Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Largest Same-Sex and Genetics Study to Date


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Sounds good, but we have no evidence of that in humans. Blindfold a person and ask him/her to identify the sex of another person in close proximity (stripped, of course, of manmade cultural markers like gendered perfume), and the results are completely random. Lacking context and visual clues, we're not even very good with voice pitch except at the extremes of the spectrum. Much of what we use to distinguish between male and female voices are socially gendered patterns of speaking, and those naturally vary across cultures.

I thought last sentence was of value - "Some scientists are even reconsidering the very definition of pheromone, as the original one was based on how some chemicals trigger unequivocal behaviours in insects, and this might not be applicable to humans. Perhaps pheromones can affect our physiological state or mood in more subtle ways that are not easy to identify in a simple scientific test."

Semantics and strictness of the scientific definition affects the conversation. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

"Perhaps pheromones can affect our physiological state or mood in more subtle ways that are not easy to identify in a simple scientific test."

This is nothing more than some kind of hypothetical wishfulness, lacking any scientific evidence. Blind studies across cultures have repeatedly demonstrated that people cannot accurately detect the sex of another person innately.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
Quote

“As a queer person and a geneticist, I struggle to understand the motivations behind a genome-wide association study for non-heterosexual behavior,” wrote Joe Vitti, a postdoctoral researcher at the Broad Institute, in one essay. “I have yet to see a compelling argument that the potential benefits of this study outweigh its potential harms.”

“I deeply disagree about publishing this,” said Steven Reilly, a geneticist and postdoctoral researcher who is on the steering committee of the institute’s L.G.B.T.Q. affinity group, Out@Broad. “It seems like something that could easily be misconstrued,” he said, adding, “In a world without any discrimination, understanding human behavior is a noble goal, but we don’t live in that world.”

What are examples of things these two researchers and like-minded ilk are concerned about?

 

Link to comment
On 8/29/2019 at 3:34 PM, Nofear said:

The New York Times has a write up of the largest population survey of genetics of sexual orientation.  Some key findings, but people are encouraged to at least read the NY Times article before posting (pretty please :)). It's not long.

  • A person was considered same sex or bisexual if they reported a same-sex sexual experience and that included between 2 to 10% of the sample (varied between which group they got data from)
  • Between 8-25% was associated with a plurality of genes (no one single gene) with a few other genes that maybe were influential but couldn't quite be quantified well for an estimated 32% genetic influence whether someone will engage in same-sex sex at least once in their life
  • The rest of the influences were assumed to be social or environmental

There is some controversy as to whether or not this study should even have been published lest the science be misused socially.

CNN reported the conclusions this way: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/30/health/gay-gene-study-trnd/index.html

CNN: (CNN)Sexual orientation cannot be predicted by a single "gay gene," new research indicates. Instead, a host of genetic and environmental factors play a role, according to a study published Thursday in Science Magazine. The findings provide insight into the complex genetics underlying human sexuality. But they do not explain it, wrote the international team of researchers who analyzed genetic data gathered from almost half a million people.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But in any case -- and I should have made this point earlier -- we're dealing with mental cognition, not any kind of biological function. Organisms that produce genuine pheromones have cells that are triggered by exposure to those chemicals. They don't think about it; it just happens

I got it this morning. Can’t believe I missed that last night.

Link to comment

I have always feared the scientific community, especially biologists, engaging in such research. Also those in the Gay Community doing this, seeking out biological reasons to prove why they are, “born Gay”.  The danger that I fear, is when a some agreed upon reason does became accepted by the scientific community, something that seldom ever happens. Then other groups will step forward, claiming they too are, “born that way”, but (I fear) it may be, or will be, groups who’s behavior is criminal. Or criminal now, that is until it becomes biological, and then it is not their fault. So how can and enlightened, and compassionate society punish those who were, “born that way”, who have no control over their actions, or desires?     

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I have always feared the scientific community, especially biologists, engaging in such research. Also those in the Gay Community doing this, seeking out biological reasons to prove why they are, “born Gay”.  The danger that I fear, is when a some agreed upon reason does became accepted by the scientific community, something that seldom ever happens. Then other groups will step forward, claiming they too are, “born that way”, but (I fear) it may be, or will be, groups who’s behavior is criminal. Or criminal now, that is until it becomes biological, and then it is not their fault. So how can and enlightened, and compassionate society punish those who were, “born that way”, who have no control over their actions, or desires?     

I think they punish them anyway, because such advanced societies recognize that the many other scientifically-accepted offsetting biological and social factors render plenty of space for individuals to choose between right and wrong. Many other factors than science alone drive societal enlightenment and compassion, so a "scientifically passionate" society is kind of an oxymoron anyway, since we are not purely rational (thank heavens / evolution :) ).

