| Forum Index > TL Community |
Don't post in this thread to say "gay gamers are like everyone else, why do they have a special thread?" It is something that has been posted numerous times, and this isn't the place for that discussion. For regular posters, don't quote the trolls. | ||
|
Harpwn
Australia253 Posts
On July 13 2011 15:00 drshdwpuppet wrote: I was a medic, I am now on premedical track in undergrad (taking a year off due to uncontrollable circumstances) I really, really want to be a doctor and that has been my goal for several years now  Anyone wanna marry me? | ||
|
jarrydesque
584 Posts
On July 13 2011 18:01 SwitchAUS wrote: A legit question for gays - how do you not freak out about HIV and the like? I'm hetero, always rubber up and I still freak the f--k out about that sort of thing. I imagine in a demographic that has one of the higher infection rates you'd be shitting yourself! Interesting question. How do you know that we don't freak out about that sort of thing and the like? What do you base saying that on? I'm not attacking you, I just genuinely would like to know why you think HIV or STD's (which I imagine is covered by "the like") is not a big deal for a gay man. Personally, I would think gay people don't want to die of AIDS any more than straight people do. Though I'm in a relationship now, if I was not, I would go out every now and then looking for a shag and if I found it, I'll be damn sure to wrap it up. Why? Because I'm educated and I know what risks I take by not being safe. Anyway, I hope that answers your question. | ||
|
Harpwn
Australia253 Posts
On July 13 2011 19:42 jarrydesque wrote: Interesting question. How do you know that we don't freak out about that sort of thing and the like? What do you base saying that on? I'm not attacking you, I just genuinely would like to know why you think HIV or STD's (which I imagine is covered by "the like") is not a big deal for a gay man. Personally, I would think gay people don't want to die of AIDS any more than straight people do. Though I'm in a relationship now, if I was not, I would go out every now and then looking for a shag and if I found it, I'll be damn sure to wrap it up. Why? Because I'm educated and I know what risks I take by not being safe. Anyway, I hope that answers your question. exactly, depends hugely on how educated you are. Sure you can go and find some slutty std-ridden guy at a bar, and im sure plenty do, but not all. Plenty would look for a nicer classier less-std ridden guy  | ||
|
Fraidnot
United States824 Posts
On July 13 2011 16:47 userstupidname wrote: References are stated in the end, contact the universities for hands on reference and material. (Its not hard, just send a damn email or something) For real? That still sounds like bullshit. It completely ignores lesbians for one, and how would a mother's immune system attacking the baby translate into sexuality? I'm more likely to believe that soy is the cause. Also comparing twin brothers is only relevant when there's differences, after all, you expect twins to be the same. I get that this video isn't probably the best voice for the scientific reason, but it seams like every Professor who can find the funding for it comes up with a new reason that sounds even stupider then the last idea. | ||
|
Chopin-
United States11 Posts
On July 13 2011 17:37 slytown wrote: Why do they have to be Masters? Are you a skill-ist? lmao. I remember I saw someone put "Starcraft anyone?" in his description on Grindr (the gay male iPhone app) so I messaged him to talk SC a bit. He asked what league I was in, I said Plat and Masters and he was like "Wow! I'm just gold." I kinda judged him. Though I told my straight female friend who plays SC also without telling her about my judging him and she judged him too. Good to know many obscure things are devoid of gender or sexual orientation. | ||
|
userstupidname
Sweden272 Posts
On July 13 2011 20:21 Fraidnot wrote: For real? That still sounds like bullshit. It completely ignores lesbians for one, and how would a mother's immune system attacking the baby translate into sexuality? I'm more likely to believe that soy is the cause. Also comparing twin brothers is only relevant when there's differences, after all, you expect twins to be the same. I get that this video isn't probably the best voice for the scientific reason, but it seams like every Professor who can find the funding for it comes up with a new reason that sounds even stupider then the last idea. That's just your personal opinion (Unless cited references x) ) It states the universities cited for reference in the ending - contact these and report back what they say on the matter. Of course they have to wrap up all the information gathered etc, just as they have to do in videos shown in school regarding evolution  If not then I have to be rude and require that one state in their defence why they wouldn't take 5 minutes to contact the source and continue arguing about something both the offensive side and the defensive side really can't discuss due to the lack of overall knowledge (It might be extensive but I doubt anyone here is a seasoned bioligists with the same authority as a dozen of universities) Why would you argue with me?  I aren't, nor are you a scientific expert in this area, rather contact the universities (Email/phone) and ask them for the paper or stuff relating to it.you can go to the source directly and then give the story here on the forum. | ||
