Gayness May Be Linked to Conditions in Womb

[Lemur]

Interesting read over at the BBC. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5120004.stm) As usual, I'm interested in the Org's take on the matter.

Womb environment 'makes men gay'

A man's sexual orientation may be determined by conditions in the womb, according to a study.

Previous research had revealed the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay, but the reason for this phenomenon was unknown.

But a Canadian study has shown that the effect is most likely down to biological rather than social factors.

The research is published in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Professor Anthony Bogaert from Brock University in Ontario, Canada, studied 944 heterosexual and homosexual men with either "biological" brothers, in this case those who share the same mother, or "non-biological" brothers, that is, adopted, step or half siblings.

He found the link between the number of older brothers and homosexuality only existed when the siblings shared the same mother.

The amount of time the individual spent being raised with older brothers did not affect their sexual orientation.

'Maternal memory'

Writing in the journal, Professor Bogaert said: "If rearing or social factors associated with older male siblings underlies the fraternal birth-order effect [the link between the number of older brothers and male homosexuality], then the number of non-biological older brothers should predict men's sexual orientation, but they do not.

"These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men."

He suggests the effect is probably the result of a "maternal memory" in the womb for male births.

A woman's body may see a male foetus as "foreign", he says, prompting an immune reaction which may grow progressively stronger with each male child.

The antibodies created may affect the developing male brain.

In an accompanying article, scientists from Michigan State University said: "These data strengthen the notion that the common denominator between biological brothers, the mother, provides a prenatal environment that fosters homosexuality in her younger sons."

"But the question of mechanism remains."

Andy Forrest, a spokesman for gay rights group Stonewall, said: "Increasingly, credible evidence appears to indicate that being gay is genetically determined rather than being a so-called lifestyle choice.

"It adds further weight to the argument that lesbian and gay people should be treated equally in society and not discriminated against for something that's just as inherent as skin colour."

[Avicenna]

What can I say? Lucky that I'm the firstborn son.

:sweatdrop:

[DemonArchangel]

Hmm... interesting.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, the activist, as usual has jumped on it in the wrong way. It suggests its not genetic and it's actually your mother's fault.

They need to work out if a similar pattern holds true for female homosexuality.

[yesdachi]

It suggests its not genetic and it's actually your mother's fault.
Blame it on mom, everything is the mothers fault! ~D

[Lemur]

Well, technically it would be "blame it on mom's uterus and immune system." But that's assuming that we know the causal link between womb conditions and gayness, and we don't. Still, it's always satisfying to blame everything on mum.

[Samurai Waki]

Hmmm. Actually thats quite interesting. I'm the 3rd Born of my three brothers, My Older Two Brothers and Myself Came out Quite Normal, my Younger Brother is gay.

[Red Peasant]

Well, the activist, as usual has jumped on it in the wrong way. It suggests its not genetic and it's actually your mother's fault.

They need to work out if a similar pattern holds true for female homosexuality.

They say not, because they think that it is the male Y chromosome that triggers an immuno-reaction in the woman's body which builds up strength with successive pregnancies. Naturally, this does not occur with a female foetus.

[doc_bean]

I know at least two cases where the younger brother (of two) is the straight one. I also know some single children that are gay. This is interesting, but a weak (causal ?) correlation at most.

[Lemur]

I don't know if your experience really nixes the study, Doc Bean. 944 is a decent-sized sample for this sort of research. And if gayness is linked to womb conditions, who's to say such a situation can't occur in a different order? Human bodies are infinitely variable, after all.

It's the closest I've seen to meaningful research on the origins of gayness, and that alone makes it noteworthy.

[doc_bean]

I don't know if your experience really nixes the study, Doc Bean. 944 is a decent-sized sample for this sort of research. And if gayness is linked to womb conditions, who's to say such a situation can't occur in a different order? Human bodies are infinitely variable, after all.

It's the closest I've seen to meaningful research on the origins of gayness, and that alone makes it noteworthy.

I said it was interesting, but it should be seen in context, it can only partially explain gayness (which is a huge step of course). Also I don't like the biological reasoning that much, if it was the mothers immune system causing it then homosexual children should be born 'weaker' than heterosexual children. This should certainly be investigated further before drawing any conclusions about the actual cause. So far I only see a correlation, an interesting one, but not necessarily a causal relationship.

[Goofball]

Is it just me, or does anybody else kind of giggle to themselves when they hear the word "gayness?"

:laugh4:

[Lemur]

That depends. When you say "giggle," do you mean a light, girlish titter?

[Goofball]

That depends. When you say "giggle," do you mean a light, girlish titter?

I'd rather not answer that question, thank you very much...

:shame:

PS: You said "titter."

[Big_John]

a deep, masculine guffaw?


edit: btw, i haven't read the study yet, but i noticed that it's using youngest half-brothers (presumeably with different mothers), adopted and step brothers to contrast the maternal brothers.. but how much does it account for potential differences in the ways that these "non-biological" brothers may be raised versus the upbringing for maternal brothers?

[A.Saturnus]

"It adds further weight to the argument that lesbian and gay people should be treated equally in society and not discriminated against for something that's just as inherent as skin colour."

I wish guy rights activists would say such things.

[Kralizec]

I don't know A.Saturnus, you would fist have to prove that manliness is pre-determined. A study I read says there's a 99.999% chance that XY chromosome fetuses will turn out male, but that's just a (albeit interesting) correlation.

As it stands having a penis is a lifestyle choice.

[Navaros]

Increasingly, credible evidence appears to indicate that being gay is genetically determined rather than being a so-called lifestyle choice.

Genetically determined or not, that is still not a legitimate exscuse.

I think it is possible that gayness is linked to conditions in the womb, but morseo based on what corrupt chemicals get into the baby's body and cause brain & other defects to develop.

I bet it is directly related to the toxic crap in the food and water supply.

[Lemur]

Actually, that quote about "genetically determined" seems to be more and more off the mark. Looks as though gayness may be hormonally determined, and at the fetal stage. But there's no proof and no causation yet, just a statistical correlation. We're a long way from knowing what causes what.

As your theory that chemicals and pollutants may be causal, Nav, that would do little to explain pre-industrial examples of homosexuality.

[Watchman]

Genetically determined or not, that is still not a legitimate exscuse.I fail to see where any legitimate excuse would be necessary. Going by this article, that'd be like me having to provide a "legitimate excuse" for having blue eyes...

[Lemur]

Just a wacky thought -- might this not be an overpopulation control built in by evolution? In other words, if a woman is having ten babies, wouldn't there be a survival advantage to her group and/or tribe by having the later ones be unlikely to breed, but rather contribute to the group without taking resources for their own babies?

Maybe this is all part of the plan ...

[doc_bean]

I fail to see where any legitimate excuse would be necessary. Going by this article, that'd be like me having to provide a "legitimate excuse" for having blue eyes...

Why do people even bother discussing this with Navaros ? :dizzy2:

[Watchman]

I'm bored and have nothing better to do than poke at him. So sue me. :balloon2:

[Kralizec]

It would make more sense to put such a restriction on females then wouldn't it?
Besides, there is overpopulation control in nature. 1) natural predators 2) if 1 is absent, epidemics

Scarcity means that there will inevitably only be enough to sustain X number of specimens, individually it would make more sense for you to breed harder to take up as many places as you can (and thus ensure your genetic survival)

[Big_John]

Actually, that quote about "genetically determined" seems to be more and more off the mark. Looks as though gayness may be hormonally determined, and at the fetal stage.there are external factors that control the production of hormones too, but genetics certainly plays a large role in hormonal expression.


