Thread: sexual experimentation in childhood and it's influence, and yes, also antigens! Board: Dead Horses / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000712
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
after This inflamed post I chose to start a new topic (perhaps against my better judgement, I never did have tact or self control). I picked Dead Horses because I felt it obvious that this is a natural continuation of a dead horse thread.
Having been invited, I considered a Hell topic, where all manner of crude possibilities and accusations and the natural reaction to them can be discussed including visceral reactions to what is perceived about my opinions as outdated, hateful, and *shock* Biblical. For the time being I will assume the best of the shippies at large and start here as I'm informed Hell really isn't for "discussion". If due to the brief history here, a clean conversation cannot go forward, by all means, send it to Hell and I'll join - entertaining my vice for vulgarity as needed.
I will start off with two articles from a site recently found (https://stream.org/ten-principles/) and ask for comments on these things as far as we as people can possibly -hopefully- talk about them as well as how their own experiences add up (after all "anecdotal" is where it all leads anyway) and why or why not our early social experiences are viewed as formative to our sexuality.
I will describe my own sexuality and experiences in a second post.
As I can see from the news today, sociologists are out to prove that all forms of social control are bad, and they may violate our inborn sexuality, which in theory, was decided by our DNA alone.
It is my belief that inborn sexuality is a blank biological urge to fornicate, that, when combined with social normalization, control, temperance, discipline, teaching, will lead to healthy and beneficial and compatible sexual relationships at every level. In other words, in an orderly society, my urges to fornicate are controlled by society and the self control of others such that when it comes to me and my wife, my first experiences with her are truly that, FIRST exploration experiences, and so that as my life progresses with her, our experience expands at the same rate. This way our sexual creativity is limited and pleasurable between us equally and never out of balance, bland, or in need of outside exploration (no don't get the impression we have the perfect sex life, no one is perfect ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
).
Sadly, moral code and rules are often perceived as arbitrary and without purpose, they are an artificial barrier to be broken down, because they limit our fun.
Of course, being comfortable together as any couple is facilitated by each of us starting out comfortable in our own skin, but sadly, kids are often being encouraged to stop and think real hard about whether they even should want to be comfortable in their own skin. This leads to parents putting down what I describe as their sovereignty in teaching their children about how to be a biological unit in this world, and just letting the kid "ride the bike" with no help.
Here is an example of this agenda at work. Warning - this is is likely to be offensive to certain LGBT, I wont label which ones.
Article 1:
https://stream.org/researchers-want-kindergarten-teachers/
notable quote:
Gansen says her “findings demonstrate the importance of teachers actively working to disrupt heteronormativity, which is already ingrained in children by ages 3 to 5
This is the result of what can only be a Godless mentality that rejects the heternomative pattern laid down through oral tradition from God from the beginning of time. The result will be more medication to modify our bio units to suit our new perceptions. New perceptions? No problem! New prescriptions!
So you have this push to remove social framework from role play and experimentation, just go wild is basically the advice, and well that is fine and well, just as long as we have the right DEVICE. Such as with birth control. Responsibility? What's that? Just cap the tubes and shoot blanks, no one can be hurt!
Okay okay, I'm getting carried away, right right.
So experimentation and role play cannot form our sexual orientation eh? Well of course it does, or else Ms Hansen would not be trying to disrupt heternormative socialization. Suppose that experimentation does then affect identity, that then makes the real danger sexual abuse.
Warning/Disclamer, there are no jokes about Satan as with the first article, but still might be offensive to LGBT
Article 2:
https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/
notable quote:
Dr. Robert Epstein, the pro-gay editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, noted that gay readers who were upset with an ad that ran in his publication in 2002 sent him letters asserting “that gays have a right to be rude or abusive because they themselves have been abused” (this obviously included being sexually abused).
Not to totally dismiss biological disposition, we are all wired differently. Nature and nurture are each valid at some level. Here is at least one nifty piece of science that we can also explore, though as the article says, it doesn't explain everything.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/gay-brothers/480117/
Clearly in families with siblings, the issue can be studied, but with siblings you have increase social aspects of birth order and the role playing of older and younger. Never the less antigens can do crazy things, and in times of societal stress, or if you will "success", nature might have ways of shifting the gender landscape.
"Some researchers believe birth order is as important as gender and almost as important as genetics." Link - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gail-gross/how-birth-order-affects-personality_b_4494385.html
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
This OP should be in Hell for its chaotic mess.
Mother of all that is holy, can you distill what you are attempting to say in a short paragraph?
Your OP jumps, twists and is far from clear.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Stream.org? Really? Its self-description at the bottom of the page says it all.
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
The first two links are terrible; the third completely contradicts your thesis, and I don't see the relevance of the fourth.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Sure hope you don't make love like you do posts.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
WTF?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I rather think friend Aijalon needs to get out more.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
IJ
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Article 1:
https://stream.org/researchers-want-kindergarten-teachers/
This is not research.
quote:
https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/
And neither is this.
These are opinion pieces from a right-wing Christian health-and-wealth libertarian website. They are not articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals. All your sources prove is there are people out there who think like you do. We know that.
Come back when you have something to actually discuss.
[ 26. July 2017, 18:17: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This OP should be in Hell for its chaotic mess.
Mother of all that is holy, can you distill what you are attempting to say in a short paragraph?
Your OP jumps, twists and is far from clear.
your accusations are bland and hold no water.
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Article 1:
https://stream.org/researchers-want-kindergarten-teachers/
This is not research.
quote:
https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/
And neither is this.
These are opinion pieces from a right-wing Christian health-and-wealth libertarian website. They are not articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals. All your sources prove is there are people out there who think like you do. We know that.
Come back when you have something to actually discuss.
yet, there are so many posting responses to opinion based on personal stories.... and somehow the personal statements and stories in the article have no value. Sure, sure.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This OP should be in Hell for its chaotic mess.
Mother of all that is holy, can you distill what you are attempting to say in a short paragraph?
Your OP jumps, twists and is far from clear.
your accusations are bland and hold no water.
The accusation (singular) is poor writing and the posts following mine bolster my case.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Article 1:
https://stream.org/researchers-want-kindergarten-teachers/
This is not research.
quote:
https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/
And neither is this.
These are opinion pieces from a right-wing Christian health-and-wealth libertarian website. They are not articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals. All your sources prove is there are people out there who think like you do. We know that.
Come back when you have something to actually discuss.
yet, there are so many posting responses to opinion based on personal stories.... and somehow the personal statements and stories in the article have no value. Sure, sure.
I appreciate you don't understand the difference between someone taking the time and trouble to explain to you the hows, whys and whens of them coming out, and a pile of ill-natured snark that didn't happen to either you or the writer of the opinion piece, but you could at least pretend.
You're trying to foist false equivalence on us, and it's a logical fallacy. Please listen to the experience of gay people, not straight people denigrating gay people.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Aijalon, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
In keeping with the OP, I will briefly explain my experience, clearly different than most of those responding in disgust so far.
- raised in a Pentecostal background
- private school, we had uniforms
- parents stayed married
- little to no sex ed
- mom is overbearing, dad was submissive
- sex was something to be embarrassed about (thanks mom)
- introduced to porn at about 11/12yr by a pal
- very sexually awkward from then on
- joined the army, grew up a little
- first sexual experience - with wife.
- have children, all girls.
Knowing what I now know at middle age I feel had I been raised in a different social context, I feel I could equally have oriented as a homosexual, based on how I was loved and accepted and taught about sex at an early age - I was an open book.
Homophobic, and generally sex phobic would have described me as an 18 yr old. Sexually repressed would have been a good word for it. Not near as many LGBT were "out" in that time.
The group influence, gossip, flirting, and porn I experienced at an early age had a profound effect on my sexual desires. Events in my life "flipped" on certain switches. I'm honestly not that desirable in a physical sense, but had I been I am sure I would have indulged the girls seeking me out, what can I say, I'm a people person. There was actually a hazy memory from being a little kid about 8 yrs old where a girl requested an exchange of sightings about our packages, I honestly don't know if she made good on her end to show hers.... can't remember.
I dont have any LGBT friends, or at least not any that are out. I am not phobic around LGBT and can work with them just fine, have had great conversations about what gaydar is, which, I think is a skill you would need to know if partner possibilities are in short supply where you live or work.
-nuf for now
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Knowing what I now know at middle age I feel had I been raised in a different social context, I feel I could equally have oriented as a homosexual, based on how I was loved and accepted and taught about sex at an early age - I was an open book.
Sigh. No.
You can't look back on your life and think "oh well if things had been a bit different I might have turned out gay," because that's daft.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Socialization does not determine sexual orientation.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Knowing what I now know at middle age I feel had I been raised in a different social context, I feel I could equally have oriented as a homosexual, based on how I was loved and accepted and taught about sex at an early age - I was an open book.
If you didn't have any sexual feelings towards men during puberty, I very much doubt that you were ever going to turn out to homosexual.
I mean, yes, it's possible. It might be possible that you're actually bisexual. But if you don't find men sexually attractive, then that's kind of one of the prerequisites.