|
drshdwpuppet
United States332 Posts
On July 14 2011 00:55 Chopin- wrote: lmao. I remember I saw someone put "Starcraft anyone?" in his description on Grindr (the gay male iPhone app) so I messaged him to talk SC a bit. He asked what league I was in, I said Plat and Masters and he was like "Wow! I'm just gold." I kinda judged him. Though I told my straight female friend who plays SC also without telling her about my judging him and she judged him too. Good to know many obscure things are devoid of gender or sexual orientation. wow, I would just be happy to find a cute nerdy boy who played PC games (no console gamers) then again, I am still in silver x.x | ||
|
Fraidnot
United States824 Posts
On July 14 2011 01:29 userstupidname wrote: That's just your personal opinion (Unless cited references x) ) It states the universities cited for reference in the ending - contact these and report back what they say on the matter. Of course they have to wrap up all the information gathered etc, just as they have to do in videos shown in school regarding evolution If not then I have to be rude and require that one state in their defence why they wouldn't take 5 minutes to contact the source and continue arguing about something both the offensive side and the defensive side really can't discuss due to the lack of overall knowledge (It might be extensive but I doubt anyone here is a seasoned bioligists with the same authority as a dozen of universities) Why would you argue with me? I aren't, nor are you a scientific expert in this area, rather contact the universities (Email/phone) and ask them for the paper or stuff relating to it.you can go to the source directly and then give the story here on the forum. You're the one who brought up this whole babies are turned gay in the womb thing and how one video link with a few fancy sounding citations is all you need to show to prove it. I guess it is a little bit naive of me to think that it's your job to satisfy my curiosity, but if you're going to go to the hassle of finding a youtube video on the subject why couldn't you have just found a real article on the matter? Of course the burden of proof is on me (the skeptic) to go check out these mysterious scientists who know all about the process and are just sitting around in their universities waiting for me to contact them. To bad I can't seam to find any of them. Perhaps you know them? Can you give me their names or their email addresses or even the universities at which they work? At that point I might call them and ask them to resolve an internet dispute. See to me it just looks like you saw this and took it at face value, because I did look up these "sources" and I still think the proper term is bullshit. First off none of the links were even about the mother's body rejecting male fetuses so I know you didn't even bother to check them out and it's up to me to tell you what they were about. Two links were on studies of twins and the differences between paternal and identical. One of them requires you to pay out $35 to read but says it supports the idea that there is a biological component so I assume it's similar to the the other. This other one of course was written by a Research Fellow(not an expert in the field) and was about previous studies on twins with the conclusion being that since identical twins are more likely to share the same sexuality then paternal twins that a biological factor is involved. You see that's interesting because if it was some sort of feminization of the fetus by the mother's body then you'd expect that there'd be no difference between the two. So that's directly in opposition to this strange idea that a mother gets better at gayifiying her sons. Now the third article was on Nature vs Nurture and wasn't a bad article (except that it referenced the one written up the Research Fellow) but it came to the following conclusion: We have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding pages, both biological and social. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer. Some believe that the characters found on Xq28 are the Holy Grail of homosexuality research, the elusive 'gay gene'. Others may place stock in the theories of Foucault and Halperin. Perhaps Simon LeVay did reveal to us that anatomy is the key to understanding the difference in sexual orientation. Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age. Cool, so two articles cited to support the point and one says "I don't know" the other says "No". What am I left with? I'll tell you. It's the suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about. | ||
|
userstupidname
Sweden272 Posts
