True, it almost always is. Dad was always away working late at the office or going on trips with the Evangelical youth ministry. He didn’t have time to cause something like that.
Well, that’s ludicrously untrue on its face, but okay…
In any case, prenatal foetal development is an absurdly complex process, subject to environmental influence at numerous points. Hormones produces by the mother’s body have an effect? Sure, I could buy that. Heck, I’m assuming my left-handedness is the result of some minor variation in my prenatal brain development. The cause? Who knows, but I see no reason to consider a purely genetic one.
Let me speak slowly. The odd thing is that you have many of the basics correct yet you come to the wrong conclusions. It is an indirect relationship because genetic sex is an indirect path to sexual development. The ovaries and testes are supposed to trigger it and they do in most people but not always. That is the point. It can be altered or interrupted in the middle of the process in lots of different ways.
Look at this photo. Do you notice what is odd about these women? Look closely. I like bottom middle one personally. She’s kind of hot.
They are all genetic males and they didn’t respond to their own sex hormones during development and defaulted to the female pattern. They have androgen insensitivity disorder. That happens partially as well so that a person can end up with a mix of sex characteristics from both sexes. If we injected you with androgen blockers while you were in your mother’s tummy, you would look a lot more like your sister testes be damned. There are lots of people who’s prototypical sex does not match their genetic sex and they don’t even know it. That is one example of many. Do want me to go on? The sexual developmental process that makes sexual preference atypical is more subtle than that and only involves a few brain critical periods but the idea is the same.
Are you saying that gender isn’t a purley genetic variation?
…
…
What gave you the idea this is an acceptable way to address other people?
Shagnasty has been here for ten years. You have been here for three months. If you plan on hanging around here, think about adjusting your attitude.
Yes, that is exactly what he is saying because it is true. Genetics are the fuse. Biology is the Rube Goldberg device that it starts up but they aren’t one in the same. Genetics <> all of developmental biology. That is where laypeople get mixed up so often. Biological development can still be be permanent outside of the genetic plan.
Calm down. Stop moderating. I’ve been reading this forum for years. He was talking condescendingly, and therefore I replied with the appropriate amount of disrespect.
Yes. The issue is muddied considerably by the complexity of foetal development, which can go off the rails at numerous points along the way.
I should point out, though, that the specific part of your post that I found particularly comical is the idea the only genetic difference of any significance between you and your sister was XX vs XY. I can only suggest you look up the word “haploid” if you get the chance.
By the way, I’m being condescending. Make the most of it.
I’m not sure. Maybe I haven’t looked under enough skirts, but I don’t know any other way to change gender (from genetic code) other than surgery. Or crazy random mutations, but I didn’t know that was even part of the discussion. Enlighten me if I’m wrong, but other than that I don’t see what we’re disagreeing on.
Bryan, I think you missed the part when I said “other than the random combinations”.
I didn’t miss it so much as dismiss it.
I just just showed you a photo above. Look under their skirts if you get a chance. What do you think you will see? If you are guessing a penis and a pair of descended testes you are completely incorrect on that. They will appear to be normal females because they developed as females despite being genetic males. Sometimes androgen insensitivity disorder is only discovered through a careful medical exam and it never is in some cases. That is the part you are missing. The testes and ovaries originate from the same tissue and cause development of the secondary sex characteristics including the growth of the penis. You don’t automatically get one of those with an XY genotype either. It is developmental through the sex hormones.
You are missing the idea that almost of all sexual differentiation is caused by sex hormones and it doesn’t always work according to plan. That affects almost all primary and secondary sexual characteristics including brain sex.
Some people have a bad reaction when you bring up brain sex because they think of the ability to read maps or something. It can be a lot more basic than that. The development of the female reproductive cycle that controls ovulation and menstruation in the hypothalamus is part of brain sex development among other basic brain functions that people take for granted yet are developmentally sex specific.
The reason this applies to homosexuality is because you can manipulate sex hormones so that the physical sex characteristics develop in a normal pattern while some of the brain sex pattern develops as the opposite sex. This happens naturally sometimes but can also be easily induced in animal models as well through timed hormone injections or by blocking natural hormones.
I guess if there wasn’t ignorance in this world then this website would have no purpose.
I never disagreed with you about the wrong sex hormones causing the wrong gender. I filed that under random mutations. Physical or genetic, however its caused. This is really all irrelevant to my original post though.
I’m sure that was intended to sound clever, but… meh.
Anyway, gender is not a clear-cut binary yes-no, X-Y, male-female proposition. Heck, it isn’t even always XX and XY, but can be XXY.
I get your point, but technically XXY is genetically equivalent to XY. When it comes to gender, at least. So I guess that’s a nitpick.
How so? You can’t file something under “random mutations” when the topic at hand (homosexuality) seems to fall into the same category. I just told you why sexual preference can be biological yet not genetic and how that has been worked out scientifically in animal models in the lab and under natural conditions in humans and animals. Brain sex is determined in development by sex hormones and deviate from the genetic sex. Brain sex has a great influence on sexual preference in later life although there may be some room for social factors there as well.
Which part of that do you disagree with?
How so? Cuz my original post was a preposition that homosexuality could be a genetic based issue (sorry) that could be coupled with the psychological aspect of upbringing. Like genetic based in the sense of brain development, not in the sense of sexual organ development. That seems like you’re stretching the puzzle piece to fit the puzzle. I figured (assumed) that most homosexuals weren’t genetically backwards according to their gender.
There is also a well known case of a child developed & born as a male, but due to medical errors, had severe damage to his penis at a fewmonths old. Severe enough that his doctors ( I think the famous doctor John Money of Johns Hopkins was consulted) recommended surgical removal of the penis, and that the parents raise the child as a girl. Which they did. But by her teenage years, she felt internally that ‘she’ was male, and began to dress & live as a male. He was later married (to a woman).
This would seem to be a case where despite having no physical male genitalia, and having been raised as female, his brain was programmed as a heterosexual male, and this asserted itself eventually.