The biological determinist Left takes in on the chin again..

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Ray A

Re: The biological determinist Left takes in on the chin again..

Post by _Ray A »

Perusing the links given by Droopy I came across this article in New Scientist

Helen Wallace, of the UK lobby group GeneWatch, welcomes the new research that moves away from the controversial single-gene theory for homosexuality. “But it’s worth noting that the data on the sexuality of family members may be unreliable, so more studies are likely to be needed to confirm these findings,” she says.

Even if the maternal factors identified by Camperio-Ciani’s team are linked with male homosexuality, the research team’s calculations suggest they account for only about 14% of the incidence.

Their findings also support earlier findings that when mothers have several sons, the younger ones are progressively more likely to be gay. This might be due to effects changes to the mother’s immune system with each son they carry.

But Camperio-Ciani calculates the contribution of this effect to male homosexuality at 7% at most. So together, he says, the “maternal” and “immune” effects only account for 21% of male homosexuality, leaving 79% of the causation still a mystery.

This leaves a major role for environmental factors, or perhaps more genetic factors. “Genes must develop in an environment, so if the environment changes, genes go in a new direction,” he says. “Our findings are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality.”


The point is, how can anyone say that homosexuality is always a choice?

Isn't that what you maintain, Droopy? Or am I reading you wrong?
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: The biological determinist Left takes in on the chin again..

Post by _beastie »

This dissertation discusses twin studies and the problems therein.

http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_s ... index.html

The section "problems with the twin method study" contains pertinent information, such as possible in utero differences even for twins.

This study, like other recent ones, tends to the gestational neurohormonal theories.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Thama
_Emeritus
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:46 pm

Re: The biological determinist Left takes in on the chin again..

Post by _Thama »

For matters of inherited genetic determinism, twin studies are quite informative.

What Droopy doesn't seem to grasp, as illustrated on a previous thread, is that inherited genetic determinism is not the only form of biological determinism (though the two are sometimes used interchangeably). There are many, many biological mechanisms which may alter the phenotype of an organism after fertilization has occurred, such as epigenetic effects, hormonal effects, nutrition, the presence or absence of various toxins and morphogens, and even the presence or absence of other organisms and their proximity. Such factors alter the way in which genes are expressed and the effects of their expression on the organism.
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: The biological determinist Left takes in on the chin again..

Post by _beastie »

As interesting as these studies are, I think whether or not homosexuality is a biological predisposition is pretty irrelevant in terms of this social struggle, anyway. As I said, even if it were conclusively proven that homosexuality wasn't a "choice", the anti-gays would still insist that homosexuality is socially dangerous and people who are cursed with this biological predisposition have to resist it, anyway (a la Card).

As for my pro-gay side, we have to be careful, too. I suspect that pedophilia is probably a biological predisposition, as well, in many, if not most, cases. But pedophilia is clearly socially dangerous and destructive, so cannot be allowed or condoned in any way. I do think it's one of those tragedies of life that some people are born that way, and will struggle to control it until the day they die, but that doesn't change my opinion that it is socially destructive and the behavior must be eliminated - and if takes putting them in jail to do so, so be it.

So I think the real case for anti-gays is to prove that homosexuality is socially destructive and dangerous the way pedophilia is. And they can't, without resorting to religion. In the end, the danger is "God doesn't want you to do it, so we are going to do our best to make you stop". Obviously, that ain't gonna wash in a nontheocratic society. So they try to dress it up in "homosexuality harms stable heterosexual relationships, marriage", blahblahblah - which is pretty much a load of hogwash.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_antishock8
_Emeritus
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:02 am

Re: The biological determinist Left takes in on the chin again..

Post by _antishock8 »

I think heterosexuals have long ago lost any claim to moral authority when it comes to any kind of behavior, whatsoever. Period.

Next!
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: The biological determinist Left takes in on the chin again..

Post by _EAllusion »

I want to elaborate on what Thama said.