On July 14 2011 05:51 Fraidnot wrote: You're the one who brought up this whole babies are turned gay in the womb thing and how one video link with a few fancy sounding citations is all you need to show to prove it. I guess it is a little bit naive of me to think that it's your job to satisfy my curiosity, but if you're going to go to the hassle of finding a youtube video on the subject why couldn't you have just found a real article on the matter? Of course the burden of proof is on me (the skeptic) to go check out these mysterious scientists who know all about the process and are just sitting around in their universities waiting for me to contact them. To bad I can't seam to find any of them. Perhaps you know them? Can you give me their names or their email addresses or even the universities at which they work? At that point I might call them and ask them to resolve an internet dispute. See to me it just looks like you saw this and took it at face value, because I did look up these "sources" and I still think the proper term is bullshit. First off none of the links were even about the mother's body rejecting male fetuses so I know you didn't even bother to check them out and it's up to me to tell you what they were about. Two links were on studies of twins and the differences between paternal and identical. One of them requires you to pay out $35 to read but says it supports the idea that there is a biological component so I assume it's similar to the the other. This other one of course was written by a Research Fellow(not an expert in the field) and was about previous studies on twins with the conclusion being that since identical twins are more likely to share the same sexuality then paternal twins that a biological factor is involved. You see that's interesting because if it was some sort of feminization of the fetus by the mother's body then you'd expect that there'd be no difference between the two. So that's directly in opposition to this strange idea that a mother gets better at gayifiying her sons. Now the third article was on Nature vs Nurture and wasn't a bad article (except that it referenced the one written up the Research Fellow) but it came to the following conclusion: Cool, so two articles cited to support the point and one says "I don't know" the other says "No". What am I left with? I'll tell you. It's the suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about. I didn't even mean the links, did I even mention them???, I was pointing the universities cited - Call them/email them regarding this they will give a great answer then report back to the forums what they said regarding the matter as they have been cited as agreeing upon the statements in the video. What I know the universities name can be found in the video, then just google and contact them. | ||
|
LittleShrimp
Sweden6 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
drshdwpuppet
United States332 Posts
On July 14 2011 07:52 LittleShrimp wrote: I will accept gays when they can proliferate well we certainly dont seem to be decreasing in number ^.^ and judging by the current socio-political climate, I think we are becoming more proliferous, not less. Also, you might as well not accept gravity or african americans for all the good it will do you, we still exist. The funny thing about reality is that it has a tendency to stick around, even if you close your eyes, stuff your fingers in your ear and scream loudly in objection to it. :3 <3 | ||
|
Fraidnot
United States824 Posts
On July 14 2011 07:25 userstupidname wrote: I didn't even mean the links, did I even mention them???, I was pointing the universities cited - Call them/email them regarding this they will give a great answer then report back to the forums what they said regarding the matter as they have been cited as agreeing upon the statements in the video. What I know the universities name can be found in the video, then just google and contact them. What universities are you talking about? At the end of the video they list various associations, not universities or professors. The American psychiatric association is not a university. The video lists them when it's talking about how various groups agree that homosexuality should not be treated as a mental disorder not that they all agreed to the cause of it. So I'm betting you didn't even watch the video and I know you're talking about things you know nothing about. | ||
|
zEMPd
Angola259 Posts
no but seriously I don't know why this is still alive User was warned for this post | ||
|
Emortal
5 Posts
| ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On July 13 2011 06:52 Savern101 wrote: I'm not hugely convinced by those arguments. (I'm replying to your whole post btw, it was just pretty big) The evolutionary reason for sexuality is to encourage reproduction, therefore preserving the species/genome. If you code for a sexual preference that prevents reproduction, as I said before, its a dead end for that person's genes (in general). Its very difficult to compare something like CF (with a very well understood genetic aetiology (mutation in the CFTR protein) to homosexuality which has the murkiest of genetic basis. A major argument against a genetic basis to homosexuality is of course, the vastly reduced chance of reproduction, thus obliteration of genetic continuity to pass on any "Gay" gene. Thats simplifying allele expression and such though. Prevalence of Homosexuality is an near impossible statistic to calculate accurately due to all the confounders. In the UK, the office of National Statistics has a figure of 1.5%. Who knows? I personally feel 5-10% is quite a large overestimate. Also I'm not particularly sold by the "Grandmother" argument. In the rest of the world, in species with high infant mortality, you see increased reproductive rates as a protective measure. In our own race, places like Africa (I've been to Uganda myself to talked to people about this subject) You have people having large numbers of children (10+ is not unusual). Why? For their own preservation. The children will work at a young age, help support them, and look after the parents and their other siblings. This is similar to the Grandmother model, but I fail to see the need for an extra adult to be gay to help look after the children. The idea that genes associated with homosexuality might offer an evolutionary advantage is difficult to support with basic evolutionary theory. If anything, as someone mentioned before, traits/genes associated with homosexuality should be weaknesses, disadvantages etc. as they would have a much reduced chance of transmission to the next generation. Against this is the fact that there are examples to the opposite. Huntingdon's in women is suggested to increase libido/fecundity, making it more likely for the genes to be passed on before the disease is symptomatic. Not really an advantage. CF is a great example of a horrific disease self-limiting by reducing fertility in its sufferers. This is just looking at it from a purely evolutionary/genetic standpoint. When it comes to sexuality there is a myriad of psychological/sociological factors that complicate it pretty heavily. Are you a medic/doctor btw? Your quote suggests so. I'm a medical student myself, 3rd year. I fucking hate genetics in general though. Yes, I’d hate genetics as well if I couldn’t grasp it... First of all, his quote doesn’t suggest him being a medic/doctor at all; it was just an excuse for you to state that you were in medical school, as if stamping a seal of authority on your post...which is actually quite embarrassing because if my doctor pretended to be so informed on a subject like genetics and evolution (so integral to the field of biology) when he really had no inkling on the subject, I’d probably find myself second guessing his medical advise as well. Then again, many doctors are clueless about these fields because it’s not essential to the practice of medicine (even though medicine is heavily based upon it) so I guess another one bites the dust. Anyway, let’s break down your post and point out the many flaws in it. The evolutionary reason for sexuality is to encourage reproduction, therefore preserving the species/genome. .Actually, it’s still somewhat debateable as to why many organisms switched from asexuality to sexuality, factoring in all the costs associated with the latter, but the strongest theory as to why it occurred was definitely not to encourage reproduction; it was most likely to increase genetic variation in a dynamic and changing environment (which many multicellular organisms occur in), allowing evolution to work faster on these sexual organisms. Furthermore, if you think about it for a second, you would realize that sexuality would go against preserving one’s own genome as it causes you to pass on only half of it to your progeny... If you code for a sexual preference that prevents reproduction, as I said before, its a dead end for that person's genes (in general). You may use the “in general” part of this quote as a cop-out for your misunderstanding, but given the nature of your post, I’d imagine you wouldn’t know how so. An organism being incapable of reproduction in no way means that their genes have reached a “dead end”. The answer lies in Hamilton’s Inclusive Fitness Theory (which Darwinian evolution is a subset of). To put it in layman terms, if I happened to die in a freak accident today, all my genes could theoretically still be passed on to the next generation due to having biological siblings who share DNA (and therefore genes) with me. This concept is the basis of eusociality in insects, common among many species of the order Hymenoptera. For those who are scratching their head at this last sentence, many of you have probably seen a wasp hive before of which it is inhabited by usually one queen and workers/soldiers. Well, it so happens that the workers in a colony are generally sterile (extreme but common), forgoing their own reproduction in favour of the gyne who in most cases is their mother. Like homosexuality, this behaviour remained elusive for many biologists prior to Hamilton’s ground breaking work (including Darwin, who considered eusociality as being fatal to his theory of evolution by natural selection) because why would an organism give up its own reproductive success in favour of its sibling? To make this short, many eusocial species (though not all) are generally haplodiploid, so sister workers are more related to each other than they would be to their own son or daughter (0.75 vs. 0.5), thus making sense why they would help take care of their supersisters in favour of their own offspring (the genetics behind this would take another two paragraphs to read so if you’re interested pm me, but I’m losing readers at this point so just take my word for it). Thus, like kin selection can be attributed to eusocial species, it can also be used to explain homosexuality in humans (I’ll get to that later). Its very difficult to compare something like CF (with a very well understood genetic aetiology (mutation in the CFTR protein) to homosexuality which has the murkiest of genetic basis. A major argument against a genetic basis to homosexuality is of course, the vastly reduced chance of reproduction, thus obliteration of genetic continuity to pass on any "Gay" gene. Thats simplifying allele expression and such though. I’m not sure if you realize this but CF is a mendelian inherited trait while homosexuality most likely is a quantitative trait so of course the former would be much easier to detect and understand. Furthermore, if the genetic basis of homosexuality is murky, so is that of intelligence as both are complex inherited traits that have not had a gene identified for either. The theory behind their existence is there but the technology (lack of resolution in detecting biological factors associated with aforementioned traits) is still lagging behind. But we don’t question the idea that smarter parents will tend to have smarter children, despite the lack of proof for the existence of a gene for intelligence so why the fuss with homosexuality? Both traits and twin studies already prove the underling biological component in both (if requested I’ll search them up and post the abstracts here) so perhaps people should revise their perspective on the situation. And I have no idea why you would even mention allele expression when right before that you mention homosexuality being linked to a “vastly reduced chance of reproduction”. If you were right and there were no continuity in a gay gene’s lineage, why even mention allele expression to begin with? Do you even know what allele expression entails? Prevalence of Homosexuality is an near impossible statistic to calculate accurately due to all the confounders. In the UK, the office of National Statistics has a figure of 1.5%. Who knows? I personally feel 5-10% is quite a large overestimate. Recent studies generally suggest a prevalence rate of between 2-5% in modern Western populations, but as you have conceded, there are many factors that can confound an accurate statistic. For every gay that is open and out, how many are closeted? In some countries you can receive the death penalty for being gay and Western society—although a lot more tolerant nowadays—still has a far way to go before gays even have a neutral portrayal. With that in mind, these recent estimates can at best tell you only a conservative estimate of the prevalence of homosexuality in humans, which cannot be explained by spontaneous mutation rates, but must persist due to biological factors conferring some kind of potential fitness benefit. Also I'm not particularly sold by the "Grandmother" argument. In the rest of the world, in species with high infant mortality, you see increased reproductive rates as a protective measure. In our own race, places like Africa (I've been to Uganda myself to talked to people about this subject) You have people having large numbers of children (10+ is not unusual). Why? For their own preservation. The children will work at a young age, help support them, and look after the parents and their other siblings. This is similar to the Grandmother model, but I fail to see the need for an extra adult to be gay to help look after the children. Having more adults per children leads to greater survivorship of the latter and if these children harbour a gay gene that is not “active”, can further lead to a larger propagation of the gene. Remember (not sure if it’s even in your memory to begin with...) but the unit of selection is the gene, not the individual or the group. The idea that genes associated with homosexuality might offer an evolutionary advantage is difficult to support with basic evolutionary theory. If anything, as someone mentioned before, traits/genes associated with homosexuality should be weaknesses, disadvantages etc. as they would have a much reduced chance of transmission to the next generation. Against this is the fact that there are examples to the opposite. Huntingdon's in women is suggested to increase libido/fecundity, making it more likely for the genes to be passed on before the disease is symptomatic. Not really an advantage. CF is a great example of a horrific disease self-limiting by reducing fertility in its sufferers. Once again, you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of evolution and genetics with this excerpt. Although one’s direct fitness would be greatly reduced due to homosexuality, the same fate would not