Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

What percentage of sheep blog broken links?

Posted by D Anghelone at February 4, 2007 04:13 PM

I can't remember where I'm stealing this from... 10 percent may be gay, but 85% are into sheep! *badumbump*

Actually, I'm very interested to see how this plays out. I get irritated to no end at those who insist that sexual preference is a choice, so I'll be happy to see that kind of bigotry diminish. But I also get irritated at the other side who would frown on a "cure" because they want to perpetuate a homosexual culture.

[Incidentally, there's a documentary called Sound and Fury which is about the conflict within deaf culture over cochlear implants. It's quite striking, especially a father who has put his child through the surgery accusing another family of child abuse for choosing not to do the same for their own.]

When there comes a cheap cure, what will same-sex parents say about those who choose not to administer it to their homosexual child? What will be said about those who do? Forget the issue of it being sinful or not, acceptable or not; do you put a child through that kind of childhood just so you can perpetuate your own lifestyle? Does having a population of homosexual people have its own innate value, or has all this been a struggle simply of acceptance which will fade quietly as do the ranks of homosexuals from society?

I'm strongly hetero, and so you can say what you want about my opinion; but while there is value in struggle, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to alleviate it whenever possible.

Posted by Chris at February 4, 2007 07:30 PM

What about the implications of evolutionary dynamics? If sexual orientation is genetically determined, there must be a reason why that percentage is a stable point (or was, historically, though it may not be now...). To a first order analysis, you'ld think it would hurt reproductive fitness and be bred out entirely, but things could be more complicated than that.

Posted by Mike Earl at February 4, 2007 09:27 PM

I think it likely that sexual preference is innate. Do you really think that 7-10% of all males are gay? This seems a very high number.

Posted by Kurt9 at February 4, 2007 10:49 PM

I believe that PREFERENCE is a choice. I think that we are all born with a small portion of bisexual attraction. Were I to characterize myself along the lines of hetero-homo-or A, as this study did, I would make myself a borderline asexual.

I'm able to acknowledge my procreative imperrative and ignore it while I occasionaly have sex with women when I need validation.

Many homosexuals (not all, I believe that there might be a genetic aspect to it) but I think that there is a reasonable argument to be made that many homosexuals are created/ driven to chose, due to a lack of attention or appreciation so they reach out to others like themselves, who happen to be men, I'm sure you've heard the joke about the fat girl at the bar saying "I have no problem getting laid" "well, thats cuz you are a woman." The joke being that men are indiscriminate at their most desperate of times.

If you look at most homosexuals (I know a lot) They feel as though their very existence is desperate (not just when they are horny) so they reach out to those like them.

If you doubt then tell me why, if you know more than a handfull of homosexuals, they are all either in extra-ordinarily good shape (demonstrating a defiance of their desperation) or extra-ordinarily bad shape? (demonstrating their defiance of social norms)

it is rare to run into your normal every day somewhat portly yet fit male who is gay, unless he is in his 60's, which means that he's in great shape.

I don't disagree, there is in all likelihood a genetic component, but I don't think it is exclusively one or the other, though were I to weight it, I would put most of the weight not nurture over nature, since if it were nature, it would have been destroyed a long time ago.

Posted by Wickedpinto at February 5, 2007 01:20 AM

I think that we are all born with a small portion of bisexual attraction.

There's no reason to think that, from a scientific standpoint. Many are, but not all. I know I'm not.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 5, 2007 04:51 AM

I'm sure you've heard the joke about the fat girl at the bar saying "I have no problem getting laid" "well, thats cuz you are a woman." The joke being that men are indiscriminate at their most desperate of times.

Wickedpinto, are you saying that the girls DON'T all get prettier at closing time?

I've never understood why people who are rabidly anti-gay can openly see and admit that birth defects exist. They walk for cancer, give money to the March of Dimes, volunteer on the Depression Hotline, support research for Bi-Polar disorders, then turn around and say they don't believe in ANY possible way that homosexuality can be caused genetically. I am mistified by their thinking.

How can anyone say that there is no possibility that a man can be born with an excess of female hormones or women with too much male hormone? Doctors treat men for low testosterone and women for low estrogen, it's a fact, not a theory. So having the wrong hormone balance is a known fact. Why, then, is it so inconceivable that someone can have the totally wrong hormones? It's an idiotic stand to take.

Before anyone jumps me for my "secular who cares" attitude, let me out myself as a Christian. I've had this same argument with other Christians, some of them very educated, who say my explanation can't happen. When they ask me why would God allow this to happen, I remind them that we now know there is a genetic component to addictive behavior. Why would God do that? Maybe it all comes down to personal responsibility on either giving in to these things or fighting them.

Further let me say, I don't care if you're gay. I simply can't understand why it should give you preferential treatment anywhere, anytime. Do you want reparations too?

Posted by Steve at February 5, 2007 07:56 AM

I believe that PREFERENCE is a choice. I think that we are all born with a small portion of bisexual attraction.

While I don't agree with the second sentence, the first has some basis.