As your theory that chemicals and pollutants may be causal, Nav, that would do little to explain pre-industrial examples of homosexuality.while navaros' "theory" is quite.. queer*.. there are natural 'pollutants'. plant-based poisons have been used as medicines/drugs/etc since forever. and heavy metals have been a problem since mining developed (e.g. lead poisoning in ancient rome). just fyi.






*cheeky, aren't i?

[Aenlic]

I have some concerns about the study itself. Anthony Bogaert is a psychologist and professor of community health sciences. He did a statistical study and then made pronouncements about genetics and cellular biology. I find that rather odd. He is neither a geneticist nor a cellular biologist. Statements like:


A woman's body may see a male foetus as "foreign", he says, prompting an immune reaction which may grow progressively stronger with each male child.

The antibodies created may affect the developing male brain.

We are extremely far from even beginning to understand the processes involved between mother and foetus and the immuno-response. Transposons, retrotranposons, the proteome, viral fragments, introns and more all play a very poorly understand part at the placental barrier. And yet, here's a psychologist making pronouncements about the genetic and cellular biology involved? I don't think so.

Worse yet, Bogaert has a history of pushing this view. He's associated with the Clarke Institute in Canada, which has a rather sordid reputation.

I say take it with a huge grain of salt, and let the real scientists weigh in on the matter before accepting it as anything even approaching valid.

[Big_John]

He is neither a geneticist nor a cellular biologist. Statements like:aenlic, he did use the modifier "may". calm down eh? ~;)

but you're right, all of this study should be taken with a grain of salt. i imagine that's true with many socio-biology studies..

[BDC]

aenlic, he did use the modifier "may". calm down eh? ~;)

but you're right, all of this study should be taken with a grain of salt. i imagine that's true with many socio-biology studies..
Pretty much all socio-biological studies. Most are based on a flimsy explanation for vague trends in a sample which is clearly too small/specific to be applied over an entire population. It's amazing what you can do with statistics too.

[littlelostboy]

Does fraternal twins count?

[Watchman]

I always get a sort of itchy feeling when people start reverting to biology (or, for that matter, economy; of the "hard" sciences these seem the ones mainly involved) to explain social, cultural and psychological things.
I think one of my textbooks had an expression for it.
...
:idea2:
Oh yeah. "The mortal sin of reductionism".

[littlelostboy]

I always get a sort of itchy feeling when people start reverting to biology (or, for that matter, economy; of the "hard" sciences these seem the ones mainly involved) to explain social, cultural and psychological things.
I think one of my textbooks had an expression for it.
...
:idea2:
Oh yeah. "The mortal sin of reductionism".

Nice quote. And you're right, people need some tangible proof in front of their eyes.

[Big_John]

why are people afraid of reductionism? it's a key to knowledge.

[Lemur]

I always get a sort of itchy feeling when people start reverting to biology (or, for that matter, economy; of the "hard" sciences these seem the ones mainly involved) to explain social, cultural and psychological things.
Well, something causes gayness. I utterly reject the argument that people make a choice to be gay -- that's beyond absurd. I didn't make a choice to be straight, and neither did you. I knew that I liked girls in a special way somewhere around six years old.

I don't see why it's wrong to look to biology and/or evolution for an explanation for gayness. It serves some sort of purpose, or it wouldn't exist.

And if you hate economic examinations of real-world behavior, you're really going to hate Freakonomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics). Fun book.

[Byzantine Prince]

It's not correct to bring evolution into this. A lot of traits exist despite being meaningless. Although homosexuality could possibly hinder someone's chances of reproduction, natural selection has not proven enough for its dissapearance as a trait. Perhaps it is because, like the article says, it is not genetic, but rather a periodical* malfunction of the womb that causes it, and it would explain why it still exists.

*EDIT.

[Aenlic]

I don't see why it's wrong to look to biology and/or evolution for an explanation for gayness. It serves some sort of purpose, or it wouldn't exist.

For my part, Lemur, I'm not saying that there isn't a biological component. In all likelihood, there is. My personal opinion is that it's a mix of both nature and nurture. My beef is with psychologists and social scientists using statistical studies of psychology and social environment and then making claims about biology and genetics. As far as I can determine, that's exactly what this study did. They took a statistical study of the number of brothers, natural and adopted, and then made conclusions about something happening in the womb, with reference to the immuno-response of the mother? That's insane. What about the social environment of having various numbers of brothers? I seriously doubt that this so-called study had any kind of peer review.

[doc_bean]

I seriously doubt that this so-called study had any kind of peer review.

While I agree with the rest of your statement, I think you're overestimating the importance/quality of peer review these days :shame:

[Lemur]

Although homosexuality could possibly hinder someone's chances of reproduction, natural selection has not proven enough for its dissapearance as a trait.
Actually, I'm coming at this from the opposite angle. Maybe a limited homosexual population confers an advantage on a group, which would explain why the trait has survived all of these thousands of years.

Heroic sacrifice doesn't improve your breeding chances, so why do we still turn up heros? Because heroic sacrifice can improve your group's chances, which can be just as important from a natural selection point of view. Maybe homosexuality serves much the same function. If you have a free male within your group who is not making babies, you've got a mighty fine free source of labor. And the more sons you have, the more an extra laborer might be useful.

I know this is a crackpot theory, but at least let me know you're understanding it before you tell me I'm nuts.

[doc_bean]

I know this is a crackpot theory, but at least let me know you're understanding it before you tell me I'm nuts.

It really isn't, a lot of human traits can't be explained by simply thinking of selection (in evolution) only happens at the individual level.

For instance, why do people get so old if they stop breeding at age 40 or so (women at least, men have a harder time getting children when they're older too) ? People can live to be 70 or more, even before modern medicine this was true. But if you look at group dynamics, an older, wiser, more experienced person might bring a significant advantage to a group. After all, in most 'primitive' cultures, old people are revered.

Of course, this is pure speculation, and not science.

[Big_John]

It really isn't, a lot of human traits can't be explained by simply thinking of selection (in evolution) only happens at the individual level.

For instance, why do people get so old if they stop breeding at age 40 or so (women at least, men have a harder time getting children when they're older too) ? People can live to be 70 or more, even before modern medicine this was true. But if you look at group dynamics, an older, wiser, more experienced person might bring a significant advantage to a group. After all, in most 'primitive' cultures, old people are revered.

Of course, this is pure speculation, and not science.while inclusive fitness does explain certain aspects of human behavior, there are some things which simply are not controlled by selective pressure. i.e., a certain condition of an organism may simply be a side effect of its design, and may not be important at all in determining natural selection. humans living well beyond they're reproductive capacity may be one of these aspects. but the inclusive fitness idea (that having old people around to help raise children and possibly contribute 'wisdom' = better for the population) is more accepted than the 'left-over' idea, in this case, afaik.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

If you have a free [gay] male within your group who is not making babies, you've got a mighty fine free source of labor.

Lemur supports the enslavement of gays!!?!111 :oops:






~;p

[Byzantine Prince]

For instance, why do people get so old if they stop breeding at age 40 or so (women at least, men have a harder time getting children when they're older too) ? People can live to be 70 or more, even before modern medicine this was true. But if you look at group dynamics, an older, wiser, more experienced person might bring a significant advantage to a group. After all, in most 'primitive' cultures, old people are revered.

Of course, this is pure speculation, and not science.
Senescence is directly related to the predatorial history of our species.



Heroic sacrifice doesn't improve your breeding chances, so why do we still turn up heros?
Being a hero is a trait? :P


If you have a free male within your group who is not making babies
Making babies is not that time consuming. Raising children is not something straight males are genetically forced to do either. :P


And the more sons you have, the more an extra laborer might be useful.
You do realize there are female gays as well?

