Comments on: GID controversy gets some media attention

By: jayhuck

jayhuck — Tue, 27 May 2008 02:19:53 +0000

Evan,
It should also be noted that mice behaviors are not NEARLY as complex or effected by as many variables as human behaviors are – that is why I left that long post saying that complex human behaviors are going to require complex explanations – Its a complex puzzle that we are FAR from solving completely.

By: jayhuck

jayhuck — Tue, 27 May 2008 02:18:24 +0000

Oh, Good Lord Evan – did you miss the discussion where we talked ad nauseam about how a gay gene or set of genes could be passed on? First of all, we STILL don’t know exactly what the distribution of orientations is – the numbers are still out on this – we don’t know!!! So it becomes really difficult to speculate whether the distribution among humans is actually different from the rest of the animal kingdom. However – Bisexuals can pass it on – Gay men who become married (and from a recent study I read that as many as 1/3 of gay men have)can pass it on, non-married gay men who are sperm donors could pass them on. It never fails to amaze me that some people who claim to be knowledgeable with science couldn’t come up with such easy answers. My speculation is that bias and prejudice may blind them to them, but I very well may be wrong in your case

By: jayhuck

jayhuck — Tue, 27 May 2008 02:17:26 +0000

Evan,
You can’t say scientists have CONFIRMED and then only quote one study. I’m not sure where the gay sheep comment came from or what you were trying to say by using it. So what if gay men ARE less aggressive than most straight men, is that a bad thing? Is aggression necessary for happiness or wholeness – or to be healthy? And what about those gay men that are aggressive, or those straight men that aren’t?
And you STILL haven’t answered my question about what you mean when you say things like sex-atypical behavior – what does that mean to YOU?
Is gender nonconforming actually the strongest predictor? I mean I’ve heard that most gender non-conforming kids do turn out to be gay but that’s not the same thing as saying that most gay people were gender non-conforming kids. And just how many studies in this area have been done? One study hardly confirms anything. But again – so what if this is true? This doesn’t impact the lives of gay and lesbian people – equal civil rights are what gay and lesbian people need – not the results of a few more studies –
You are absolutely right that we did not build new emotions – at least not ones that are already there in different forms in the animal kingdom – but its a pretty important point to note HOW we DO use them and how we channel them – and just how different – or similar – that makes us from other mammals.

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 27 May 2008 01:29:20 +0000

Jayhuck,
I may be mistaken but I have seen either you or Timothy Kincaid quoting research on gay sheep to argue that gayness is naturally biological (not the result of some environmental fluke or human choice). Yes, there are differences, but scientists must settle what is significant in what differences or similarities are there. Is same-sex sexuality restricted to humans? No — many gays argued that, therefore it cannot be the result of social dynamics or individual choices. ‘It must be biological, that’s why it’s irreversible.’ This is the typical conclusion. Now when I use this argument going in another direction to pinpoint other similarities, it suddenly occurs to us that actually humans are uniquely homosexual. I support neither arguments 100%, but in the absence of solid genetic and biological correlates with human sexualities, I truly am guilty of the sin of speculation based on whatever research can shed some light on this disputed subject. I understood and learned lots of things in the process and I simply see many correlations. Of course, mice don’t play with tin soldiers or dolls so that we can conclude how gender-typical they are or not according to human standards, but each species has its own way of working the same instincts. Humans just modulate the same instincts in more complex and culturally developed ways. Rough-and-tumble play is widespread in the animal kingdom and it does correlate with aggressiveness, future surviving chances, being able to secure resources and finding many mates to reproduce with. Scientists in the field of human sexual orientation have already confirmed that gay men score less in aggressiveness than straight men (see the Gladue and Bailey piece of research from 1995). Coincidence or telling similarity? Catherine Dulac of Harvard University, by knocking out only one gene in male mice, both suppressed male aggressiveness when another male entered their territory and made them copulate with those trespassing males. (Just look for this piece of news: Sexual ID switch is found. She did that in 2006; last year she did the same with female mice. Run a search for: Sensory organ, not brain, differentiates sexual behavior in some mammals. Probably the most interesting finding is that although male and female mice can have some differently configured brain areas due to prenatal hormone exposure, it’s not the neural difference in these areas that promote gender-specific behaviour, but how they are activated or suppressed by input coming from sensory organs via some projecting neurons.)
Now if some people in a number of scientific labs flip the sexual behaviour of animals that are just as mammalian as gay sheep are, why should I fall in the trap of using identity labels to interpret the findings of scientists working on silent mice? If they changed sexual behaviour, it’s because scientists altered something that made them attracted to a particular gender, or made them indiscriminately attracted to both genders. Did nature scrap that mechanism altogether and started from scratch with humans? I don’t know, do we see similar studies on humans? We don’t and wonder: why? All we see are these correlations that are first touted as ground-breaking and then buried in criticism and lack of replication. Did anyone draw any conclusion from the Bailey study on gay and straight brains to make sense of why the amygdala in gay brains showed more fear reactions? Have we seen some brainscanning research on GID people? There’s not much to talk about on the subject of causation if the big news only come from research on animal models.