necessarily apply to their indirect fitness, and the scientific literature supports this perspective. Your example of Huntington’s disease and its effect of an increased libido/fecundity in females actually parallels what is thought to occur with homosexuality—and this is an advantage from the perspective of the gene for these traits. You need to realize that that’s all that really matters when it comes to evolution. A gene doesn’t care about its bearer but about itself only. If it can increase its propagation at the expense of other genes, then such a scenario is likely to occur. In either case, evolution can explain these examples that you list. With Huntington’s disease, if I’m not mistaken, the age of onset is generally in adulthood and is a recessive disorder. Thus, people still tend to have kids without knowing they could be carriers of the disease. Furthermore, recessive mutations are hard to weed out of populations because they can hide in heterozygotes, and if it confers an increase in libido/fecundity, could also be classified as a balanced polymorphism (provided that the effect is still present in heteros). With Cystic Fibrosis, it may be detrimental to be homozygous for the disorder-causing alleles but if you are heterozygous for them, then you can generally live a normal life and also be generally immune from cholera and other diarrheal illnesses. Thus, balanced polymorphism can also explain this disorder's prevalence in the population. With regards to homosexuality, I found this post in my history (didn’t even realize it was within this same thread as well...I know there are more in other threads scattered on the forum but I guess this proves you didn’t at least read through this one) which explains the evolutionary reason behind homosexuality: On August 30 2010 07:56 Masamune wrote: If you have studied genetics, it wasn't very well. Anyone who studies genetics seriously will know that evolution goes hand-in-hand with it (and everything else in biology) and that's where your post is flawed. I'm guessing you believe it's a choice or else it would have dwindled away by now? Well make sure to read my post because I'm starting to sound like a broken record. Like I mentioned earlier, just because you can't directly reproduce does not mean that your genes are forever barred from the next generation--your relatives can pass on your genes for you as well. Homosexuality can be seen as an alternate mechanism to evolution (albeit less frequent) in that it adheres to kin selection. From the wikipedia entry on it: Kin selection refers to apparent strategies in evolution that favor the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial insect colony, in which sterile females act as workers to assist their mother in the production of additional offspring. Switch sterile females for voluntarily sterile brothers and mother to sisters in that last sentence and voila! The case of homosexuality makes a little more sense. If I had to classify homosexuality, I'd say that it acts similarly to an outlaw gene in that it jeopardizes the reproduction of other genes in favour of itself. I say this because there have been studies done where they have found that female relatives of gay males tend to be more fecund than females not known to have any gay relatives. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that under the right environmental conditions, males with the gay gene have a great chance of becoming homosexual, whereas this same gene in their female relatives makes them hornier (who knows, but they tend to have more children than average). With the brother having no children of his own, he works to ensure the survival and replication of his nieces and nephews, which in turn share his genes as well. So it benefits the sister's genes, while fucking over some of the brother's genes. It would also help his brothers who may not be expressing the homosexual trait but whom have the "gene" anyway Now the environment probably does have a bit to do with homosexuality, but I'd wager my life on their being a genetic precursor. I'd imagine that their could be some possible epigenetic factors involved or maybe even the way a certain portion of mRNA is spliced or something. Who knows, but there is something biological going on and the environmental component of it definitely wouldn't be a choice someone makes. I'm not so sure about the genetic processes of lesbians, but it leads me to believe that their may be alternative modes of inheritance of homosexuality, be it genes themselves or other biological factors. This is just looking at it from a purely evolutionary/genetic standpoint. When it comes to sexuality there is a myriad of psychological/sociological factors that complicate it pretty heavily. I’m sure (I hope) that you’ve heard the phrase that sociology is a subset of psychology which is a subset of biology which is a subset of chemistry which is a subset of physics which is a subset of math. Well it’s true; evolution is integral to the field of biology and happens to be highly influential in the fields of psychology and sociology, which genetics also plays