Being born Gay=Mental Illness?

[levdrakon]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, that’s what we in the business call an anecdote, not data. What I’d be looking for is a systematic study that showed that the “gay aunt/uncle” situation is an integral part of some society-- preferably a primitive hunter/gatherer society since that is the type of society we evloved in.

Fa’afafine. I don’t think Samoans invented Fa’afafine a week before Margaret Mead showed up.

This is probably where you’re getting things wrong, as that is definitely not true. It could just as easily be a by-product of something else that conferred an advantage (which is basically what my hypothesis is about). Or, it could simply not be disadvantageous enough to disappear. But not every trait is the result of some evolutionary advantage conferred on the species by that trait.

Cite, please. I want to see a systematic study that shows homosexuality – preferably in a primitive hunter/gatherer society since that is the type of society we evolved in – was a by-product of something else that conferred an advantage.

[Excalibre]

@levdrakon

Cite, please. I want to see a systematic study that shows homosexuality – preferably in a primitive hunter/gatherer society since that is the type of society we evolved in – was a by-product of something else that conferred an advantage.

Wrong. You’re making an argument for the gay uncle hypothesis. It’s up to you to prove it.

[Excalibre]

Oh, and that discussion of fa’afafine doesn’t come close to proving what you’re asserting - bio-males who identify as females are transgendered, not gay.

[levdrakon]

Excalibre, I’m discussing this with John Mace. Quit acting like his sock-puppet. You & I are done. The emotionality of your posts is more than I want to deal with.

[John_Mace]

@levdrakon

Fa’afafine. I don’t think Samoans invented Fa’afafine a week before Margaret Mead showed up.

But those aren’t gay aunts and uncles. Your own cite says that they were married later on as adults. If anything, that actually undercuts the gay aunt/uncle hypothesi. It’s just another example of who really does the “babysitting”-- siblings.

Cite, please. I want to see a systematic study that shows homosexuality – preferably in a primitive hunter/gatherer society since that is the type of society we evolved in – was a by-product of something else that conferred an advantage.

You misunderstand the point I was trying to make. I said it could have come about that way, not that it did. I’m simply pointing out that this statement that you made:

For homosexuality to have evolved, it must at some point have conferred some sort of advantage.

is factually incorrect (about any evolved trait).

[Excalibre]

@levdrakon

Excalibre, I’m discussing this with John Mace. Quit acting like his sock-puppet. You & I are done. The emotionality of your posts is more than I want to deal with.

If you think I’m leaving this thread just because you ruined what had been a very interesting discussion, you’re wrong. And if you think I’m going to stop calling you on your out-and-out lies, you’re wrong again. Look, dude, we were having an interesting discussion before you decided to shit all over it.

[John_Mace]

BTW, levdrakon, the Fa’afafine just may be a cultural adaptation to the existence of homosexuality rather the reason homosexuality evolved. One of the things we do know is that your odds of being gay increase with your birth order. If these individuals were the youngest siblings in a large families, they probably had a higher incidence of homosexual. But even that is stretching it since it’s just a slight increase in the probability, not a sure thing. Please be clear that I’m not saying high birth order = gay.

[levdrakon]

@John Mace

But those aren’t gay aunts and uncles. Your own cite says that they were married later on as adults. If anything, that actually undercuts the gay aunt/uncle hypothesi. It’s just another example of who really does the “babysitting”-- siblings.

But if your siblings are raising your kids, isn’t that the gay aunt/uncle? Or do you mean the kids’ gay brothers & sisters are helping out? Ok, that’s not gay aunt/uncle. I admit that. But there are gays around, and they’re helping out. I really want to get out of this box of arguing specifically for gay aunt/uncles. I just mean, there are gays & lesbians in the family tribe, and they help out. They could be siblings, cousins, friends of the family, whatever.

Also yes, a Fa’afafine can be pretty complex. Could be a heterosexual boy the parents decide should do girl’s work. Could be a gay boy whose parents recognized he had a propensity for girly stuff, and let him run with it. Some Fa’afafine go on to marry the opposite sex and have kids. Some Fa’afafine stay in their preferred gender role, marry the same sex, and don’t have kids.

You misunderstand the point I was trying to make. I said it could have come about that way, not that it did. I’m simply pointing out that this statement that you made:
is factually incorrect (about any evolved trait).

You said you wanted a study of primitive hunter/gather society to back up my claim which I’ve acknowledged all over the place I can’t produce, anymore than you can produce one supporting your evolutionary by-product theory.

[Mimetheunholy]

I’d wager that no one really knows why exactly somone turns out gay, I’ve heard alot of responses about why culturaly it was “maybe” beneficial thousands of years ago. I don’t see however that is truly the case of what I was looking for in an answer, mainly because now in 2006 we don’t need gay people to look after are young or to make sure our wives are fed while we are out at war. I doubt that thousands of years ago that gay people didn’t have to go out just like the other straight men to fight, farm, harvest and all the other stuff…So I don’t believe that theory for a second.

At first I wanted to know if being a homosexual could be classified as a mental disorder, I think that was maybe a little too harsh to say but what I want to know is if you are born being gay then was is it exactly that causes you to be born gay…Is it something in the brain?