But yeah, that is a crackpot theory Lemur.

[Lemur]

But yeah, that is a crackpot theory Lemur.
Thanks, man. I try to think of something weird and useless at least once a day. Glad to see I'm meeting my quota.

[A.Saturnus]

I don't know A.Saturnus, you would fist have to prove that manliness is pre-determined. A study I read says there's a 99.999% chance that XY chromosome fetuses will turn out male, but that's just a (albeit interesting) correlation.

As it stands having a penis is a lifestyle choice.

I have a strong feeling that you misunderstood me. As it stands, this has no relation to what I was saying.


We are extremely far from even beginning to understand the processes involved between mother and foetus and the immuno-response. Transposons, retrotranposons, the proteome, viral fragments, introns and more all play a very poorly understand part at the placental barrier. And yet, here's a psychologist making pronouncements about the genetic and cellular biology involved? I don't think so.

I think he proposed a hypothesis. And why exactly shouldn't a psychologist make pronouncements about the genetic and cellular biology of pregnancy? It's not as if psychologists wouldn't have to do with cellular biology on a day to day basis.


What about the social environment of having various numbers of brothers?

Hence the control with adopted brothers.


I seriously doubt that this so-called study had any kind of peer review.

It was published in PNAS. BTW, did you read this "so-called" study?


I know this is a crackpot theory, but at least let me know you're understanding it before you tell me I'm nuts.

I think I understand it and yes, it's a crackpot theory ;)
Groups are not the element of natural selection. Individuals are also not the element of natural selection. Genes are the element of natural selection. An adaptation must be explained in terms of advantages of genes, otherwise it is not explained by the theory of evolution.

[Lemur]

Groups are not the element of natural selection. Individuals are also not the element of natural selection. Genes are the element of natural selection. An adaptation must be explained in terms of advantages of genes, otherwise it is not explained by the theory of evolution.
Um, I think you're taking a truth and applying it a bit narrowly. Yes, of course genes are the medium for natural selection. Excluding group and individual dynamics from the game is unrealistic.

The genes give rise to the idividual, and the individual's performance leads to success or failure to pass on the genome. How is that separable from an evolutionary point of view? Genes don't compete in a chemical boxing ring, after all. It's their resultant organisms which compete.

Likewise, how do you rationally exclude groups from natural selection? Social animals use their social structures to their advantage, hence they are more likely to succeed at passing their genes to another generation. The genes of a lone bee won't do so well, nor will the genes of a singleton ant.

Humans are social animals. Our group dynamics make us successful in every sense of the word. Anything that has an effect on those dynamics will be subject to natural selection. As a single example, look at the early success of humans who could get along with animals. Hunters who tamed wolves probably did better than hunter who could not, so the "animal empathy" gene was more successful. Looked at from this perspective, dogs had as much effect on our evolution as we did on dogs.

So even if my idea is a complete lunatic crackpot fringe theory, I think your exclusion of individual and social dynamics from evolution is unreflected in reality.

You don't think heroism (i.e. bravery and self-sacrifice) are traits? Talk to anybody who breeds dogs. You can breed for bravery, and if necessary you can breed it out. Plenty of our personality traits are rooted in genetics. Not all, certainly, but more than you suspect.

Crackpot theorist, signing off.

[A.Saturnus]

I wouldn't say narrow, only precise. I'm not denying group effects. Yes, bees are a good example. A bee does sacrifice itself for the hive, but the explanation that this brings an advantage to the hive is at best incomplete. The flaw of your theory is that it contrasts group advantage with individual advantage, both being irrelevant for natural selection. The bee sacrifices itself because saving itself would not help its genes.
The bee isn't capable of sexual reproduction, but even if it were, it would be maladaptive if it did. A bee is closer related to the other bees of the hive than it would to its own potential children! A bee sacrifices itself for only one reason: it increases the chance of the survival of the majority of its genes.

The same stringence must be applied to homosexuality. If homosexuality is adaptive, then it must increase chances for the genes. It has been hypothised that after several male children, then need to further offspring generating males diminishes. If only one of the heterosexual male children survives, he can create unlimited offspring. Therefore male children further down the birth order may better have more female traits like caring and socializing, without having children of his own because that may help to increase the chances of the offspring of the older males.
Having a homosexual child may indeed be beneficial because of social effects, but the interest is that of genes, not the group.

[Aenlic]

I think he proposed a hypothesis. And why exactly shouldn't a psychologist make pronouncements about the genetic and cellular biology of pregnancy? It's not as if psychologists wouldn't have to do with cellular biology on a day to day basis.

Cellular biologists aren't yet prepared to make conclusions about what happens at the placental barrier and yet a psychologist is? If he had said that the study shows that something other than environment was a factor perhaps in the womb, and then encouraged cellular biologists to study it, then I wouldn't have such a problem with it.


Hence the control with adopted brothers.

Not sufficient. Where's the study at various ages? Where's the study of mixed male and female siblings? Where's the study of single males with all female siblings? There isn't one.


It was published in PNAS. BTW, did you read this "so-called" study?

Yep. The full article is available on the PNAS website. It's in the current issue. I even went back and found his previous attempts at making the same sweeping generalizations, going back several years, in other venues.

For the sake of the discussion, I'm going to assume that you know how peer review works. The article for the Proceedings would have been reviewed, if it was reviewed by a peer review panel at all, since it was a statistical social sciences study, by other social scientists such as other psychologists and perhaps other types of social scientists and perhaps even a statistician or two. But it wouldn't have been reviewed by any cellular biologists, geneticists, etc. And yet, the conclusions are clearly in that realm. I perhaps should have written my statement as "I doubt this so-called study received any peer review from the appropriate disciplines."

Sadly, I think doc_bean nailed it when he suggested that the quality of peer review is sadly lacking these days.

Again, I'm not suggesting that he's wrong. I think it might even be helpful that the study was done. I just take exception to the conclusions jumping well beyond his professional expertise, and I find the study itself to be limited in scope.

Edit: doing a little digging, I find that the article was reviewed and edited by only one person. Dr. Dale Purves who runs the cognitive neuroscience lab at Duke University. So I was right. It wasn't reviewed by biologists, geneticists, microbiologists or any other biologists.

[Lemur]

The same stringence must be applied to homosexuality. If homosexuality is adaptive, then it must increase chances for the genes. It has been hypothised that after several male children, then need to further offspring generating males diminishes. If only one of the heterosexual male children survives, he can create unlimited offspring. Therefore male children further down the birth order may better have more female traits like caring and socializing, without having children of his own because that may help to increase the chances of the offspring of the older males.
Having a homosexual child may indeed be beneficial because of social effects, but the interest is that of genes, not the group.
I understand your argument, but I think you're missing a key point -- behavior which encourages group survival while also encouraging survival of those who are genetically close to you can be a genetically beneficial strategy. In other words, if I sacrifice myself to save my brother and his wife, I am not being genetically stupid. My brother's genes are very similar to my own, so my sacrifice has helped propogate 99.999% of my genes.

Let's leave off the bees and ants, since the workers are asexual. Look at the group dynamics of wolves, or better yet (since they're cute) meerkats. Only the alpha pair are allowed to breed. Any other pups get killed. So why do the daughters and sons of the alphas stay in the pack? What advantage is there for them individually? From your perspective, none. From my perspective, plenty.

Respect the herd ...


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/meerkat.gif

[Aenlic]

Look at the group dynamics of wolves, or better yet (since they're cute) meerkats. Only the alpha pair are allowed to breed. Any other pups get killed. So why do the daughters and sons of the alphas stay in the pack? What advantage is there for them individually? From your perspective, none. From my perspective, plenty.