So why do you tell yourself this story? Is it to prove to yourself you've had a 'lucky escape' from being gay, or is it to show others that you successfully fought off (non-existent) urges and grew into a God-fearing straight man?
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Socialization does not determine sexual orientation.
Not alone, no, but there is no one cause, the science is actually not clear as to the single cause of orientation. It's complex, and socialization is involved.
problems exist for example why in identical twins only one is usually ever gay. Or how the gay gene was passed on if homosexuals could not procreate in the past, how that gene survived. (theory is it's a muti-use gene, but its a THEORY!).
One thing is for sure, the sociologist featured in the article is studying socialization as an avenue to change sexual orientation. In other words, she believes that socialization is too powerful in shaping the expression of sexuality, and based on her bias, she wants to control how socialization takes place and rewind "normality".
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
An example of our experiences (not my own):
--------------------------
1. I am gay.
2. I came out when I was 33.
3. The first time I ever had any kind of sexualised encounter with another man was when I was 32. We could have all sorts of debate about what exactly constitutes "sex" and therefore when I might technically have lost my virginity, but before the age of 32 I had never kissed, cuddled, necked, fondled etc. etc. etc. a man.
Sexuality simply isn't correlated with actually having sex. Straight guys are still straight when they're teenage guys who've never actually done anything with a girl but get excited at the prospect of it.
There is research from America showing this fundamental disconnect, because when homosexual people talk about homosexuality it's framed in terms of who they desire, whereas when conservative Christians talk about homosexuality they think in terms of actual sexual intercourse (and usually anal intercourse, which in fact about a 1/3 of homosexual men don't like and don't participate in).
And so you end up with conservative Christians imagining homosexuals as engaging in lots of sex because to them, having sex is what homosexuality IS. Which just bears no connection to the real life experience of many homosexuals, such as myself, who had the attraction long before they ever acted on it.
----------------------------------------
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Actually, that's not what she said at all. What she was talking about was gender roles, and how reinforcing gender roles at a very early age is part of the reason we have comparatively few men in the caring professions, and few women in STEM jobs.
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Knowing what I now know at middle age I feel had I been raised in a different social context, I feel I could equally have oriented as a homosexual, based on how I was loved and accepted and taught about sex at an early age - I was an open book.
If you didn't have any sexual feelings towards men during puberty, I very much doubt that you were ever going to turn out to homosexual.
I mean, yes, it's possible. It might be possible that you're actually bisexual. But if you don't find men sexually attractive, then that's kind of one of the prerequisites.
So why do you tell yourself this story? Is it to prove to yourself you've had a 'lucky escape' from being gay, or is it to show others that you successfully fought off (non-existent) urges and grew into a God-fearing straight man?
Now if I feel sexual promiscuity, fornication, or other Biblical deviant behavior is a sin and wrong (which I do) of course I would have to agree that I'm "lucky" to have escaped those habits. The Christianese word would be "blessed".
But I'm not the man in the temple saying "thank you God for not making me like that Guy..." in fact, I recognize now that I'm no better.
bisexual... sure it's possible, I don't know how much "attraction" is required to qualify me. I am more than comfortable pointing out handsome men when I see them, and I tend to think that I do this maybe more than other guys. My thought there is that physically I have been the target of verbal abuse throughout my life, for being very very thin. It seems to be of no consequence for the normative built person to remark about how thin I am. My body has always been a target of other's comments, and to my face.
part of that is the perception that I don't care or that being thin is what everyone wants. I really feel that I am just off putting and once people find me a talkative person they say "wow! Been losing weight have we!" (I put on some weight in my 20's but now am back down to high school weight again at 6'2" 139 lb (63 kg) I laugh as much as it hurts, but as this has gone on into adult hood I accept that people just tend to say what's on their mind.
So as to commenting on how good looking other men are, I think it is simply too much self awareness and jealousy, to be quite frank. I do not imagine myself in sexual situations with men, though at times I sort of wish I was in their body. Not sure what that says about me.
Supposing I was prone to bisexuality and only found myself as heterosexual because of social repression? Suppose that we're all bisexual, and only through socialization are we conditioned for one or the other. I agree with sexually conditioning and focusing and limiting society - in the context of a nuclear family.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Not alone, no, but there is no one cause, the science is actually not clear as to the single cause of orientation. It's complex, and socialization is involved.
From the American Acaedmy of Pediatrics
quote:
There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.
quote:
problems exist for example why in identical twins only one is usually ever gay.
The consensus is that the differentiation occurs in the womb.
quote:
Or how the gay gene was passed on if homosexuals could not procreate in the past, how that gene survived. (theory is it's a muti-use gene, but its a THEORY!).
OMG! You don't know what theory means, OMG. Theory doesn't mean guess. The word for that is hyphothesis. Theory is explanation based on observation, experimentation and testing.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Well, I'm not convinced on your last point. Yes, certainly, gays and bisexuals have certainly been forced by social mores to enter heterosexual relationships - but I'd argue that this is in fact a terrible thing, not just for them, but also the people that they've married.
It would have been terrible for you too, and that's why I'm having difficulty seeing the problem you have in accepting that gays just 'are'. No one's forcing you to be gay. No one's telling you to live with someone you're not attracted to. No one's making you not have a relationship with the person you love. Which is the world that gay and bisexual people often face.
Let's keep the other stuff for the other thread, but it's a common trope that single-sex education can lead to sexual situations with other pupils (and same sex crushes on teachers). I don't know of any particular research in this area, but it's usually described as a 'phase' that has no lasting effect on post-puberty sexuality.
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
Dear lil' you're really working much too hard to discredit me. You are fine, they accept you here. I am not out to harm you, you will survive this day. Get a beverage, sit back in your chair. Relax.
I understand the technical difference.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Dear lil' you're really working much too hard to discredit me.
Your own postings do that, so not much effort on my part.
quote:
I understand the technical difference.
Your posts do not reflect this.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
problems exist for example why in identical twins only one is usually ever gay.
I have never heard this. Can you point me to some research showing this?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Though I'm not sure the percentage "only one is usually ever" represents, it does happen.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
47 pairs, in 10 both twins were gay. Almost always only one, Aijalon? Indeed 10/47 is rather more than chance alone would predict, strongly pointing to a genetic component.
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
Right right, it does happen, but the statistical analysis of identical twins is expected to show a matching rate of homosexuality in line with being identical, so, a high rate.
The rate discovered in the study a few years ago suggested a lower rate than expected and it was reported that there may be a strong link between homosexuality and environmental factors that affect DNA expression.
This is an area of research called epigenetics....
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
In any case, this kind of stuff really throws off scientists because epigenetics is a live fire excercise, the ground is moving, DNA is changing rapidly in terms of generations in very delicate ways (and sexuality is kind of a delicate intricate thing)
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
problems exist for example why in identical twins only one is usually ever gay.
I have never heard this. Can you point me to some research showing this?
I think it's early on in the process, more work going on. I will look more at it, but this isn't the only statistical study that correlates sexuality with the environment.
Research such as this is so "controversial" for breaking with the consensus because at its core, the consensus of "born this way" is actually built on a giant pile of stories from gay people that stated "I was born this way". In the absence of a gay gene being known, if so many people said that, it must be true, right? There HAS TO be a gene for it.
Going along with the consensus, the environment of kids today are not being studied for what that might really tell us about forming their sexuality, statistically speaking. Why. because we "already know" they were born this way. I think that's an appeasement set out to suit a political objective. We don't really "know".
Studies are done selectively, and unfavorable information is often discredited by carefully choosing to see only correlations that are desired.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Research such as this is so "controversial" for breaking with the consensus because at its core, the consensus of "born this way" is actually built on a giant pile of stories from gay people that stated "I was born this way". In the absence of a gay gene being known, if so many people said that, it must be true, right? There HAS TO be a gene for it.
The giant pile of gay people will tell you that they were "born this way" meaning that it wasn't something that they chose. That haven't taken up homosexuality as a hobby because they had a little spare time on Friday nights.
That doesn't mean there "has to be a gene for it" - that would be a misunderstanding of biology. It's a pretty common misunderstanding to identify every inborn trait as genetic, but it's still a misunderstanding. As you point out, epigenetics is a young science. We don't understand how it works.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
If you are going to link to creationist, pseudo-science how do you expect us to take your arguments seriously?
[ 26. July 2017, 22:49: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
I dunno, I'll throw this in - I once worked in fields related to hearing science, and while leafing through our highest-profile international journal (on paper! - it was a while ago) I was surprised and amused when this jumped out at me.
Funny corners of science point towards the 'decided before birth' nature of sexual orientation reported by many homosexual people. This one must be one of the weirdest!
(Incidentally, anyone's baby who has been checked for normal hearing soon after birth - common for the last 10+ years in the UK - will have undergone testing based on the measurement of otoacousic emissions - it's now a standard technique in audiology where subjects are unable to respond manually to an evoked auditory stimulus).
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
If you link to discredited pseudoscientific (and in reality, anti-scientific) websites for your proof, no one is going to engage with you.
