I’m not even sure if ‘congenital’ is exactly the right term - I mean sexuality appears to be nearly-immutable once established, but are we even sure it’s completely established at birth (as opposed to being still somewhat malleable (somehow) in early years.
The argument is a red herring anyway. It doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is genetic, congenital, or especially immutable - or even if it is, as idiots are fond of claiming, a ‘lifestyle choice’. None of those factors are valid reasons for people to interfere with, oppress, or purposely disadvantage homosexuals who merely wish to go about their business.
Can I be the 4th or 5th person to steer people away from using the word ‘genetic’ in this argument? It makes the whole thread sound dumb although you may not understand why if you don’t know much about sexual differentiation in mammals. We have this problem in every thread of this type.
Sexual differentiation is caused directly by the sex hormones like testosterone, estrogen and DHT. Genetics only play an indirect role in sexual differentiation and there are many ways that the process go wrong at multiple stages. The fact that you have the body type of a male or female (or some combination of those) isn’t because you have XX or XY (or XYY etc) chromosomes. It is because you were exposed to a certain set of sex hormones prenatally. Genetics is usually the trigger for cascade of events that lead to the appropriate sex hormone exposure but all of that goes out the window when we look at anomalies in prototypical or brain sexual differentiation.
I went to graduate school in the behavioral neuroscience of sexual differentiation. The literal answer to the question is that genetics probably have very little to do with sexual preference but it is mostly biological and predetermined before birth especially in males.
That’s an antiquated idea that’s been soundly disproven. Genetics leads directly to differences in brain structure between genders. Also, overall body type (while secondary sex characteristics may act in accordance with what you say about hormonal control.)
Besides being wrong, this theory also led to the famous tragedy of David Reimer (David Reimer - Wikipedia)
To me, it is an example of a political agenda trumping sound science.
Well there goes all of my PhD work out the window then. Looks like I got hooked up with some a group of Ivy League charlatans posing as experts in the field of sexual differentiation. Please straighten us all out then in detail please. Start with the basics because I doubt anyone here knows as much as you do.
Hint: Your example shows you didn’t understand a single word I wrote. It is a correct example but demonstrates MY point.
I think you’re on the verge of hijacking your own thread. Are you not actually interested in the issue you were originally discussing (genes and sexual preference)?
Evolutionarily, this could easily be explained by the first and older males wanting to ensure their genes are passed along so they try and make sure that any younger male siblings are less reproductively capable.
Or by the mother trying to ensure that one or more of the younger males will be unentangled with a woman and free to support & protect her and her daughter(s).
Even if true I don’t see why we need to have some kind of evolutionary “explanation” for the phenomena. It may just be the way it works out regardless of whether it provides some sort of benefit for anyone involved.
If a trait lasts a long time and is seen in a wide variety of species, it’s likely that it is associated with some type of benefit or other. I’ve never heard the idea that Minnie Luna proposes - in fact I’m not sure it even makes any sense because it makes it sound like the male fetuses are involved in selecting traits for younger siblings and I have trouble believing that - but I have often seen the theory that a homosexual tribe member could improve the group’s chances of survival by helping raise children and not competing for mates, for example.
The “100% genetic” meme started as a defense mechanism by the gay community against the conversion therapy places and “gay is a choice” propaganda which I guess was being bought by some members of the public? Before the conversion therapies and “gay is a choice” thing came into wide discussion no one was pushing “100% genetic”.
If you want to blame someone blame the people pushing conversion therapy and trying to paint gays as sinners.
There is no intention involved, rather the theory holds that it is a “side effect” of multiple pregnancies. That previous pregnancies with male fetuses change the womb.
Also, I’ve heard people say they don’t want to bring up the possibility of non-genetic in-the-womb influences because they fear it’ll be twisted into blaming the mother.
In a single link? Nope but others who have the time could deluge you with examples of the public controversy from the last few years. Look at this for example:
I’m aware of the controversy. I’m asking if you can cite the idea that the gay community came up with the idea that homosexuality is genetic. I think the main reason people boil the issue down to ‘it’s genetic’ is a poor understanding of science.
So, about the genetic thing? There’s nothing about that in the article.