The science of sexual orientation

[billvon 3,076]

> Really, answer the question.

I will. But you've answered it pretty well:

>To answer your distracting question... If a boy is exhibiting
>dangerous-to-his-health muscular development, then treat it...

Agreed. Conversely, if a boy (or a fetus) is getting so much estrogen that it is dangerous to his health, then it should be treated

>Otherwise... boys are "supposed" to like rough sports and strutting...
>leave it alone. But you're trying to make a rhetorical point here, aren't you?

And some boys are "supposed to be gay" so leave that alone as well.

>If parents have the option to treat "femininity" in male fetuses that
>may give the kid a chance at a "normal" (notice the quotations) life,
>would that be a bad thing?

I think that you accept that that's OK, you also have to accept that it's OK if some parents 'feminize' their boys to avoid them getting thrown into jail for figthing, getting women pregnant etc. I don't think either one is a good idea myself. Let them be who they will be (unless it's going to harm them physically.)

[labrys 0]

Quote

I do realize that people can and probably will fight to the death over the interpretation of "normal"...

Worse than that is that I believe it would create a self-perpetuating kind of problem. The only reason it's even necessary to think about defining "normal" is that we place more value on the masculine boy and less on the feminine one, right?

There isn't much reason for that because both boys can contribute to society. One might not be inclined to father children biologically but might desire to help raise children. They both have roles to fill. The only reason anyone would feel the need to tamper is the false value placed on masculinity.

Let's say we decide that "x" amount of any hormone level is too little. We've just done nothing but shift the bell curve over a few generations. 100 years from now the boys at the left end of the bell curve will still be "fags". Now we have to raise the level of "x" that's acceptable... it never ends. Pretty soon the brow ridge is all the fashion again

Owned by Remi #?

[Trent 0]

Quote

In fact, many psych researchers (not just Freud) seem to think that "normal" includes a certain degree of bisexual orientation. In that case, you'd have to adjust "overly masculinized" individuals as well to achieve normality.

Then that certain so-called degree of bisexuality would be obtained by having the hormonal levels of the fetus "normalized" wouldn't it? From either direction...

If people want to argue that there is no "normal" (not saying that's you), they can look up the definition.

Oh, hello again!

[Trent 0]

Quote

Pumping up the testo or esto will not change the gender identity in a transgendered person as the idenity is in the mind not between the legs or the size of their muscles. You are either wired male or female. There is no "cure" for GID.

I'm not sure you read the article or the whole discussion here... I'm referencing the article's ideas in a 'what if' kinda way.

Oh, hello again!

[Trent 0]

Quote

And some boys are "supposed to be gay" so leave that alone as well.

I guess you could say that... but if there were a simple medical reason for it that is a result of a hormonal deficiency... why not take care of it. You could say that the fetus was "supposed" to get hormones that it isn't getting and we're just making it right... couldn't you?

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,076]

>but if there were a simple medical reason for it that is a result of
>a hormonal deficiency...

Sure. But we're not talking about hormonal deficiencies; we are talking about the normal mingling of hormones between mother, fetus and other siblings It happens to everyone.

> You could say that the fetus was "supposed" to get hormones that it
>isn't getting and we're just making it right... couldn't you?

"Supposed" is the important word there. If no one is "supposed" to be gay, then you could try to force biology to create the desired result rather than the natural result. But I don't buy that assumption.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I'm not sure you read the article or the whole discussion here... I'm referencing the article's ideas in a 'what if' kinda way.

I did read the article and saw the show as well and have also read each post on this thread. But, I disagree that upping the hormone level might change how a person identifies as identity is soley in the mind and no amount of testo or esto will change this. It is bad science to try and change a persons identity before they even emerge from the womb and just as bad to do so after. I have met a few people who have done srs and they were just as normal as the next person. Did anyone here know Michelle Koorsen? She was one of the skydivers who died in a plane crash in 1999 in Indiana. From what I have read of her, it was no secret of her transition. I gather that she was very well respected.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

That's not an answer to my question. The article talks about how pre-natal exposure to hormones may be a strong reason that people exhibit feminine behavior. If that can be detected at an early age, should it be treated? Really, answer the question.