A minimum level of credibility is required: a reputable journal or news source, preferably something which can be verified independently or peer-reviewed.
This is not it. You have the whole of the internet to search. If the only pages that appear to agree with you are the batshit crazy ones, then you should take that as a big hint.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
problems exist for example why in identical twins only one is usually ever gay.
I have never heard this. Can you point me to some research showing this?
I think it's early on in the process, more work going on.
Ah, in other words, there is none. Thank you.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The giant pile of gay people will tell you that they were "born this way" meaning that it wasn't something that they chose. That haven't taken up homosexuality as a hobby because they had a little spare time on Friday nights.
That doesn't mean there "has to be a gene for it" - that would be a misunderstanding of biology. It's a pretty common misunderstanding to identify every inborn trait as genetic, but it's still a misunderstanding. As you point out, epigenetics is a young science. We don't understand how it works.
Indeed. And there are also things that are neither genetic nor epigenetic but rather the result of conditions inside the womb during gestation, as I mentioned above. IIRC some intersex and non-binary conditions are a result of more than usual or less than usual amounts of hormones present in either the amniotic fluid or the umbilical fluid.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Though I'm not sure the percentage "only one is usually ever" represents, it does happen.
Of course "only one usually ever" is so self-contradictory it's hard to say what it even means.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It is my belief that inborn sexuality is a blank biological urge to fornicate, that, when combined with social normalization, control, temperance, discipline, teaching, will lead to healthy and beneficial and compatible sexual relationships at every level. In other words, in an orderly society, my urges to fornicate are controlled by society and the self control of others such that when it comes to me and my wife, my first experiences with her are truly that, FIRST exploration experiences, and so that as my life progresses with her, our experience expands at the same rate. This way our sexual creativity is limited and pleasurable between us equally and never out of balance, bland, or in need of outside exploration (no don't get the impression we have the perfect sex life, no one is perfect ).
This doesn't work out all that well even for straight people -- the so-called "purity movement" in the US in the 90s showed that. Loads of people ended up in abusive relationships or experienced painful sexual dysfunction as a result of this kind of control.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Why do you use the word 'fornicate'?
This assumes judgement from the start imo.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course "only one usually ever" is so self-contradictory it's hard to say what it even means.
What does it mean?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It is my belief that inborn sexuality is a blank biological urge to fornicate, that, when combined with social normalization, control, temperance, discipline, teaching, will lead to healthy and beneficial and compatible sexual relationships at every level. In other words, in an orderly society, my urges to fornicate are controlled by society and the self control of others such that when it comes to me and my wife, my first experiences with her are truly that, FIRST exploration experiences, and so that as my life progresses with her, our experience expands at the same rate. This way our sexual creativity is limited and pleasurable between us equally and never out of balance, bland, or in need of outside exploration (no don't get the impression we have the perfect sex life, no one is perfect ).
This doesn't work out all that well even for straight people -- the so-called "purity movement" in the US in the 90s showed that. Loads of people ended up in abusive relationships or experienced painful sexual dysfunction as a result of this kind of control.
Yes. It's also pure assertion. Much as I enjoy seeing the Assertatron in action, well-oiled, and maintained, it's absurd since I can replace it with an equal and opposite assertion. Thus: lots of fucking in adolescence improved my personality, gave me bags of energy, and helped me become a brilliant husband.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
(Incidentally, anyone's baby who has been checked for normal hearing soon after birth - common for the last 10+ years in the UK - will have undergone testing based on the measurement of otoacousic emissions - it's now a standard technique in audiology where subjects are unable to respond manually to an evoked auditory stimulus).
Cool - I was wondering how they did that. I learned something - thanks, Mark.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Dear lil' you're really working much too hard to discredit me.
Your own postings do that, so not much effort on my part.
quote:
I understand the technical difference.
Your posts do not reflect this.
Too true.
Aijalon, could you let us know what scientific education, training or work you have done beyond searching the web for stuff that fits your preferences?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Last time we had this discussion I found the references to this, but it's going to be too painful on a phone. There are so far a number of hypotheses suggesting why some people are homosexual:
- * the gay gene - twin and familial studies seem to indicate a genetic component as there are families with higher than expected incidences of both female and male homosexuals;
* one of the correlations is that younger sons of larger families are more likely to be gay. A suggested mechanism here is in utero removal of testosterone which changes the foetal development (epigenetics). This mechanism can only explain a proportion of men identifying as gay;
* other as yet unexplained changes / mutations / epigenetic mechanisms
Funnily enough socialisation isn't mentioned in the reputable science papers. That would come under sociology and/or psychology, and psychology doesn't have the best credentials in the past attempts to explain physical illnesses as psychological - MS was described as a somatic disorder for years before the deterioration in the myelin sheath was identified, stomach ulcers were all to do with stress until the bacterial cause was proved by the investigating scientist swallowing H. pylori and which caused his own ulcer. (These are checkable stories)
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
"...fits your preferences" ?? Really, I'd suggest the accurate word here would be prejudices.
Dear Aijalon
Some of us experiment sexually in childhood, some don't; for some it is with people of the same gender, for others not; some are influenced by childhood fumblings and games of you-show-me-yours-and-I'll-show-you-mine towards the opposite gender, some not; and some don't decide anything at all because they're attracted to people of same and opposite gender.
Fascinating stuff, but frankly there are better things to do on a humid July afternoon than speculate on this for someone who has given more than ample evidence that they aren't interested in peer-reviewed research or in giving a hearing, at least, to things that don't conform to their own prejudices.
No, I don't want to know about your sex life, or lack of - thanks but no thanks.
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
If you link to discredited pseudoscientific (and in reality, anti-scientific) websites for your proof, no one is going to engage with you.
A minimum level of credibility is required: a reputable journal or news source, preferably something which can be verified independently or peer-reviewed.
This is not it. You have the whole of the internet to search. If the only pages that appear to agree with you are the batshit crazy ones, then you should take that as a big hint.
That's not the link I intended, i pasted that in another thread somewhere. It might have been the CTRL "C" didn't take properly and I didn't realize.
I will look at finding the right link....
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Research such as this is so "controversial" for breaking with the consensus because at its core, the consensus of "born this way" is actually built on a giant pile of stories from gay people that stated "I was born this way". In the absence of a gay gene being known, if so many people said that, it must be true, right? There HAS TO be a gene for it.
The giant pile of gay people will tell you that they were "born this way" meaning that it wasn't something that they chose. That haven't taken up homosexuality as a hobby because they had a little spare time on Friday nights.
That doesn't mean there "has to be a gene for it" - that would be a misunderstanding of biology. It's a pretty common misunderstanding to identify every inborn trait as genetic, but it's still a misunderstanding. As you point out, epigenetics is a young science. We don't understand how it works.
Hi LC,
Yes, that's kind of my point as well. We just don't know how it works. We know from social science or psychology that people cannot explain when and exactly how they became LGBT for the most part, they just say "I am this way".
In effort not to blame anyone or any group for a cause (knowing it's not wrong no matter what else we find!) we may be covering up the social reasons that they are that way. Just as the sociologist points out, gender normalization occurs between 3-5 yrs.
If the correlation to homosexuality is occurring from social factors from the age of 3-5, why are we not studying that? Why was this thrown out? There hasn't been a gay gene discovered yet. Yet we do know kids are drawing conclusions in their minds at early ages about what they see in their world. How can we rule out that both normative and LGBT are identifying their sexuality based on events and information they picked up in life that they just cannot remember, because they were so young?
I just don't see, scientifically, how we throw that out (unless it is unethical to probe children for this information) yet, we have.
[ 27. July 2017, 16:21: Message edited by: Aijalon ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Science doesn't have a perfect explanation so you will ignore that the preponderance of what is known points to sexuality and gender being innate?
Nice.
BTW, I do remember things from between 3 and 5 years old. The only trauma I had during that time was older children trying to scare me with a fake spider. How did that affect my sexuality?
Wait, spiders have 10 appendages,* a couple is 2 people, divide 10 by 2 and you get 5. Men have a fifth appendage...Eureka... therefore I am scared of penis.
*8 legs, two pedipalps.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Just as the sociologist points out, gender normalization occurs between 3-5 yrs.
If the correlation to homosexuality is occurring from social factors from the age of 3-5, why are we not studying that?
Because 30 seconds with the internet would tell you that this is not what gender normalisation means.
It means that by the age of 5, boys and girls will have some sense of what society expects boys and girls to be/do. This causes boys as many problems as it causes girls. It's girly if you like pretend cooking/dressing up/playing with dolls, and if a girl prefers to kick a football around and play with cars, she's a tomboy. Teachers consciously and unconsciously reinforce stereotypes.
This has nothing to do with 'making' a kid gay.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Yes, that's kind of my point as well. We just don't know how it works. We know from social science or psychology that people cannot explain when and exactly how they became LGBT for the most part, they just say "I am this way".
And we know that people can't explain when and how they became straight. What are the events in your childhood that caused you to be attracted to women?