Just as an aside. The alpha female doesn't always kill the pups of other females, as I recently discovered while watching the oddly addictive and highly entertaining "Meerkat Manor" on the Animal Planet cable channel.

[IrishArmenian]

I am the 9th man in my family, but I am not any different than the rest of my brothers in sexual orientation. Maybe the 6 girls spread out helped that. That is interesting, I had leanred that it was biolojical, but I did not know how.

[doc_bean]

I am the 9th man in my family, but I am not any different than the rest of my brothers in sexual orientation. Maybe the 6 girls spread out helped that. That is interesting, I had leanred that it was biolojical, but I did not know how.

:dizzy2:

15 kids ????

damn...

[therother]

Cellular biologists aren't yet prepared to make conclusions about what happens at the placental barrier and yet a psychologist is? If he had said that the study shows that something other than environment was a factor perhaps in the womb, and then encouraged cellular biologists to study it, then I wouldn't have such a problem with it.Reading the paper, I don't see him coming to any firm conclusions about issues of cellular biology based entirely on his study, which appears to be a refinement of previous work rather than a new observation. I'm neither a cellular biologist nor a psychologist, so perhaps I'm missing it?


Not sufficient. Where's the study at various ages? Where's the study of mixed male and female siblings? Where's the study of single males with all female siblings? There isn't one.I'm not sure I follow you here. This is the summary of his results:

https://img169.imageshack.us/img169/3716/graph7cd.th.png (https://img169.imageshack.us/my.php?image=graph7cd.png)


Edit: doing a little digging, I find that the article was reviewed and edited by only one person. Dr. Dale Purves who runs the cognitive neuroscience lab at Duke University. So I was right. It wasn't reviewed by biologists, geneticists, microbiologists or any other biologists.I think you are misunderstanding how PNAS peer review papers. When a paper is submitted Track II (http://www.pnas.org/misc/iforc.shtml#submission) (i.e. submitted directly to the journal rather than communicated by an Academy member), it will be designated an editor at PNAS. Dale Purves is an editor for Psychology (http://www.pnas.org/misc/masthead.shtml) papers. If the editor accepts the paper is worthy of review (oftentimes after chatting with his colleagues), he'll send it out to at least 2 referees that he deems are both competent and independent of the paper's author. These may well have been in the field of psychology, but it's also possible that the view of a cellular biologist was sought as well. Identities of reviewers are generally not made public, not even to the author of the paper.

In any case, I'd have some questions about his choice of samples, its size, and potential biases. It also strikes me that there's an argument that number of biological sisters seems to have an affect, albeit not as clear cut as biological older brothers. There are also a number of fluctuations in the second figure which aren't explained in the text. One would expect, if it's just the number of biological older brothers that's the key, that these would all be at or around 0, which is not the case. Whether these features are artefacts due to small sample sizes or not is hard to say without access to the raw data, but it does lead me to question the results.

[Aenlic]

I think you are misunderstanding how PNAS peer review papers. When a paper is submitted Track II (http://www.pnas.org/misc/iforc.shtml#submission) (i.e. submitted directly to the journal rather than communicated by an Academy member), it will be designated an editor at PNAS. Dale Purves is an editor for Psychology (http://www.pnas.org/misc/masthead.shtml) papers. If the editor accepts the paper is worthy of review (oftentimes after chatting with his colleagues), he'll send it out to at least 2 referees that he deems are both competent and independent of the paper's author. These may well have been in the field of psychology, but it's also possible that the view of a cellular biologist was sought as well. Identities of reviewers are generally not made public, not even to the author of the paper.

You are correct. But that isn't the point. The editor is a psychologist. The author is a psychologist. But since it wasn't a psychology paper at all, considering the conclusions reached; it shouldn't have been reviewed by that department. The essence of the study was that homosexuality isn't based solely on psychology (although, a case can be made that it really concludes that homosexuality has no psychological basis at all). But the author didn't manage to stop himself there. He instead went on to suggest the possibility a specific biological cause - an immuno-response by the mother at the placental barrier due to having more than one male child. He's a psychologist. He's not an immunologist. He has no basis for making such suggestions in a scholarly article. He overstepped his area of expertise; and the paper was reviewed by an editor whose field of expertise is also psychology - specifically cognition. We can't know if the two reviewers chosen by the editor had any expertise in the area at all. Considering the area of expertise of the editor and the section in which the paper was published, I doubt very much that any biologist, immunologist, geneticist or anyone in a discipline even related to them was included in the review. That's just my take on it. I think the review was faulty from that standpoint.

But the main issue for me is, and will remain, that a psychologist shouldn't be drawing conclusions that have a biological basis, especially in one of the most poorly understood areas of biology - cellular interactions. It allows the media (entirely uneducated) and the public (somehow even less educated than the media) to draw conclusions which aren't supported by the data. That's not a good thing. It leads to things like creationism and intelligent design gaining credence. Psychlogists reviewing the work of other psychologists who make statements outside their area of expertise isn't peer review, it's peer lack of review.

If you show me the work of cellular biologists or immunologists or geneticists even on the subject of whether or not homosexuality is due to immuno-response at the cellular level of the placental barrier caused by the interaction of maternal female and male fetus, then I'll quite gladly withdraw my objections - regardless of the findings.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Just a wacky thought -- might this not be an overpopulation control built in by evolution? In other words, if a woman is having ten babies, wouldn't there be a survival advantage to her group and/or tribe by having the later ones be unlikely to breed, but rather contribute to the group without taking resources for their own babies?

Maybe this is all part of the plan ...
It would allow genetical variety by preventing a single couple or at the very least a single woman from next generation dominating the reproduction too much. So it could be part of the plan. As for drones, logically drones would be less common or non-existent among animals with limited reproduction rate. A protection mechanism to allow for genetical variety however seems very likely IMO. Under any circumstance a drone if existing wouldn't hurt the herd. So as before this study there has never been and never will be any rationale for oppression of homosexuals. However that doesn't mean there's any rationale for allowing homosexual couples to do adoption or get children through insemination. As predicted by most people, we've now had our first official case of a homosexual couple adopting a boy and raping him over and over again every day until authorities found out about it. We should accept homosexuals but not allow them to hurt people who don't like their lifestyle. Doing so will only cause a period of homosexuals molesting heterosexuals for a few decades followed by an inevitable genocide of homosexuals when the heterosexuals have had enough. Neither of those alternatives are desireable and as it is you can have both or none of them, but not just one of them.

Acceptance of homosexuals is a good thing, but letting homosexuals adopt children and molest them is a form of extremism that we shouldn't allow in a modern enlightened society.

[Lemur]

As predicted by most people, we've now had our first official case of a homosexual couple adopting a boy and raping him over and over again every day until authorities found out about it
I'm Googling the news sources, coming up with nothing. Could you provide a link, please?

Also, best to distinguish homosexuality from pedophilia.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I'm Googling the news sources, coming up with nothing. Could you provide a link, please?

Also, best to distinguish homosexuality from pedophilia.

Check BBC news. If you can't find it then it's the pc extremists who have removed it. Also it seems like distinguishing homosexuality from pedophilia is a problem more common among homosexuals. Most historical occurences of homosexuality seem to have eventually resulted in pedophilia. We must draw a line and not accept pedophilia while also not tolerating oppression towards homosexuals who don't molest children.

