NY Gay Pride Weekend

[welsummerchicks]

There is no legal ground if it's a choice, either. Think about it.

Every law or legal function has a principle underlying it that provides grounds for the law itself.

'I don't like gays' or 'My religion doesn't like gays' - that's not an underlying principle of a law.

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

I think alot of you are confused about the idea of a "gay" gene. Please understand that there IS a decent amount of biological study being done and what it shows is very clear.. Sexuality and gender are not ONE gene. They are the result of dozens of genes which in some ways do not appear to be connected to one another at all.
Sexuality and gender are not even the same set of genes! It is the issue that sexuality and gender are not the same that makes it SO compelling to get people to understand that they are NOT the same. Your gender does not specify your sexuality, nor is your gender necessarily born out in your physical appearance.



Most cultures have had ways of having people cross over if they thought they were born in the wrong bodies. In India, it is considered good luck to have a cross gendered person at your wedding as they personify the unity between both genders. It is believed that being reborn in a body of the opposite gender is to give you the chance to teach us all that both genders are one. Native American tribes had norms that allowed people to choose to become one or the other and the entire tribe accepted the person's choice to behave and dress as the gender they felt they were. Men who married such "women" were never considered "gay" because She was a woman....

We Americans are the ones who are so insistent that this is an either or situation. We want things to be black and white up or down.

The world is gray.

The number of people who are "gay" is a consistent percentage throughout history and cultures. There must be some reason for this as most do not reproduce.....

For silliness sake there are gay animals! Goats! Ask me some time about my friends goats!!

 

[Boyd]

Quote:
Do you mean more people are becoming gay or that more are coming out of the closet. Since it's a genetic issue, I think the overall % stays pretty close to the same. Of course if they make gay marriage legal in Colorado I might decide to be gay. That's a valid argument right?

I think more and more are being open about it.. I know quite a few folks who kept it bottled up for as long as they could.. and it was either be the person who made you happy or opt out of the world. Sadly many in the age group older than my age group opted out for life..

 

[Inkheart]

Personally i thin it is as simple as lets see say you really dont like broccoli ( which i hate! LOL ) and i love corn . Genetics and the way i was raised didnt cause these dislikes or likes . i didnt chose to dislike brocolli and love corn on the cob. It is what it is . There is no research that will ever prove why these are. There are no fixes for this . It is just that - preferences - and why would anyone force themselves to eat broccoli when they dont like it? You cant help it and really its ok - there are alot of other choices out there to enjoy - and these differences in us are jsut fine

 

[Dunkopf]

I have WHAT in my yard? :

I think alot of you are confused about the idea of a "gay" gene. Please understand that there IS a decent amount of biological study being done and what it shows is very clear.. Sexuality and gender are not ONE gene. They are the result of dozens of genes which in some ways do not appear to be connected to one another at all.
Sexuality and gender are not even the same set of genes! It is the issue that sexuality and gender are not the same that makes it SO compelling to get people to understand that they are NOT the same. Your gender does not specify your sexuality, nor is your gender necessarily born out in your physical appearance.



Most cultures have had ways of having people cross over if they thought they were born in the wrong bodies. In India, it is considered good luck to have a cross gendered person at your wedding as they personify the unity between both genders. It is believed that being reborn in a body of the opposite gender is to give you the chance to teach us all that both genders are one. Native American tribes had norms that allowed people to choose to become one or the other and the entire tribe accepted the person's choice to behave and dress as the gender they felt they were. Men who married such "women" were never considered "gay" because She was a woman....

We Americans are the ones who are so insistent that this is an either or situation. We want things to be black and white up or down.

The world is gray.

The number of people who are "gay" is a consistent percentage throughout history and cultures. There must be some reason for this as most do not reproduce.....

For silliness sake there are gay animals! Goats! Ask me some time about my friends goats!!

Thank you for the clarification. I've always been told it was a gene thing, which to me means you have this gene or that gene. Black and white as you say. What you have stated explains the reasoning behind bi-sexuality. It also explains why some homosexual men can function in a marriage even though they aren't happy about it.​

 

[welsummerchicks]

Complicated behaviors are determined by multiple genes and multiple areas of the brain interacting and communicating with each other -- 'object choice' is a complex behavior.

