global measures of masculinization of non-sexual behavior and predicted independently by the degree of both prenatal androgenization and masculinization of childhood behavior. We conclude that the findings support a sexual-differentiation perspective involving prenatal androgens on the development of sexual orientation."

Study showing a correlation between a certain congenital condition and homosexuality.

Quote :

"Abstract: Although numerous researchers have hypothesized a biological factor in the etiology of homosexuality, there is a lack of empirical evidence. Previous investigations did not focus on behavioral functions of the brain. Using neuropsychological testing, we found an increased incidence of left-hand preference (defined as non-consistent right-hand preference) in a group of 32 homosexual women. A trend in the same direction was found in a group of 38 homosexual men. These results suggest that homosexual orientation has a neurobiological component possibly related to hemispheric functional asymmetry. The results are consistent with previous reports that (1) prenatal neuroendocrine events are a factor in the development of human sexual orientation and functional brain asymmetries, and (2) the mechanisms associated with homosexual orientation and related neuropsychological characteristics are different between the sexes, i.e. elevated levels of prenatal sex hormones in women and decreased levels in men."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBX-484NBST-BG&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f4e192d832c4e3c875746fa0a001abbf

Quote :

"Abstract: Matched groups of homosexual men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women (n=38 per group) were tested on three measures of spatial ability and two measures of fluency that typically reveal sex differences. For the three spatial tests and one of the fluency tests, the mean performance of homosexual men fell between those of the heterosexual men and women. The pattern of cognitive skills of homosexual men was different from that of heterosexual men: homosexual men had lower spatial ability relative to fluency. The cognitive pattern of homosexual men was not significantly different from that of heterosexual women. In addition, the results suggest that homosexual men classified on the basis of hand preference may form two subgroups that differ in cognitive pattern. These findings are compatible with the hypothesis that there is a neurobiological factor related to sexual differentiation in the etiology of homosexuality. "

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBX-485YJ0Y-88&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8beca1d251e49f79e0795dac0f78f5a5

Quote :

"Abstract: This hypothesis agrees with Le Vay's suggestion that the two phenomena of childhood behavior and adult sexuality are induced by separate events rather than being two events in a single chain (1). However, it differs from Le Vay in that it includes the postnatal period, as being of crucial importance in the development of adult sexuality. Male homosexuality is portrayed as a biological variation of human sexuality and the hormonal changes which may produce it are described. It is postulated that sexual preference is dictated by testosterone action on the brain possibly commencing prenatally but certainly continuing during a critical postnatal period. It is proposed that reduction in testosterone action results in reduced proliferation of hypothalamic nuclei, which play a vital role in psycho-sexual orientation. The cause of this reduction in testosterone is the prolongation of hyperprolactinemia during this critical postnatal period, which is deemed to be secondary to prolactin microadenomata stimulated to secrete prolactin by high estrogen levels at the end of pregnancy and failing to turn off this secretion until after this critical postnatal period. It is postulated that there is a temporal dissociation between the development of masculine behaviour and psycho-sexual orientation, but that hormonal influences may overlap these periods. Hyperprolactinemia, caused by stress upon the infant, may also influence psychosexual orientation."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WN2-4F2MJW1-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=29f2c9ec1758c1b2e9f721741fa727e7


More:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g82x8357418k2752/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/trx634t761808391/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WMD-45MGSND-55&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c8251f48cc7387ba73b7796b4bbe3962

12/1/2008 12:35:48 AM

^ Something seems to have gone wrong.

As you may have gathered from my reference to twin studies, I'm aware of studies showing some correlation between genetic similarity and homosexuality.

Anyways, I answer your Google book with one of my own:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YQX0cyzhTpcC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=sexual+orientation+%2B+invention&source=web&ots=sZcCuxvcJI&sig=upfTSay3_Iil5XIXiOn-j4cxzTY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA83,M1

Enjoy.

12/1/2008 12:44:20 AM

^ as I previously have said, I am not, nor have I been saying that it is genetic. The research doesn't really point that way, as most of the studies above note.

12/1/2008 12:45:52 AM

^ So which one of those many studies will tell me, as you asserted earlier, that it's not a choice?

Le Vay's studies show only correlation. Identify as a homosexual could cause those differences, rather than the other way around.

For further problems with Le Vay and the whole business, see here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0AMN4_xZJDsC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=le+vay+%2B+correlation&source=web&ots=qYGA5j9NVE&sig=hPTGloQbOuU3E4seQKXD9DpqZfc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 1:03 AM. Reason : It's a link war!]

12/1/2008 12:51:46 AM

^ all of them, essentially.

The point of them is not to say "hey this is a choice" but they discuss different correlations and pathways that are things you can't actually choose.

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 12:55 AM. Reason : ]

12/1/2008 12:54:13 AM

^ That's shaky to say the least.

But I don't mind being born a geek. (And no, I can't change. Even if I were thrust back into impossibility primitive times, this essential nature would remain.)