How would YOU define gender a-typical behavior – in humans and other animals – will gender atypical behavior in some animals really mean anything for humans. Will it have anything to say about sexual orientation in general.

Yes, gender nonconformism is the strongest predicting factor for homosexuality, at least that’s what major researchers have found to correlate most strongly with a future developing same-sex orientation. There are a number of scales researchers use to assess their subjects’ preference of toys, games, preferred peers and so on. One of these scales even measures levels of aggressiveness. By comparison, most children are found to prefer some toys, games and peers — and these are considered gender-typical. I have read at least one scientific paper that linked toy preference with levels of aggressiveness. So we can expect that somewhere hormones played a part to later affect physical preferences, both in objects, playing partners and type of activities.
As I explained earlier, human aggressiveness can be culturally modulated in humans, but it’s the same animal instinct differently expressed. We did not create new instincts or emotions that differentiate us from other mammals, we just developed ways to channel those instincts in a lot more ways than all animals. We are masters of discriminating between states, of evaluating possible future consequences of our behaviour and so on, but we did not build any new emotion in our limbic system that was not already there in other mammalians. Can you argue that due to the specificity of human evolutionary selection we ended up with very different outcomes in sexual orientation distribution than other animals? How could non-reproductive sexual orientations survive against so many odds?

By: Jayhuck

Jayhuck — Mon, 26 May 2008 21:05:13 +0000

Evan,
Please read post 103619 when you get the chance

By: Patrick

Patrick — Mon, 26 May 2008 19:01:29 +0000

Jayhuck does seem to bring up a good point and that being scientists tend to exagerate just how much they know and how quickly advancements will be made. To take just one recent example – look at the HIV/AIDS predictions – they claimed a vacine would be available just two years after the virus was discoverd – and here we are twenty years later with no vacine and nothing promising coming up in that area. (And this is an area of research that gets lots of money thrown at it).
As to Ellie point about if there is a safe effective way to eliminate homosexuality – we should do it. The question of mine is why ?
(As an aside – I had to laugh at this quote

would be incapable of fully transitioning into any sort of traditional, straight, butch, male existence

)
Reminds me of a coworker of my partner who told him that he can always spot gay people – to which my partner replied ‘oh really’ – she was totally oblivious to the fact that he is gay. In fact she didn’t even believe after he told her – some people and their silly beliefs I guess.

By: Jayhuck

Jayhuck — Mon, 26 May 2008 18:49:38 +0000

Evan – I don’t have the time to read the full article – I’m studying for my boards for the next two weeks – but a cursory glance tells me its interesting but nowhere near earth shattering – and really only seems to prove that we have a LONG way to go before we really solve the big picture puzzle

By: Jayhuck

Jayhuck — Mon, 26 May 2008 18:47:01 +0000

Evan,
This is a reprint of something I wrote to Drowssap on another thread:
What I’m trying to say is that, when it comes to orientation at least – how we become gay, straight or bi is going to be a complex interplay of genes, other biological factors and the environment. This is NOT something anyone is going to figure out soon. We may solve little pieces of the puzzle over time, but we’re not going to get a good idea of the big picture in the near future. Complex behaviors are going to require complex explanations for their origins.
I’m sure you’re aware of that, but it often seems at times, that in your writings, you aren’t. I know I’ve said these things before I just thought they were worth reiterating
In the meantime, while scientists are busy – or not busy – working to come up with answers, good gay, straight and bi men must live their lives. And while I know this is an old soapbox of mine, I’m hoping that one day we will all be able to live together in peace, enjoying the same rights the other does, respecting the other, even if we don’t necessarily agree. Social progress needs to be made now – science will progress at its own, invariably slow – and rightly so – speed

By: Evan

Evan — Mon, 26 May 2008 18:40:19 +0000

Jayhuck, This is the article I was referring to.

By: Jayhuck

Jayhuck — Mon, 26 May 2008 18:39:30 +0000

Evan,
We are a GREAT deal away from solving this puzzle. Science lovers for decades have claimed otherwise, but no one has yet grasped the real complexity of this issue or just how much we really don’t know.