I don't know if you can find anything in google, but the feminization or masculinization of the fetus is something that would need to be dealt with at the time it occurs, because the "hormonal bath" helps to form the developing fetal brain. It's not something that can be "cured" after birth with hormones.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

That's not an answer to my question. The article talks about how pre-natal exposure to hormones may be a strong reason that people exhibit feminine behavior. If that can be detected at an early age, should it be treated? Really, answer the question.

I don't know if you can find anything in google, but the feminization or masculinization of the fetus is something that would need to be dealt with at the time it occurs, because the "hormonal bath" helps to form the developing fetal brain. It's not something that can be "cured" after birth with hormones.

rl

Maybe Trent meant treatment during fetal development, instead of after birth.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[SpeedRacer 1]

So little is known about this.

It does seem that gays & straights are wired that way. But I was just talking with a friend of mine about this.

From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality should be selected against. One would think that it should either be non-existent or an extremely rare abnormality. Instead it is far more common than one would expect, given the pressure of natural selection.

and I thought Keith's first post was interesting about there being other homosexuals in his family. To the best of my knowledge (could be wrong though) there are no gays in my family.

It is strange that this could be a genetic trait that could be passed down like that, since its nature is such that it would discourage those individuals from reproducing.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Maybe Trent meant treatment during fetal development, instead of after birth.

Try this:

http://www.gfmer.ch/Books/Reproductive_health/Human_sexual_differentiation.html

It might help to stop thinking of gays as abnormal, given that they constitute approximately 10% of live births.

"Different" does not equate to "bad" except in the minds of the ignorant.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[sundevil777 102]

Easy does it, I was just suggesting that Trent's post might have meant something different.

However, if we do in fact gain the understanding of how gay or straight get 'wired in', then there are a lot of complicated questions that will arise if we are able to affect the outcome.

Very interesting questions indeed. The possible implications are obvious and worthy of discussion.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Yeah, that's an answer. I didn't think of it going as far as "tailoring" the kid to be some specific amount of masculine... more along the lines of the doctors testing and saying... "We've found that your child is lacking in exposure to testosterone in the womb. This may lead to the child being feminine in nature, homosexual, or have problems identifying with a specific gender. We can treat it with some exposure to testosterone at a mild level to help negate this if you'd like."

If we really understand how it gets wired in, then that conversation will happen, no doubt about it, we can argue about it being right or wrong to affect it, but it will happen.

Then what?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I didn't think of it going as far as "tailoring" the kid to be some specific amount of masculine... more along the lines of...

Actually, that sounds EXACTLY like tailoring the kid to be some specific amount of masculinity.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Quote

I didn't think of it going as far as "tailoring" the kid to be some specific amount of masculine... more along the lines of...

Actually, that sounds EXACTLY like tailoring the kid to be some specific amount of masculinity.

Is "masculine" the right word to be using here?

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[billvon 3,076]

>From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality should be selected against.

Not necessarily. Take sickle cell anemia, a genetically inherited recessive disease. When you are homozygous for that trait, you have the disease. When you are heterozygous for it, you not only do not have the disease, you are much more immune to malaria. That's a big advantage in some areas. Thus, the genes for sickle cell anemia were often maintained, because they had a hidden benefit (even if they produced a serious disease 1 out of 4 times in that population.)

If homosexuality were a) purely genetic and b) had no individual or societal benefits, it would rapidly be evolved against. Since it has not been, it is likely that either a) or b) is not true. It may have a hidden benefit (to either the individual or to society) or it may not be genetically linked.

[SpeedRacer 1]

which clearly indicates that there is a BIG part that remains unknown about this issue.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Trent 0]

Quote

"Different" does not equate to "bad" except in the minds of the ignorant.

I never said it did, did I? Or were you just speaking in generalities? If you want to wax philosophical, you could modify that to say "different" doesn't always equate to good either... except in the minds of the ignorant.

But I have a feeling that you woulda just called me ignorant if you wanted to.

Quote

It might help to stop thinking of gays as abnormal, given that they constitute approximately 10% of live births.

By definition, something that only occurs 10% of the time wouldn't be the norm... would it?

... but I'm probably wrong for so many reasons...


Oh, and I didn't mean a treatment AFTER birth either. I guess that wasn't clear... thought it was.

Oh, hello again!

[Trent 0]

Quote

Actually, that sounds EXACTLY like tailoring the kid to be some specific amount of masculinity.