12/1/2008 1:06:08 AM

^ Not as shaky as your grossly unsubstantiated claim that it's mostly cultural/societal.

Are you telling me that you can choose whether or not you're going to have an adrenal hyperplasia in your mother's womb? Because that would be a Nobel-prize winning revelation.

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 1:09 AM. Reason : ]

12/1/2008 1:07:33 AM

Sexual orientation has only existed for a couple hundred years. It's an obvious social construct.

Quote :

"Are you telling me that you can choose whether or not you're going to have an adrenal hyperplasia in your mother's womb?"

Yes, that's been the main thrust of my argument in this thread.

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 1:12 AM. Reason : adrenal HYPERplasia]

12/1/2008 1:10:56 AM

^ Where should I send your Nobel prize to?

I know at least 7 groups of researchers who would like to talk to you as well.

and aaronburro just called me to tell you to stop stealing his shtick, only he is allowed to be annoyingly obtuse.

12/1/2008 1:13:33 AM

Quote :

"I know at least 7 groups of researchers who would like to talk to you as well."

Feel free to send them my way. I love to argue about this subject.

Quote :

"and aaronburro just called me to tell you to stop stealing his shtick, only he is allowed to be annoyingly obtuse."

It's not my fault, I was born this way. Part of my essential nature as a geek.

You know, even if sexual orientation exists and becomes hard-wired at an early age, humans still choose their behavior. (In the sense that we choose anything.) We can agree on that much, I hope. And, if necessary, refixation treatment will eventually become available. (Think Trouble on Triton.)

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 1:23 AM. Reason : born geek]

12/1/2008 1:20:49 AM

Quote :

"You know, even if sexual orientation exists and becomes hard-wired at an early age, humans still choose their behavior. (In the sense that we choose anything.) We can agree on that much, I hope. "

That's is a meaningless, self-evident, and pedantic statement. That's like saying slaves chose slavery because they didn't revolt, or jews chose genocide because they didn't revolt.

Quote :

"It's not my fault, I was born this. Part of my essential nature as a geek. "

I can't tell if you're joking, but your essential nature as a geek could very well be hardwired. I contend that certain types of rednecks are just geeks born on farms.


[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 1:24 AM. Reason : ]

12/1/2008 1:23:02 AM

Quote :

"That's like saying slaves chose slavery because they didn't revolt, or jews chose genocide because they didn't revolt."

You'll have to walk me through this. How is it like that at all?

12/1/2008 1:24:32 AM

If I am a black person in the 1800s, working in a field for no pay, etc., I am a slave.

What stops me from saying "screw this, i'm leaving"? How hard would it really be for me to slip away in the middle of the night, and stop being a slave?

By NOT doing this, and staying where I was, like most slaves did, then I am "choosing" to be a slave. Which I guess is technically true, but utterly meaningless to the issue of slavery.

12/1/2008 1:27:40 AM

Again, how is that like choosing or not choosing to engage to sexual activity?

Old Kinsey seems to have had a solid grasp of the issue:

This problem, is after all, part of the broader
problem of choices in general: the choice of the road
that one takes, of the clothes that one wears, of the
food that one eats, of the place in which one sleeps,
and of the endless other things that one is constantly
choosing. A choice of a partner in a sexual relation
becomes more significant only because society demands
that there be a particular choice in this matter, and
does not so often dictate one's choice of food or of
clothing.

Gays and straights only exist because we label them.

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 1:42 AM. Reason : Kinsey]

12/1/2008 1:30:28 AM

Quote :

"Gays and straights only exist because we label them."

spoken like a true bisexual


look, i'm all for gay rights and shit, but gimme a fucking break already.

12/1/2008 5:21:33 PM

^^ I think we're discussing different things here...

You seem to be distraught about the semantics of the words "gay" and "straight," i'm talking about the meaning of these words in the context of the studies that use them.

The words themselves have no recognition innately of the spectrum of emotions that go towards defining sexuality, but that doesn't mean the words, when understood to represent thresholds, don't have a meaning. Most people can in fact reasonably and accurately lump themselves under the terms "gay" and "straight" and i'm sure there is a small percentage of people that float in between, but that's not what i'm talking about.

Your propensity to lay on one side of the spectrum or the other is primarily out of your own control, which is what the studies i've posted clearly indicate.

12/1/2008 5:46:12 PM

Quote :

"spoken like a true bisexual"

According to surveys, some level of bisexuality is significantly more common than exclusive homosexuality.

Quote :

"You seem to be distraught about the semantics of the words "gay" and "straight," i'm talking about the meaning of these words in the context of the studies that use them."

And what meaning would this be? Scientists aren't magically free from their culture and social circumstances.

Quote :

"Your propensity to lay on one side of the spectrum or the other is primarily out of your own control, which is what the studies i've posted clearly indicate."

They don't prove that claim, no. I don't think debate has been a misunderstanding. We seem to disagree.

