Oh, sorry, wasn’t quick enough…That’s why I try not to change my post before it’s too late, hence the reason for no sarcastic smile.
But may I then ask what the point of the op is? Is it to bait out homophobes? Or is to actually fight ignorance?
Have you actually read the study?
Yoohoo, Diogenes. Where’s your searing rebuttal to what I’ve said regarding what the study in question says? Where is your thunder from on high that denounces me as a “homophobe” for daring to disagree with the popular press misinterpretation? Where is that diatribe that puts me in my place, replete with direct quotations from the study in question?
I’m waiting.
Ha ha! Dogface demanding a rebuttal? It is to larf.
Diogenes, when you ask for evidence of former homosexuals who are now heterosexuals, I’d point you toward the gazillion and one college lesbians out there, women who self-identify as straight during high school, self-identify as lesbian during college, and self-identify as straight again after college. I’d point you toward a relative of mine who has gone back and forth between identifying as straight, bisexual, and gay (for all my adult life he’s identified as gay). I’d point you to my girlfriend in high school who left me for an older woman, spent five or so years with her, and is now happily married to a man.
There may well be a genetic component to sexuality – I dunno. But if there is, it’s more complicated for a lot of people than a simple “gay gene.” If there’s such a thing, there may be a gene that predisposes people more or less toward a particular sexual orientation. Some people can drift back and forth between various orientations.
Do people “choose” to be gay? I can’t say for sure. But I suspect that some people can: I’ve hung out in social groups where there was a mild peer pressure to be bisexual, and I suspect some people went along with the flow, people whose sexual identity wasn’t especially fixed in the first place. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if some people who currently identify as gay, but whose sexual identity wasn’t particularly static, went along with the flow of a fundamentalist Christian social group and changed their self-identification to straight.
Finally, I think TVAA is spot on in saying that there are more alternatives than sexual identity being a choice or a genetic predisposition. There was a very interesting thread a few months ago about whether one could choose to be religious. I and several other people strongly denied that we could ever make such a choice – our beliefs were the end of a process of evaluating our surroundings. That doesn’t make our beliefs genetically predetermined, however. Isn’t it possible that sexual preference is similar?
I suggest that I don’t CHOOSE to like They Might Be Giants and despise Metallica; nor is this musical preference genetically determined. I suspect that sexuality is often the same way, neither a choice nor a genetic determination.
Daniel
Dogface, did you feel some pressing need to post over and over again to this topic today? You posted 5 times, and not once did you do anything but insult people. You didn’t respond to any questions, you didn’t reason with anybody, you just called everyone stupid and illiterate. I have no idea why everyone doesn’t agree with you. :rolleyes:
Several people who’ve posted here have ALREADY AGREED that the study doesn’t say what the thread title (and name of the article) does. In fact, I said exactly that well before you first posted here. You’ve posted your cites, you’ve made your case, and most people already concurred with it. Chill the hell out, wouldja? The belligerence isn’t exactly a credit to your arguments.
Why does somebody say this every single time we discuss homosexuality around here (which seems to be almost daily)? Saying that homosexuality is genetic doesn’t mean there’s a “gay gene.” The study we’re talking about here said gender identity was largely genetic, but nobody found a “transgender gene.” Dozens of genes were involved.
Beggin extreme pardon for offending, Marley, but you’ll note that my point doesn’t change whether there’s a “gay gene” or a “gay gene dozen,” however. My point is that discussions like this often artificially polarize sexuality, and imply that it’s either a genetic fate or a freely-made choice; I think neither is the case.
Daniel
Daniel, the fact that you know individuals who are unsure of their sexuality is utterly, utterly irrelevant. No one disputes that there’s a spectrum of sexual identity; your experiences with people who fall at various points along that spectrum do nothing to refute the genetic component of sexual identity. Further, no one disputes that there are societal pressures to proclaim or deny one’s sexuality, and that different people react to those pressures differently. Again, zero relevance in disproving the genetic component of sexual identity.
As for not reasoning, I presented the facts of the paper. I presented the logical conclusions to be derived if somebody truly were stupid enough to use that paper to “resolve” anything. I pointed out that this was in direct opposition to the conclusions that Diogenes has taken from the paper–so why hasn’t he come out of the woodwork to claim that I am wrong, that the paper actually does mean what he claims it means? Where is he? He’s usually so eager to tilt at one of his pet topics, so here I am, ready to be skewered for utterly misinterpreting the science of the paper.
I looked through the paper many times. I could not find the term “gender identity” nor any synonym for “gender identity” in it at all. Could you please be so kind as to quote the specific sentence in which “gender identity” or an equivalent term is used in the paper? It seems to have eluded me. After all, you HAVE read the real and complete study in full and not merely relied upon popularizations, right? You are doing more than just talking out your ass when you claim that the study addresses gender IDENTITY and not merely sexual DIMORPHISM, right? Could you please point out to me the portion of the paper that stops talking about biochemical sexual DIMORPHISM and instead talks about gender IDENTITY? Thank you very much.
