Resolved? New study says that sexual identity/homosexuality is genetic.

Great Debates
21

Folks, the study said NOTHING AT ALL about “identity”. It looked at genes that were ALREADY KNOWN to be sexually dimorphic and just changed where the probable mechanism of the dimorphism was located. Likewise, it seems that people here are woefully ignorant of what “sexual dimorphism” means. “Sexual dimorphism” does NOT refer to “sexual identity”. Sexual dimorphism concerns things like men having beards (usually) and women not (usually). It concerns size differences between male and female gorillas. It refers to physical traits that distinguish between sexes. This study demonstrated that XX vs XY CHROMOSOMAL differences can be determinative in at least some aspects of sexual dimorphism.

Let’s take this through in steps:

1: The study determined that XX vs XY is fundamentally and directly related to sexual dimorphism. It is not just a matter of hormonal load.

2: If this study is taken as somehow “groundbreaking” or “normative”, the logical conclusion is that males SHOULD all be “masculine” and females SHOULD all be “feminine”, if this study is the end-all and be-all of “scientific truth” on “gender identity”. Indeed, if this study is taken as somehow “concluding” or “resolving” anything at all, it “resolves” against variation in “sexual identity” having a biological “cause”. Read the whole paper, not the digested-for-the-ignorant press releases. Indeed, to claim that this paper “resolves” the matter of “sexual identity” would require that one either presume that “maleness” or “femaleness” is “supposed” to be locked tight by XX vs. XY and that anything that deviates from this should be considered “abnormal”. Really, read the full report.

Here is a digest of what they did:

They measured expression of XX vs. XY cell cultures in identical hormonal environments. The XX and XY cultures showed measurable differences in certain proteins. They selected a handful of genes to check for mRNA. These genes also segregated along a simple XX/XY basis. Thus, if one is to draw a universal conclusion from one study (a foolish thing to do), one would draw the conclusion that, in a normal organism, XX/XY would determine everything having to do with “sexual identity” and anything that deviates from this is abnormal and unnatural. Read the full study, not the popular press misinterpretations.

However, in the real world, this study will not be taken as “resolving” the matter. It only points to a more complex set of cascades determining SEXUALLY DIMORPHIC TRAITS.

The term “sexual identity” is not used ANWHERE AT ALL in the actual study–if it had been, the editors and reviewers would have sent it back for revision. The data says nothing at all about sexual identity. Go to a good medical university library and check the issue of Molecular Brain Research.

I predict that nobody will do this. I predict that the dogmatics will still bleat on with their little dogmas on each “side” of this matter and pretend that the study said whatever they wanted it to say, regardless of what the real paper has to say.

22

The following is my personal opinion, and not necessarily grounded in fact of any kind.

Why might we ask the nature/nurture question? What do we gain by knowing the answer? I see only one potential justification - that we can fix homosexuality, or prevent it from occurring at all. It is, after all, the greatest desire of most parents that their children face no tremendous hardship, and homosexuality (or any Queer identity) is a terrible burdon on a child. Why then would parents not want their child to be heterosexual? Who wouldn’t do everything in their power to eliminate the potential for their child to have to grow up in a world which strongly publicizes the fact that they’re not welcome? Arguably more so than any other minority in America, it’s still okay (and often expected/welcomed) to slander homosexuals. But I digress…

If homosexuality is genetic, then what? A pill? If it’s environment, then classes? What else (and “curiosity” isn’t complete enough an answer) could we really use to justify asking this question?

The research specifically is one study, conducted on mice. Mice are similar to humans in many ways, sure, but they are not humans, and have fewer similarities than, say, dogs. It doesn’t conclusively prove or resolve anything.

23

Cite?

And I’m curious, ** lissener **, what you thought when you read the original OP ask if the debate was over, and how you then implied that anyone who thought otherwise, was a homophobe. Since it was asked if this one fairly vague study will disprove all studies, I think it is highly relevant to show that these one time wonders have happened before, and nothing addresses any of the points in either of the articles I linked to. But I guess it’s easier to focus on being a homophobe then to address the issues brought forth, although it comes as no surprise to me either.

24

If stupid people could be convinced by a scientific study or an irrefutable cite, Cecil’s fight against ignorance would have been won 20 years ago.

25

How hard can it be, Svt4Him, to understand that when one claims the existence of such-and-such, it is incumbent on them to point to examples demonstrating their existential claim?

What’s Diogenes the Cynic supposed to do, say, “look here’s all the empty space that should be filled with recovered homsexuals”.

Tsk! It is a simple point, really, and you’d do us all a favour to digest it.

26

This debate is irrelevant at best: it’s nothing more than an analysis of a false duality.

Choice and genetic influence aren’t opposed. They’re not even complete.