a major role in. Although the environment does complicate such a complicated issue as homosexuality in humans, it is less influential on many of the other myriad of species in nature used to discern many of its mysteries. Regardless, when you look at homosexuality from an evolutionary/genetic standpoint, you also happen to be looking at it from a psychology/sociological standpoint as well. Sorry to come off as a douchebag with this monstrous post, but when someone comes into a thread dedicated to a minority group—still persecuted and viewed negatively today—only to try and flaunt their knowledge (or in this case, lack thereof) at the expense of these individuals (because let’s face it, your post was basically implying that homosexuality is a disease almost on par with life threatening ones such as Huntington’s and CF) who already have enough shit on their plates, I had no choice but to reply. | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On July 14 2011 12:23 zEMPd wrote: such a fucking stupid and pointless thread..JUST LIEK THIS POST?... no but seriously I don't know why this is still alive Well everyone has their opinion. I could ask the same question about your pointless life, no? | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On July 13 2011 20:21 Fraidnot wrote: For real? That still sounds like bullshit. It completely ignores lesbians for one, and how would a mother's immune system attacking the baby translate into sexuality? I'm more likely to believe that soy is the cause. Also comparing twin brothers is only relevant when there's differences, after all, you expect twins to be the same. I get that this video isn't probably the best voice for the scientific reason, but it seams like every Professor who can find the funding for it comes up with a new reason that sounds even stupider then the last idea. A similar trait can arise multiple times through different pathways. Flight in animals is a good example of this; it evolved separately in birds, mammals and insects yet its the same trait in the end. Homosexuality in females likely evolved through a different pathway than in males (for reasons that I really don't feel like going into [after that long-ass post above] because I think if you search my post history you'll find the answer). Comparing twins is relevant and shows that you really don't have any clue whatsoever about this topic and in genetics in general. Twin studies are incredibly important because you have the opportunity to analyze two individuals who are identical genetically (simplified, epigenetics etc. aside). In comparing twins, if you want to know if a trait has a biological basis, you compare the prevalence of a trait in monozygotic and dyzygotic twins. In layman's terms, if there happens to be a significant concordance rate among MZ twins raised in the same environment to that of DZ twins raised in the same environment, then you know that there is a significant biological basis to the trait in question. Reason being is that if both twins have a shared environment, then if the MZ twins have a higher concordance for the trait, all that can be concluded is that the similarity must be a result of the MZ twins sharing more DNA than the DZ twins. An even more striking example would be to find a higher concordance rate for MZ twins raised apart for a trait, then in comparison with DZ twins raised together. About the birthing order, the theory states that female antibodies would de-masculinize the male brain, making him more feminine and likely to be gay. Approximately 50% of our genes are expressed in the brain so that leaves a lot of room for something as simple as that to cause a dramatic effect. An evolutionary aspect to this theory (although I'm more a supporter of the kin selection theory for homosexuality) suggests that birthing order and male homosexuality helps to reduce brotherly competition. | ||
|
drshdwpuppet
United States332 Posts
| ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On July 14 2011 05:51 Fraidnot wrote: You're the one who brought up this whole babies are turned gay in the womb thing and how one video link with a few fancy sounding citations is all you need to show to prove it. I guess it is a little bit naive of me to think that it's your job to satisfy my curiosity, but if you're going to go to the hassle of finding a youtube video on the subject why couldn't you have just found a real article on the matter? Of course the burden of proof is on me (the skeptic) to go check out these mysterious scientists who know all about the process and are just sitting around in their universities waiting for me to contact them. To bad I can't seam to find any of them. Perhaps you know them? Can you give me their names or their email addresses or even the universities at which they work? At that point I might call them and ask them to resolve an internet dispute. See to me it just looks like you saw this and took it at face value, because I did look up these "sources" and I still think the proper term is bullshit. First off none of the links were even about the mother's body rejecting male fetuses so I