[Lemur]

Please, please, please provide a link. I have searched already, and I'm doing my level best to take your arguments seriously. If you're going to make assertions, the obligation is on you to provide some supporting evidence.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Please, please, please provide a link. I have searched already, and I'm doing my level best to take your arguments seriously. If you're going to make assertions, the obligation is on you to provide some supporting evidence.
Sorry I've wasted enough time searching for this link already. If you watched BBC news last week on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday 21st, 22nd or 23rd of June 2006 I think you probably heard the story. If you can link me to a BBC news archive I'd find it. Also, it's quite embarrassing to have the ISP log that I've searched for "gay+rape+child" with google.

[doc_bean]

Sorry I've wasted enough time searching for this link already. If you watched BBC news last week on Wednesday or Thursday I think you probably heard the story. If you can link me to a BBC news archive I'd find it.

It's not on Fox (where you'd expect such a thing), not on the bbc site and nothing to be found googling...

Sounds made up to me, or possibly a case of bad reporting.

[Watchman]

And some pretty damn tendentious interpretation on Legio's part, I might add.
:rtwno:
Lions.

I vote we don't pursue that sidetrack further.

[Kralizec]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/5109518.stm


"You saw him as the ideal victim. You are presented as a couple but this is not about homosexuality, it is about abuse of trust."

As the judge says it has nothing to do with homosexuals- but with child molesters who pose as such. It just shows that more careful screening is necessary for adoption applicants.


Most historical occurences of homosexuality seem to have eventually resulted in pedophilia.

I'd like to see if there's some extensive and non-biased research pointing in that direction- not just anecdotical information.
I have a strong hunch you're thinking of Greek pederasty- totally different thing. Puberty was considered the normal age of having sex (and is actually biologically natural, as Lemur pointed out) and most girls were wed out between ages 11-14.

[whyidie]

This is old news folks.

From here (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32461)


Gay Gene Isolated, Ostracized

April 9, 1997 | Issue 31•13

BALTIMORE—On Monday, scientists at Johns Hopkins University isolated the gene which causes homosexuality in human males, promptly segregating it from normal, heterosexual genes. "I had suspected that gene was queer for a long time now. There was just something not quite right about it," said team leader Dr. Norbert Reynolds. "It's a good thing we isolated it; I wouldn't want that faggot-ass gene messing with the straight ones." Among the factors Reynolds cited as evidence of the gene's gayness: its pinkish hue; meticulously frilly perimeter; and faint but distinct, perfume-like odor.

[Aenlic]

I love The Onion. I'd use it as my main source of news; but the way things have been going for the last 6 years in the USA, The Onion is often actually behind the Bush administration in sheer outrageous absurdity. It's often much more jaw-droppingly amusing to just watch the non-satirical "real" media reporting on actual statement made from inside the Bush administration.

[Watchman]

"The last bomb raid on Hamburg was so fierce there was still raining glass on the streets the next day!"
"Oh, that's nothing. The last raid on Berlin was such that Führer's pictures were raining on the streets the next week."
- wartime German jokes

"Have you heard ? The Fidzi Islands have now embraced Socialism."
"That cannot be, a disaster of that magnitude cannot befall such a small country..."
- Soviet jokes

[Rodion Romanovich]

As the judge says it has nothing to do with homosexuals- but with child molesters who pose as such. It just shows that more careful screening is necessary for adoption applicants.

Similarly being against homosexuals adopting hasn't anything to do with their sexuality. It's about the family that should contain a female and a male. The child needs to grow up with contact with both. For the same reasons single males and single women aren't considered good for adopting. Making it a gay rights matter is IMO extremistic political correctness. Plus if you start exaggerating political correctness with such misconceptions the step towards accepting other things is also short. Also bear in mind that these people who apparently weren't gay (but still liked boys rather than girls?) couldn't have adopted the child if homosexual adoption hadn't been allowed.



I'd like to see if there's some extensive and non-biased research pointing in that direction- not just anecdotical information.
I have a strong hunch you're thinking of Greek pederasty- totally different thing. Puberty was considered the normal age of having sex (and is actually biologically natural, as Lemur pointed out) and most girls were wed out between ages 11-14.
All historical societies that embraced homosexuality eventually seem to have accepted pedophilia too after a while. If our society today starts adopting laws that makes it possible for two male pedophiliacs to adopt a child and molest it then this society too is stepping towards accepting pedophilia (and this point was pretty much proven when the participants in the discussion in the other thread started to question the age of consent law and took steps towards embracing pedophilia using the same flawed logic that made homosexuals adopting a gay rights question, which it isn't). I think today's society too is making the dangerous steps towards accepting pedophilia. A line must be drawn and no acceptance whatsoever must be shown to pedophilia. Being against homosexual couples adopting children is not being against gay rights, it's being against child molestors pretending to be non-pedophiliac gays adopting children and molesting them. It's a matter of protecting both innocent children and innocent homosexuals who haven't got pedophilia tendencies.

[Watchman]

It's about the family that should contain a female and a male. The child needs to grow up with contact with both. For the same reasons single males and single women aren't considered good for adopting.Might I point out that, as one wit put it, quite a few children manage to grow up into about functioning and sane individuals despite having a father rather than thanks to him ?

I cite myself as an example. Mom managed to kick Dad out of the house well over a decade ago, and I still haven't managed to entirely debug my head from the damage he did.

Bloody reactionary nuclear-family cultists.

...and would you believe there's so much wrong with the rest of your post - starting with some quite dubious and questionable presumptions that seem to employ some suspicious deductive leaps and associations - I genuinely don't know where to begin...?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Might I point out that, as one wit put it, quite a few children manage to grow up into about functioning and sane individuals despite having a father rather than thanks to him ?

I cite myself as an example. Mom managed to kick Dad out of the house well over a decade ago, and I still haven't managed to entirely debug my head from the damage he did.

Bloody reactionary nuclear-family cultists.


let me see if I got this straight - you hate your father much and think he hurt you a lot until he was kicked out, so you want some children to have two fathers??!!! :dizzy2: The nuclear family works well if people choose their partners well and neither is into drugs or mentally ill. Crime, suicide and misery is more common in families with divorced parents according to many studies. It's a responsibility you have as a parent that you choose a partner who would make a good father/mother and that you know you can be together with for the rest of your life when you are to get children.



...and would you believe there's so much wrong with the rest of your post - starting with some quite dubious and questionable presumptions that seem to employ some suspicious deductive leaps and associations - I genuinely don't know where to begin...?
Why not begin at the top if there's so much to choose from you could at least give an example?

[Watchman]

let me see if I got this straight - you hate your father much and think he hurt you a lot until he was kicked out, so you want some children to have two fathers??!!! :dizzy2: The nuclear family works well if people choose their partners well and neither is into drugs or mentally ill. Crime, suicide and misery is more common in families with divorced parents according to many studies. It's a responsibility you have as a parent that you choose a partner who would make a good father/mother and that you know you can be together with for the rest of your life when you are to get children.Oh, these days I just kind of detest him and have slight difficulties being wholly polite to him. He makes a reasonably useful source of money though, and I don't even need to feel one bit bad about it since he never ever paid any of those whatchamacallit payments to help Mom support us he was supposed to in the first place.
Some people.

Besides, it ought to really tell something that where divorce is an option - de facto and de jure - it also gets done. A lot. And when it first becomes a viable option the rates go through the roof when couples that no longer have any reason to stay together make use of it. So much for the workability of the nuclear family.

Anyway, in the case you missed it my main point was the Good Old Nuclear Family isn't exactly the quarantee of happiness and joy you seem to think it is. Since hetero pairs (and to a lesser degree single parents) have for a long time had a monopoly on screwing up their kids, I don't really see why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to try. Chances are they're not going, and won't be able, to do any worse anyway.