Complicated behaviors (like an 'object preference'), are not going to be from one part of the brain or one gene(and yes, by the way, the whole 'right brain/left brain myth is just that - a myth - to do any one behavior, action or thought, messages fly all over the brain).

It does not require changing all the structures of the brain, to change a complicated behavior.

ALl you have to do is interfere with one little tiny area of the brain communicating with another.

How? Damage a few cells in a neural pathway. Very simple. These pathways connect parts of the brain.

An example - emotions form in a very primitive part of the brain. They then actual 'travel' to another part of the brain to be 'tuned' and 'refined'.

When a person has a severe brain injury, you can quite often see what the emotions would look like if they weren't 'tuned' in this way. Pretty simple and primitive.

The people who say that 'object preference' (which gender one is attracted to) can be 'retaught', don't understand how brains work.

Say a person has a stroke and their arm does not work, because the part of the brain that controlled it, was damaged by the stroke. That arm is controlled by the cortex('cortex' means 'bark' - it's like the outer layer of a tree), or outer layer of the brain, which is very deliberately made so that if part is damaged, another part CAN take over. Think about it - it makes sense. The outer parts of the brain are more 'plastic' and other parts can be recruited.

AND...a person can have a stroke that ruins their arm, and still be very able to make decisions, evaluate information - and survive - with one arm(yes it is miraculous, but that's how it works - we're made to survive such strokes and even wounds to the outer brain).

But not all of the brain is like that. Once you get out of the cortex and get into other parts of the brain, things are very, very different. You get down inside the brain, and things are very different. THERE - in most cases, damage to the brain has a much more permanent and unchangeable effect.

One function of genes is to control growth. Genes aren't actually just 'on' or 'off' - especially during the growth of a fetus, a gene has to switch on and off for specific parts of fetal growth. If a gene is off too much, or doesn't switch back on at the right time, it can be active, it can be expressed, but STILL not do its job 100% effectively.

AND - cells in the brain (other than that outer cortex) are extremely specific. For example, there are only 2-3 cells in the brain that are responsible for a certain kind of vision - let's say, seeing a backlit human figure walking towards you, if you lose the cells that process that sort of image, you're done seeing that sort of image. Nothing can make up for that. That's it.

Most likely, if you LOOK at something like that, you'll not see correctly what's there - all you'll feel is a vague anxiety and fear that something isn't right (our brains are ALSO designed to say 'run away' if some information does not 'compute' or make sense to us).

What happens with schizophrenic people, is that certain brain cells die. They may have a very specific job to do (like see the human silhouette, as described above), or they may be just one cell in a complicated pathway to another part of the brain. The more of those cells that 'drop out' (they just disappear, frankly - no inflamation, nothing) the more inefficiently and scrambled are messages to other parts of the brain.

When cells drop out, some cells that connect to THAT cell, are going to try and connect to ANOTHER brain cell - the 'wrong' cell, in other words.

Once you pass by that 'cortex' (outer layer), it is VERY, VERY, VERY important that each brain cell be connected to the RIGHT brain cell, and that those pathways are working very, very well.

Otherwise, you affect decision making, evaluation of information, and many other very, very basic functions that we assume are an inviolate part of ourselves.

SO. It is not always a gene that DIRECTLY causes a change of behavior. Sometimes all that has to happen, is that a gene will be responsible for some tiny step in the development of the brain - it may tell the body how to make a substance that nourishes the nerve cells as they develop, or tells the nerve cells how to migrate, dock and hook up with other nerve cells.

All it takes to affect behavior, is for a few nerve cells to not attach properly, to be injured early in development, or to be deprived of nutrients - you can markedly change things like 'object choice'.

NOT ONLY THAT...it's quite possible that having a few nerve cells hook up wrong, or develop wrong, can affect later growth processes - MUCH later. The brain grows very fast at 1 1/2, at 8, and 17 or so....there is an awful lot of evidence that having some wrong nerve cells may not cause any problem until that error throws a growth process out of wack, much, much later on.

The brain is always 'pruning' nerve cells - but that process goes on at a very high rate when the brain develops at its fastest. And it can easily get thrown out of wack.

SO the gene that 'causes' a person to be 'gay' - it isn't going to be a 'gay' gene at all, that just turns 'gay' on and off like a light switch. Absolutely not necessary, and extremely unlikely. To date, researchers HAVE found genes that a rather puzzling number of gay people do have - these are referred to as 'putative' genes - ones that seem to be common to a group of people. Then it takes tons of research to figure out - WHY would this gene have anything to do with being gay? How does it work? What does it do? If it's totally off, or off too much of the time, or even ON too much of the time, how does it affect the growth and function of the brain? Do ALL gay people have it? Does anyone ELSE have it? These things take years to answer.

