Comments on: Sexual orientation and genetics: X marks the spot https://wthrockmorton.com/2006/02/21/sexual-orientation-and-genetics-x-marks-the-spot/ A [retired] college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:48:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3 By: grantdale https://wthrockmorton.com/2006/02/21/sexual-orientation-and-genetics-x-marks-the-spot/#comment-1043 Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:48:00 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com//2006/02/21/sexual-orientation-and-genetics-x-marks-the-spot/#comment-1043 OK — some of your wording confused me on that.

But the study does “confirm” a genetic basis, as Bocklandt said: regardless of whether it’s direct or indirect via temperaments. (And the “” around confirm is just me delib. recognising the limits from testing only 200 women).

When I can (that is, when I have time to finish the rotten thing) I will forward some basic #s I’ve done around Bem’s original paper. Even ignoring the fact it’s based on a sample that the authors warned could not be used for the purpose, I simply cannot get pathways via temperament to add out vis Green’s work etc that Bem uses to support his idea. That suggests — as all such gaps do — that the intervening attribute is not actually involved. Occam’s Razor…

Sorry I just read that again. I’m not sure it will make any sense without the numbers. Guess I should devote a few hours this weekend 🙂

]]> By: Throckmorton https://wthrockmorton.com/2006/02/21/sexual-orientation-and-genetics-x-marks-the-spot/#comment-1042 Wed, 22 Feb 2006 06:21:00 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com//2006/02/21/sexual-orientation-and-genetics-x-marks-the-spot/#comment-1042 I understand that.

My point is what does the difference in the mothers mean? If the genetic difference in the mothers meant that the sons were more atypical in gender terms, then the relationship described by Bem and others would be supported as opposed to a direct genetic interpretation of the findings. In my opinion, it is more likely that the X difference relates to basic temperamental differences that may find expression in any number of ways. If the researchers were not asking or looking for these differences then they missed a potentially crucial and I should add empirically supported intervening variable.

If the question asked was: do the X activations relate to gender atypical sons, I suspect based on past research that the differences between gender atypical and gender typical sons would be more striking. I cannot say for certain that the researchers did not take this into account but the abstract gives no reason to think they did.

]]> By: grantdale https://wthrockmorton.com/2006/02/21/sexual-orientation-and-genetics-x-marks-the-spot/#comment-1041 Wed, 22 Feb 2006 06:03:00 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com//2006/02/21/sexual-orientation-and-genetics-x-marks-the-spot/#comment-1041 As I look at it, none of this is very enlightening unless the temperament and environment of the sons is also taken into consideration. There are potential intervening variables that are not even considered by these researchers (e.g., gender atypical temperaments).

Urgh, Warren…

This looked at genetic markers within the mothers.

This makes a stronger case for thinking that sexuality is genetically inherited, with the actual gender behaviour/traits of the sons possibly being utterly irrelvant. Those characteristics may vary widely in the sons, but do not — cannot — alter the genes of the mother.

]]>