Gayness May Be Linked to Conditions in Womb

[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.

[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

[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

[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 ...

[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.

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:

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.

[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.

Lions.

I vote we don't pursue that sidetrack further.

[Kralizec]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...rd/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.