Mom’s Genetics Could Produce Gay Sons
February 26, 2006
More research into a possible genetic basis for homosexuality. The idea that sexual orientation is essentially completely genetic feels so intuitively and obviously right to me that I have a hard time crediting other ideas as being anything other than ludicrous. But my intuition’s track record is so-so.
[cosmopoetica, news]
Tags:
Psyche
All me-stream all the time.
content rss
February 26th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
From “The Hidden Dimension” by Edward T. Hall, discussing over-crowding experiments with rats:
—begin quoted—
1.) The aggressively dominant, of whom there might be as many as three, exhibited normal behavior
2.) The passive males avoided both fighting and sex.
3.) The hyper active subordinate males spent their time chasing females. Three of four might be tailing one harassed femaie at the same time. During the pursuit phase, they would fail to observe the amenitites; instead of stopping at the “burrow” entrance they would follow the female inside so that she had no respite. During mounting, these male rats frequently maintained their grasp on females for several minutes instead of the two or three seconds.
4.) Pansexual males tried mounting anything; receptive and non-receptive females, males and females alike, young and old. Any sex partner would do.
5.) Some males withdrew from social and sexual intercourse and went abroad chiefly at the time when other rats slept.
— end quoted —
There seems to be a strange impetus to explain “moral” “failings” in terms of genetics: “deviant” sexual orientation, alcoholism, left-handedness. When someone can show me a behavioral study that manages to control the so-called “nurture” part of the equation I’ll begin taking more interest in the so-called “nature” arguments. Meanwhile, I can’t help thinking there’s no separating the two; they are heads and tails of one coin.
Is this a good place to discuss “the user illusion”?
February 27th, 2006 at 6:57 am
Do you feel the same way about heterosexuality then? Is your heterosexuality based on nurture rather than nature? I’m not saying nurture plays no role, but if they are intertwined I could just as well (and essentially do) take the reverse of your position at no real cost:
“When someone can show me a behavioral study that manages to control the so-called “nature” part of the equation I’ll begin taking more interest in the so-called “nurture” arguments.”
I simply believe that sexual orientation itself is largely– almost completely– genetic. I think this entire discussion can be held without needing to consider any orientation “deviant” or for that matter without any need to be desperately “seeking answers.” I am no more desperately seeking answers about this than about the existence of a fourth neutrino. I am just interested in the best explanation.
The fact that there is tendency to look for genetic answers doesn’t mean genetic answers are wrong. You are drawing your arbitrary assumptions about where nature stops and nurture begins at one point, I at another. No progress thus is made.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:17 am
And, of course, there is the bigger issue, which is (from my position) to stop the discrimination against gays and lesbians and not just stem the continual erosion of the few rights the groups have been grudgingly granted, but recognize their unions as no less important, viable, and nurturing, than those between men and women.
And THAT is a position about which I feel very strongly. It’s absurd that there is no homosexual marriage, ludicrous that homosexual partners are being told they can’t adopt, crazy that they are not recognized for all the benefits that a man and a woman can be.
In the end, I care much less about the causes than I do about making people face the fact of equivalency… but if research can help make that claim, then perhaps some headway can be made in what is essentially an arbitrary decision.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:43 am
Big issue, and I don’t know how to treat it without getting into meta-issues, which just makes it bigger. But, to answer your two posts with a short one, I see addicts and gays and left-handers saying to the larger society, in essence, “Don’t blame me, it’s my genes,” when the answer should be, “Don’t blame me, there’s nothing to blame me for.” That, I suspect, is where we agree. Who you sleep with is your business, and only becomes my business when one of us pinches the other’s ass, so to speak. What you eat or drink or inject isn’t my business either, only those of your actions which actually affect me are any of my business. (Naive arguments about social costs are question begging: those “costs” are by-products of social norms criminalizing behavior deemed “immoral” and thus proscribed.)
So, I think we agree that gays (and forgive my terribly lazy and non-pc usage; there was a time when those four letters covered the bases currently covered by gltg) shouldn’t be discriminated against. Love is love and love is good and love between two convex people or two concave people is still love, so what’s all the commotion about? I just don’t think that the appeal to the ruling god of science is the tack to take; it’s too reactive, defensive, and, frankly, fails to address the more important issue of how anyone could hate someone for love.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:46 am
And, taking this to higher ground, my heterosexuality is probably based similarly to Alexa’s in “50 First Dates” (adjusted for glandular biases): “I guess I just prefer taco to sausage.” :-p
February 27th, 2006 at 7:51 am
I don’t think we actually disagree too much on the larger scale. I agree with everything you just said. BUT, I think where we constantly get into disagreement is on the issue of what can be done. From my perspective, this is a lot like the copyright issue– you seem to think people should take an approach that is abstractly the best, but which I think will have no effect in the real world. I think it’s better to take an approach that has some productive value beyond the philosophical. Complete transformation of copyright would be great– in the meantime, back in the world I live in, I will continue to work with measures where the rubber meets the road.