You're still arguing that sexuality is a learned behaviour. That really doesn't explain the data. It would be closer to correct to say that conforming to societal expectations for sexuality is a learned behaviour. This describes a couple of my friends, who married as young men, had successful marriages, raised kids, and did all the things that society expects of them. And now, in late middle age, they realized that they are gay.
These are gay men who learned straight behaviour.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Wait, spiders have 10 appendages,* a couple is 2 people, divide 10 by 2 and you get 5. Men have a fifth appendage...Eureka... therefore I am scared of penis.
*8 legs, two pedipalps.
This is beautiful. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Avoidance of conflating gender identity with sexual orientation is wise.
As far as I can see, we've understood orientation as something indwelling, probably based genetically. Of course it has social expression within relationships. This is old news.
Gender as separate from biological sex is a newer concept for most people. We don't even agree on the language used to describe it.
Re sexual experimentation in childhood, we have hands, they reach to our genitals. They can reach to others' too. I have copies of Kinsey's 1950s surveys of sexuality. Some 20% of people back then admitted to some non-normative (it doesn't mean normal) sexual activity. Some no doubt denied. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with later adjustment. People back then didn't even have internet porn to guide their experiments, not that I think porno is helpful or a good idea.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Gender as separate from biological sex is a newer concept for most people. We don't even agree on the language used to describe it.
True. Although not for the intersex people among us. But then the vast majority of people probably don't even realize intersex exists, many deny it, and many simply don't know how to fit it into their oversimple schemes, and reject the whole idea.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Sex= Biology
Gender = social construct
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Gender as separate from biological sex is a newer concept for most people. We don't even agree on the language used to describe it.
True. Although not for the intersex people among us. But then the vast majority of people probably don't even realize intersex exists, many deny it, and many simply don't know how to fit it into their oversimple schemes, and reject the whole idea.
Good points.
I have general confidence that we'll sort it out. The unfortunate part us that it looks like it takes decades, like 5-10 for big shifts in general understanding. So we get urgent pushes to shorten the time frames, accompanied by backlash.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
True. Although not for the intersex people among us. But then the vast majority of people probably don't even realize intersex exists, many deny it, and many simply don't know how to fit it into their oversimple schemes, and reject the whole idea.
How the arseing arse can you "deny" that intersex conditions exist?
I can understand that someone might not know about it - it's a relatively rare thing, and not particularly in the public discourse, so it would be easy not to know - but that's not what "deny" means.
What is their response to someone with, for example, external female genitalia and testes in the abdomen? To accuse them of lying about their biology? It makes no sense.
To deny transgenderism at least seems logically possible - there's no objective external sign of a person identifying with a particular gender, so it's always open to people to accuse them of being confused or whatever.
But intersex? That's unambiguous biological fact.
[ 27. July 2017, 20:01: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The denial won't be about the existence, but conclusion. They will see mutations, freaks to be pitied and/or proof is "sin" in the world.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Leorning Cniht--
Um, it's not like people who are new to the concept are going to see the plumbing of any intersex person they meet. So yeah, denial could still happen, easily.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But intersex? That's unambiguous biological fact.
Is it? Have you ever seen one? How can you convince a person who has never seen intersex genitalia that people with same exist? Photos on the internet? They'll say "Photoshop." Scientific journals? They reject those about everything else we've been discussing here.
It's quite easy to deny it.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But intersex? That's unambiguous biological fact.
Is it? Have you ever seen one? How can you convince a person who has never seen intersex genitalia that people with same exist? Photos on the internet? They'll say "Photoshop." Scientific journals? They reject those about everything else we've been discussing here.
It's quite easy to deny it.
It is. I think of Ahmadinejad saying there are no homosexuals in Iran.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Aijalon. quote:
Or how the gay gene was passed on if homosexuals could not procreate in the past, how that gene survived. (theory is it's a muti-use gene, but its a THEORY!).
There are genes known as recessive, which do not act if there is another, dominant gene, which overrides them. Thus red haired children can be born to parents without red hair, blue eyed children to dark eyed parents. Also, and more sadly, diseases can be carried by people who do not have any sign of them, and only appear when both parents have that gene. Now that is not a very helpful analogy for homosexuality when dealing with someone who is prepared to see that as closer to a disease than to eye colour.
However, it is quite possible that families carrying a gene for homosexuality had some advantage that outbred those without it, to some extent. Maybe having women who did not risk dying in childbirth and thus more able to pass on the families' funds of knowledge was a positive which made those carrying, but not expressing the gene, fitter than those who had not. Maybe having a bunch of uncles who could support the children of their siblings was a positive which made it worth while those siblings passing on the gene. After all, in wolves and meercats, a lot of the adults engage in family support without having offspring themselves. Homosexuality is an improvement on that pattern, since it allows the non-bearing adults to have close affectionate relationships.
Genes, in short, are not simply passed on down a single line of inheritance, since they are shared with siblings, even if invisibly. And if they confer an advantage on the family group, they will be selected for.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There are genes known as recessive, which do not act if there is another, dominant gene, which overrides them. Thus red haired children can be born to parents without red hair, blue eyed children to dark eyed parents.
Eye colour is a bit more complex than that and includes some genetic and some non-genetic factors.
Your point is good but your example might not be.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The concept that there is a single gene for any given trait is a problem in this discussion. Multiple genes and how they are expressed can influence traits.
Actually, the problem is the scientific ignorance/outright rejection of science in the homosexuality is a choice or result of trauma group.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Penny (and others)
Please remember that it is only recently in history that gay men did not usually marry women and have children...especially in any society where land or other property was involved. Being out of the closet was usually not an issue, and if you were in the closet issue was expected of the marriage you had no choice about.
I believe only a tiny minority of gay men are so gay that they cannot have intercourse with a woman, and so cannot have children -- the vast majority closed their eyes and thought about ...whoever...rather than the woman actually with them at the time.
There's therefore, IMO, little point in speculating about the possible benefits of a gay gene (whose existence, so far as U can see is doubtful at best) in terms of the past. Perhaps in 3-4 centuries, if there are no other changes in the structures of families -- as there have been none in the last 3-4 centuries ? -- there may be some evidence of the benefits of a small additional number of childless men.
John
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
There's therefore, IMO, little point in speculating about the possible benefits of a gay gene (whose existence, so far as U can see is doubtful at best) in terms of the past.
Whereas, if you're an evolutionary biologist, there's every reason to speculate about the previous 100,000 years of history, when being gay may not have mattered in the slightest in terms of close-knit tribal life.
I don't know whether human society was always homophobic, or it became so with the transition to owning property and/or land, whether settled communities were more homophobic than nomadic ones... it's an entirely right and proper subject for research.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Re genetics. Nothing complex in human behaviour and life is due to one gene or even a handful, say of 20 genes. Hair and eye colour, while more complex than some of the sinister disease genetics are no model for the complexity. Genes get turned on and off by experiences in life as well.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I was actually thinking about very early societies, before nation states, groups like the Hazdah (sp) for example.
Oh, good, Doc Tor said it better. I got interrupted by a visit from a nurse and didn't check what else had been posted before sending.
Clearly once there are societies with attitudes, and gay men marry, passing on the genes directly becomes less of a problem, as with Oscar Wilde, for example.
OK, eye colour may be more complex (Information stopped at O Level for that), but the only other thing I could think of was Mendel's peas.
[ 28. July 2017, 16:08: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It is my belief that inborn sexuality is a blank biological urge to fornicate, that, when combined with social normalization, control, temperance, discipline, teaching, will lead to healthy and beneficial and compatible sexual relationships at every level. In other words, in an orderly society, my urges to fornicate are controlled by society and the self control of others such that when it comes to me and my wife, my first experiences with her are truly that, FIRST exploration experiences, and so that as my life progresses with her, our experience expands at the same rate. This way our sexual creativity is limited and pleasurable between us equally and never out of balance, bland, or in need of outside exploration (no don't get the impression we have the perfect sex life, no one is perfect ).
This doesn't work out all that well even for straight people -- the so-called "purity movement" in the US in the 90s showed that. Loads of people ended up in abusive relationships or experienced painful sexual dysfunction as a result of this kind of control.
I know i piled on TONS of weight due to tamping down my sex drive completely...
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
Here are links on the study I had earlier meant to past, FWIW --
http://www.nature.com/news/epigenetic-tags-linked-to-homosexuality-in-men-1.18530
https://www.ashg.org/press/201510-sexual-orientation.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/no-scientists-have-not-found-the-gay-gene/410059/
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Yes, that's kind of my point as well. We just don't know how it works. We know from social science or psychology that people cannot explain when and exactly how they became LGBT for the most part, they just say "I am this way".
And we know that people can't explain when and how they became straight. What are the events in your childhood that caused you to be attracted to women?
In my point of view, the example of the nuclear family that I was raised in, as well as the normative gender roles that were prevalent, created the environment that nudged me to heterosexuality. I also don't assume that I cannot be "turned". In other words, I wonder if because I find kink to be weird and arousing to look at, it might to sway me toward experimenting with kink myself - if I were lonely. I don't assume that my wife would not oblige me if I "needed" it, or that if I was afforded the chance, I would try it without her knowing. So I don't assume in this wild world, I could not have a different sexual identity, because I view my sexual identity, just like any LGBT, as the sum of my current sexual needs and desires. (Am I a suppressed bisexual? I don't think so, but by your definition it's possible!
