For Griffen Re: Gay gene argument

[beandelphiki]

Dude, you so seriously disappointed me. You know those remove/screen/ban options? I seriously considered all of them. You know, the thing between me and the other guy has been resolved, and it was unnecessary for you to bust a nut charging in there. And it was REALLY unnecessary for you to scatter rude comments about lj. (I get them by email, thanks.) When I admit openly that I was a jerk, and I RESPECTFULLY ask for people's opinion, to come and be rude is so uncool I don't have words for it.

Here are your comments answered:

1) Firstly, I was aware when I cited that article that it was probably not the best. But what that article concluded WAS the reason for homosexuality, or where it came from is beside the point. You MISSED the entire fucking point of my citing that article.

Griffen, if you find someone who tells you there is such a thing as a "gay gene" or that homosexuality is entirely genetic, they are from a fringe group. From where I stand, the scientific community seems to agree that is B.S.

2) Nice conspiracy theory! "Oh, they haven't found a gay gene because the funding was pulled!" So tell me, WHEN did they pull funding? Was this before or after years and years of digging?

Scientists, whatever their motivation (and some admittedly have not had the best motivation) have long been fanatically interested in the cause of homosexuality. And for every scientist who throws his bias into the research, there is another one who throws his bias the other way.

What findings there have been about genetics indicate that genetics ARE NOT THE ONLY FACTOR, only one of many possible factors. And genetics appears so far to have only a limited effect.

If I were in control of the funding, believe me, by this point, I would have pulled it, too. It looks like a waste of money. But, HEY! If you want to continue believing it's all in the genes, despite the consensus of the scientific community (and the national gay magazines I read certainly seem to listen to it) then go ahead and make your own research company, and spend your OWN money researching the gay gene! Go bananas! I won't say shit!

3) It's very cool that everyone down to your second cousin on your mother's side is gay, but how the hell does that explain people like ME, who are the only ones in their family?

I guess you don't quite get the science involved here, but I see you don't realize that you just argued for an environmental factor, and not a genetic one.

Checked your drinking water lately?

Comments

[griffen.livejournal.com]

How do you know you're the only one in your family? How do you know there aren't others in the closet in your family? And you say you're straight -- gender identification and orientation are not the same.

Ever hear of a recessive trait? I have the feeling it showed up more strongly in my family because both sides carried the gene (or the genetic trait, if you want to be picky, okay? It's still genetic, whether there's an entire gene devoted to orientation or not).

As far as why I jumped on you in the community posts -- the reason I went in there and was vehement about it is because I can't stand the thought of people reading your conclusions and saying "Oh, okay, so-and-so said there was scientific proof there's no gay gene" and then not going any further. That's a dangerous belief to be spreading around without PROOF. You may not realize it, but this wasn't just about you and the other guy. Lots of people read that, and a lot of them are young. And what you cited was so obviously biased that I'm really, seriously concerned that those kids are going to read it, say "Oh, then that means it's *not* genetic, so that means I *can* change if I try really hard," and make themselves miserable for another ten or twenty years the way my parents did, the way my brother is doing, the way I did. Nobody -- NOBODY -- should go through that.

You say I have no proof it's genetic. I say you have no proof it isn't. Maybe we disagree about the definition of "genetic". When I say "genetic," I mean "a trait that can be passed on through the mixing of the parents' chromosomes, whether dominant or recessive." What do you mean when you say "genetic"?

Yes, I believe the funding was pulled. I believe backroom deals go on all the time. I believe that the current President (so-called) is only on the throne in the White House because a series of crimes were committed in order to place him there so that he could be a figurehead while the people who supported and funded him rape this country and its people for their own benefit.

Under the circumstances, I was as respectful as it was possible for me to be. You may think I was rude, but I don't think I was. I was merely very blunt. Being 'polite' does not get people's attention, and this needed attention.

I disappointed you, huh? Well, I'm sorry. You seriously disappointed me, too, presenting biased research as fact and saying "There is no gay gene," and not thinking through the consequences of doing that. You don't know that that is a fact, and you did a serious disservice to the community by saying that it is. And you've shown me no proof at all that genetics isn't the primary determining factor in orientation. I believe it is, and my family is proof enough to me that it is.

And if you can't see that, then there's really no point in continuing this discussion, now is there?

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

1) I can see your point abouot two recessive genes, but then Griffen - why aren't there more families like yours? If gay is a recessive gene, and both parents carry it, theoretically between 25-50% of those offspring should be gay - somehow that seems to me that would result in much more gay people than there are. Because if "gay" and "straight" are the only genes (or are there "bisexual" and "transsexual" ones, too?) then tons of people would be carrying that recessive gene.

If it's a "genetic trait" that means there are more genes involved in the process? Which I suppose could lower the numbers a bit. But then, again, if there is MORE than one gene that affects this, why have they not been found? Wouldn't it be easier to find MORE than one gene? You have more to find, right?

2) I never argued for nurture. Ever.

3) Maybe YOU think I was doing the commmunity a disservice, but I have been on way too many forums where anyone toting the "gay gene" theory was slaughtered.

4) As for PROOF, well, Griffen, anecdotal evidence (i.e. your family) is never proof. Do you think I pulled this out of thin air? I'll only say this once: every thing I read tells me just what I'm telling you, and people know that by now. See point 3.

All research is biased. I go with what has the most backing, unless I think I have a VERY good reason to believe it's wrong.

Oh, and...

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

I wanted to add something to point 3)

Hypothetical situation (not too hypothetical actually; I've seen this happen even with adults).