Besides, since homosexuals may also have children from other instances - for example made the old-fashioned way for one reason or another - anyway the point is a bit moot. Heck, even if you deny same-sex couples the right to a legally binding marriage or something comparable there isn't much you can do about them cohabitating simply without such ceremonials either, and as mentioned it is wholly withing the realm of possibility one or both of them may already have kids... All of which makes your whining about gay couples' adoption rights seem a little odd, and gives me the sneaking suspicion if possible you would actually want to ban them to right to have and/or raise children, however aquired, in general.


Why not begin at the top if there's so much to choose from you could at least give an example?
Well, for starters you seem curiosuly fixated on supposedly or allegedly homosexual pedophiles and largely ignoring the little detail there's absolutely no quarantee heterosexuals - single or couples - who adopt children might not horribly mistreat them and/or fall guilty of outright incest, or for that matter might fall guilty of any of that with their own biological children. Which, for that matter, was the reality of such cases back when homosexuality was still criminalized.

Then there's the whole "but think of the children1!!!1!!!1" attitude in the first place. Because you know something ? That's what narrow-minded, prejudiced reactionaries pretty much without fail dig up as a blunt instrument against their little hates. It doesn't matter if it's Elvis, women's suffrage or Pokemon, sure as the sun rises some twerp will crawl out of the woodwork and throw the "for the sake of the kids" argument for it. And curiously enough, in hindsight that always tends to be found out to have been blatant alarmism.

Then there's the persistent, blatantly biased and clearly tendentious habit of associating homosexuality with pedophilia. Which just plain stinks of an attempt at associating your pet hate with something sufficiently reprehensible. Kind of the way back in the Middle Ages and later people couldn't settle for just hating Jews, they had to come up with all the kooky stories about sacrificing children and whatever to justify it and goad themselves into even greater heights of, ah, righteous fury.

To boot your dodgy historical references lack both merit and information base. Do you even realize marriage was quite often done in a way that these days would be considered little sort of institutionalized pedophilia ? It might well be norm for girls in their early teens, or even younger, to be married to men over thirty or so; this was the practice in Early-High Medieval Northern Italian city-states for example. It wasn't exactly uncommon either for even very young girls (and sometimes boys too) to be raped by pretty certifiably heterosexual soldiers when cities were being sacked and countryside ravaged, for that matter.

But no, you keep claiming links to homosexuality. :dizzy2:

[Ianofsmeg16]

Thats strange, I always thought Gayness was linked to fancying men?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Besides, it ought to really tell something that where divorce is an option - de facto and de jure - it also gets done. A lot.

Maybe because people don't think marriage is a big deal anymore. Divorce must always be an option (and guess what even in a country considered backwards such as Iran divorce is allowed), but it shouldn't be abused. Same as with abortion, just because you can have an abortion it doesn't mean you should be too lazy to put on the condom.



Anyway, in the case you missed it my main point was the Good Old Nuclear Family isn't exactly the quarantee of happiness and joy you seem to think it is.

When did I claim that?



Besides, since homosexuals may also have children from other instances - for example made the old-fashioned way for one reason or another - anyway the point is a bit moot.

If they have children from before they have enough to worry about and don't need to make any adoptions. That they have children may prove them to be fairly decent for making an adoption, but they should put their own children first to give them a good upbringing.



Heck, even if you deny same-sex couples the right to a legally binding marriage or something comparable there isn't much you can do about them cohabitating simply without such ceremonials either, and as mentioned it is wholly withing the realm of possibility one or both of them may already have kids...

Another red herring I see. I'm not against gay couples marrying, because it doesn't hurt anyone.



Then there's the whole "but think of the children1!!!1!!!1" attitude in the first place. Because you know something ? That's what narrow-minded, prejudiced reactionaries pretty much without fail dig up as a blunt instrument against their little hates.

So you think a little defenceless kid who didn't choose to be born into this world has less rights than an adult who has had plenty of time to think about his/her responsibilities? What's next? Persecuting weak because they're weak? Persecute those who can't defend themselves because they annoy you? Our children are our future. We must do anything it takes to protect them from molesting, drunk parents and abuse. Interestingly enough, Hitler happened to be a molested, abused child. Most child molestors turn out to have been molested during their childhood. I think it says quite a lot about what responsibility handing out of adoption rights, and giving birth to a child and parenthood are.



Then there's the persistent, blatantly biased and clearly tendentious habit of associating homosexuality with pedophilia.

On the contrary I'm trying to separate the two. By allowing gay couples to adopt children, child molestors can easily pretend to be gay couples to get to adopt a child. Since female child molestors are a lot less common than male child molestors, allowing gay couples adopting is something that can increase the amount of adoption+molestion cases.



Which just plain stinks of an attempt at associating your pet hate with something sufficiently reprehensible. Kind of the way back in the Middle Ages and later people couldn't settle for just hating Jews, they had to come up with all the kooky stories about sacrificing children and whatever to justify it and goad themselves into even greater heights of, ah, righteous fury.

You're putting hatred and words into my mouth. I never expressed any hatred for homosexuals. On the contrary I'm speaking in favor of their rights to not be associated with pedophiliacs. By allowing gay couples to adopt children with the result that child molestors pretend to be gay couples and molest children, the hatred of society becomes directed towards innocent homosexuals and pedophilia and homosexuality is confused, with two possible results - either that a society eager to preserve gay rights chooses to accept pedophilia and child molestors, or a society hateful towards child molestors chooses to persecute innocent homosexuals too.

Next time before respond so angrily you could perhaps take some time reading what I actually said rather than putting words into my mouth. Homosexuals adopting children is not a gay rights question, it's about giving the child molestors a loophole to get hold of victims more easily. To disallow homosexuals adopting children is not oppression based on sexuality, it's a choice based on the safety of our children and preserving a good rumor for homosexuals to avoid their persecution. Biologically nobody has a right to adopt someone else's children, it's something that must be earned and have a good reason and lack such obvious dangers as the current case of child molestors pretending to be non-pedophilic homosexuals.

[A.Saturnus]

I'm not going to respond to the utter BS Legio utters here (never thought I'd hear such nonsense from him) because

1)it makes me sick
2)adoption is not the issue of this thread. This thread is about the possible causes of homosexuality, not ethical questions.



But the main issue for me is, and will remain, that a psychologist shouldn't be drawing conclusions that have a biological basis...

Well, I'm a psychologist and the last paper I wrote came to the conclusion that genetic ablation of the metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 7 in mice leads to anxiolysis but not to severe memory deficits. As this has obviously a biological basis, did I overstep my area of expertise? Should I have left that to "real scientists"?
Fortunately, critique on the basis of not having the right degree is rare among natural scientists. Whether you're a biologist, a psychologist or a bus driver, you're free to suggest explanations for whatever phenomenon you like. What matters is the force of the arguments, not the academic degree.

[A.Saturnus]

I understand your argument, but I think you're missing a key point -- behavior which encourages group survival while also encouraging survival of those who are genetically close to you can be a genetically beneficial strategy. In other words, if I sacrifice myself to save my brother and his wife, I am not being genetically stupid. My brother's genes are very similar to my own, so my sacrifice has helped propogate 99.999% of my genes.

Let's leave off the bees and ants, since the workers are asexual. Look at the group dynamics of wolves, or better yet (since they're cute) meerkats. Only the alpha pair are allowed to breed. Any other pups get killed. So why do the daughters and sons of the alphas stay in the pack? What advantage is there for them individually? From your perspective, none. From my perspective, plenty.

Respect the herd ...

