You act as if homosexuality is some fly by night issue pushed by modern liberals for… wait, what do you think their nefarious end game is here?
That’s not necessarily true. A non-beneficial trait can last a very long time as long as it is not detrimental. If the womb theory is correct then this could just be something that happens without a significant effect on fitness. Or it could be some type of trade-off.
I’ll agree with you there, perhaps a better word would be innate?
@Marley23 I wasn’t responding directly to you, but I’ve heard the genetic theory repeated a number of times by gay activists. Here’s one example:
Former democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Governor Howard Dean signed a bill legalizing civil unions for homosexuals in Vermont. In defending his actions, he commented: “The overwhelming evidence is that there is a very significant, substantial genetic component to it. From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people” (as quoted in VandeHei, 2004).
This actually strikes me as stupid politically. Instead of saying “homosexuality is just another expression of love…,” he saying something that could be interpreted as “the unnatural and gross thing these people do is probably genetic, so we shouldn’t judge them.”
Have you ever heard of androgen insensitivity syndrome? This is a case where a genetically male XY embryo has a mutation in the testosterone receptor sites. So the XY genes flood the developing fetus with testosterone, but the testosterone is ignored by the body, and the fetus develops a female phenotype. That is, despite having male genes and tons of testosterone, the person develops female secondary sexual characteristics, and many female primary sexual characteristics–they have a vagina but no uterus, and internal testes rather than ovaries.
Sexual orientation in humans is complicated. If you give female rats testosterone they will mount other female mice and act as if they were males. If you block testosterone in male rats, they will present to male mice and act as if they were females. But this isn’t the case in humans, if you give testosterone to human females they don’t turn lesbian, and if you block testosterone in human males they don’t turn gay, and if you give testosterone to gay men they don’t turn straight.
The real answer is that we don’t know why some people have a sexual attraction to males and some have a sexual attraction of females and some have a sexual attraction to both and some to neither. We know a few things that aren’t true–we know that people don’t turn out gay because of how they were parented. We know that intensive therapy and conditioning won’t change your sexual orientation.
Also, be very skeptical of stories about how homosexuality provides some sort of benefit. Even if there are genes that tend to cause homosexuality, that doesn’t mean these are genes “for” homosexuality. There are genes that cause color blindness, for instance, but what these genes really are are mutations that disable various normal visual systems. Color blindness isn’t a fitness enhancing trait, it’s a negative trait that doesn’t have strong selective pressure against it. There are also genes that increase fitness when you have one copy, but decrease fitness when you have two copies. And so even though expressing the trait is deleterious, it persists because it is advantageous to be heterozygous.
Anyway, plenty of people with homosexual orientations have kids. Homosexuality isn’t as strongly negative to reproductive fitness as people tend to think.
Citation on that?
Camille Paglia has said she doesn’t know any gay person for whom she didn’t have a sense that family dynamics played a role in their sexual orientation.
I’m not arguing that’s the only cause–I’m kind of agreeing with you that it’s complex and not fully understood. Thus, even non-genetic arguments such as prenatal exposure to hormones are just theories at this point. (And back to David Reimer, Wikipedia clearly cites it as a theory, not the explanation. His case could just as easily support notion of direct genetic control of brain structure, for which there’s a lot of other evidence.)
Howard Dean isn’t a gay activist, and in that quote he doesn’t say sexuality is 100 percent genetic.
I think there is some truth to that, but you’re removing an important piece of context: people who say homosexuality is sinful or wrong or should not be recognized by society say “it’s a choice.” In response, people started pointing out that sexual orientation is not a choice. That sometimes gets boiled down to “it’s genetic,” which is wrong or at least very oversimplified. It’s also an incomplete response, but the second part of that response - “it’s just another expression of love” - is not a message people were receptive to in deacades past. That has changed in recent years.
What are her scientific credentials?
It also brings up the potential idea of fixing the womb environment to prevent homosexuality.
In the context of all the problems, poor designs, and outright fraud (e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/health/research/noted-dutch-psychologist-stapel-accused-of-research-fraud.html
plaguing social science studies, I’d say her credentials are more relevant than most working in the field.
This is a wordy way of saying she has none. So her opinion does not mean much of anything.
Are you a computer programmer by any chance?
That’s a very interesting article but it doesn’t explain why we should attach any validity to her opinions on homosexuality, especially given the fact that she believes global warming is irrelevant because polar bears can swim.
No.
To be more dryly intellectual, as a prominent gay intellectual, I think Camille Paglia’s observations are very relevant (at the very least in combatting the idea that “no one believes…”)
(And I think it’s relevant that credentialled scientists often get things completely wrong, especially in the social sciences. See the NYT article–you can’t call much of the work “science” since there’s no repeatability, and there’s a lot of massaging of data, etc. “Cargo Cult Science” as Feynman said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg
That’s not at all a fair summary of her point–she was arguing against hysteria. In the next sentence she says: “For me, the answer is always more facts, more basic information, presented without sentimentality and without drama. To inflict this kind of anxiety on young people is an outrage.” That sounds like a pretty scientific outlook…
(And in other writings, she has said she’s a global warming skeptic, because she distrusts large, untested, computer modeling. I don’t agree with her, but that’s also a very “scientific” stance to adopt.)
You just keep making her sound less and less reasonable.
They can be relevant as observations, but I don’t think they’re particularly relevant from a scientific standpoint since she was stating an opinion that wasn’t based on scientific research or supported by facts.
It’s the difference between discussing something from the perspective of common sense and accepting the validity of human empathy and intuition, versus mechanically repeating conclusions of studies, which are often poorly designed and biased from the start.
Actually, I suspect it was a less wordy way of saying, “She has none, but the people with credentials refuse to agree with me. Since I’m obviously right, credentials for this subject mean jack squat.”
Jeesh, I was giving one data point (which I said I don’t necessarily agree with.)
But the point stands, where are the people with credentials who have any evidence that she’s wrong?