27

You offered one answer to the question, aesth, but you missed another: knowledge. Yeah, it can be an end for its own sake. And who knows what people might learn in the attempt to study it. I think there’s a general implication in your post that it’s bigoted to want to know what the causes of homosexuality are, and I don’t think that’s fair. It also comes across as an argument that people shouldn’t be doing this kind of research, which isn’t going to fly.

No parent wants their kids to suffer, but I think you’re painting everyone with the “homophone” brush if you’re arguing that, given the chance, any parent would ‘prevent’ their child from being gay.

28

What does this proove really? Even if Homosexuality is genetic, so what? If you are talking about using this as a means to get more equality that’s cool, but you shouldn’t need it. Equality should have nothing to do with genetics.

If you are using this as a means to justify homosexuality to people who disagree with it, this doesn’t do much. There are many things that are genetic that we would do away with if we had the technology. Putting it under the genetic catigory will only make those negative people file it under “something to be fixed when we have the means to do it”.

I mean, being Black is genetic, but that doesn’t stop people from being racist.

29

That may not be the case, luckily, as the people most opposed to homosexuality are also the most opposed to genetic engineering.

30

No, though this does require more knowledge than the study actually presents. See we already know that horomones make up for most of the differences between males and females. This study is suggesting that in addition to that genetics also play a factor in determining the differences between the sexes.

31

I always wondered about the homosexual animals that have been found. I mean, don’t the lend credence to the idea that sexuality has something to do with genetics?

32

No, because the animals could be affected something environmental, either before birth or after birth. (and in fact, there are some studies shown that rats exposed to high fetal cortisol levels are more likely to exhibit homoseuxal behavior than rats not exposed to high levels of cortisol as fetuses.

33

If stupid people would learn to actually read scientific papers instead of going off popularizations, this thread would never have started.

34

The study proves nothing of the sort, except in the minds of dogmatics and fundamentalist ignorantists.

35

Lemme guess, you don’t actually know how to read and just make wild guesses. Did you actually read what I wrote or did you just invent something you THOUGHT I wrote. I stated that IF (Do you know what “if” means? I highly doubt it.) the study is taken to be conclusive in isolation (and I further stated that it would be FOOLISH to do that), then the conclusion would be quite the opposite of what the dogmatic who started this thread thought it was.

Do you understand what “if” means? Do you understand what it means to have a parenthetical to indicate that if the “if” is done, it would be foolish, means? Can you actually read?

36

Listen.

Ask an expert, and they’ll tell you: ask a homosexual whether they ever “chose” to be a homosexual, and he or she will tell you no.

This study simply provides one more small piece of empirical support for what you should already be taking at face value from the horse’s mouth, mixed-metaphorically speaking.

The only people who still believe that homosexuality is a choice are the people who have a bizarre, fixated anti-homosexual agenda.

Here is the simple fact of the matter: those of us who KNOW the answer to the question, homosexuals, have already told you the unambiguous fact that it is not a choice. Now it’s up to those of you who choose to disregard that fact to prove otherwise. This study simply chips away a little of the leg they already don’t have to stand on. As it were.

Believe the children!

37

Probably the best and most succinct statement of this I have seen.
I am not going to say that a study of how genetics and environment affect our identities and behaviors (both independently and through interaction) is certainly still a fascinating and useful area of study.

38

err I screwed up my last line

it should read that “I will say” rather than “I am not going to say”

(stupid brain always changing its mind mid-sentence)

39

True, and if I could have posted it again, I would have put the sarcastic smile, but since I can’t change it, I was unable to do so, and that was my mistake. As for the proof, that was the whole reason for the sarcasm, as it is totally unprovable, as it is based on personal belief. For instance, my wife was friends with a gentleman named Dennis Jeregin, and you can find his testamony here. Now I’ve heard him speak, I studied at CFNI where he was often present at conferences, and I had one of his cd’s. But I’m sure some way will be found that shows that he is just hiding who he really is, no matter what he has to say. So again, it was a sarcastic cite request, I was wrong to use it. Digested enough?

40

True, and if I could have posted it again, I would have put the sarcastic smile, but since I can’t change it, I was unable to do so, and that was my mistake. Obviously it’s hard to post a cite to say something doesn’t exist, as there would be a lot of sites about nothing. As for the proof that you ask of me, that was the whole reason for the sarcasm, as it is totally unprovable, as it is based on personal belief. For instance, my wife was friends with a gentleman named Dennis Jeregin, and you can find his testamony here. Now I’ve heard him speak, I studied at CFNI where he was often present at conferences, and I had one of his cd’s. But I’m sure some way will be found that shows that he is just hiding who he really is, no matter what he has to say. Granted in any other topic, this would be enough proof, I’m sure it’s not here. So again, it was a sarcastic cite request, I was wrong to use it. Digested enough?