Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters
48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,” American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.
Referring to the Master (above cited), he says:
So, if these physiological markers do exist in gays, they must, of course, have genetic bases. In any event, as I said before, these genetic factors do not appear to be dispositive of whether one will be gay.
Don’t equate gender identity with sexual orientation. A common model for the issue, among the genderqueer community, describes three dimensions: physical sex (as in, what parts you have), gender (which way you feel inside), and sexual attraction (what parts and what gender attract you.) Very few gay guys feel like women deep down. People who truly have a gender that’s divergent with their physical sex are transgendered, whereas run-of-the-mill gay people have a physical sex that matches their gender identity, and their sexual orientation leads them to desire people of the same sex. There’s nothing ‘female’ about most gay guys.
Thank you all for your responses to this first post of mine. In particular *OTTO, for pointing out a prior response from the enlightened one himself in 1995. Cecil certainly has his back covered! I did search the archives first, obviously NOT well enough. A good object lesson, I suppose. I enjoyed the discourse so much, I am registering forthwith so I might access deeper archives. Thank you again.
[SNARKY]I’d have thought it would be better to try to establish the facts than to try to develop a convincing argument that might actually be totally wrong.[/SNARKY]
Last I checked the reproductive organs of homosexuals are as fully functional as those of heterosexuals. If you’re talking about sociological baggage and gender definitions… I don’t see any basis to suggest that the “gays are mutants” crowd thinks more highly of homosexuals than the “born gay due to pre-natal hormone exposure” crowd.
Can someone explain the resistance to anything not an “It’s Genetic” hypothesis?
Of course if it’s genetic, noone can blame a person for being gay, you see. This would eliminate the hate factor, and people love to blame others and hate them if they are not of the same ilk as themselves. Also, this would downplay any attempt to “rehabilitate” them.
Those who want to hate homosexuals will always find reason to hate homosexuals. Homosexuality is the result of a genetic disposition? OK, so perhaps is alcoholism. Both are illnesses, both must be “cured”. That’s how the reasoning goes.
P.S. “noone”? Is that 12:00?
Hence the use of the speculative terms ‘if’ and ‘could be’ - this wasn’t offered as a conclusive argument, but rather a tentative, but not unreasonable hypothesis.
Under your definition I would say that person would be a transgender in denal. Anyway I get your point.
This type of reasoning makes me think it would be okay to poke fun at FAS kids, but not Down’s kids… since FAS isn’t genetic, but Tri21 is. Which is, in a word, stupidity.
If it’s developmental, you can’t “blame” someone for being gay, either. And if it’s genetic, hell, we can’t have those gay mutants having more gay mutant offspring, can we? Forced sterilization is the only option! :dubious:
By that token, my “argument that might be totally wrong” was prefaced with “It’s my opinion…”.
Pick which way you want to have it. :rolleyes:
In cases where one member of a pair of identical twins is gay, there’s an approximate 50% chance that the other twin is gay. In cases where one member of a pair of fraternal twins is gay, there is an approximate 25% chance the other twin is gay. In cases where one of a pair siblings is gay, there is an approximate 10% chance the other sibling is gay.
On the one hand, we should expect the identical twin result, if there was a strong genetic effect. On the other hand, there is no specific reasoning for the fraternal twin results, if the argument is genetic.
If the argument is made that it’s a product of the fetal environment, it makes sense for twins to share a higher correlation of sexual orientation than other siblings. Identical twins would show a higher correlation that fraternal twins because their identical genes makes them more equally susceptable to the condition. Since they share the same womb at the same time, te correlation of twins’ sexual orientation should further be higher than that of siblings. Depending on the instance of homosexuality in the general population, the correlation of sexual orientation of siblings is noise (“10% of the population is gay”- I know about the problems with where that figure comes from), or it could point to something about certain parents being predisposed to homosexual children- possibly with genetic basis in the parent, though not necessarily in the children… again due to the fetal environment- siblings share the same womb.
AFAIK, gay parents are no more likely to have gay children than straight parents (though, granted the sample size on this one is probably rather small), which digs an explanatory hole too deep for “beneficial gene complexes” and “kin selection” to get out of, in my opinion. 
Sorry if I was being too nitpicky, it’s just that I read your post as being more interested in the expediency of an argument than its factual accuracy; if this was not your intention, I sincerely apologise.
(1): A comment about the twin studies: The 50% concordance in sexuality figure (as well as the others) between identical twins raised apart is based on self-reports. It is almost certain that the actual figure is higher than 50%, since the self-reporting bias would fall on the denial side of the equation rather than the reverse. How much higher I obviously cannot say, but an actual figure of 80% would not surprise me. But I can’t imagine such factors could allow for it would reach 100%, so this still leaves an explanatory gap that must be covered.
(2): It’s plain that there’s already sufficient evidence from the twin studies to demonstrate conclusively that there is an extremely strong biological (if perhaps not strictly genetic) component in developing anyone’s sexual orientation, straight or gay or otherwise. There doesn’t seem to be any room for any choice to be involved, at least not on the child’s part. And if it’s not a choice, it can’t be a sin. At least it can’t be in any morally sound theology (which in my experience far too few people hold anyway).
(3): On the kin selection hypothesis: I tend to agree that if there is only one “process” that results in a person being homosexual, the kin selection hypothesis is almost certainly not that sole explanation. However, I feel that kin selection is more credible and important than most critics believe, given more than one “route”, as most people acknowledge is probable.
Speaking for myself and for nearly all of the strictly gay men that I know well enough to be able to form an opinion, we positively dote on our nieces and nephews, often giving them far more attention and interest and gifts than their actual parents. Some even paid for their niece’s/nephew’s surgeries and/or college tuition that their siblings could not afford themselves, sometimes getting second jobs to do it. Kin selection is thus very easy to believe!
I can very readily accept, based on my own knowledge and experience, that kin selection almost certainly plays a significant role in the perpetuation of homosexuality in the population absent direct reproduction, which was the question posed in the OP. It’s a very sound explanation if one accepts that it is not the only possible mechanism.
But if it’s developmental and not inherited, a person can be “redeveloped.” And a person’s refusal to be “redeveloped” is his/her fault.
How do you propose to “redevelop” FAS children? Thalidomide victims? Any number of other non-genetic congenital conditions?
Put them in a blender and siphon them back into the womb?
The reference was to gays and to developmental problems due to environment, but not fetal environment.
Fault? Please explain. If necessary, feel free to take it to a forum where opinions rather than facts are welcome. Because this is not such a forum.
That was not my opinion. You are taking my words out of context. Please read my entire message which generated those comments. I was merely explaining why a gay gene is important to some people.
BTW, I’ve never seen such sniping at my post to explain a possible reason that some people deny the existence, or even possible existence, of a gay gene.
Gotcha.
Because there were about a dozen posts in between the one where you establish that you’re talking for other people, and the one I quoted. It makes it difficult to distinguish who’s saying what.
So, if it’s not a reference to anything that I’ve said, why do you keep quoting me?
Indeed.
Stop quoting me and I’ll stop having to show how your “possible reason” is a non sequitur, or at the very least surreal, given what I’ve actually said.
I’ve started another thread in IMHO to discuss this particular hijack… since I don’t think exploring why people seem to prefer genetic explanations is suited to General Questions.