My love of my wife and children and my respect for God and my body as not just mine, but me and my wife's, motivates me to continue to act in accordance with heterosexuality. My parents might have been classified as prudish, but I also know some of that is sourced in the pain of some of their own sexual experiences.
To me it flies in the face of reason to take a 30 yr old's present sexual desires as substantial proof of their inborn sexuality. It further defies reason how subjective evaluation of "uncomfortableness" with recent feelings and situations is only further evidence of the inborn trait. Rather I see the uncomfortableness reported at all stages of life as something that should be assessed for the social factors and yes, stress, that were applicable to each of those times in life. Did that lonely time in your life trigger something? Did that angry time in your life trigger something? Did that first year of your life trigger anything? See, even breast feeding can be considered a social factor in early life, hence, hospitals recognize that babies need to be immediately placed on mom's body for skin to skin contact. Nursing should be considered a powerful epigenetic factor to be studied, just for nutrients alone, but I cannot find it being studied for this. (need to hammer Google harder, maybe someone has) How does a baby think and perceive its world and its mother and father when given a year of life getting all its nutrition from it's mother? Psychologically that's hard to say, but statistically, how hard is this? Yet no one has researched breast feeding vs LGBT outcomes? (if they did they would probably find that breastfeeders are too closely linked to normalization and toss it as a useful factor because they already know how harmful normalization is)
**Begin full tldr ........ >> (Skip to end if you like, sorry, I just have time for one big post today and weekend looms!)**
quote:
You're still arguing that sexuality is a learned behaviour.
Yep! Don't get carried away with this analogy, but I'm saying we're a ball on the top of a hill, sexuality is gravity. You could go any direction. I'm saying social forces push that ball ever so slightly right from the start, and this is the most powerful indicator of what shapes your sexuality - directions. Ball go "that way". The landscape around you are events in your life, and the shape of your ball (maybe it's egg shaped) are like your genetic makeup or inborn sex drive. The ground is bumpy, things happen, sexuality shifts with your emotional needs (it is an emotional need satisfied in electrochemical stimulation - endorphins!)
in a simple sense I'm saying that if we're born with sexuality - I agree we are - but that sexuality has no target sex at first, where do we learn to set our target, and how would we know at an early age we are acquiring that target (first the sexual identity of these large bio units, parents, next, my sexual identity, boy/girl, next, my sexual orientation. It's psychosomatic, it develops. I find it scientifically dishonest to extricate our orientation from our nurturing. Nurturing is responsible parenting.
quote:
That really doesn't explain the data.
First off, what data do you mean? If data shows most people "cannot explain" why we are a certain sexual orientation? This proves nothing and conclusions based on that can only by a "null hypothesis". How can we take this "data" and rule out subconscious/psychosomatic effects? just about everything we learn in our first 3 years remains obscure, it is laced into our subconscious. If targeted sexuality is part of that subconscious, we would not be able to analyze that information objectively (present reality out of the picture). The null hypothesis, as it seems to be expressed here, is that LGBT are in our present reality - end.
[side note and chance for a tangent, don't you think if God designed men to have beards, he did so for a reason, perhaps that reason is for sexual identity. It's just a thought... the Hebrews were forbidden from shaving their beards as one example. I see the prevalence of clean shaven men as one of the issues that presents to very young children a chance to sexually identify men and women. Tone of voice is another thing....]
Because I cannot explain why -exactly- that I became a heterosexual, that doesn't mean 30 yrs ago I was locked into being this way from my first breath. That's just not a proven biological fact at all. The burden of proof would be on the biologists to show that. On what basis did we decide that if sexuality has its roots in our our early social experience, that this MUST be indicated by evidence in our conscious mind down the road at say 25 years old, or 35 years old after a half lifetime of sex?
I think I'm noticing that all this 'proof' is really a messy merger between social, political, and psychological sciences (and others) all borrowing from each other, but there is not an actual test that is known to work. Honest scientists dissent, yes and have their beliefs, true, but they can still be good scientists. For example: Last year this study refuting the born that way theory, and countered by politically driven studies like this onewhich use books such asThis one as if to be scientific evidence of birth orientation.
quote:
It would be closer to correct to say that conforming to societal expectations for sexuality is a learned behavior.
I think you mean it would be closer to politically correct. While true that we must reconcile our desires with social expectations, you know that I don't believe that our desires are so simple to be a product of genetics. We have souls. There are some troubled souls out there as you know. I believe the pattern of troubled LGBT souls to be an apparent problem, and a politically, this issue is blamed on wrongful and forceful normative customs. But if social signals are the cause, then a mixed signal of course produces mixed results (mixed up orientation).
quote:
This describes a couple of my friends, who married as young men, had successful marriages, raised kids, and did all the things that society expects of them. And now, in late middle age, they realized that they are gay.
In these examples, especially when they are recent, I feel that no one is looking hard enough at these situations, because the consensus is already out that these stories indicate that those people were "born that way". Out of hand these guys are congratulated for what I expect would result in 99% of them dumping their wife and hurting and confusing their kids. The erosion in worldview already being mentioned, the needs of the wife and kids are dismissed with a patronizing hand wave. Worse still, the sorrow is blamed on some abstract sense of society's latent oppression of LGBT, and parents who weren't educated enough to know that their son was gay.
But I question this, if those friends cannot explain precisely when or how, why would we assume that their desire for other men was inborn day 1? If they had ever been happily married for a period of time, this would certainly be said to be the result of successfully "conforming" rather than any compatibility with an inborn heterosexuality. But they don't get attention at that stage, they get attention for coming out.
I feel such situations are studied so closely for only what the most recent report reveals, it overlooks all the history of that person's life. Science (sometimes another word for popular consensus even without proof) is throwing it out. It's saying we don't need to look at your past, we just need to study genetic effects. Yes, genetics is a hard science, it may find correlations, it will not find proof of a gay gene because the social factor is too powerful. The effect of a mom and dad being hetero normative is just too powerful. It's the chicken or the egg.
Do we act and teach hetero-normative behavior only because DNA says to be 90% heterosexual? Are we just conforming to chance? Or are we hetero-normative because mom and dad gave is that example subconsciously from day 1?
It goes straight back to a Creator God and Adam and Eve. Allegory or not, it's a powerful story! If that narrative is true and God wants the best for human life, I am morally bound to go that direction.
quote:
These are gay men who learned straight behaviour.
But not test can show that they were gay as kids.... that's the big picture here. Yet, psychologists and doctors are seeking to validate by some objective measure what causes your friends and others want and feel right here and now. "I feel this, I want this, it makes me happy" .... that's all there is to it.
As such, subjectivity of the patient, is now professionally passed off as objectivity in science.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I do wish that people who had a small understanding of science didn't try building cases on half understood bits and pieces. Particularly when it is trying to fit a previous agenda.
Epigenetics is to do with which genes of the possible genes are switched on or off, and it is what accounts for differences between identical twins. The well known occurrence is in Nordic famine victims which switched various genes to survival mode, and that version has been inherited.
DNA comes as two chains of deoxyribonucleic acid paired and twisted in a helix. Each section of that DNA on both chains has the potential to code for different characteristics. Now if there are different codes on each chain, there have to be different mechanisms to choose which bit is switched on or off - technically which gene is expressed.
The increase in homosexuality in youngest brothers as the number of brothers increase has been observed for a long time and that is thought to be caused by in utero changes in hormones. I mentioned that earlier and it's also covered in the Nature article.
The things are known to have caused different genes to be expressed are far more dramatic than the social engineering you are suggesting, particularly when most of those affected by social engineering do not report changes in sexual identity. These days we try to stop people committing suicide or going to war as a state licensed form of suicide, which may have far more bearing on why there is more known about transexuality and homosexuality.
However there are some documented cases of women transexuals in the 17th and 18th centuries women pirates and soldiers, women who married other women while dressed as men.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Anecdote here, and I don't know what appeared in adulthood.
Twin boys, aged 8 when I knew them, not, apparently, identical in appearance, for reasons to be explained, very very different in interests and behaviour, yet brought up in the same environment.
Boy one, tough, sinewy and muscular build, keen and expert footballer, useful member of the team, winning awards for it, played with the boys exclusively in the playground.
Boy two, soft build, brilliant disco dancer (for which he won awards, too, all kitted out in sequins), played with the girls in the playground, and, despite there being no model for this behaviour in sight anywhere, as camp as a combination of Kenneth Williams and Charles Hawtrey. He was more girly than the girls. Both lovely boys and good friends to each other.
Now the explanation for these differences is hard to unravel, but clearly developed earlier than I knew them,and clearly had something to do with the physiology of the individuals, so is not rooted in the adolescent environment, and the availability or otherwise of sexual partners.
