'luci Reports to Ms Persson's Office for Scolding and Correction

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. Sure, no one yet has been able to uneqivocally identify which specific genes are involved, but since there is strong evidence that male homosexuality (at least) has a very real genetic/biological component (whether within the subject or the subject’s mother), that is almost certainly only a temporary state of ignorance.

Would you agree?
[/QUOTE]

Twin studies show about a 50% genetic component, although the exact mechanism is unknown. The strongest evidence for a biological basis is the increased likelkihood of homsexuality depending on your birth order-- more older brothers -> more likely to be gay. But even then, the increased likelihood is still small. Mainly, though, what I meant was that we don’t have any clue as to what the biological mechanism is. Is it genetic? Is it hormonal? Is it pre-natal? We have some guesses, but no real unerstanding. I do agree that from what we know, there almost certainly is a biological explanation, but we just don’t know what it is, and we also don’t know if there is any non-biological agent at work as well.

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=Excalibre]
You have the right to your opinion, though I think matt_mcl has offered pretty good reasons for why it’s ultimately harmful to us…
[/quote]

Yes, he has. The issue isn’t resolved. Probably can’t be, its not like determining the boiling point of water, its all opinion.

…Nevertheless, there’s always differences of opinion as to how we should pursue the changes we’re seeking…

As well there should be.

…I frankly think it’s presumptuous for a straight person to refer to it as “our” movement or to tell queer people how we should proceed - particularly when he’s so obviously arguing from ignorance.

So…if you’re about to bike to a rally, and somethings screwed up with the gears, and a guy offers a suggestion on how to fix it…you gonna ask him if he’s straight?

I think that’s kinda dumb. YMMV.

[Excalibre]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
So…if you’re about to bike to a rally, and somethings screwed up with the gears, and a guy offers a suggestion on how to fix it…you gonna ask him if he’s straight?

I think that’s kinda dumb. YMMV.
[/QUOTE]

What in the world are you talking about? Are you high? When you come down, re-read this. Because man, are you going to be embarrassed that you said something so stupid.

Oh my God! I broke the code! All your aww shucks mannerisms and phony folksiness - it’s all to hide the fact that you just plain have no idea what’s going on around you!

Wait a second . . . are you the president, elucidator?

[Miller]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
So…if you’re about to bike to a rally, and somethings screwed up with the gears, and a guy offers a suggestion on how to fix it…you gonna ask him if he’s straight?
[/QUOTE]

No, but I might ask him if he’s ever ridden a bike before.

[Excalibre]

[QUOTE=Miller]
No, but I might ask him if he’s ever ridden a bike before.
[/QUOTE]

Heehee . . . riding. 'luci, you ever ridden another man before?

[elucidator]

Sure! Played “horsey” with my grandfather. Which is more answer than your question deserves.

[rayh]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Sure! Played “horsey” with my grandfather. Which is more answer than your question deserves.
[/QUOTE]

I sense a new euphemism here.

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Shoshana]
I’d like to amend this statement by saying that there is some evidence that some instances of male homosexuality have a genetic component.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps it’s a matter of semantics, but I stand by my expression of it as "strong’ evidence. If nothing else, there’s at least strong evidence that there’s some genetic contribution to male homosexuality. The contrary position smacks of extreme environmentalism. I’m sufficiently convinced by the prevailing evidence and theories of the link between genetics and sexual behavior to strongly hold that there must be a strong genetic contribution to male homosexuality. Nothing that biologically fundamental can be solely the result of cultural environment! And that leaves biology, which in turn leaves genetics.

Naturally, absolute genetic determinism is as absurd in this context as extreme environmentalism. In humans, there’s almost always a mixture. But to argue that even in even only some cases of genuine male homosexuality (as opposed to mere homosexual behavior) there is no biological/genetic component seems to me to be pretty much on a par with mysticism (I’m a materialist/physicalist).

[QUOTE=Shoshana]
Even in MZ twin studies, although the concordance rate is higher than for DZ twins, the number of pairs whose sexual orientations differ is still larger than those that are the same.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not what I understand. See, for example, John Mace’s post, # 401 (to which I will reply soon). I understand that the MZ concordance rate is at least 50%, but I believe that percentage is too low due to the fact this data comes from self-reports, which tend strongly toward under-reporting of feelings, opinions, and behavior that is outside the social norm. In any event, even 50% concordance is powerfully compelling evidence of a genetic contribution. By far the most likely scenario is that all MZ twins possess the genetic predisposition for full, 100% concordance but that full expression is dependent on one or more environmental factors (i.e., not necessarily cultural environment, but also the environment of the mother’s womb and so forth).