know you didn't even bother to check them out and it's up to me to tell you what they were about. Two links were on studies of twins and the differences between paternal and identical. One of them requires you to pay out $35 to read but says it supports the idea that there is a biological component so I assume it's similar to the the other. This other one of course was written by a Research Fellow(not an expert in the field) and was about previous studies on twins with the conclusion being that since identical twins are more likely to share the same sexuality then paternal twins that a biological factor is involved. You see that's interesting because if it was some sort of feminization of the fetus by the mother's body then you'd expect that there'd be no difference between the two. So that's directly in opposition to this strange idea that a mother gets better at gayifiying her sons. Now the third article was on Nature vs Nurture and wasn't a bad article (except that it referenced the one written up the Research Fellow) but it came to the following conclusion: Cool, so two articles cited to support the point and one says "I don't know" the other says "No". What am I left with? I'll tell you. It's the suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about. Try google scholar if you don't have access to scientific databases. I'm getting tired of the general lack of understanding of basic biology/genetics and rampant ignorance in this thread. I will say this, however: most scientists agree there is a biological component to homosexuality, it's just a matter of explaining how the trait came about that's the tough part. But be rest assured, with the prevalence rate of this trait all across the world from modern Western societies to traditional ones in Independent Samoa, homosexuality cannot be explained by spontaneous mutation rates, but by biological factors conferring a potential fitness benefit. In other words, it's most likely not a choice. I'd wager my house on it. | ||
|
Fraidnot
United States824 Posts
On July 14 2011 13:15 Masamune wrote: A similar trait can arise multiple times through different pathways. Flight in animals is a good example of this; it evolved separately in birds, mammals and insects yet its the same trait in the end. Homosexuality in females likely evolved through a different pathway than in males (for reasons that I really don't feel like going into [after that long-ass post above] because I think if you search my post history you'll find the answer). I'll admit I hadn't considered that but I wasn't 100% hinged on that idea. Comparing twins is relevant and shows that you really don't have any clue whatsoever about this topic and in genetics in general. Twin studies are incredibly important because you have the opportunity to analyze two individuals who are identical genetically (simplified, epigenetics etc. aside). In comparing twins, if you want to know if a trait has a biological basis, you compare the prevalence of a trait in monozygotic and dyzygotic twins. In layman's terms, if there happens to be a significant concordance rate among MZ twins raised in the same environment to that of DZ twins raised in the same environment, then you know that there is a significant biological basis to the trait in question. Reason being is that if both twins have a shared environment, then if the MZ twins have a higher concordance for the trait, all that can be concluded is that the similarity must be a result of the MZ twins sharing more DNA than the DZ twins. An even more striking example would be to find a higher concordance rate for MZ twins raised apart for a trait, then in comparison with DZ twins raised together. The video in question was making it look like they were just comparing twin brothers and not comparing twins with other twins. Looking at the studies yes, comparing different types of twins is very useful, but that's not what I was getting from the video. Now I realize that video == ass. I do agree with you here. About the birthing order, the theory states that female antibodies would de-masculinize the male brain, making him more feminine and likely to be gay. Approximately 50% of our genes are expressed in the brain so that leaves a lot of room for something as simple as that to cause a dramatic effect. An evolutionary aspect to this theory (although I'm more a supporter of the kin selection theory for homosexuality) suggests that birthing order and male homosexuality helps to reduce brotherly competition. This is sort of what I expected to hear, that any exact effect of increased antibodies would be unknown. I think being a skeptic on this theory is fairly legitimate. Wouldn't increased brotherly competition actually be beneficial for evolution (survival of the fittest and what not) ? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War firebathero Dota 2 737Flash 695Barracks 663Larva  628Rain  553BeSt 267Stork 261EffOrt 212ggaemo 165hero 164[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Cup
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Wardi Open
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