Because their bodies were so very different, it was not possible to tell if they had initially been identical in genotype, but I think probably not. They were obviously brothers, but not even as close in appearance as a boy/girl pair I taught, who could have easily done the Viola/Sebastian trick from Twelfth Night. Before puberty, anyway.
And, incidentally, for demographic reasons, and all girl schools and college, I had very little opportunity to find even one male partner, and so remain single. I have absolutely no leanings to be a lesbian. Anecdote again.
Incidentally, and tangentially, while looking up the expression "as camp as" and deciding not to use it, I came across this, which addresses two DH themes, and had me spluttering. Blog from Douglas Wilson on the failing of the CofE
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Aijalon - you really need to learn to evaluate sources. The New Atlantis is not a peer-reviewed journal; it's the organ of a Conservative think-tank - look it up on Wikipedia (URL had brackets so can't post here)
It doesn't publish scientific studies so much as opinion pieces.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... To me it flies in the face of reason to take a 30 yr old's present sexual desires as substantial proof of their inborn sexuality. ...
Would you ask a 30-year-old, "I see you're right-handed - were you right-handed in kindergarten?" You have failed to produce one scintilla of actual scientific evidence for your hypothesis. You have not acknowledged that your hypothesis cannot be actually be tested scientifically at all. That seems scientifically dishonest.
quote:
... The burden of proof would be on the biologists to show that. ...
No, it's your hypothesis; you prove it. Real biologists aren't going to waste their time on something that cannot be proven scientifically anyway. Sorry, but nobody else is going to do your homework for you.
quote:
... We have souls. ...
Find me one scientific paper about the soul.
quote:
... It goes straight back to a Creator God and Adam and Eve. Allegory or not, it's a powerful story! If that narrative is true and God wants the best for human life, I am morally bound to go that direction.
Again, find me one scientific paper about Adam and Eve. There is a scientific interpretation of that allegory, however: take any two organisms that ever lived on this planet and you can find their common ancestor if you go back far enough. Humans all have common ancestors with each other and every other living thing. The next time you're out in a natural environment, think about that: you are directly related to the trees, the insects, the birds, the fungi and bacteria .... that's pretty powerful too, isn't it? Could that mean we have a moral duty to look on all living creatures as family? And scientifically speaking, the mud in your story from which humans were made is actually stardust from ancient supernovas! In our beginning, there was light!
quote:
As such, subjectivity of the patient, is now professionally passed off as objectivity in science.
Baloney. Actual observations and data are of more scientific interest and value than untestable hypotheses that bend science to fit mythology.
Look, Aijalon, you have proposed your hypothesis in your OP. Your hypothesis is unscientific in that it cannot be tested. Your hypothesis is not supported by the current data available. Your hypothesis is not rooted in any actual observations. In scientific terms, your hypothesis sucks. It isn't science; it's mental masturbation. It may be fun for you, but please try to remember that you are pleasuring yourself with the most intimate aspects of other people's lives. You might want to show a little respect for their "subjectivity".
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Curiosity killed ...--
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
However there are some documented cases of women transexuals in the 17th and 18th centuries women pirates and soldiers, women who married other women while dressed as men.
Um, they weren't necessarily transgendered. Many women have disguised themselves as men, in order to get the privileges that women were denied in their cultures, like types of work. There were even female monks, who weren't discovered until after their deaths.
It's kind of like women writers using their initials and last name, or a pen name, so no one knows they're female. Just on a much larger scale.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Where is the divide between wanting to be a man and wanting the advantages that being a man brings? Many of those women weren't found to be women until wounded or dead, so it wasn't a small change they were enacting.
I couldn't find the references yesterday, but there was a well documented wedding of a woman dressed as a man to another woman in the 1700s, it was one of the vignettes dramatised in Gabriel a play based around the life of Purcell, which when I checked it was historically accurate.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I honestly do not know what this thread is trying to prove.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Victorian British "public" schools saw a good deal of what was then called "buggery" between older students and newer arrivals. And yet the vast majority of these people went on to be heterosexuals -- Oscar Wilde et al. notwithstanding. So I'd say this tells against the theory that early experimentation leads to later sexuality identification.
[ 30. July 2017, 14:09: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I honestly do not know what this thread is trying to prove.
I honestly don't know what your post is attempting to communicate.
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Aijalon - you really need to learn to evaluate sources. The New Atlantis is not a peer-reviewed journal; it's the organ of a Conservative think-tank - look it up on Wikipedia (URL had brackets so can't post here)
It doesn't publish scientific studies so much as opinion pieces.
This really should go without saying, but when a study produces a correlation that is not in line with the peer reviewed circle, it becomes a popularity and money problem to endorse anything in the outsiders' work.
The peer reviewing system is corrupted by government money and the consensus is based on a lot of bullshit glad handing.
There is critique of the method, and then there is critique of the result.
When a study produces a result that is explicitly contrary to other previous results, it is dismissed without a true look at the content.
There is a bias on both sides, and you are proving that in your comment. It simply amounts to your bias having more people. "That many people could not be wrong". Actually, they are.
Are there indicators that genes are linked to being LGBT, I have no problems at all accepting that. But there is certainly dishonesty in throwing out the socialization as a causal factor.
emotions release hormones, hormones release other hormones, eventually DNA expression is changed.
If early life emotions are a result in directing sexuality (they really obviously are) then the science is wrong (it is and there are scientists -honest ones- working to show it).
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Aijalon - you really need to learn to evaluate sources. The New Atlantis is not a peer-reviewed journal; it's the organ of a Conservative think-tank - look it up on Wikipedia (URL had brackets so can't post here)
It doesn't publish scientific studies so much as opinion pieces.
This really should go without saying, but when a study produces a correlation that is not in line with the peer reviewed circle, it becomes a popularity and money problem to endorse anything in the outsiders' work.
The peer reviewing system is corrupted by government money and the consensus is based on a lot of bullshit glad handing.
There is critique of the method, and then there is critique of the result.
When a study produces a result that is explicitly contrary to other previous results, it is dismissed without a true look at the content.
There is a bias on both sides, and you are proving that in your comment. It simply amounts to your bias having more people. "That many people could not be wrong". Actually, they are.
Are there indicators that genes are linked to being LGBT, I have no problems at all accepting that. But there is certainly dishonesty in throwing out the socialization as a causal factor.
emotions release hormones, hormones release other hormones, eventually DNA expression is changed.
If early life emotions are a result in directing sexuality (they really obviously are) then the science is wrong (it is and there are scientists -honest ones- working to show it).
You're sounding exactly like a conspiracy theorist who has no empirical evidence, just a few youtube videos and some articles from crank websites.
No matter how hard you wish, it don't make it so. You'd be better to examine why you want it so, and only you can do that.
There are people out there who genuinely think the Sandy Hook school massacre never happened, that it was all actors and fake news - despite the obvious and real grief of the parents of those children who died. I'm sorry, but what you're doing is not dissimilar. You're hanging on to your (often demonstrably false) theories and doing actual damage to actual people.
Please stop.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If early life emotions are a result in directing sexuality (they really obviously are)
No, the fuck, they are not.
quote:
then the science is wrong (it is and there are scientists -honest ones- working to show it).
Honest = agree with your preconceptions, apparently.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Scientists who work to show a particular outcome aren't honest scientists. You go where the data leads; you don't drag the data in the direction you want it to go.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Aijalon - you really need to learn to evaluate sources. The New Atlantis is not a peer-reviewed journal; it's the organ of a Conservative think-tank - look it up on Wikipedia (URL had brackets so can't post here)
It doesn't publish scientific studies so much as opinion pieces.
This really should go without saying, but when a study produces a correlation that is not in line with the peer reviewed circle, it becomes a popularity and money problem to endorse anything in the outsiders' work.
The peer reviewing system is corrupted by government money and the consensus is based on a lot of bullshit glad handing.
There is critique of the method, and then there is critique of the result.
When a study produces a result that is explicitly contrary to other previous results, it is dismissed without a true look at the content.
There is a bias on both sides, and you are proving that in your comment. It simply amounts to your bias having more people. "That many people could not be wrong". Actually, they are.
Are there indicators that genes are linked to being LGBT, I have no problems at all accepting that. But there is certainly dishonesty in throwing out the socialization as a causal factor.
emotions release hormones, hormones release other hormones, eventually DNA expression is changed.
If early life emotions are a result in directing sexuality (they really obviously are) then the science is wrong (it is and there are scientists -honest ones- working to show it).
Wow. Straight out of the Creationist and Climate Change Denialist handbooks.
[ 30. July 2017, 16:46: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on
:
Peer review process is corrupted by government money? ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Where oh where did you get that idea? Where's the evidence? Oh, right, you don't need to cite evidence, because corruption will just sneak in there somewhere?
No peer review, no evidence...sounds like some of the self-published crap that turns up on academia.edu, written by poseurs without any qualifications. Sounds like the stuff promoted by celebrity pseudo-scholars (I name no names, but archaeology buffs will be able to think of a few), who don't understand the concept of independent verification and just want to go for the big headlines.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I honestly do not know what this thread is trying to prove.
I honestly don't know what your post is attempting to communicate.
