Gayness May Be Linked to Conditions in Womb

[whyidie]

This is old news folks.

From here

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??!!! 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??!!! 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.

[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.

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.

[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

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

[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.

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

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" 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).

[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.

[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.

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*