I then remember someone saying that it had to do with hormones at birth, which if that is the case then could someone just invent a magic pill that could be given to make sure someone was straight as long as they kept taking it? I dont remember hearing any studies.

I agree that there would be no stigma against homosexuals if there wasnt homophobia itself, but we live in a world where people hate other people just because of the color of there skin and I agree its all bullshit but thats for another thread.

There is obviously something develops differently between a heterosexual and a homosexuals at birth, whether its genes, hormones, or something else.

[levdrakon]

@John Mace

BTW, levdrakon, the Fa’afafine just may be a cultural adaptation to the existence of homosexuality rather the reason homosexuality evolved

Agreed. I don’t think homosexuality evolved because families decided they needed an extra boy or an extra girl.

@Mimetheunholy

I’d wager that no one really knows why exactly somone turns out gay, I’ve heard alot of responses about why culturaly it was “maybe” beneficial thousands of years ago. I don’t see however that is truly the case of what I was looking for in an answer, mainly because now in 2006 we don’t need gay people to look after are young or to make sure our wives are fed while we are out at war.

You seem to be wondering what purpose homosexuals serve today, when we don’t need them. We also don’t need heterosexuals. If you have the money, you can just buy sperm or hire a uterus. In another fifty or one hundred years from now, you will probably be able to clone your own sperm & eggs, & use an artificial womb.

[Excalibre]

@levdrakon

But if your siblings are raising your kids, isn’t that the gay aunt/uncle? Or do you mean the kids’ gay brothers & sisters are helping out? Ok, that’s not gay aunt/uncle. I admit that. But there are gays around, and they’re helping out. I really want to get out of this box of arguing specifically for gay aunt/uncles. I just mean, there are gays & lesbians in the family tribe, and they help out. They could be siblings, cousins, friends of the family, whatever.

Siblings in our culture routinely take part in care for their younger siblings, and it has nothing to do with whether they’re gay. I’m not sure why “siblings raising younger siblings” is a sign that the gay uncle theory is meaningful in any other culture, especially since it the gay uncle theory is based upon gay people having extra time on their hands because they’re not raising children of their own. Even if the Samoa have a special social role for gay people involving them taking part in care for their younger siblings at a young age, it doesn’t support the gay uncle theory at all, since it is not a special social role based upon their not having children (as neither gay nor straight people would have children at such a young age.) If it’s necessary for older children to care for younger children, that would presumably arise in a culture whether there are gay people or not.

[Excalibre]

@Mimetheunholy

At first I wanted to know if being a homosexual could be classified as a mental disorder, I think that was maybe a little too harsh to say but what I want to know is if you are born being gay then was is it exactly that causes you to be born gay…Is it something in the brain?

Once again, no one knows for sure. There’s some evidence that it’s something inborn, but that evidence is not clear. Identical twins have identical DNA, but if one identical twin is gay, odds are around fifty percent that their twin is as well, which means that purely genetic phenomena are involved but can’t account for all of it. John Mace mentioned the “older brother” thing - boys born to mothers who have already had male children are somewhat more likely to be gay, which may suggest something changes in the prenatal environment that influences sexuality; a number of proposals dealing with prenatal hormones are out there, but I none of them are proven yet.

I then remember someone saying that it had to do with hormones at birth, which if that is the case then could someone just invent a magic pill that could be given to make sure someone was straight as long as they kept taking it? I dont remember hearing any studies.

Sex hormones influence brain (and body) development before birth; in fact, the genes that determine sex act by stimulating the production of sex hormones. In the extreme case, there are women born with androgen insensitivity; genetically, they appear male as they have XY chromosomes and produce androgens - male hormones. But those hormones can’t act, because they’re missing the receptors for them. As a result, while they have testes, the rest of their physical development is female; they develop female external genitalia, and their testes never descend, instead remaining in the same place as ovaries would in XX females.

Which suggests that even if it’s a purely hormonal matter, there’s no reason to think that somehow supplementing hormones at birth would make any difference - if those hormones cause a child’s brain development (Shagnasty’s earlier post discussed the differences between brains in straight and gay men) to be “abnormal” (forgive the term), supplementation of hormones probably won’t change the way the brain has already developed.

I know that during the bad old days, experiments with hormones were done on gay people to see if being gay could be “treated” that way; those experiments didn’t work. If there’s a drug that turns gay people straight, it hasn’t been found. But since there seem to be systematic differences in the brains of gay and straight people, it seems unlikely that such a drug could exist anyway.

I agree that there would be no stigma against homosexuals if there wasnt homophobia itself, but we live in a world where people hate other people just because of the color of there skin and I agree its all bullshit but thats for another thread.

Right, but most gay people don’t want to change even if society holds prejudice against us. I acknowledged above that I think being gay is most likely not biologically advantageous or adaptive; that doesn’t mean that I consider it a disorder to be cured. I don’t think many gay people do.

There is obviously something develops differently between a heterosexual and a homosexuals at birth, whether its genes, hormones, or something else.