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Twin studies show about a 50% genetic component, although the exact mechanism is unknown. The strongest evidence for a biological basis is the increased likelkihood of homsexuality depending on your birth order-- more older brothers -> more likely to be gay. But even then, the increased likelihood is still small. Mainly, though, what I meant was that we don’t have any clue as to what the biological mechanism is.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure we agree substantially, if not completely. But may I assume that last is a bit of casual hyperbole? Surely we have plenty of clues. What we mostly lack is a coherent theory which unifies the various evidence, it seems to me. And for that we need more data. Yet, wouldn’t you agree with my earlier prediction that this is only a temporary ignorance?

I put the current state of understanding in the same basic category as late 18’th century physics. There was every reason to believe in atoms and molecules, but the necessary data and theory were temporarily lacking. I see this situation as a parallel: there’s every reason to believe in a genetic basis for male homosexuality, but we haven’t yet acquired all the necessary data and theory to establish it for certain. But that lack in no way justifies pure social environmentalist claims, as I’m sure you’d agree.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Is it genetic? Is it hormonal? Is it pre-natal?
[/QUOTE]
Well, you might consider this too reductionist, but aren’t hormones and the pre-natal environment ultimately genetic? Sure, there’s a complex interplay with the more-or-less social environment, such as with the substances the mother consumes and other aspects of her physical and emotional state, but doesn’t that ultimately entail either the child’s or the mother’s genes (or both)? You see, my focus is on the contribution of evolution to homosexuality, at least male homosexuality. Something this central and fundamental must have been a target of natural selection, and thus it must have evolved, and thus it must be genetic in nature, even if it is not exclusively genetic. I honestly don’t see any realistic alternative.

[susan]

I don’t disagree that there may be a genetic component in some cases. I’m trying to contribute to clarity and specificity in service to the thread.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
I’m sure we agree substantially, if not completely. But may I assume that last is a bit of casual hyperbole? Surely we have plenty of clues. What we mostly lack is a coherent theory which unifies the various evidence, it seems to me. And for that we need more data. Yet, wouldn’t you agree with my earlier prediction that this is only a temporary ignorance?
[/quote]

Yes, it was hyperbole. We have clues, but I’m not aware of any concensus view among biologists for what the mechanism is or if there are multiple mechanisms.

I put the current state of understanding in the same basic category as late 18’th century physics. There was every reason to believe in atoms and molecules, but the necessary data and theory were temporarily lacking. I see this situation as a parallel: there’s every reason to believe in a genetic basis for male homosexuality, but we haven’t yet acquired all the necessary data and theory to establish it for certain. But that lack in no way justifies pure social environmentalist claims, as I’m sure you’d agree.

Not quite. There is every reason to believe that genetics plays a part, maybe even a major part, but it does appear that there are other factors as well.

Well, you might consider this too reductionist, but aren’t hormones and the pre-natal environment ultimately genetic? Sure, there’s a complex interplay with the more-or-less social environment, such as with the substances the mother consumes and other aspects of her physical and emotional state, but doesn’t that ultimately entail either the child’s or the mother’s genes (or both)? You see, my focus is on the contribution of evolution to homosexuality, at least male homosexuality. Something this central and fundamental must have been a target of natural selection, and thus it must have evolved, and thus it must be genetic in nature, even if it is not exclusively genetic. I honestly don’t see any realistic alternative.

We can quibble about whether all those are genetic, but I think when most people think of a genetic cause, they are thinking that there is something in the genetic makeup of the gay person himself. I mean, we can say that everything biological is genetic, but that’s not very imformative.

As for evolution, remember that you can’t assume that because X trait exists, that X trait has some survival value and has been selected for. All you can argue is that it hasn’t been selected against (to such a great degere that it no longer exists). And when it comes to behavior, there are so many complex interactions that focusing on one narrow behavioral trait can be misleading. For instance, whenever we talk about homosexuality and evolution, someone will bring up the babysitter hypothesis (gays were babysitters, and therefore added to survival of their relatives, if not themselves). Frankly, that’s highly implausible. I don’t want to replay that debate here, but there are plenty of threads to look at if you are interested in way I say it’s implausible.