To say a trait is genetically determined is to say that it was determined by one's genes. That's rather obvious, but it isn't always obvious how that differs from saying something is biologically determined. First, it's important to note that no one seriously thinks that genes alone determine a trait, if only because genes have to physically interact with different environs to produce phenotype. When something is said to be genetically determined, what is meant is that what genes an individual has is the predominate factor in determining that trait. When someone is accused of genetic determinism as a negative, what typically is meant is that the person is incorrectly thinking genes play a larger role than they do. Twin studies can be helpful in figuring out to what extent differences in heredity help explain differences in a population. That's their use.

To say something is biologically determined is to say biological states determine the nature of the trait. This is quite different, as factors other than genes play a role in what biology an individual has. If you believe cognitive states and behavior are determined by brain states, then you necessarily think that a given cognitive state or behavior is biologically determined. But that brain state need not be predominately determined by genes. If you think the incidence of homosexuality is a consequence of environmental factors like prenatal hormonal environments, socio-cultural mores, or even sexual seduction, that doesn't mean you don't think it is a matter of biology. Heck, if you want to call homosexuality a choice, that still doesn't mean you don't think it is biologically determined. So long as you think that choice is a brain state, you do. These twin studies do not in any way touch "biological determinism" and, ironically enough, are almost if not exclusively done by people who are likely to think sexual orientation is a matter of biology.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Re: The biological determinist Left takes in on the chin again..

Post by _Moniker »

Droopy, why didn't you add some comments to the study you posted?

I don't even understand why "choice" is really such a factor in the debate. If two consenting adults desire sexual relations why is anyone else all that concerned about it?

I think droopy is just a voyeur and likes to peek in bedrooms and make sure no kinkiness is being manifested. He probably wears a cape and tights while on these sexual morality policing raids.
_John Larsen
_Emeritus
Posts: 1895
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:16 pm

Re: The biological determinist Left takes in on the chin again..

Post by _John Larsen »

Tarski has it right. The Left doesn't care if sexuality is determined by genetics or is purely choice. That fact is completely irrelevant to the ideas of personal freedom.
_Thama
_Emeritus
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:46 pm

Re: The biological determinist Left takes in on the chin again..

Post by _Thama »

Moniker wrote:Droopy, why didn't you add some comments to the study you posted?

I don't even understand why "choice" is really such a factor in the debate. If two consenting adults desire sexual relations why is anyone else all that concerned about it?

I think droopy is just a voyeur and likes to peek in bedrooms and make sure no kinkiness is being manifested. He probably wears a cape and tights while on these sexual morality policing raids.


He didn't even post a study... he posted a commentary on a study by someone who takes the reported data to indicate something very different from what the original researchers reported. Of course, this commentary is made by a PhD (though no mention is made of what it is in) who appears to frequently write articles for NARTH, a group of conservative activists who on their website promote treatment for the "development of heterosexual potential" for homosexuals.

Let's see a review article that reaches the same conclusions from an actual mainstream scientific journal. It won't happen, and it isn't because Nature, [i]Science[i], and the American Psychiatric Association are part of a vast leftist conspiracy, either.
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: The biological determinist Left takes in on the chin again..

Post by _EAllusion »

The author Droopy quoted can only be found on conservative Christian anti-gay websites, like NARTH. Droopy almost certainly is just quoting NARTH here, despite not referencing it.

As far as N.E. Whitehead goes, the most I could find was that he received a Ph.D. in biochem in New Zealand. It didn't say where from, and I haven't been able to go beyond that. I cannot find any published research from him.

I didn't look into the referenced study myself. Given what is reported here, which admittedly comes from a dubious source, you'd be looking at a new large-scale study that puts the correlation effects at from the high-low/low-moderate range, which would be contrary to the usual findings I'm familiar with being somewhat higher. It doesn't really matter for the points mentioned in the thread.

Incidentally, the paper being referred to is called "Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic," which I chuckled at. Maybe I'll read it a bit later.

Edit:

Here's the abstract for the paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17904267

We investigated the potential to engage in homosexual behavior in 6001 female and 3152 male twins and their siblings finding that 32.8% of the men and 65.4% of the women reported such potential (p<0.001). 91.5% of these men and 98.3% of these women reported no overt homosexual behavior during the preceding 12 months. The potential to engage in homosexual behavior was influenced by genetic effects for both men (37.4%) and women (46.4%) and these overlapped only partly with those for overt homosexual behavior.
Post Reply