Mostly that this thread seems no different to the one that it sprang from (at least, where that one had headed). It's not a tangent, and most of the content doesn't obviously relate to the particular heading.
Although I do suppose we have now openly and nakedly moved from "I think the Bible says" to "the science must be wrong if it conflicts with what I think the Bible says".
The possibility that "what I think the Bible says might be wrong if it conflicts with the science" will not, of course, come up.
[ 30. July 2017, 23:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Curiosity killed...--
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Where is the divide between wanting to be a man and wanting the advantages that being a man brings?
Um... {boggle}
If food is only being given to men, and a women disguises herself as a man to get food, does she want to be a man? Or does she want to eat?
quote:
Many of those women weren't found to be women until wounded or dead, so it wasn't a small change they were enacting.
Um, I did say as much, on both counts. They were *that* determined to get what they were seeking.
ISTM that disguising yourself is to get what you want and hide from trouble. (E.g., disguising yourself as a man, so you can be a soldier and defend your country. Read Terry Pratchett's "Monstrous Regiment".) For a trans person to dress as their real gender is to reveal who they truly are.
quote:
I couldn't find the references yesterday, but there was a well documented wedding of a woman dressed as a man to another woman in the 1700s, it was one of the vignettes dramatised in Gabriel a play based around the life of Purcell, which when I checked it was historically accurate.
Interesting. Don't think I've heard of that one.
Some other stories:
"Awesome Women Who Disguised Themselves as Men to Follow their Dreams" ( A Room of Our Own").
From "Women In Piracy" (Wikipedia):
quote:
Women sometimes became pirates themselves, though they tended to have to disguise themselves as men in order to do so. Pirates did not allow women onto their ships very often. Many women (and men) of the time were unable to perform the physically demanding tasks required of the crew. Additionally, women were often regarded as bad luck among pirates. It was feared that the male members of the crew would argue and fight over the women. On many ships, women (as well as young boys) were prohibited by the ship's contract, which all crew members were required to sign.[2] :303
Because of the resistance to allowing women on board, many female pirates did not identify themselves as such. Anne Bonny, for example, dressed and acted as a man while on Captain Calico Jack's ship.[2]:285 She and Mary Read, another female pirate, are often identified as being unique in this regard. However, many women dressed as men during the Golden Age of Piracy, in an effort to take advantage of the many rights, privileges, and freedoms that were exclusive to men.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
No test can show that they were gay as kids - true. But plenty of gay people know they were gay as kids. So just ask them ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
As I said upthread, I knew I was heterosexual due to experimenting with both as a teenager. I've never had reason to think otherwise since.
I think I experimented because I was such a tomboy, had no 'girly' toys at all and always wanted to be a boy. So I decided I may be gay. My reasons, looking back, were that I had two brothers and soon discovered life was far easier for boys/men than girls/women.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
I have my reservations about adding to this discussion, since these are the teenagers' stories to tell, not mine.
But given the points made by Pomona and CK on the adjacent thread about the threats to the health, and sometimes the life of young LGBT+ people, after their interactions with "traditional" Christian teaching, eg here:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It is also assuming that no child growing up in a Christian family is growing up gay. Gay or transexual children from Christian families result in one of the highest suicide rates.
I'll add my 2 pennorth. You really, really, can be brought up in an "ordinary", 2 straight parent household, and be non-straight. And know that, before you have had sexual experimentation of any sort, because the people you have crushes on, the pop stars you love are both male and female. That's it. I know some of these kids (teenagers).
They are variously in and out of churches - one has left, and it's been a good thing for her. Not that the church itself is homophobic, but I don't trust the youth group.
I also wonder whether aijalon should quite so cheerfully fling about links accusing the parents of LGBT+ teenagers of being child abusers, as he does here. https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/
When it comes to sexual abuse of the young and vulnerable, I'd say the conservatives could do a decent job of putting their own damn house in order.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Yup. When I was six I was really attracted to Katy Brown and Deborah Griffiths. You'll be relieved to know that they also were six and nothing came of it.
Point is, I knew I was straight then. Had I been attracted in the same way to Gary Mudge and Patrick Wilby I daresay I'd have known I was gay. I mean, I wouldn't have had words for it, just as I didn't have words for being straight then, but I'd have known what I felt.
Is this really so hard?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Missed edit window, but it's a brilliant song: Here
[ 31. July 2017, 14:25: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
In answer to Karl's succinct post, no, it isn't.
At least, not for some people. I dread to think how much time and effort Aijalon (and others of that ilk) spend, or have spent, on crusading against gays.
There are better things to do, like eating bacon sandwiches, or drinking GIN.
IJ
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Unfortunately, the Stream comes under the heading of purveyors of opinion pieces.
quote:
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
You astound me Curiosity. I'd never have guessed. More lying liars who lie.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The increase in homosexuality in youngest brothers as the number of brothers increase has been observed for a long time and that is thought to be caused by in utero changes in hormones. I mentioned that earlier and it's also covered in the Nature article.
That's fascinating. Is it coincidence that youngest sons of many brothers would historically be the least "marriageable" in economic terms - at least in our culture?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The recognised correlation between more older brothers and higher probability of being a homosexual male has been well-researched. Researchers have looked at other possibilities, such as more older sisters leading to a higher probability of being a homosexual woman, and other thoughts, but this correlation is the only one that is consistently found.
It is thought that it may link to the mother getting better at mopping up male androgens in utero as she gestates more sons.
This particular mechanism works because it occurs during the brain development of the foetus, when it is thought sexuality develops. There's other research showing that sexuality can be changed by exposure to different chemicals prenatally in rats and that in large litters, position in the womb can affect sexual characteristics.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The increase in homosexuality in youngest brothers as the number of brothers increase has been observed for a long time and that is thought to be caused by in utero changes in hormones. I mentioned that earlier and it's also covered in the Nature article.
That's fascinating. Is it coincidence that youngest sons of many brothers would historically be the least "marriageable" in economic terms - at least in our culture?
Yes, I think it is coincidence. In our culture birth order determines inheritance. Unless you do a study that finds male homosexuality rates are lower in cultures that share equally or randomly pick the inheritor.
IIRC, homosexuality rates are fairly evenly distributed across cultures.
[ 01. August 2017, 15:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Gotta vote on LB. In polygamous cultures it would also be handy -- fewer males in competition for the females. But I suspect those are just happy accidents for what is essentially an evolutionary byproduct.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
To the degree that homosexuality is a social construct, is it that people like companionship, love and affection, and the labelling of certain conduct and relationships as homo, hetero or whatever a byproduct? --being aware of the conduct of boys in boarding schools, the historical and contemporary contextual same-sex sexual and romantic attachments in sail-powered navies, in armies of antiquity, prisons. One can only imagine that the eldest has marriageable prospects and the younger are left with finding whatever happiness they might. Whether this is genetic or this other.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
It's very likely impossible to research, but in the past, some areas had different inheritance patterns from primogeniture. Kent was one such area. There were borough English and gavelkind, for example. I don't know which was which, but one was inheritance of the family estate by the youngest, and the other the equal division between all the sons. If such areas had different ratios of sexuality, that might be interesting. But I doubt it.
[ 01. August 2017, 20:04: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
To the degree that homosexuality is a social construct, is it that people like companionship, love and affection, and the labelling of certain conduct and relationships as homo, hetero or whatever a byproduct?
To what degree is homosexuality a social construct, though? And what exactly does that mean? People who fancy people of their own sex/gender/whatevs aren't really what we call homosexual unless their society has developed a category for that?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I'm interested in some of our First Nations, the cultures and languages of which are as different from each other as European is Chinese or Papua New Guinea. In some such cultures, no one cared if a person from one biological sex took on the role of the other, who loved who, and who had sex with whom. Thus not defining sexual orientation as homo/hetero/bi/other, or in fact not defining orientation at all*. Children being more communally raised, and a cousin is called a brother or sister, adults called mother or father, aunty, uncle, grandma etc based on social role.
Which all makes me again wonder if the motivation for humans is to love and enjoy sex, with orientation an epiphenomenon in the context of a social and cultural definition. There may be a duty to reproduce, but this may be communal versus individual in some societies. And same sex/other sex sexual activity being part of social bonding, pleasure, support etc.
*(acknowledging that others did as rigidly as western societies have)
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
To the degree that homosexuality is a social construct, is it that people like companionship, love and affection, and the labelling of certain conduct and relationships as homo, hetero or whatever a byproduct?
To what degree is homosexuality a social construct, though? And what exactly does that mean? People who fancy people of their own sex/gender/whatevs aren't really what we call homosexual unless their society has developed a category for that?
Perhaps. I'm not a sociologist, but have enough exposure to some diverse indigenous cultures within the boundaries of Canada to wonder.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'm interested in some of our First Nations, the cultures and languages of which are as different from each other as European is Chinese or Papua New Guinea. In some such cultures, no one cared if a person from one biological sex took on the role of the other, who loved who, and who had sex with whom. Thus not defining sexual orientation as homo/hetero/bi/other, or in fact not defining orientation at all*. Children being more communally raised, and a cousin is called a brother or sister, adults called mother or father, aunty, uncle, grandma etc based on social role.
