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

[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