12/1/2008 5:57:15 PM

Quote :

"And what meaning would this be? Scientists aren't magically free from their culture and social circumstances."

Umm... I explained this in the post?

Quote :

" Quote : "Your propensity to lay on one side of the spectrum or the other is primarily out of your own control, which is what the studies i've posted clearly indicate." They don't prove that claim, no. I don't think debate has been a misunderstanding. We seem to disagree. "

I never said they "proved" it but it is the most valid hypothesis based on the data.

12/1/2008 6:01:31 PM

Our knowledge of human sexuality has a long way to go. That's the take-home message, folks.

Don't mimic us. Instead, avoid jumping to any firm conclusions.

Now, back to the fun part:

http://www.queerbychoice.com/

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM. Reason : propaganda]

12/1/2008 6:07:12 PM

So here's a question....should gyms like 'Curves' that are strictly for women, be prosecuted for breaking the law?

12/1/2008 8:20:05 PM

^ They shouldn't, and they wouldn't be, and if they were, I predict they would likely prevail in court.

Just like eHarmony might have if they in fact had legitimate reasons to not accept gays. But instead, eHarmony CHOSE to settle by creating a gay website.

12/1/2008 8:54:58 PM

hey GoldenViper, just because YOU like to smoke a cock every now and then to prove
to yourself how you're not part of the Great Western Patriarchal Oppression of All Things Vaginal ...
well, that doesnt mean you're not still out on the far margin of human biobehavior

now, do homosexuals want a permanent relationship, and want to call it marriage, and have all
the social/legal/economic rights? thats fine with me. i can think of no reason why they shouldnt.

but if you're trying to tell me that gradients of bisexuality is a norm and exclusive preference of
one gender is not -- I say thats just bullshit. all recent studies point to genetic link that causes
some to have a predisposition towards homosexuality as a variation from the default of heterosexuality.

If you insist on going AGAINST the grain of established scientific research, you'll need to come up
with some REAL research -- not some Queer Studies Professor who writes longwinded prose about
the etymology of the word "heterosexual"





[Edited on December 2, 2008 at 2:43 AM. Reason : ]

12/2/2008 2:42:39 AM

^^They did have legit reasons...they hadn't done research on the subject....

12/2/2008 12:11:19 PM

^^ The idea of universal bisexuality isn't new or particularly revolutionary. After all, we can agree, I hope, that humans tend to like being touched, to having their bodies stimulated. Few people, if any, are myopic enough to enjoy only traditional heterosexual intercourse. Many other sex acts work fine regardless of parts. Anyone who likes these acts with people of one sex would also like them with the other. Nothing physical prevents this, but rather mental hangups. I strongly doubt anyone's born with such inhibitions.

The whole idea of gender has to be taught. It's not strictly based on scientific criteria. Biologically, we've got diversity beyond the accepted binary. See Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto-Sterling. The research into sexual orientation does not support the mainstream view of sexuality so much as it takes this cultural understanding for granted. See The Mismeasure of Desire by Edward Stein for further criticism and philosophical explorations.

12/2/2008 2:59:42 PM

yeah, yeah, yeah. look... i read Ursula K. LeGuin when I was a teenager, too.

but here you're going to need more than some queer "philosophers".

so come back when you get some actual data.




[Edited on December 2, 2008 at 3:23 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2008 3:21:34 PM

Quote :

"but here you're going to need more than some queer "philosophers"."

To convince you, maybe. I'm okay if you remain unswayed. Seriously. I can live with that. Personally, I'll stick with my queer theorists.

Quote :

"so come back when you get some actual data."

How about the historical evidence of widely different sexual practices by culture? Lets look at what you've got. "Scientists" asking people to adopt one of the culturally accepted labels and then taking a few measurements. Their studies hardly prove the things you claim.

12/2/2008 3:38:45 PM

Quote :

"They did have legit reasons...they hadn't done research on the subject."

And most of the people in prison say they are innocent too. Maybe we should have taken Enron on their word they weren't doing anything illegal too, right?

12/2/2008 6:28:58 PM

Quote :

"They shouldn't, and they wouldn't be, and if they were, I predict they would likely prevail in court. Just like eHarmony might have if they in fact had legitimate reasons to not accept gays. But instead, eHarmony CHOSE to settle by creating a gay website."

I fail to see how "women don't want to be ogled" is any more or less valid than "we don't feel comfortable serving that market"

12/2/2008 8:12:35 PM

^ because if they're reasoning for not feeling comfortable is that gays are icky, then they are in violation of NJ's law.

12/2/2008 8:24:19 PM

Well I happened to go to mypartner.com and filled out a thing just to see...and there were questions asked that I can honestly say must be unique to the gay community...so clearly there are research items that differ.

12/2/2008 9:29:56 PM

^ actually, that doesn't "clearly" demonstrate that at all, I don't know why you would think that. You don't know what their algorithm is doing, or why, you only know what they are exposing to the user.

And that doesn't really have any bearing on this issue either.

12/2/2008 10:41:46 PM