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Nofear said:

What are examples of things these two researchers and like-minded ilk are concerned about?

I think we can get a sense of what they're alluding to here in a published interview with queer historian Hanne Blank in Salon:

Quote

I'm quite attached to my identity as a gay man -- and, to be honest, I would feel a little troubled having my category taken away from me.

See, that's the thing, no one is going to take that away from you.  No one can take that away from you. The only thing they can take away from you is the illusion that this is not something that is constructed.  And that's very, very different.  Just because something is constructed as a social category, doesn't mean that it's not enormously meaningful.  It doesn't mean that we haven't built a whole damn civilization on it. Doesn't mean that we don't live our daily lives on it, doesn't mean that we don't use it all the time every time we're walking down the street.  This is real.  It's stuff that has physical manifestations in the real world. But that does not mean that it is organic. 

Or innate. 

Or inevitable. 

But these categories have also been very practical. Gay rights wouldn't be imaginable without them.

Well, you know, minority politics has been a lot easier to sell than to just say, "Being human ought to get you human dignity," full stop. If you can pin down the difference, if you can make the difference the salient issue, it somehow makes it easier for people to stomach the fact that they can't go out and just beat people over the head.  I don't know why that is.  I find it intensely frustrating.

 

Link to comment
On 8/30/2019 at 6:31 PM, CV75 said:

I think they punish them anyway, because such advanced societies recognize that the many other scientifically-accepted offsetting biological and social factors render plenty of space for individuals to choose between right and wrong. Many other factors than science alone drive societal enlightenment and compassion, so a "scientifically passionate" society is kind of an oxymoron anyway, since we are not purely rational (thank heavens / evolution :) ).

I also fear that if some biological trait is identified, people will use it to abort their children if it is detected. I am very pro-life, and would have not used it, to abort my Gay daughter. But I fear also that many in and out of the religious community, might use it to justify ending a pregnancy. Especially when so many fear their children will end up in Hell, and will fool themselves into believing, that somehow they will be saving their children, from endless torment. 

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

But I fear also that many in and out of the religious community, might use it to justify ending a pregnancy

Now that would be ironic.....not sure if I am using ironic the right way, but the most vocal about homosexuality tend to be the most antiabortion as well, but if they shifted as a way to guarantee their children weren't homosexual...

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I also fear that if some biological trait is identified, people will use it to abort their children if it is detected. I am very pro-life, and would have not used it, to abort my Gay daughter. But I fear also that many in and out of the religious community, might use it to justify ending a pregnancy. Especially when so many fear their children will end up in Hell, and will fool themselves into believing, that somehow they will be saving their children, from endless torment. 

No need for any of that in my book.

Link to comment

I think scientific knowledge cannot define the covenants, only describe the physical and natural circumstances in which one decides to make, keep or or break them. The same with morality. Once science defines that, we have only the rational piece of the equation.

Link to comment
On 8/30/2019 at 12:06 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Sounds good, but we have no evidence of that in humans. Blindfold a person and ask him/her to identify the sex of another person in close proximity (stripped, of course, of manmade cultural markers like gendered perfume), and the results are completely random. Lacking context and visual clues, we're not even very good with voice pitch except at the extremes of the spectrum. Much of what we use to distinguish between male and female voices are socially gendered patterns of speaking, and those naturally vary across cultures.

Your single source ignores actual evidence, as noted by Scientific American:

Quote

. . . scientists have had some success in demonstrating that exposure to body odor can elicit responses in other humans. As in rodent research, human sweat and secretions can affect the reproductive readiness of other humans. Since the 1970s researchers have observed changes in a woman’s menstrual cycle when she is exposed to the sweat of other women. In 2011 a Florida State University group demonstrated that the scent of ovulating women could cause testosterone levels to increase in men.

* * *

. . . human infants will crawl toward the odor of their mother’s breast. Baby rabbits are known to begin nursing when exposed to a specific pheromone from a lactating mother rabbit. Yet the human infants might simply be attracted to a mother’s so-called odor print, or unique personal scent.   https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-human-pheromones-real/.

So, although the specific pheromones or molecules have not yet been identified by science, the phenomenon is real.  However, for humans that is always secondary to the greater physiological characteristics of gender.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
On 8/31/2019 at 10:03 PM, Calm said:

Now that would be ironic.....not sure if I am using ironic the right way, but the most vocal about homosexuality tend to be the most antiabortion as well, but if they shifted as a way to guarantee their children weren't homosexual...

But I am speaking of heterosexuals, who are the one’s who are giving birth to children. Their are already factors that people use to have abortions, this could create yet another. If some genetic marker is found to identify someone as Gay, then I fear many would choose to abort. Everyone who is pregnant, or hoping to be, envision a future will marriage, and grandchildren.   

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...