Then we have to argue about what "normal" is. But that's apparently not a nice thing to do.

No matter what I think about what should be done (if anything is even possible in reality)... I think Sundevil brings up the point that if this research is for real, these questions WILL come up on a bigger scale. I guess we see what some of the dz people think... wonder what'll really happen?

Oh, hello again!

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

I never said it did, did I? Or were you just speaking in generalities? If you want to wax philosophical, you could modify that to say "different" doesn't always equate to good either... except in the minds of the ignorant.

Speaking in generalities. A pre-emptive strike, as it were.

And you're right. Different is just different. But most often, people perceive it as bad. Believe me, as eccentric as I am, I know that all too well.

Quote

But I have a feeling that you woulda just called me ignorant if you wanted to.

People who ask questions can't be considered ignorant. It's the people who reach conclusions without asking questions and seeking out logical answers who are the dumb bunnies.

Quote

It might help to stop thinking of gays as abnormal, given that they constitute approximately 10% of live births.

Quote

By definition, something that only occurs 10% of the time wouldn't be the norm... would it?

This is a semantic issue. In strict usage, 10% is not normal. In the common parlance, however, abnormal is considered bad.

Ten percent is not the norm, but it's not so rare as to be...looked ill upon.

Quote

Oh, and I didn't mean a treatment AFTER birth either. I guess that wasn't clear... thought it was.

I would much prefer to have a gay child than a child who was monkey-fucked with prior to his or her birth.

That's just me. I'm all for treating certain conditions if it's possible and reasonable. I just don't consider "gay" a "condition."

If none of this is clear it's because I've been packing for two days, I'm delirious and I'm about to get in the car and drive from FL to NJ.

Wish me luck.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[ROK 0]

I didn't think about people trying to have Schwarzenegger babies just out of the womb...

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

I wonder if bisexuality can be attributed to the same, but not as severe of a disorder?

If you read the Kinsey study and every bit of research that has been done since, it is clear that human sexuality lies on a spectrum, and that only a very few odd people are totally heterosexual or homosexual.

In other words, given the right set of circumstances (whatever those circumstances might be--it varies a lot), most people will swing the other way.

My strong preference is for men. But I wouldn't categorically object to sex with a woman, and certainly (as I've said many times), I'd sooner have sex with a smart woman than a stupid man.

My only other comment is: great post.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[SpeedRacer 1]

actually, a very large number of people ARE totally heterosexual, and a much smaller number are totally homosexual.

then there's the people in the middle of the spectrum. I would suspect more of them lean more towards heterosexuality.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,076]

>Why should we care if someone's sexual orientation is learned, or
>inherited, unless we believe it to be wrong?

Personally, I'm just curious. I am curious as to what changes the odds that a female vs a male child is conceived, although I don't think that either is 'wrong.' I'm curious as to how blacks are genetically different from asians, or caucasians, although I don't think any of them are 'better' or 'worse.' Unfortunately, some people take such information and use it to decide that they are defective, or substandard, or abnormal - but that's a value judgement, not a scientific one.

>Why not just leave people the hell alone, let them develop into who
>they will "be", even if it is the luck of the draw? If we tamper with certain
>"traits", we may just tamper out the very thing that's needed for someone
>to sit back one day and say, "hey, I figured out how to cure cancer"!

I agree; that may happen if we foolishly tamper with such things. Of course, by the same token, if we don't research such things because bigots might use the information for base purposes, we might also overlook that cure for cancer. Best to ignore said bigots entirely (IMO.)

[ROK 0]

Quote

actually, a very large number of people ARE totally heterosexual, and a much smaller number are totally homosexual.

then there's the people in the middle of the spectrum. I would suspect more of them lean more towards heterosexuality.

My first thought after reading what you have written, is that you are correct. If an accurate survey were taken by every male and female on the planet, resulting in the count of who has had sex with the opposite gender only, and who has had sex with the same gender only, and who has had sex with both, it would show that the majority are heterosexual.

If the same survey were taken in regard to who has fantasized about, or desired sex with the same gender, we'd probably find that Rhonda is 100% correct.

Do our thoughts, or our actions make us who we are? I submit that it's a combination of both.

A question:

If a man goes through his younger years, and then into adulthood always strongly desiring the same sex, but because of environment, marries a woman, and never acts on his desires, is he gay, or straight?