[/CENTER]

No, I don't think you understand my argument. The advantage for the individual wolf from my perspective is that running in a pack is essential for their survival. The non-alpha in the pack has following options:
staying in the pack -> no mate, possible survival
leaving the pack -> no mate, death garanteed

Of course it's an adaptive strategy to stay in the pack and hope to get a chance to procreate. If they get a chance to replace the alpha male, they'll do it. If they have the opportunity to mate, they'll do it. Genes are egoistical and anything apart from their own existence is means to increase their chance of survival.

[Aenlic]

Well, I'm a psychologist and the last paper I wrote came to the conclusion that genetic ablation of the metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 7 in mice leads to anxiolysis but not to severe memory deficits. As this has obviously a biological basis, did I overstep my area of expertise? Should I have left that to "real scientists"?
Fortunately, critique on the basis of not having the right degree is rare among natural scientists. Whether you're a biologist, a psychologist or a bus driver, you're free to suggest explanations for whatever phenomenon you like. What matters is the force of the arguments, not the academic degree.

I think you're missunderstanding my position, A. Saturnus. Adn I think we're hitting a definition wall, as well. Sounds to me like you have training in biology, specifically neurology perhaps? You're just a psychologist, not a psychiatrist, with no other training? Not a neuropathologist or neuropsychiatrist? Just a psychologist? No other authors on the study, either?

In the U.S. there is a very clear distinction between a psychologist and a psychiatrist. The latter requires a medical degree, here. Psychologists on the other hand, can often practice with just a 2 year associate degree.

Bogaert, who published the study in question in this thread, is a psychologist. He was the sole author, and researcher of the study.

And last, but not least, he made vague assertions about the immuno-response of mother to male fetus. He didn't make a specific biological finding, which might have shown he wasn't just making unsupported connections between a statistical study and exact biological activity, such as defects in group III mGluRs. His assertions were a vague connection between his study and specific processes, not a study of those processes themselves and what they might cause. Bogaert trained as a personality/social psychologist, not as a neuropsychiatrist or neurobiologist or even a physician. :smile:

And I'm interested in reading the next paper on something like, oh... let's say the activity of opioid ligands in cells expressing cloned μ opioid receptors, written by and peer reviewed by a bus driver. Should be interesting. :laugh4:

[Rodion Romanovich]

I'm not going to respond to the utter BS Legio utters here (never thought I'd hear such nonsense from him) because

1)it makes me sick
2)adoption is not the issue of this thread. This thread is about the possible causes of homosexuality, not ethical questions.


I'd be glad to hear why it would make you sick and why it would be BS. I might have expressed myself unclearly in the first post so I recommend you to read the second post (which others have found satisfactory to clear up their misunderstandings) before passing such a judgement.

[doc_bean]

Well, I'm a psychologist and the last paper I wrote came to the conclusion that genetic ablation of the metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 7 in mice leads to anxiolysis but not to severe memory deficits. As this has obviously a biological basis, did I overstep my area of expertise? Should I have left that to "real scientists"?

Depends, did you actually do gnetic screenings ? If so, did you perform them yourself or where they done by someone trained in the matter ? If the latter, that's why there is cross-over between the sciences. Even so, this kind of research seems interdisciplinary, and if it's done by just one person trained ina certain area, I do have my doubts about its scientific merit (sorry Sat). It should at least have one biologist/bio engineer/medical doctor as a reviewer.

I've read stuff from biologists trying to explain psychological behaviour, it's usually not very impressive. i don't see why I should except it to work perfectly the other way around. Of course, it is entirely possible that one has enough knowledge of both scientific fields to do good research. But once again, I'd like to see people from relevant areas review the paper.

It's still totally different from what this guy did, he never checked biological data, apart from the amount of sons. If he had checked the mothers blood/placenta/whatever for a certain hormone or certain anti bodies and linked them to the child becoming gay he might have had a case, now all he puts forth is speculation.

[A.Saturnus]

I think you're missunderstanding my position, A. Saturnus. Adn I think we're hitting a definition wall, as well. Sounds to me like you have training in biology, specifically neurology perhaps? You're just a psychologist, not a psychiatrist, with no other training? Not a neuropathologist or neuropsychiatrist? Just a psychologist? No other authors on the study, either?

In the U.S. there is a very clear distinction between a psychologist and a psychiatrist. The latter requires a medical degree, here. Psychologists on the other hand, can often practice with just a 2 year associate degree.

I'm just a psychologist, though here in Leuven a training in neurology is mandatory for everyone who studies psychology. I had a bit more of it than was required. Here there's also a clear distinction between psychologists and psychatrists. Psychatrists have a medical degree, psychologists have a degree in psychology. Psychatrists are doctors, psychologists are scientists.


And last, but not least, he made vague assertions about the immuno-response of mother to male fetus. He didn't make a specific biological finding, which might have shown he wasn't just making unsupported connections between a statistical study and exact biological activity, such as defects in group III mGluRs. His assertions were a vague connection between his study and specific processes, not a study of those processes themselves and what they might cause. Bogaert trained as a personality/social psychologist, not as a neuropsychiatrist or neurobiologist or even a physician.

He was vague because this hypothesis was not the focus of the study. You noticed that the paper is only 4 pages long? Also, it is not as if he came up with this hypothesis just during this study. There's a literature on this hypothesis and he just states - in one paragraph - that his findings support this hypothesis. He also isn't the sole inventor of the whole idea and it's also not true that it's a vague hypothesis. The hypothesis is laid out in this paper:

H-Y antigen (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6WMD-45KKS7X-72-1&_cdi=6932&_user=877992&_orig=search&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F1997&_sk=998149996&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkWA&md5=705645c3ac97e66d905337b34ab930f3&ie=/sdarticle.pdf)

You'll note that the main author is director of the clinical sexuology program of the Clarke Institute of Psychatry in Toronto.

[A.Saturnus]

Depends, did you actually do gnetic screenings ? If so, did you perform them yourself or where they done by someone trained in the matter ? If the latter, that's why there is cross-over between the sciences. Even so, this kind of research seems interdisciplinary, and if it's done by just one person trained ina certain area, I do have my doubts about its scientific merit (sorry Sat). It should at least have one biologist/bio engineer/medical doctor as a reviewer.

Hell, no, I just put mice in a swimming pool.
This paper was published in the third most important scientific journal in the world. I assume that it had a variety of reviewers from different fields. The general claim that peer-reviews aren't very good isn't enough basis not to do so.
What is it, because he is a psychologist, he may not even mention a hypothesis invented by an expert for sexuology? Yes, this kind of research is interdisciplinary, that's why he refers to the work of other scientists.



It's still totally different from what this guy did, he never checked biological data, apart from the amount of sons. If he had checked the mothers blood/placenta/whatever for a certain hormone or certain anti bodies and linked them to the child becoming gay he might have had a case, now all he puts forth is speculation.

He didn't check for hormones because that wasn't the subject of his study. It is however false to say that he didn't check biological evidence. He referred to several earlier studies that did present biological evidence. And at the last, putting forth speculation is an integral part of any scientific work.

[doc_bean]

Hell, no, I just put mice in a swimming pool.
This paper was published in the third most important scientific journal in the world. I assume that it had a variety of reviewers from different fields. The general claim that peer-reviews aren't very good isn't enough basis not to do so.
What is it, because he is a psychologist, he may not even mention a hypothesis invented by an expert for sexuology? Yes, this kind of research is interdisciplinary, that's why he refers to the work of other scientists.


Well if it decently reviewed then I'm okay with it, peer reviews aren't very good, especially in the 'lesser' magazines (some of the crap i've read...) but it's still the best method we have. Referring to conclusions mad ein other fields of science is of course allowed, although I hope they don't go quoting obscure articles to try and prove their point...



