Gayness May Be Linked to Conditions in Womb

[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 ...

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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 ?

[Watchman]

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

[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?

[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.

[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 ...

[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.

[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]

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.

[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:

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 (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 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 (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 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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.