If I had to guess (and this would only be a guess), I would think that homosexuality is a byproduct of some other behavioral trait(s) that was (were) instrumental in the success of modern humans. Humans form a wide array of relationships with their fellow humans, and maybe the biological mechanisms that enable those relationships to form sometimes produce individuals who are inclined to pair-bond with members of their own gender. And I think it’s important to focus not so much on the sex acts but on the pair-bonding aspects of homosexual behavior when discussing homosexuality and evolution. People love to cite bonobo behavior as an example of non-human homosexuality, but bonobos don’t form pari-bonds like humans do. They engage in any number of sex acts, many with their own sex, as a way of maintaining social cohesion in the group as a whole, but that’s quite different from forming a pair-bond, or “falling in love” if you want to call it that, with another individual.

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Shoshana]
I don’t disagree that there may be a genetic component in some cases. I’m trying to contribute to clarity and specificity in service to the thread.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I guess this thread isn’t the place for a significant debate on the issue, but saying that there merely “may” be a genetic component in merely “some” cases (of male homosexuality) is considerably understating things. And I’m not sure how that serves the thread.

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Not quite. There is every reason to believe that genetics plays a part, maybe even a major part, but it does appear that there are other factors as well.
[/QUOTE]
In that, we agree entirely, as we do on nearly every aspect of this issue. But you are aware I’ve already said exactly that, right?

[QUOTE=John Mace]
We can quibble about whether all those are genetic, but I think when most people think of a genetic cause, they are thinking that there is something in the genetic makeup of the gay person himself. I mean, we can say that everything biological is genetic, but that’s not very imformative.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but it’s still very important to point that out, I believe. It must be said because it must be made clear that it is not purely social-environmental, or arguably even predominantly, as far too many in the social sciences still contend.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
As for evolution, remember that you can’t assume that because X trait exists, that X trait has some survival value and has been selected for.
[/QUOTE]
That’s undeniably true as a general matter, but human sexuality and pair-bonding behavior, it seems to me, must have been a matter for selection and evolution. In my view and understanding, the closer a behavior relates to the raw, basic fundamentals of life, the greater the degree of genetic contribution. So that human sexuality, like eating and drinking, is almost certainly tied very strongly to genetics and hence selection.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
And when it comes to behavior, there are so many complex interactions that focusing on one narrow behavioral trait can be misleading. For instance, whenever we talk about homosexuality and evolution, someone will bring up the babysitter hypothesis (gays were babysitters, and therefore added to survival of their relatives, if not themselves). Frankly, that’s highly implausible. I don’t want to replay that debate here, but there are plenty of threads to look at if you are interested in way I say it’s implausible.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll have to try to find them (but I’d be grateful if you could provide a link). Because I find the kin-selection hypothesis incredibly compelling, as do several brilliant evolutionary thinkers such as E. O. Wilson.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
And I think it’s important to focus not so much on the sex acts but on the pair-bonding aspects of homosexual behavior when discussing homosexuality and evolution.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely! Wonderful. Except for the kin-selection hypothesis, we’re very close in our thinking on this matter.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me.

[susan]

Well, I guess this thread isn’t the place for a significant debate on the issue, but saying that there merely “may” be a genetic component in merely “some” cases (of male homosexuality) is considerably understating things. And I’m not sure how that serves the thread.

I don’t think I’m saying anything inflamatory when I say that this thread has veered toward some hyperbole and overstatement. I made my statement in order to assert my belief that as I read the research, there is some evidence for a genetic component in some cases, but that I do not agree that evidence will ultimately be found to explain all cases. I do not think that there is a single explanation for how people turn out. This holds for LGB and for trans folks. I believe that this serves this thread by providing a perspective that does not rely on an argument of extremes to make a point. YMMV.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Shoshana]
I don’t think I’m saying anything inflamatory when I say that this thread has veered toward some hyperbole and overstatement. I made my statement in order to assert my belief that as I read the research, there is some evidence for a genetic component in some cases, but that I do not agree that evidence will ultimately be found to explain all cases. I do not think that there is a single explanation for how people turn out. This holds for LGB and for trans folks. I believe that this serves this thread by providing a perspective that does not rely on an argument of extremes to make a point. YMMV.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. I don’t think we can rule out environmental factors completely. Who knows-- maybe it’s some combination of genetic and environmental factors that determine a person’s sexual orientaion and/or gender identity. Maybe in some cases it’s entirely genetic and in some cases it’s entirely environmental. We just don’t know.

ambushed: I think that for the purposes of this thread we’re pretty much in agreement. I know that Wilson is on record about what I call the “baby sitter” hypothesis, but it just doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. Where is the evidence for that behavior in hunter/gatherer societies that we’ve studied over the years? It’s pure speculation with no empirical evidence.