And sometimes, as in the gene for Rhetts, a discovery just causes more questions. For example, why do some mildly mentally disabled boys have this gene, when only girls get Rhetts? Often this doesn't mean the gene has NOTHING to do with the problem you're investigating, it only means that we're got a whole 'nother layer of complexity to dig through - perhaps OTHER genes turn that one off in boys? Perhaps if A, B and C happens, this gene does nothing. So it's not that this gene has NOTHING to do with Rhetts, it's that its action is much more complex than we first imagined.

Instead, it's going to be something very very subtle - like a gene that causes a nerve cell nurturing substance to not be quite as effective, or one that causes some nerve cells to connect up incorrectly - and this 'defect' might not actually influence behavior til years later.

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

Exactly!!!

I know of a couple who recently had a baby that is gender indetermined. (Spell check doesn't even like that term but that is how it is referred....) Not UN, but IN.

Anyway, they are faced with a large series of awkward questions. The one doctor is pushing them to "determine" their baby's gender and have the corrective surgery done right away. As is usually the case the doctors say make the baby a girl, its easier surgically and there are fewer complications. But the parents are well educated and they want more info so they're seeking testing to see what internal organs the baby has. Like are there undescended testes, are there ovaries? But, even if they answer these questions, they may not know which genes will turn on or off during puberty. There are cases of men with ovaries they never knew about. And women with undescended testes.

The number of babies born this way is actually pretty high and appears to be growing. Chemicals?? Food?? Pollution?? Who knows.....

 

[welsummerchicks]

I don't think so. Just people discussing it more openly. I don't actually think it's medically rare-rare-rare even, it's just more something people never talked about. Embarrassed or something, I don't know. I'm not privvy to that thought process, as I said, polka dots or not, we're all made by God, who does not make mistakes...or....we wouldn't call it God, we'd call it 'some sort of flawed natural or semi supernatural force that makes mistakes, now and again'.

As far as having various 'vestigal' organs, the more 'vestigal' they are the less likely they are to indicate the person' brain and behavior are going to be in the same direction.

MOST people, I think, are pretty 'reliable' - whatever organs they have more of at birth, they're most likely going to be more of, psychologically, mentally later in life.

There are actual measurements doctors take, and it is determined based on that. And frankly, if it was all that rare, they wouldn't have this tidy little protocol all worked out.

The more of 'this' or 'that' one got, the more likely that person is to be comfortable with that identity, because the more 'this or that' you get at birth, the more your whole brain and everything else is to be that way at adolescence and adulthood. it's pretty reliable.....

but...the trouble is, when a baby's born, whatever sort of this or that bits he or she might have, that's not any absolutely 100% sure indication of what they're going to be more comfortable being later on. To be absolutely sure in every case, takes some time. But most people are comfortable with their identity - I am not sure if people do better if they're told about it, or not.

The trouble is, to do that sort of surgery at adolescence and let a person make a choice, it would be much more risky and much bigger risk of complications - physical definitely, maybe even psychologicial - I'm not really sure doctors have that much of an option. I have heard of some parents waiting, I'm not sure there's any research or even empirical experience that would recommend one course or the other.

But of course...we do understand that anatomy or vestigal anatomy....it doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with 'gay' or 'bi'....right? That it's just another one of those human variations that is...well...'normal'.

Yes, frankly, I do think it actually is 'normal' - intersexes and all that, I think happen in most species, definitely all mammals, at a steady rate.

 

[AquaEyes]

The direction of this thread reminded me of an email discussion I had with my Behavior Genetics professor last year. I'm pasting the text from it here, in the hopes that it will make us think of even more questions.






This has been bugging me a bit....so please forgive me for writing a short paper in an email.

