sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2006-02-22 03:29 pm
sophiaserpentia) wrote2006-02-22 03:29 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
For many mothers who asked, "Where did i go wrong?" when her son came out as gay, the answer is in: you may have extreme X-chromosome skewing.
Next time, get your chromosomes straightened out before having a son. (Because, you know, being gay is a choice.)
Next time, get your chromosomes straightened out before having a son. (Because, you know, being gay is a choice.)
no subject
(and yes, there are dorks who think you can catch it)
Genetically engineering straight boys? Were surely do live in a PKD novel
no subject
(1) Homosexuality is a natural variant that's been occurring in animals for a long time and may be an inevitable byproduct of sexual reproduction.
To consider: A male develops a successful survival and reproductive strategy for his environment, for a male. A female does the same, for a female. Offspring of the two may be both male and female, who in turn may have both male and female offspring. For strategies to have the best chance genetically, they must be passed to both sexes and be genetically available to both sexes, with expression dependent on a triggering mechanism.
But consider that male/female "trait sets" may encompass not only things such as body build, and body type and pheromone recognition, but patterns of social interaction, behavior, temperament, mental characteristics. It may help to remember that for many species, males and females are quite different in terms of these things. NOW consider that it might be in the best interest of species to have sex-linked traits at least *potentially* available to both sexes, as this might enable the continuation of the genetic line if environmental change means the species must change. The linking mechanism to "male" and "female" may be deliberately loose. The looseness/tightness of the link may itself be a genetic trait that deliberately varies in order to both preserve a population that works well for an environment while also preserving the ability to adapt to a new one.
(2) Humans' survival set does not involve big claws, etc. It lies partly with our ability to form social bonds, and partly with our intelligence. But our ability to adapt to changes in environment is our "killer app". We have adapted to an incredible number of environments we must do so at an increasing rate. Sexual variation increases our ability to adapt by allowing us the flexibility to change our social bonds.
(3) In view of (1) and (2) sexual variation for humans may have deeper implications than for other animals, not just for general adaptability but also for creativity and intelligence.
(4) Homosexuality in animal groups with close biological ties and tight food supplies benefits the group as adults who don't themselves reproduce but who will feed youngsters they're related to increases the chances of those youngsters surviving to reproduce.
(5) Antipathy toward homosexuality has its forgotten roots in the development of a structured society that saw children as wealth (workers, soldiers, social security) and assigned "ownership" of children and wealth according to strict rules. (As opposed to 3 above.) Sex that produced children within the rules was encouraged (including early marriage of women, polygamy) while sex that did not produce children was discouraged. Social rules were enforced by invoking the most powerful force anyone could conceive of -- "God says or bad things will happen!", as opposed simply saying, "Our leader will kick your butt." It boggles my mind that we have such trouble getting over that. We all know manipulative people -- HELLO!! YOU WERE BEING MANIPULATED!!!!!
OK, sorry this turned into an essay paper. Too bad I can't turn it in for a grade. Good luck!
no subject
no subject
But, you know, as
no subject
But yes, it shouldn't matter.
no subject
Some straight people fear the increase in gays. But they tend to blame the gays, rather than looking for reasons why gays seem to be a growing population. They point to a very paranoid "gay agenda" which they fear means gays are trying to subvert hetero culture. Totally bananas. See here for the real gay agenda:
http://alobar.livejournal.com/1541369.html
*rolls eyes*
I mean, seriously, what happened to the other 75% of gay men where this skewing wasn't present?
And for once, what about the bisexuals?
Re: *rolls eyes*
A figure does not have to reflect a majority to be statistically significant. The importance here seems to be the statistical significance of the pattern involved.
And for once, what about the bisexuals?
It appears we remain invisible to researchers (nothing new there).
Re: *rolls eyes*
Given that almost every validated study has pointed to a complex relationship between genetics and environment in the influence of sexual orientation, we wouldn't necessarily expect a majority. It seems likely that what we refer to as "homosexuality" (or bisexuality, heterosexuality, etc) is in fact multiple phenomena with multiple causes: "homosexualities", if you will. It could be that this genetic "marker" (such as it is) points to an explanation for one or more of them. Conversely, it could also be that the marker only explains the homosexuality of some of the people who have it.
Re: *rolls eyes*
Personally, I think all of this studies are flawed from the beginning: garbage in, garbage out. The labels of "gay" and "straight" are in fact SOCIAL constructs, with wide, wide, degrees of activity going on between them. A certain percent of the population is even asexual. Studies like these are akin to someone looking for the "Black" or "Asian" gene, race too being a SOCIAL construct, not a biological one.
In order for me to trust the result of any study at all, there needs to be a method to deal with the natural gradient of human sexual activity. I'm thinking something that states if a person is on a particular point on the bell curve for sexuality, then there maybe a few probabilities as to weither a few genes should show up.
And that's totally not considering the "other" epigenetic stuff.
Re: *rolls eyes*
And, I agree, sexual orientation is a social construction. I actually see all of the above as a great tool for deconstructing this idea of a unified "thing" called sexual orientation (thus the idea of "homosexualities", for example, as one place to start talking about that). Likewise with race. We can't discover a "white gene" or "black gene" but we might find a gene that influences melanin production. Then we can show how little correspondence this gene has with classic ideas about "the races." We can already do this with phenotypic characteristics historically associated with races. We can throw gender in here as well. Even if posession of certain chromosomes, for one example, is correlated with identification as a certain gender...it doesn't explain all the variation out there. Most of my students, somewhat surprisingly, either don't come into class knowing this or only have the vaguest of notions about it.
I would also agree with and extend your idea about of a "gradient of human sexual activity." There are probably a multitude of gradients we could place people on with regards to sexuality (we could use the Klein Grid as one such jumping off point), and again social forces shape how we tend to think and perhaps even how we're able to think about those.
I guess I need to read the book you reference, or at least that chapter, to see what they're asserting.
Also
Interesting what they are finding out as time marcheth on though I do want to see more truth over speculation. Perhaps as I get more into behavioral endocrinology, I will find out more.
LB