There seems to be a clear link between brain structure and sexual orientation. This should put to rest any notion that it's a "choice" for anyone but bi-sexuals (and this might imply that there are quite a few, since there could be a continuous variation between symmetric and how asymmetric one's brain is). As I've long said, there are those who are clearly irretrievably heterosexual (like me) and homosexual, but the debate rages on among the bis, who assume that everyone is like them.
[Via Geek Press]
I once read that a study in the 70's found a very strong link between homosexuality and uterine hormonal exposure in chimps. Male chimp fetuses over-exposed to estrogen were born gay, as were female chimp fetuses over-exposed to testosterone.
I don't know if such hormonal influences would cause the structural differences discussed in the article, but it's an interesting hypothesis.
Perhaps more interesting is what will be done once it's possible to monitor and control the uterine environment (either in utero, or in a uterine replicator), assuming that said environmental influences are the root cause of homosexuality. I don't see all that many people being willing to leave the sexual orientation of their children up to chance, or intentionally causing them to be born gay (unless it's a gay couple using IVF or a uterine replicator). I *can* see groups lobbying for legislation to outlaw allowing or causing children to be born gay on the grounds that it's a de facto birth defect (significantly reduces reproductive fitness).
Interesting times.
Methinks thou protesteth too much. You probably don't need to reiterate "like me" every time you mention heterosexuals. I think we all get the message.
Methinks thou protesteth too much. You probably don't need to reiterate "like me" every time you mention heterosexuals. I think we all get the message.,/em>
And what is it that you think I'm "protesting" about at all, let alone "too much"? What do yo think "the message" is?
"NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT"
Is genetic predisposition an important parameter? Would we be any less thrilled with Tiger Woods if we knew he had a genetic predisposition for strength and coordination? Or with Da Vinci to learn that he had a genetic predisposition toward creative endeavor? Or with Einstein to learn he had a genetic predisposition toward abstract thought? Or -- disgusted with Adolf Hitler / Saddam Hussein / Ted Bundy to learn they had genetic predispositions toward cruelty?
In short, what on earth do genes have to do with morality, or values? Reminds me of "the secret of life" in Cat's Cradle....
BBB
So what happens if science says somebody is heterosexual while they themselves say they're not? (Yeah I chose the non-obvious example).
I don't subscribe to ultra-determinism; perhaps we should leave choice in the picture? Even if free will should turn out to be an illusion it still ends up enabling more freedom than viewing everybody and anything as slaves of causality.
And if it's consensual and doesn't involve me then why should I even care, it's none of my business (there's my [classically] liberal backbone right there).
...what on earth do genes have to do with morality, or values?
Nothing. But they do have to do with how reasonable it is to expect people to consensually have sex with people to whom they are completely and irretrievably unattracted.
Choice vs. genetics is irrelevant, it's a faulty argument. Either a behavior is acceptable or it's not, regardless of whether the one doing it does so by choice or by genetic predisposition. Many of the most heinous criminals in history were genetically predisposed to their acts, that doesn't necessarily make it any better. Moreover, why should there be special rights for some to perform certain acts merely because they are genetically predisposed to them? Should it be illegal for a heterosexual to perform homosexual acts? Should those genetically disposed to poor attention spans be allowed greater leeway in regard to causing accidents or driving poorly when they are behind the wheel of a car?
Genetics is a red herring, it's entirely beside the point. I think it weakens the case for homosexual acceptance as well.
"...how reasonable it is to expect people to consensually have sex with people to whom they are completely and irretrievably unattracted."
Rand I'm not able to parse that sentence fragment. What you're describing wouldn't be consensual. I don't understand what you're saying.
Robin Goodfellow: no choice is not irrelevant, as I tried point out earlier it has implications far beyond whether or not something is accepted.
But then again I'm neither a materialist nor a determinist while most people are even though they're often unaware of it. And no that doesn't make me some spiritualist New Age hippie; I simply acknowledge the existence and importance of things abstract (consciousness, thought, math, etc.) that are by no means nailed down or explained to any degree by materialism or determinism.
Rand I'm not able to parse that sentence fragment. What you're describing wouldn't be consensual. I don't understand what you're saying.
That's exactly my point. If we are to make homosexual sex immoral/illegal, we are forcing people into either non-consensual sex, or celibacy.
I really have trouble with people who seemingly equate consensual sexual relations, regardless of whom it's with, with mass murder.
Of course we shouldn't excuse Ted Bundy or Hitler because they may have been compelled to commit their crimes. I don't know how that justifies condemning someone to a lifetime of completely unsatisfactory sex, or no sex at all, simply because someone else finds it distasteful/immoral.