Right. We just don’t know what it is. There’s a lot of tantalizing clues - genes that seem to be associated with being gay, hormonal phenomena in utero, physical differences in the brain and body - but none of them is adequate to explain homosexuality fully. We just don’t know yet, but all the evidence points to it being extremely complicated.

[Mimetheunholy]

levdrakon, sure we can say based on science that we no longer need sexuality for anything other then pleasure…The truth is however that there are many cultures that don’t have the benefits of science. There are cultures where it would be more beneficial to have a boy rather then a girl due to laboring (Farming and Protection) but I disagree that a homsexual male would be used in the ways people are claiming thousands of years ago to solely help the women raise the children-I imagine they would still be forced to do the same as the straight men.

Thats also saying that if I choose as a heterosexual that I don’t wish to have children, that I might as well use my sexuality to just fuck anything around? There are reasons why someone is attracted to either a male or a female and I agree it does have more to deal with then just reproductive terms. What I’m asking is what are the reasons behind why homosexuals are attracted to the same sex when they are born? I’m still willing to say that its an irregulairty to be born homosexual. Now and then.

[Mimetheunholy]

Excalibre that was a thoughtful response and probably explained it the best that I’m going to get, thanks.

[Ollie]

@Excalibre

Four years or so is certainly normal in some cultures. If you’re challenging me on that point, you clearly don’t know squat about the subject. Start doing some research - if you think quitting breastfeeding entirely at eight or nine months is cross-culturally normal, you’re vastly misinformed.

“Better for evolution”? This discussion is going to be completely useless if you don’t understand what evolution is and how it works. This phrase does not suggest that you do. Obviously any solution involving infanticide is non-optimal for the parent, and particularly the mother, who has invested significantly in carrying the child to term. No doubt any random

I think the gay uncle theory has a lot to answer for - it should start by examining the commonness of “gay uncles” in hunter-gatherer groups. Normal figures for a percentage of the population that’s gay in the general population are between two and five percent. If that is true cross-culturally, than the typical band of hunter-gatherers might have one gay person. The theory presumes, of course, that our gay uncle remains childless - is that true? Are gay, childless men and women common in hunter-gatherer cultures? Do they preferentially care for the children of their close relatives? Can you prove that this care is enough to make up for the genetic loss in one’s reproductive fitness in remaining childless? I outlined that above - if you wish to argue it, address the point directly instead of starting arguments around niggling side issues. It’s especially unhelpful when your argument consists, essentially, of referring to things I say and saying, “I don’t believe that.”

Look, I’m not an anthropologist. If you can find evidence that I’m wrong, do so. I’d love to hear it - this is not something I know an enormous amount about, which is why I stated my opinion as an opinion. It’s as educated an opinion as I’m capable of. Frankly, you’re coming across here as hostile and argumentative. You’ve found your weak spot - it’s true, I’m not familiar enough with anthropology to prove things I’ve heard elsewhere. If you want to dismiss my opinion because of that, that’s fine. If you want to have an interesting discussion, then I suggest you start doing some of the legwork as well. I’m not interested in having a Lincoln-Douglas debate with you over this, so if that’s your purpose then I’m not going to speak with you again.

A major issue I forgot about! ONe of my friends is an anthropologist, and she explained to me that many Highland New Guinea cultures have so many taboo days for sex that most days are off-limits; one culture has only 80-something (if memory serves) days per year when sex is permitted. I already alluded to one such culture, the Sambia, and the extremely peculiar fears men have regarding sex with women. My friend, along with (apparently) many other anthropologists, believe that this is essentially a population control strategy (Guyette 2004, personal communication.)

I don’t know about that. A book I read that was essentially a biography of a !Kung woman described her mother killing a baby - it was certainly not suggested that it was unusual for women to do so.

And you haven’t come up with any response yet to my rough sketch of the genetic burden of remaining childless. So we’re even. Since I see that you are only interested in having an argument, rather than a discussion, I see no reason to continue this at all.

Oh for the love of God. Again with the “I don’t believe you!” line of argument. I’m no anthropologist, but you’re apparently completely lacking even the most basic knowledge of the matters we’re discussing.

Just for the heck of it, um, cite? Because the way you talk, you sound as if you think hunter-gatherer tribes are completely selfless and members will sacrifice in order to protect other families without reservation. Cultures vary a lot, and practicies regarding sharing of food certainly do, and no such blanket statement is safe. Further, if “mom & the kids are taken care of within the tribe at all times”, gay auntie and gay uncle are superfluous, and likely won’t be devoting any particular extra time to caring for their sisters’ kids than they will be for other tribe members’ kids - in which case, again, they lose the genetic lottery.

Knock it off with this combative shit. I’m not sure why you feel the need to turn this into a screaming match - I thought it was an interesting conversation and I was hoping to learn something new here. But you don’t seem to want to participate in that process at all. Take Anthro 101 and we can talk again. This obnoxiousness on your part is utterly unhelpful.

Absolute gibberish.

We can speculate all day about whether being gay is genetic, environmental,
both, and/or a mental illness…but so far, no one knows. The idea that it is genetic
has been accepted by many lately, but as far as I know there’s no proof of that.
So, part of the original question about whether it’s a mental illness can’t be answered because we really don’t know.