If it's true that an anomaly of brain structure correlates strongly to homosexuality, that indicates that the so-called biological cause of homosexuality is not dispositive -- if it were, the correlation would be damn near absolute.

What this means is, there are people with that anomalous brain structure who do not practice homosexuality, and there are people without that anomalous brain structure who do.

Either there must be other factors leading people to engage in that behavior, overriding whatever choice they might have in the matter -- or they are choosing one way or the other despite the existence or lack of the so-called biological "cause."

I think that one of the defining traits of humanity is the ability to choose, as an act of will, to be different than what one's biology directs. We are, by nature, violently competitive predators designed for a tribal lifestyle. Yet most humans now live as civilized beings abiding, mostly voluntarily, to abstract cultural and societal norms because that enhances our ability to live with minimal danger of death or mayhem. We chose that.

The power of choice is widely underestimated these days, I think.

Posted by McGehee at February 5, 2007 09:45 AM

On nature vs nurture, on think the facts on the ground point to both. Humans are complex. Some people are born with varying tendancies toward homosexuality, and therefor range from "completely unable to obstain from homosexual sex" to "could stand it if it was the only thing available".

On the deeper question, if a "cure" existed who would take it - I onced asked a similar question of a gay friend. He asked me if a "cure" that made you homosexual existed, who would take it?

I think, in the end, the answer is this: only hetrosexuals are going to bear children (true in the vast majority). Therefor hetrosexuals will make the decision for their children. Therefor, homosexuality will not last more than a single generation after a "cure".

My guess is that this is a net negative for mankind. If you believe in God, he put them here for a purpose. If you don't, then nature did the same. If you're agnostic, at the very least we will be missing some very nice people, and decrease our diversity.

Our differences make us stronger, but often at great individual cost.

Posted by David Summers at February 5, 2007 10:11 AM

If one were to interview convicted felons doing hard time, asking each why they chose a life of crime in spite of the highly publicized negative consequences, I would expect the more honest ones to reply that they really didn't expect those consequences ever to befall them -- they thought they were smart enough and talented enough to evade the law after committing their crimes.

The more typical answer I would expect, though, would be that they didn't choose anything -- that forces beyond their control pre-determined that they would end up doing hard time in prison. Those saying this would be firmly convinced of it because it's what they prefer to believe. Pride, in this case the desire not to admit to themselves that they screwed up their lives, is another thing that is widely underestimated these days.

So, when one is inclined to demand, "Why would anyone choose to be gay?" -- it's not really the right question. The question is, while other people who make counter-beneficial life choices are encouraged to overcome, say, a biological predisposition to alcoholism, or to drug addiction in general, or a life of violent crime, why is there such a taboo against the same response to other lifestyles that even their defenders admit are counter-beneficial?

(It amazes me I haven't already gotten flamed for the previous comment. This oughta get the heat turned up.)

Posted by McGehee at February 5, 2007 11:16 AM

If one were to interview convicted felons doing hard time, asking each why they chose a life of crime in spite of the highly publicized negative consequences

You are making a category error. We aren't talking about choice of action, or behavior. We talking about choice of desire. I could, in theory, choose to do it with a guy, but I never would, because the very thought disgusts me. And such disgust is not something about which I have a choice, or ever did.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 5, 2007 11:24 AM

We aren't talking about choice of action, or behavior. We talking about choice of desire.

Those who have invested the most in the "biological cause" argument don't recognize that distinction. Their position is that desire equals action, and there is no choice involved.

That's why any attempt to suggest that those who have the desire can choose not to give in to it, are attacked as homophobic.

Posted by McGehee at February 5, 2007 12:09 PM

I think the whole "is homosexuality a fate or a choice" question buys into the negativity of the homophobes - the implied subtext is that if it is a choice, it's an objectionable one, and if it is a fate, it is a fate to be pitied - either way it is implicitly viewed as a "problem": why do its "causes" matter except in the context of a debate over "what to do about it" that erases the question of whether it is something that needs to "have something done about it" in the first place?

I think the real "problem" for which explanations of a "cause" should be sought is the existence, not of homosexuality itself, but of the frequent antipathy toward it.

Are people who insist that thery are disgusted by homosexuality "just born that way", or did they choose that attitude, or is it a result of social indoctrination?

And, one way or the other, why should such an
attitude be tolerated in decent society, any
more than we would tolerate a white-supremacist
who says "I can't help it, I just think that
black people are disgusting"?

-dave w

Posted by dave w at February 5, 2007 05:03 PM

Are people who insist that they are disgusted by homosexuality "just born that way", or did they
choose that attitude, or is it a result of social
indoctrination?

Just born that way, sorry. No one taught me.

But because I was born that way, I can understand that some people were born the other way, so it seems silly to me to condemn them for it.

But then, I'm heterosexual, not bisexual...

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 5, 2007 05:17 PM

Come on, Rand, what do you mean "if it holds up in humans"? If what holds up? First of all, these guys did an empirical behaviour test: they found out that, in practise, x% of rams try to mount other rams instead of ewes. Well, that data has already been collected in humans: cf. Kinsey, Alfred, and his numerous successors. We know x% of human males, given a choice, will attempt to mount other males instead of females. And we have no reason to think the value of x in rams says diddly about the value of x in H. sapiens.