The point is not that there is any relationship between genetics (or womb environment) and morality. This post is about those so-called conservatives who claim that gays do have a choice for whom they feel sexual desire, and that they are simply making a bad choice to be morally perverse. And no, that's no straw man. I've had many people make that argument, right here in my comments section (though not on this particular post).
Obviously, they have a choice in their actions (unsatisfactory sex, "immoral sex" or no sex at all), but they have no choice in their sexual desires. My contention is that those who insist that they do, and that they can "change," are bisexual, and projecting. It seems to me a theory that fits the facts very neatly.
Some thoughts on the subject : BiGender and the Brain.
I've yet to get a "straight" answer on which sex I'm supposed to be, from the anti-SSM groups.
But they do have to do with how reasonable it is to expect people to consensually have sex with people to whom they are completely and irretrievably unattracted.
Whether you consider it reasonable or not, prostitutes do that on a regular basis. Is it reasonable to assume everyone behaves in a manner you consider reasonable?
I know at least two gay men who say they tried sex with a woman "just to see what it was all about." Both said that they found it rather boring.
I suppose you can say they are not "really" bisexuals and lying about the women, but is it reasonable to discard every data point that does not fit your theory?
The studies you link to were surprising, to say the least. I don't have access to a brain scanner, but based on the length of my fingers, I've discovered I am either a woman or a gay man. That's remarkable because I have never had sex with a man or even wanted to. I do like women, although I am "hardwired" to be "completely and irretrievably unattracted" to them.
So, I'm confused, Rand. Where do I fit on this system of epicycles? Am I a "bisexual" who doesn't like men? Am I the world's ugliest woman? Or maybe, just maybe, this is junk science and humans are more than hardwired automata?
Whether you consider it reasonable or not, prostitutes do that on a regular basis. Is it reasonable to assume everyone behaves in a manner you consider reasonable?
No. By "consensual," I mean that they're having sex because they want to have sex, not because they're being paid to have sex.
I know at least two gay men who say they tried sex with a woman "just to see what it was all about." Both said that they found it rather boring.
In other words, they're gay. What's your point?
The studies you link to were surprising, to say the least. I don't have access to a brain scanner, but based on the length of my fingers, I've discovered I am either a woman or a gay man.
No one has claimed that the correlation is a hundred percent, so I'm not sure what your point is.
So, I'm confused, Rand. Where do I fit on this system of epicycles?
I can understand your confusion. You apparently don't understand the studies you're reading.
Of course humans are "more than hardwired automata." Why don't you go find the blog where someone has argued otherwise, and go argue with them? I lack the time to watch you kick straw men.
By "consensual," I mean that they're having sex because they want to have sex, not because they're being paid to have sex.
Agreeing to do something for pay is not "consenting" to it?
If a person's behavior is affected by the offer of pay, doesn't that imply that the behavior is a choice -- not "hardwired" and genetic? Can pay affect hardwiring?
> I know at least two gay men who say they tried sex with a woman "just to see what it was all about." Both said that they found it rather boring.
In other words, they're gay. What's your point?
My point is that you've just acknowledged two data points where someone did what you say they were "hardwired" not to do.
If a person chooses to try X and finds it not to his liking, it is a fallacy to say he "has no choice." He *made* a choice.
No one has claimed that the correlation is a hundred percent, so I'm not sure what your point is.
My point is that there's a difference between correlation and causality.
If the correlation between genetics and behavior is not 100%, then it's incorrect to conclude that genetics precludes the possibility of individual choice.
Also, it seems that psychologists don't even agree among themselves what the correlation *is*. Someone just sent me an ad for a dating site that wants to match me with women based on that finger length index. Instead of gayness, they say it indicates I'm "mathematically, mechanically, and musically inclined."
I'm not hardwired, though, so I don't necessarily have to be a mathematician, mechanic, or musician (which is fortunate, given my voice).
Agreeing to do something for pay is not "consenting" to it?
Not in the sense I meant, no. Sorry you don't get the point.
If a person's behavior is affected by the offer of pay, doesn't that imply that the behavior is a choice -- not "hardwired" and genetic? Can pay affect hardwiring?
The "choice" is about for whom they can have sexual desire, not with whom they actually have sex. Again, sorry you missed the point.
My point is that you've just acknowledged two data points where someone did what you say they were "hardwired" not to do.
Again, I was never talking about what people can "do" under various forms of duress. I was talking about what they desired. And again, I'm sorry you missed the point, though I'm growing increasingly less so, and more tired of having to reexplain this over and over. And over.
My point is that there's a difference between correlation and causality.
Well, who's to argue with that? I feel another straw man being assembled.
If the correlation between genetics and behavior is not 100%, then it's incorrect to conclude that genetics precludes the possibility of individual choice.
Well, since no one ever argued otherwise, again, (sigh...) what is your point?
Why are you wasting time arguing with imaginary people? Surely you have better things to do with your life, Ed?