I agree that no one should be saying “don’t blame me, blame genetics.” But I don’t see that taking the idealistic approach of “don’t blame me, there’s nothing to blame me for” will help address any of the problems that we are facing. In that sense– in the sense of the real political world we live in– I think that seeking equivalence, “don’t blame me, I’m not at fault for my genetic makeup just as you are not at fault for yours” in essence that neither has anything to feel bad about, is the best road to getting fair treatment.
Saying “I’m blameless” is a good, positive mental attitude thing to do. I don’t think it moves lawmakers one iota. Finding a way to *show* that one is blameless, not in the psychological sense, but in a sense equivalent to the blame-free existence of the lawmaker (I know, I grimace as I write that) has a chance of producing action.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:53 am
We really should do a podcast show. We could call “I’m Right, He’s Wrong” (suitably ambiguous) and we could argue about these real-time. We might even find some common ground in there somewhere
February 27th, 2006 at 8:36 am
We can iron out the details of the podcast Sunday; I’ll bring GP to referee. And maybe some Guiness, to help counteract the calming influence of the referee. heh heh. (As conflict drives fiction, so too it makes for stimulating conversation—in properly managed doses.)
I agree that political effectiveness is a different criteria set than ideological goodness, leading to different results. On this particular issue I see too much danger of boomerang. “Oh, it’s genetic? Great, then we’ll test for it and if there’s a chance of passing it on we can sterilize.” Can’t happen here? That’s the motto of millions of good Germans with blood on their hands (and millions of good Americans who should maybe ask a Mohican.)
So, there’s political expediency, which is not inherently evil, and there’s telling it like it is. I’m genetically predisposed toward the latter (how’s that for ironic wit?) For instance, the ACLU is working for modifications to H.R.3162, the so-called “Patriot Act.” The National Lawyers Guild wants full repeal. I’m a member of both groups, and have to admit that currently the ACLU is more likely to succeed, but they (we) are still wrong. I’ve avoided political activism my entire adult life not for lack of interest or passion but because I know how stiff-necked I can be and how little I care for the poor aesthetic sense, and strident whinging, of some of my compan~eros. But, as I said, on this matter it’s not just political expeidiency on my mind, but instead the way that what seems a winning argument can be used to paint one into an even more devestating ideological corner.
February 27th, 2006 at 8:49 am
I wouldn’t say it “can’t happen here” but I do find it a lot less likely than you seem to. Given that I don’t think the idealistic track will have any results I have to choose between the likelihood of the doomsday scenario and the pragmatics of trying to get something done. I’ll take the latter.
re: the podcast– I don’t know if I want to know to what extent we truly disagree. Every day it seems more rather than less!
February 27th, 2006 at 10:06 am
We agree gltg shouldn’t be treated poorly nor denied rights of other loving beings.
We agree the web/net/whatever is pretty fucking cool.
We agree that we could endlessly split hairs of terminology to no avail.
We agree that not all such hair-splitting is pointless.
We agree that we disagree sometimes on what hairs are worth splitting.
We agree that Lapsang Souchong is sublime.
We agree that Neal Stephenson rocks.
We agree that we disagree on what Neal’s best book is.
We agree that writing is important.
We agree, I think, that the relationship of conflict to reader interest is a hard element to manage.
We agree that friends are priceless.
We agree that fatherhood is a sacrament—and a pain in the ass.
We agree that mortality sucks.
We agree that our relationship with mortality, and the varying degrees of indefiniteness in that relationship, sucks.
We agree Rush Limbaugh sucks (I think.)
Well, there’s a quick and easy dozen plus. It’s easy to get caught up on conflicts, they’re interesting, or at least engaging, like that bit of pop-corn husk under the gum that you just can’t leave alone. But there is so much, much more.
February 27th, 2006 at 10:10 am
OK, so that means our podshow should be safe enough– we just have to end on a note of (perhaps completely unrelated) agreement.
Skype makes for easy recording
February 27th, 2006 at 10:34 am
God knows I’m not qualified to have an opinion on voice-over-ip (which, I think, is what Skype is.) Good thing there’s a reliable tech-maven on the project.
Think we’ve scared off Victoria?
February 27th, 2006 at 10:38 am
I hope not, because she should joins us on a podcast or two, as should others. This would be completely for my selfish benefit, of course, since it’s the closest I generally get to sitting around and arguing about these things over coffee/beer/tea with friends– which is the way it’s supposed to be done.
I only mention Skype because a lot of edblog-podcasters seem to use it, and it works pretty well (judging from the results).
February 27th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Seriously then; I’ll look into skype. Victoria, when the heck are you gonna join in on this!?
February 27th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Another agreement:
We agree that you haven’t answered my email about me and GP having a slumber party in San Diego next weekend. (She made say it!) :-p