~Christopher




I question the relevance of the studies into the biological differences associated with sexual orientation in people living in societies with a social proscription against any deviation from pure heterosexual orientation and behavior. Based on historical, cultural and logical accounts, I believe such a restrictive orientation is not natural for our species, and prior to the spread of Judeo-Christian-Islamic philosophy, many cultures did not show evidence of negative connotations to expression of homosexual behavior (and in many cultures, it was actually encouraged). What the studies I have read do not seem to acknowledge is that while strict homosexual orientation is atypical and rare, so is strict heterosexual orientation (unless there is a social learning mechanism enforcing it as in ideal). Measuring differences between those of homosexual orientation from those of heterosexual orientation within a population maintaining a social bias against any non-heterosexual behavior is thus including individuals who may otherwise engage in a bisexual orientation, if there was not social rejection from heterosexual relationships based on prior homosexual behavior, who have succumbed to social pressure to fall "on one side of the fence or the other." This will result in a blurring of any biological distinction between the two groups, and also fails to recognize that self-assigned orientation may be "one or the other" but impulses are likely to be more general. Sexual desire that contradicts self-assigned orientation is likely to still exist, but be overridden cognitively as a result of learning social taboos for the respective orientation.


This would result in another factor leading to self assignment into one orientation or another -- conformity versus non-conformity. Individuals with a greater need for social conformity may be more likely to restrict their sexual behavior to fit into a self-assigned orientation group. I am reminded of the Asch experiment, wherein individuals were seen to agree with incorrect responses of confederates of the experiment so as to avoid a small degree of social ostracism on about a third of the questions, with about three-quarters of participants agreeing with an incorrect answer at least once. When we are examining differences between individuals of self-assigned homosexual versus heterosexual orientation, a confounding variable will thus be degree of conformity.


Another factor which can influence self-assignment of sexual orientation is overall sexual drive. Individuals with diminished sexual drive may be more likely to "fall in line" with that which is expected by social norms. If, for example, two individuals have a similar Kinsey Scale number, each falling within the middle of the bisexual range, but the overall sexual drive is quantitatively much lower for person A than person B, then the non-heterosexual desires felt by person A will be a much weaker force than in person B. This could result in person A self-identifying as heterosexual in orientation because any homosexual desire, while relatively equal to heterosexual desire, is still ultimately weak, and less likely to result in deviation from a social norm. Conversely, the relatively equal and ultimately strong opposing sexual desires of person B could cause conflict with the social norm, resulting in either suppression of non-heterosexual desire in order to conform, or defiant expression of both which could cause ostracism from the rest of the population of heterosexual orientation, causing an end-result of more social acceptance within the population of homosexual orientation.


As a person self-identified as homosexual in orientation (but acknowledgedly not strictly so as far as desire and behavior), I have seen that there are many "kinds" of people who call themselves gay. Some are obviously presenting gender-atypical behavior to various degrees, and have for most of their memories. These are the "kinds" of people who seem most often to be representative of what the non-gay population characterize the gay population as being, and I believe this has carried over into scientific research. It is understandable that to those not frequently acquainted with gay people, the "gender atypical" are more readily apparent, but are they representative of all gay people? When I read about correlations between gender-atypical physiology and homosexuality, I wonder if what is really being measured is not homosexuality, but gender-atypical behavior. I have yet to read a study (though this does not imply that they don't exist) which qualifies homosexual individuals on a scale of masculinity to femininity when comparing to opposite-sex heterosexual counterparts. How do we know that we are not comparing feminine heterosexual women with feminine homosexual men? Does this not result in another confounding variable?


I would like to see a study comparing differences between orientations which assigned people based on physiological reaction to selective stimuli, rather than self-assignment. I remember reading about a study at the University of Georgia from about ten years or so ago that involved self-identified heterosexual men who were rated on degree of homophobia via questionnaire, and then escorted to a room where they were told to affix a device to their penises which measured blood flow (as a measure of arousal). They were then presented a series of "imagery" ranging from neutral to male-female, female-female, and male-male porn. A positive correlation was found between degree of homophobia and degree of arousal at male-male "imagery." It was theorized that the homophobia was an emotional response to the individuals' own homosexual desires that were unresolved and unexpressed. Interesting, but my point in mentioning this is that self-identified orientation (in this case, strictly heterosexual) is not necessarily the same as physiological measures of arousal would indicate. If we are to seek biological mechanisms at play which result in differences in sexual orientation, then biological measurements of arousal would more clearly define the study populations than self-reported orientation, and remove some of the social-learning confounding variables.


----------
From: XXXXXXXX <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:29 PM
To: XXXXXXX <[email protected]>




Hi Christopher,

I understood where you were going in general, but thanks for taking the time to write it out.

