Gayness May Be Linked to Conditions in Womb

[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.
...

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.
...

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. 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.

[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.

[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

[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.

15 kids ????

damn...