Which all makes me again wonder if the motivation for humans is to love and enjoy sex, with orientation an epiphenomenon in the context of a social and cultural definition. There may be a duty to reproduce, but this may be communal versus individual in some societies. And same sex/other sex sexual activity being part of social bonding, pleasure, support etc.
*(acknowledging that others did as rigidly as western societies have)
Defining, or not defining, gender roles is not the same as who one is attracted to.
In order for your hypothesis to be accurate, attractions would have to significantly vary across cultures and, as far as I am aware, they do not.
ETA:Edited to add context to reply because Stupid pages
[ 01. August 2017, 21:29: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Thus not defining sexual orientation as homo/hetero/bi/other, or in fact not defining orientation at all*.
Not defining sexual orientation, or not caring about it, is not the same as sexual orientation not existing.
If you're a man, and all the people you're attracted to are men, you're gay. It doesn't matter whether your culture has a word for gay, and it doesn't matter whether your culture cares about who someone is attracted to.
I'm prepared to believe that if you have a culture where you're attracted to whoever you're attracted to, and nobody cares who that is, then perhaps you might not see sexual orientation as such a fundamental part of your identity as typical western people do. Perhaps the fact that you fancy guys, or girls, becomes as central to your sense of self as whether you like carrots.
But that's different from it not existing.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
LC - helpful.
I found this Link which discusses some of this at the beginning of the paper. The New Guinea practice as described particularly.
Down the page on this link is a description of Cree terminology, though I've heard it discussed a bit differently. The blogger is from Montreal and has a different Cree dialect to work with than we have in the west. Link. Cree is 20% of the population in Saskatchewan (keesiskaciwanysipiy in Cree).
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Scientists who work to show a particular outcome aren't honest scientists. You go where the data leads; you don't drag the data in the direction you want it to go.
I think what you mean by "work" is that dishonest scientists artificially create results, cheat, or over or under report results to favor a specific outcome, and achieve a desired result.
let's clarify that. Truly honest scientists can still form and test a hypothesis they think might be true, and are no less honest if their tests bear it out. As long as they conduct the tests fairly. Those doctors are smart people from John's Hopkins, and they created a study with a set of criteria... so you tell me it's dishonest after you look at the study.
But I don't think you even sense one shred of validity in their results because you believe in a separate set of scientists also working to achieve a different result.
Scientifically the question really isn't settled, even if the popularity question has been.
The point here is that the sum total of the "data" you and others here say science is pointing to, is the very thing you are whining against. It's a data set that has always been and always will be preconceived as to the outcome. It's a bunch of stories about feelings and experiences. None of it has anything to do with genetics.
Science is now actively WORKING to prove a genetic theory. Is this honest?
but the science says, essentially only THIS:
The relationship between biology and sexual orientation is a subject of research. A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated; various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, but scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal, and social factors determine sexual orientation. - Wikipedia
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Science is now actively WORKING to prove a genetic theory. Is this honest?
Yes, of course.
In scientific research, you posit a hypothesis, design an experiment to test that hypothesis, run the experiment and analyse the results.
If the results are what your hypothesis predicts, you can have more confidence in your hypothesis. If the results are different, then depending on the scale of failure, you either have to modify your hypothesis or kick it entirely into touch.
In this case, "sexual preference is genetically determined" is the hypothesis. Geneticists will design an experiment and predict that the results will be X. If X=true, then they can have more confidence that their hypothesis is correct.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
But I don't think you even sense one shred of validity in their results because you believe in a separate set of scientists also working to achieve a different result.
You need to stop telling me what I think. NOW.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... It's a bunch of stories about feelings and experiences. None of it has anything to do with genetics. ...
Aijalon, it looks like your understanding of genetics ended with Mendel. Fundamentally, a gene is a simply code for assembling a sequence of amino acids into a protein. Yes, there are a some genes that code for very specific visible traits, but that's actually a really small part of our genetic makeup.
You say that feelings and experiences have nothing to do with genetics. Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Feelings come from neurotransmitters, which are manufactured, detected, and eliminated by proteins encoded by your genes. Experiences come to you via receptors made from proteins in your sensory organs encoded by your genes.
Don't think of the genome as a map or a blueprint. Think of it more as planning and cooking a meal from a cookbook. The cookbook has some recipes you use all the time, others are just for special occasions, some you never use. Your menu is a set of dishes that go together, so your choice of main dish will determine what other dishes you will serve. You choose dishes based on what ingredients you have on hand, so if you happen to be out of rice, you'll serve noodles or mashed potatoes. It's summertime, so let's have gelato instead of plum pudding for dessert. And so on.
The fact that there is no "gay gene" does not exclude the possibility that multiple genes are involved in the development of an individual's sexual orientation.
quote:
Truly honest scientists can still form and test a hypothesis they think might be true, and are no less honest if their tests bear it out. As long as they conduct the tests fairly.
So how would an honest scientist devise an experiment to see if sexual experimentation in childhood determines sexual orientation? Your OP is not a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be tested scientifically. It is unethical to recruit children and pedophiles to experiment sexually in the lab for a longitudinal study. It's outrageous to imply that scientists that won't do experiments with pedophiles and kids are being unfair or dishonest. You can believe whatever you want about how sexual orientation is created. What you cannot do is claim your idea is a scientific hypothesis.
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
But I don't think you even sense one shred of validity in their results because you believe in a separate set of scientists also working to achieve a different result.
You need to stop telling me what I think. NOW.
Since you did not actually list any specific reasons why the research was bad or it's method's wrong, I must presume that you disregarded it based on the author of the research. ad hominem.
If you care to explain what was wrong with their research, that's fine. I'm no scientist myself, but I think we can discuss some specifics regardless.
Or if you wish you can dismiss it as dishonest science simply because you do not like their conclusions.
I can only make of you what your posts reveal about you.
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... It's a bunch of stories about feelings and experiences. None of it has anything to do with genetics. ...
Aijalon, it looks like your understanding of genetics ended with Mendel. Fundamentally, a gene is a simply code for assembling a sequence of amino acids into a protein. Yes, there are a some genes that code for very specific visible traits, but that's actually a really small part of our genetic makeup.
You say that feelings and experiences have nothing to do with genetics. Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Feelings come from neurotransmitters, which are manufactured, detected, and eliminated by proteins encoded by your genes. Experiences come to you via receptors made from proteins in your sensory organs encoded by your genes.
Don't think of the genome as a map or a blueprint. Think of it more as planning and cooking a meal from a cookbook. The cookbook has some recipes you use all the time, others are just for special occasions, some you never use. Your menu is a set of dishes that go together, so your choice of main dish will determine what other dishes you will serve. You choose dishes based on what ingredients you have on hand, so if you happen to be out of rice, you'll serve noodles or mashed potatoes. It's summertime, so let's have gelato instead of plum pudding for dessert. And so on.
The fact that there is no "gay gene" does not exclude the possibility that multiple genes are involved in the development of an individual's sexual orientation.
quote:
Truly honest scientists can still form and test a hypothesis they think might be true, and are no less honest if their tests bear it out. As long as they conduct the tests fairly.
So how would an honest scientist devise an experiment to see if sexual experimentation in childhood determines sexual orientation? Your OP is not a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be tested scientifically. It is unethical to recruit children and pedophiles to experiment sexually in the lab for a longitudinal study. It's outrageous to imply that scientists that won't do experiments with pedophiles and kids are being unfair or dishonest. You can believe whatever you want about how sexual orientation is created. What you cannot do is claim your idea is a scientific hypothesis.
Arguing that our memories are merely chemicals is pedantic. While true that feelings are generated by chemicals and memories are accessed through chemicals, and DNA is formed by chemicals...... boiling down human experiences to merely chemicals is putting blinders on to the fact that it is intentional social interaction with people that generates our first feelings.
The issue is memories and events and how that forms a personality. You really believe our memories and personality are merely explained by chemicals? How can you not see the social angle? A neurotransmitter is a reaction to a stimulus, which is from an outside source. It's not all explained by chemicals simply because gene is a chemical.
(It may be that you are injecting a view of strict naturalism here, not sure, but a merely chemical existence is not a high minded view of humanity. I would rather believe in the worth of a human soul, the afterlife, and honor and dignity... which are not defined by chemicals)
and as to experimentation, of course that isn't ethical to put children in sexual situations to see what happens.
The experimentation needed is an analysis of the quality and quantity of time spent with all family members, siblings, peers.... put that together with analysis of the events and experiences in the life of a person, as explained by the people that remember. It would need to be more than merely an interview with a 20 year old that is trying to access 20 years worth of memories without help.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Alaijon, your hypothesis has been discounted some time ago:
American Psychiatric Institute on Sexual Orientation says:
quote:
Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.
And the submission from the Royal College of Psychology to the Church of England on the causes of sexuality says:
quote:
Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences have any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation (Bell and Weinberg, 1978).
It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.
What you are positing is something that was thought to be true a century ago and a number of psychiatrists have attempted to prove to be so, and failed.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0