For the most part, I agree with your points. As with ALL behavior genetics, one must be very careful interpreting the results of these studies. I have tried very hard to emphasize the importance of asking whether one is actually measuring what one thinks they are measuring. I also try to get people thinking about what one might actually be measuring. These papers on sexual orientation illustrate how important this is perfectly. Maybe you can ask about this in class? This could be a fun discussion!

On a personal note, I can see we have a lot to discuss and could probably eat up a lot of electrons corresponding. If you have the inclination, please feel free to make an appointment. I generally prefer talking to writing. I am very interested in the topic and obviously enjoy thinking/talking about it.

I’ll try not to compose my own tome as a response to your e-mail, but I have a feeling I’ll fail in that endeavor.

I’m not sure I agree that strict homosexual or heterosexual orientation is rare or atypical. I think that depends very much on how one defines sexual orientation. I hope it is clear that I do not define orientation by behavior, per se. That is, a heterosexual can engage in same-sex sexual contact without fitting my definition of a homosexual. Likewise, a homosexual may engage in opposite-sex sexual behavior without being heterosexual. I contend that orientation is strict, but behavior is not necessarily strict.

I have unconventional thoughts about the bases of homosexuality, not all of which are accepted by or popular among my peers. I do not think that the empirical evidence supports incomplete masculinization of the brain as a potential “cause” of homosexuality. Gay men know they are men, demonstrating that there is no issue with masculinization of the brain circuits that underlie the establishment of gender identity. There is quite a bit of evidence supporting the idea that gay men engage in more gender atypical behavior than heterosexual men (e.g. the UCLA “sissy-boy” studies). However, as you point out, the motivation behind the GAB is not elucidated by these studies. I do not think the GAB is related to feeling feminine per se and could certainly be related to cognition, as you point out. GAB is also clearly not predictive of sexual orientation. We both know very feminine heterosexual men and very masculine homosexual men. (I’m ignoring lesbians for the time being – my thoughts on the bases of homosexuality in women is even more nuttier. I think gay men and lesbians should not be lumped together. Yes, both are homosexual but I think the bases of homosexuality are vastly different in men and women.)

One thing I think it might help for you to know when considering the literature: many of the lead researchers identify themselves as homosexual. Bailey, Pillard, Hamer, LeVay, Byne are all gay men. The point being that these researchers are not out-of-touch academics perched atop an ivory tower who have no clue about homosexuality. Granted, each has their own experience and perspective which undoubtedly differs markedly from other individuals, e.g. LeVay thinks/believes that homosexuality is a result of developmental processes in utero, whereas Byne thinks/believes that homosexuality is a result of environmental influences during psychosexual development. However, they are not clueless and are probably less affected by the stereotypes you mention.

You might be interested to know that I am writing an article tentatively titled something like “The Brains of Gay Men are as Masculinized as Heterosexual Men: Time to Let Go and Test Some New Hypotheses” for the Archives of Sexual Behavior. I need a better title, but you get the idea. I have a feeling the peer-review process will be ugly on this one. A lot of careers have been spent investigating the idea of incomplete masculinization in the brains of gay men. I begin by defining sexual orientation, which lead me to a question: how do YOU define sexual orientation?

Non-sequitor: If ever you are interested in doing an independent study/directed readings course on this topic, please consider letting me act as your faculty mentor.

Best,

Scott

 

[arockkid]

Um, the clear and concise answer is that they DEFINITELY do better knowing, and the earlier it is explained the better.
And some antiquated doctors will push parents to perform 'cosmetic surgery' on infants....slice-happy surgeons will convince parents that the child will grow up feeling normal, as they now look normal, and the parent's secret can stay just that.

But do you know what adults who've had this 'cosmetic surgery' refer to it when they are grown? Genital mutilation. There are far more complications performing this on infants, and as they grow they need to be modified and corrected anyway. Think about the difference between surgery on an adult vs. newborn. A no-brainer.

The only thing that they recommend doing (remember, this is coming from a parent of an intersex child, and with the guidance of a renowned pediatric sexual psychologist with over 30 years experience) is to ASSIGN gender....and this is simply because drawing attention from EVERYONE ('is it a boy or girl?' 'oh, neither') will make them feel abnormal unnecessarily. It'd be great if that wasn't the case, but....it is.