He didn't check for hormones because that wasn't the subject of his study. It is however false to say that he didn't check biological evidence. He referred to several earlier studies that did present biological evidence. And at the last, putting forth speculation is an integral part of any scientific work.

You read the actual scientific article, isn't fact checking in a backroom debate like cheating ~D

[Aenlic]

I'm just a psychologist, though here in Leuven a training in neurology is mandatory for everyone who studies psychology. I had a bit more of it than was required. Here there's also a clear distinction between psychologists and psychatrists. Psychatrists have a medical degree, psychologists have a degree in psychology. Psychatrists are doctors, psychologists are scientists.

Here, psychologists are often therapists offering such scientific methodology as crystal and aroma therapy and aura healing. The 70's really had a bad effect on certain disciplines on this side of the pond. In many places, one can hang out a shingle as a "child psychologist" with nothing more than a 2-year associate degree from a junior college. It tends to color my sentiments. For that I apologize. :bow:


He was vague because this hypothesis was not the focus of the study. You noticed that the paper is only 4 pages long? Also, it is not as if he came up with this hypothesis just during this study. There's a literature on this hypothesis and he just states - in one paragraph - that his findings support this hypothesis. He also isn't the sole inventor of the whole idea and it's also not true that it's a vague hypothesis. The hypothesis is laid out in this paper:

H-Y antigen (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6WMD-45KKS7X-72-1&_cdi=6932&_user=877992&_orig=search&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F1997&_sk=998149996&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkWA&md5=705645c3ac97e66d905337b34ab930f3&ie=/sdarticle.pdf)

You'll note that the main author is director of the clinical sexuology program of the Clarke Institute of Psychatry in Toronto.

He's the author of much of the literature. He's also a co-author on most of the literature with one of the authors of the above paper, R. Blanchard! This entire line of study seems to originate from a small group of 3-4 people, mostly centered around the Clarke Institute, which seems to have a bad reputation among the transgender community from what I can tell researching it online. It makes me suspicious. I get the impression that you think there is some distance of independent thought between the two researchers, implying a broader scope to the research. That just isn't the case. For example, before the Bogaert paper was published in PNAS, we have this paper in the AMJ:

abstract of "Homosexuality in men and number of older brothers" (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/153/1/27) by R. Blanchard and AF Bogaert!

You see why this makes me suspicious? The same names keep appearing in these papers. No one else, and certainly no geneticists or cellular biologists or others one would expect, in fact no one other than this limited group of psychologists and sexologists who seem to have been pushing this idea for several years, and still with no independent studies anywhere from outside this small group in Canada. It just makes me very suspicious of the science involved.

And finally, I submit that the hypothesis is exactly the focus of the study. They seem to have set out to find something in a study, and violá! They found it. That too makes me suspicious. I suppose I've been overly strident in my insistence that a more exacting scientific approach, all the way down at the ligand level perhaps, to either prove or disprove what I see as a rather tenuous link between a social statistical study and what happens at the placental barrier. I don't mean to offend or even offer criticism of psychology in general (unless, of course, you're promoting reflexology and kirlian photography). :wink:

[Papewaio]

True or not!

Peer reviewed or not!

I, Papewaio! as the eldest of three brothers now have even more ammunition for the next family gathering. :laugh4:

[A.Saturnus]

Here, psychologists are often therapists offering such scientific methodology as crystal and aroma therapy and aura healing. The 70's really had a bad effect on certain disciplines on this side of the pond. In many places, one can hang out a shingle as a "child psychologist" with nothing more than a 2-year associate degree from a junior college. It tends to color my sentiments. For that I apologize. :bow:

I always found it problematic that in the US practically everyone can call himself "psychologist". Here in Europe the trend is that you can't call yourself "crystal-juggling spirit-healer" unless you have the diploma of a crystal-juggling spirit-healer education that is approved by the crystal-juggling spirit-healer association. Though unfortunately the use of methods not approved by the APA is still not rooted out here among psychologist, so not all is well.
That said, I don't know how it is in the USA but here the title psychologist - for which you need a 4 to 5 year education at university - does not grant you the authority to do any therapy on your own. You need an additional education (1 to 2 years) which grants you the title "psychotherapist" that lets you practise on your own. What I want to stress also is that of all people who gain the title psychologist only a minority (though not a small minority) will have to do anything with therapy later in their life. The only "patients" I had to do with during my education got their brains cut to slices afterwards (said mGluR7-deficient mice).



He's the author of much of the literature. He's also a co-author on most of the literature with one of the authors of the above paper, R. Blanchard! This entire line of study seems to originate from a small group of 3-4 people, mostly centered around the Clarke Institute, which seems to have a bad reputation among the transgender community from what I can tell researching it online. It makes me suspicious. I get the impression that you think there is some distance of independent thought between the two researchers, implying a broader scope to the research. That just isn't the case. For example, before the Bogaert paper was published in PNAS, we have this paper in the AMJ:

Well yes, I noticed that. But that independent researchers did not investigate the hypothesis is not their fault. Also, the evidence on the H-Y antigen is not from them. I just wanted to refute the notion that he alone came up with a vague idea in the course of one study. He and colleages have laid out a clearly formulated hypothesis for which they have referred to pre-existing evidence (that is outside their own field) and gathered own evidence (in their own field). In my view that is pretty much the way science should work. Of course, it is up to them AND others to test their hypothesis further.

It is entirely in order to be suspicious. Up to now, not much evidence is on the table and the only ones advocating that hypothesis is one group of researchers, so I certainly don't want to make you believe this explanation (I am myself far from convinced). Being suspicious is good, but saying this study is bogus because the author is a psychologist is not good.



And finally, I submit that the hypothesis is exactly the focus of the study.

Hmm, this is conjecture, isn't it? I would say the focus of the study is to show that the number of biological older brothers correlates with the chance of being gay for males. That he mentions a possible explanation seems entirely reasonable to me.

[Aenlic]

Valid points, all.

I wish things were a tad more restrictive in the U.S. as they are in Europe. But then, I also take great exception to chiropractors (I prefer to call them chiromancers) here being allowed to call themselves "Doctors" without either a doctorate or a medical degree.

My daughter, just now entering college, plans to structure her education so that she can get a 2-year child psychology associate degree along the way. But that's only so that she can get a slightly better-paying job in childcare to help finance her education while she continues in school to get a bachelor of science and then medical school, with the intent of getting medical degrees in both child psychiatry and pediatrics. Luckily, she has many of the same reservations as I do about the limitations of such 2-year degrees.

For the rest, I concede that my reaction to the study is probably extreme. I suppose I just don't trust statistical studies which seem to have an agenda. If there hadn't been an earlier paper by the two, almost 10 years ago, stating basically the same thing, then I wouldn't be so suspicious of a more recent paper revisiting the same conditions and proposing the same hypothetical conclusions without any other disciplines providing supporting results in the meanwhile. It strikes me more as just restating the same position multiple times in the hope that someone will agree with it, rather than ongoing research which adds to the body of knowledge, or promotes more research.

[Papewaio]

There were a lot of science research applications making sure they had nano-something in their title or at least abstract so that the powers that be would give them a slice of the funds.

So old data repedeled with a better marketing approach wouldn't surprise me. Nor would it surprise me if it wasn't just a basis for a third year or honours project with the staff members getting top billing and the lucky undergrad might just get third spot rather then the ubiquitous et al.

[A.Saturnus]

I guess research about the causes of gayness finds its way into a journal like PNAS easier than for example the functional properties of trans-saccadic perceptual context effects *sigh*