Okay, kid goes to a forum, armed with only the "gay gene" thing ze found online somewhere but never really looked up long enough to find that it's been disputed. Ze brings it up, and is torn to shreds by other people on the forum, homophobes, and non alike. Ze goes away assuming EXACTLY what you are afraid they will.

There are more places on the internet than lj where gay youth can run into people yelling their own theories.

I personally think it's our responsiblity in the gay community to make them aware of it FIRST to avoid that problem as much as possible.

And, again, I didn't argue for nurture. I suggested that I think the answer is more nuanced, and I think that is a view that is much more widely respected.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Anything I say at this point will come out either angry or purposely sarcastic, so I am withdrawing from the debate. I still think you're wrong, and I still think that your sources are biased, and I think you haven't thought the consequences of your actions through, but since nothing I said penetrated, I am not continuing this discussion.

Remove me from your friends list or not, as you like.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

I'd also love to hear your explanation of how it could be an environmental factor when my parents did not come out until well after I was out of their home, and in fact raised me for quite a while to believe that being gay was a sin (something my brother is still struggling with).

Or do you mean environmental as in "in the womb"?

Please clarify what you mean.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

I mean environmental to mean ANY external factor (although I really wouldn't much buy "nurture"). That's why the crack about drinking water (which wasn't serious.)

And yes, my personal belief (which I'm NOT trying to convince anyone of absolutely) is that pre-natal hormones you get in the womb have a large impact.

[indicoyote.livejournal.com]

I've heard these theries too, but I forget the details. Are you referring to the theory that birth order might actually matter, that each subsequent child after the first is more likely to get those effects thanks to.. something? I sorta want to say that it was theorized to be an autoimmune response, actually, but it was a while ago and I'm real hazy on the details now. Does any of this sound familiar?

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

No, I've never heard of that...interesting, although it doesn't work in my case, because I'm first-born.

I thought autoimmune was when someone had there own body turn on them? (That's a pretty poor discriptor, I know, but I slept through that section in biology.)

Actually, I was referring to the theory I think LeVay postulated about at one point...that some mechanisms in the brain that regulate how much of a certain pre-natal hormone a baby gets could not work right in some people, resulting in their brains being washed with the wrong hormone as it develops...I thought that made a lot of sense, considering all the very powerful effects we know hormones to have, but it's only my theory.

You know, your icon looks a bit like Griffen's other one...are they both foxes? You know what I'm talking about, right? I sort of assumed you're a friend of Griffen's...? I somehow got the feeling he made a filtered friends post or something.

[indicoyote.livejournal.com]

It doesn't work in my case either; I'm firstborn as well. Autoimmune perhaps isn't the right word, I meant the mother's immune system reacting to the fetus... Attacking some of the hormones or something, perhaps. Subsequent children were more likely to be affected by that because it took the first one to 'sensitize' the mother's body to... something. Somewhat like the Rh reaction. It's all very fuzzy in my head, and since I haven't heard anything aobut it lately it may well be a discredited theory. Now that you mention it, though, I do remember how the pre-natal hormones were thought to be linked to the brain differences LeVay found. I'm sorry I don't have any specifics about any of this; The most in-depth treatment I got was in a psychology class two years ago, now, and it seems to be fading fast. I think I might research it again, now, though. LeVay's books seem like a good place to start.

I am a friend of Griffen's, but he hasn't made a filtered post about this as far as I can tell. He mentioned it to me in a chat last night. As far as the icons.. (By the way, his is a raccoon and mine is a wolf, but close enough. :o) ) That's a whole seperate issue that I dunno if I should get into here. It's not risque, or anything, just super-tangential. :o) I'd be happy to try to describe it in email, or even just in another super-long post here, if you're intersted. Just let me know.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

Actually, last night someone said that LeVay's work is "crap"...he said To find gay patients, he used people who had died from AIDS. Nobody actually knows if the ``gay'' subjects actually were gay, or if the effects on the brain were due to homosexuality or AIDS.

Now, I dunno about books where he's looking at other people's work and not his own...I got the impression he's pretty thorough. Do you know anything about this?

Super-tangential? I think I'll have to look that up. And now I'm curious.

dlwesolo@telusplanet.net

[indicoyote.livejournal.com]

Getting subjects is always the hardest part about this kind of research. Since biological markers are what people are looking for, they have to go on other factors to gather a sample pool of gay people. The twin studies presumably put out requests for people to participate in the study, known as self-selection, which any statistician can tell you has a host of its own problems. LeVay's study was done long enough ago that it was probably a reasonable, if unfortunate, conclusion that the majority of the AIDs victims he examined were gay.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily address the possibility that the brain differences were due to AIDS, rather than to homosexuality. However, LeVay did examine some people who hadn't died of AIDS, and apparently found the same differences in them. Further, from LeVay's paper: "Application of [statistical methods] failed to identify any confounding effects of age, race, brain weight, ... or, in the AIDS patients, duration of survival after diagnosis, occurrence of particular complications, or the nature of the complication or complications that caused death."

And I just meant super-tangential as in having nothing at ALL to do with this conversation. :o) I'll work on that email for you in a bit.

(And, yes, the topic is closed, I know. I'll try to stop now.)

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

That's okay...I just meant, mainly I wanted to stop arguing, especially when I decided Griffen was coming to the table from a very emotional standpoint - okay, I won't step on that anymore. He just pushed a few buttons, otherwise I would have probably caught that and brought an end to it sooner.

About LeVay - I thought it might be something like that. I was a little surprised by the idea I could have been so WRONG about him, because I tend to get feelings about sources, and I can't recall an occasion where I've been very wrong before. (Not that I know of, anyway.) But thank you for clarifying.

And sorry for being non-linear. :D