I don’t know about the science, but I know you’re not using “mansplaining” correctly.
You can mansplain to another man, it doesn’t have to be a woman. They like it cause it’s the way they communicate themselves. Taka sip of beer nod your head in acknowledgement of the well delivered mansplanation, and move on to the next topic of discussion. I love a good, solid mansplanation!
No, it’s more complicated than that.
For one thing, identical twins’ genes aren’t actually identical.
Also, even if they were, that would only mean that a 100% genetic cause would lead to a perfect correlation between twins. But say there’s an underlying gene or bunch of genes that must be present in order for a person to be gay, but that won’t be expressed unless it’s triggered by specific epigenetic or environmental factors: in that case, even if twins’ genes were 100% identical, you wouldn’t expect a perfect correlation when it came to sexual preference. Just a closer correlation than in fraternal twins.
You can, but it still involves being a condescending prick and explaining something to someone who know more about the topic than you do.
While “mansplaining” is a jokey concept and does not really have a Webster’s definition I kind of pictured it as the way men explain stuff in a logical, deliberate, possibly too self assured way. I don’t think it necessarily involves the other person knowing more about the topic than the explainer or the explainer being anyovert prick.
But no matter I was just using it for humorous effect, if the term has those offensive connotations for you I will be more circumspect with my use of it in the future.
I think you’ve badly misunderstood what this term means. It doesn’t have anything to do with being logical, it’s being patronizing and assuming that the listener doesn’t know anything about the subject because they’re just a silly irrational women (or minority)…especially in cases where the listener actually knows more about the subject than the person
“explaining” it to them.
From the thread title I had assumed this thread would be about you telling gay people that they’re wrong about why they’re gay.
I don’t know that anyone is offended by you referring to yourself as a mansplainer, but if the humorous effect you’re going for isn’t a self-deprecating “Wow, what a condescending jerk I was!” sort of thing then you probably shouldn’t be using it.
It does imply you are explaining something in a patronizing way to someone who knows more about the topic than you do. Women get mansplained on how they should handle street harassment from men, for instance, gets women rolling their eyes because men have so much experience being on the female side of “hey baby, how 'bout a smile.”
So mansplaining in this case would be a straight guy explaining to gay guys that they got gay due to early exposure to ABBA.
Why would being gay make someone more of an expert on why someone is gay? They might now more about the gay experience, but how they go that way? Seems like a false analogy to street harassment.
There are millions of homosexuals in the world. It seems impossible that ALL - that is, 100.000000000% - would have been born gay, or that ALL would have chosen to be gay. We’re talking a sample size of millions of people.
Identical twin studies are unavoidably flawed. In addition to selection bias, there is the problem that these studies cannot control for all the possible in utero environments of monozygotic twins, the most relevant being chorionicity and amnionicity:
In other words, even identical twins can have different in utero environments, which could explain why only one identical twin would be gay.
Not to say this is definitive, but it’s the way I’d bet.
I think it’s most likely that there are multiple, different superimposed and co dependent factors. If there was a simple, single cause, we’d have found it by now.
I thought the current du jour theory is that male homosexuals are more likely born after multiple brothers, something about the androgens from the earlier pregnancies altering the uterine environment?
And not feminized but super masculinized.
FWIW I’ve seen dozens of theories come and go in my short lifetime on this subject.
How did you get the non-gay?
This is nonsense. The number of gay people has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is innate. There are countless other traits that we know to be either purely a matter of personal choice or purely innate that are shared by millions, even billions of people.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity or prejudice. That would be a terrible, terrible time.
Quite. The important question is, why should it matter in the first place?
It doesn’t matter in terms of legal rights, or in terms of how you should treat someone.
It might matter in terms of re-educating parents who put a lot of time and effort into making sure their kid doesn’t “turn out gay”. I think there really is a lot less of this than there used to be, and that’s because of the growing awareness that sexual orientation seems to be innate, and likely has a biologic element. And that anxiety–that your kid could be gay, and that would be bad, and you need to make sure you prevent that by making fun of him (or, you know, beating him) for doing girl things and insisting he do boy things–that anxiety was a pretty major vector for passing down homophobia in general.
There is some correlation found to that, but it’s pretty weak. The correct answer is: we don’t know, but it seems to be somewhat genetic, and somewhat related to conditions in the womb. But neither of these is enough to explain all cases.
With a lot of people, I think the thing that needs explaining is that “genetic” isn’t the only way something can be innate and inelastic, nor the only way something can have a biological cause.
“Genetic” as a shorthand for “born this way” is an easy, sloppy mistake that a lot of people make when explaining things and it causes problems later.
Along this line in terms of more conservative people coming to grips with it there are lots of somewhat conservative people who aren’t big fans of homosexuality as a sexual choice or lifestyle, but aren’t really antagonistic to gays individually. The “They say it’s genetic …” rationalization is a convenient way for them to compartmentalize the social and legal changes occurring around them and comes to grips with their reduced levels of hetero-entitlement and power.
While you can say this should not matter “in terms of legal rights, or in terms of how you should treat someone.” it’s not the worst way in the world to come to grips with it for them or for society at large as it provides a rational scaffolding for why they need to change or moderate their views.
In my limited observations as an individual the main thing, more than anything else combined that causes more conservative people to moderate their views on homosexuality is knowing someone who is gay, especially relatives. As gay people have come out it’s rare for any person not have a sister, niece, brother, cousin, uncle etc. who is gay. Hating gays is one thing, hating your own blood is another.