Take your best shot, junior. I’ve presented my case. I have access to the paper in question. Go ahead and demonstrate how I have utterly misinterpreted it.
I agree with that. I was just saying it’s more complex than “there’s a gay gene or there isn’t.”
Who said they were unsure of their sexual identity? I think you’re polarizing again. Check out what I said:
As Marley points out, I should’ve said it’s more complicated for a lot of people than a simple genetic command (not a gay gene, since everyone stipulates it’d be more complicated than one gene).
Daniel
I read what you wrote and I think you read what I wrote. I simply think you don’t understand what the study is trying to prove and you are instead looking at what the media is claiming it is trying to prove.
As I said earlier what I was talking about requires more knowledge than the study presents. The study presented the idea that genetics play a factor in determining the difference between the sexes. That would mean that they would determine whether or not you are homosexual if that was part of the genetic part rather than the horomonal part. Besides XY genes are still different so homosexuality could be determined on them.
The study even taken in isolation would not prove what you are saying.
Dogface:
I haven’t been able to get online until now because I got nailed with the blaster worm last night. You might notice that I haven’t posted at all today, I haven’t been avoiding you.
First of all, IANA molecular biologist or a geneticist so a lot of the text of the study is Greek to me. All I did was present what the headlines were and what at least one scientist was quoted as saying about sexual identity and orientation. You’ll notice I put a question mark after the word “resolved” in the thread title. I was basically asking those more knowledgable than me if this study really meant what the headlines said it meant.
When I commented about “homophobia,” I did not mean you and I don’t think you’re a homophobe. I think you gave quite a reasonable interpretation of the study that comes from what seems to be a better grounding in the subject that what I have and I thank you for it.
I was stating rhetorically if this study showed that homosexuality was genetic that people who are homophobic would have less ammunition for calling it immoral. That’s only IMO, of course and YMMV.
Once again, I don’t put you in the category of homophobe and I don’t think your criticism of the popular media coverage of this story makes you anti-gay or anything but someone who is interested in fighting ignorance.
Look, I believed the headlines. I thought the study was pretty much as it was advertised in the papers. I don’t really understand the biology so I had no way not to know. It was not my intention to misrepresent anything or to distort a study in order to make a political point. Thank you agin for giving me the “straight Dope” on what this study really studied.
As to the substance of the study let me ask you one question (out of sincere curiosity, I really don’t know). Does the study show that any "female’ brains can turn up in male bodies or vice-versa?
If that were to be the case, I think they might really be on to something about sexual identity.
I would hope that there is indeed a “gay gene”.
The desired result would not be a “cure” or prevention, but tolerance.
If that was the case, then yes, I would question what I believe. In the same way though, that if an alien was to land, I’d also question what I believed. I don’t know if I’m classified as homophobic, but I’d think you may classify me as such. So again, yes, if this was the case, I’d have a problem with what I believe.
Can I ask then if there are people who would want to be ‘cured’?
So, if there is a “gay genes”, does that mean that people can lose their genes?
Or is it the old “they were never really gay” theory?
Resident homophobe :rolleyes: checking in with a rhetorical question…
If it’s shown that a tendency to steal is caused genetically, is this a reason to tolerate thieves? If it’s shown that a tendency to rape is caused genetically, is this a reason to tolerate rapists?
And on the contrary…
If it’s shown that a tendency to be left-handed is caused genetically, is this a reason to stone left-handers? If it’s shown that a tendency to be red-haired is caused genetically, is this a reason to stone the red-haired?
In short, is it a question of genetic predisposition, or of arguing that some behavioural modes, however caused, have to be addressed and that others, similarly, don’t?
That was your mistake. Indeed, that is the mistake most people make. The believe popular press “science” articles. Having worked in laboratories or fields that have been subject to lots of popular press attention (currently Alzheimer’s, formerly edible vaccines), I got an amazing awakening in just how little the popular press can be trusted in matters of science. Were Wired to print that it was physically impossible to flap my arms and fly to the moon, I’d be tempted to get myself a space-suit for my next arm-flapping lunar vacation. I would almost claim a conspiracy among the press to prevent public knowledge of science, but this is too pervasive. Pure ignorance on the part of reporters who are unwilling or unable to brief themselves in the field explains the matter far better.
The study says neither that it can happen nor that it cannot. It all depends on just how comprehensive the list of proteins studied turns out to be. If the list is all-comprehensive (unlikely), then it would say that a “female” brain in a “male” body is biologically impossible. If the list is less than comprehensive (more likely, given the number of proteins that might be sexually dimorphic and estimates of number of proteins as yet undiscovered–we’re still probably at the “we haven’t gotten to the halfway point” level), then it would say “answer hazy, ask again later”.
The problem is that people want simplistic answers to complex questions.