The second thing they did is say they don't know why the rams are the way they are. They mumble about sexual dimorphism in the brain, which is about as a priori convincing as arguing that men with less chest hair are more likely to be gay. (Indeed, inasmuch as bodily sexual dimorphism is clearly related to hormone levels, they found evidence against the proposition in the result of their other experiment, that in utero exposure to hormones could not re-program the orientation.)

And they haven't done any genetic studies at all.

So what's to extend to humans, beyond the bare hypothesis that sexual orientation is genetic?

And, as for that, what rational individual would deny a genetic component? And what rational individual would deny a cultural and situational component (given the history of Greece, the situation in prisons, et cetera)? Which means it's all down to percentages. An accountant's argument. Feh.

Posted by Carl Pham at February 5, 2007 06:18 PM

quote from Rand: "but I never would, because the very thought disgusts me."

There was an interesting study I heard about where they took a rubber band attached to a sensor that measured tension on the band. They put the rubber band around the shaft of a male subjects p3nis. They then showed the subject a series of videos depicting homosexual scenes. All the subjects were given a test before hand where they self evaluated their own sexual disposition. Those subjects that expressed highly negative responses to homosexual tendencies experienced the greatest amount of stretching on the rubber band while watching homosexual content. Apparently those that took a staunch opposition to having any homosexual tendencies had larger erectile response to homosexual imagery then those that admitted they occasionally were curious about the same sex.

Posted by Josh Reiter at February 5, 2007 08:39 PM

Apparently those that took a staunch opposition to having any homosexual tendencies had larger erectile response to homosexual imagery then those that admitted they occasionally were curious about the same sex.

Assuming that's actually true, it's most likely because they were in staunch opposition because they were in denial about their bisexuality, and believed that homosexuality is wrong. I don't think it's wrong--I'm just not into it. I don't think that homosexuals have any more choice than I do (that is to say, none).

And Carl, that was a nice bunch of straw men (for one thing, I said nothing about a genetic basis). Once you use the adjective "rational" in discussing what people think, you're stealing an intellectual base. Many people deny that there is any genetic basis, and many people insist that it is all environment. They may not be "rational" to you, but saying that isn't going to resolve the argument.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 6, 2007 05:44 AM

As a woman with not one, not two, but as the result of recent surgical findings three different Intersex conditions....

I've decided that chastity seems like a good idea.

I've recently had surgery that has made me fully functional, and able to have successful intercourse for the first time in my life.

It turned out to be an easier procedure than they'd first thought, my pelvis showed signs of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. So out with the atrophied and dysfunctional male glands, and hello to the newly invaginated me.

I have to say this was an IMMENSE relief, the body finally matches the body image in my hindbrain.

Nothing will stop my peculiar hormonal state, rather more female than male. Nothing will change my 46xy standard male chromosomes, even if some of the genes are a bit non-standard.

All my life I've been mildly lesbian, but about 50% of Transsexual women convert to straight 6 months after orchidectomy, when certain neurotransmitters leave the receptors in the brain. It happened to me, to my shock, there's a definite chemical attraction to guys now. Not very strong, but there. No lesbian feelings at all.

Me? I've had a feminine pattern brain bathed in mostly male hormones, with cells only partly receptive to them, and 35 years of pretending to be a guy because I looked like one, and because it was my only chance to have children. And I got the maternal instinct super-sized

I don't think anyone who's gone through that experience can end up normal. I'm trying cognitive therapy, but really, is celibacy and asexuality that unhealthy? I'm attracted to guys chemically, but the idea of a relationship with one is a turn-off. I need love to have sex, and I can't imagine falling in love with a guy.

Besides which, I'm assailed by members of the Religious Right who say I'm part of the Homosexual Agenda. Some recently switched their tune, I was accused of being gay, now because of the AIS, I'm lesbian it seems. Evil, anyway. I'm also being assailed by RadFems who think I'm part of a vast patriarchal conspiracy to invade Wymyn's space. The most aggravating thing though is that I'm being congratulated on my "lifestyle choice" as if there was any choice in the way my peculiar metabolism shaped my body. The smug ignorance of the GLB lobby when it comes to Intersexuality is infuriating, almost as bad as with the Fundies who literally deny the possibility of our existence.

If it wasn't for the fact that my body feels comfortable now instead of absolutely horrible, I'd get depressed. But I'm too happy to, it's like being liberated from a Death Camp, who cares if you're broke and have painful corns?

Anyway, in my studies about gender, sex, chromosomes, intersex, neuroanatomy etc I'd say that sexual orientation is only a choice for perhaps 10% of somatic males, and 20% of somatic females, with another 10% being homosexual, 15% asexual, and the bulk hetero.

But hormonal treatment over decades can screw things up, and reversing it can take years rather than months, even if possible.

Posted by Zoe Brain at February 8, 2007 03:22 AM

Post a comment