| Revision as of 04:27, 20 August 2004 editSimonP (talk | contribs)Administrators113,128 edits from VfD← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:32, 14 June 2024 edit undoZenomonoz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,169 edits →CommentTag: 2017 wikitext editor |
| (831 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
For an August 2004 deletion debate over this page see: ] |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
I've added some more detail on the LeVay hypothalamus study, which seemed a little sketchily-described before. I hope I haven't made the description too long - if so, someone is welcome to shorten it. Given that this study has been subjected to constant methodological criticisms (try a Google search), it seemed reasonable to discuss some aspects of the methodology, particularly relating to the classification of subjects, in more detail. I've also added information on the similar, more recent study by William Byne and colleagues. I agree with the maveric149 that the current title of the article isn't perfect. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Psychology}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Biology and sexual orientation/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Ref ideas |
|
|
|1={{cite journal |last1=Swift-Gallant |first1=Ashlyn |title= Organizational Effects of Gonadal Hormones on Human Sexual Orientation |date=2023 |publisher=Springer |DOI=10.1007/s40750-023-00226-x |pages= 344–370 |url= https://rdcu.be/dKFPC |language=en |journal=Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology |url-access=limited}} |
|
|
|2={{cite journal | vauthors = Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht M | title = Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science | journal = Psychological Science in the Public Interest | volume = 17 | issue = 2 | pages = 45–101 | date = September 2016 | pmid = 27113562 | doi = 10.1177/1529100616637616 | doi-access = free }} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University_Fullerton/Gender_and_Technoculture_(Spring_2022) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2022-01-24 | end_date = 2022-05-13 }} |
|
I will add some stuff on twin studies in a few days if I get the time. --], 14 June 2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
:The twin studies section is done, though somebody might like to make it a little more concise if they think it's too long. ] 11:28 22 Jun 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Undated Citation Needed tags == |
|
::Great work! --] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are 3 undated Citation needed tags. One of them is from March 2007, so if someone more familiar can take a look and see whether they are still needed. Thanks ] (]) 05:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
---- |
|
|
removed from article: |
|
|
:''These studies show that there is no scientific data to support a genetic or biologic basis for same-sex attractions.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Sexual Orientation in Twins: Evidence That Human Sexual Identity May Be Determined Five Days Following Fertilization == |
|
This statement doesn't logically follow the findings of these studies; which have shown that 1) there is a possible sexual-orientation dimorphism (difference in the size of a part of the brain), 2) the sexual orientation of identical twins seems to follow a predictable pattern once the orientation of one twin is known, and 3) there is a cetain gene that tends to follow individuals who identify as homosexual. --] |
|
|
|
PMCID: PMC10757681 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51346 |
|
|
The disparity in sexual identity in monozygous twins may relate to the time of splitting of the zygote– twins resulting from splitting on or before day 5 after fertilisation are free to develop their own sexual identity; twins splitting after day five have the same identity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
See: ] (]) 03:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
In addition, the current title of the article misses the point -- only one of these studies really deals with genetics. The other two deal with phenotypes and behavior -- which arise from varying degrees of interaction between genes, the chemical environment of the body, the outside environment, self-identification, etc. A MUCH better title would be ]. If there is such a thing as a 'gay gene' (or more likely ''genes'') there is every reason to believe that it/they has/have only some degree of ''influence'' on sexual orientation that is somehow "set" in early to late adolescence (thus its supposed "innateness"). Many other factors are probably also at play. --] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Bad paper, incorrect twin concordance, for example. ] (]) 02:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
I agree that the "no data to support" sentence was biased. Thank you for removing it. Readers should be free to draw their own conclusions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Comment == |
|
I am open to an improved title, too. I only chose "genetic basis" because that's what the three types of studies seemed to be focusing on, and the words ''gene'' and ''genetic'' are fairly well-understood to our general readership. I am not sure what ''innate'' means. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi {{u|CommonKnowledgeCreator}}, thanks for your contribution to the evolution section. However, Misplaced Pages generally relies on secondary sources. I think you've included excessive focus on the kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy hypotheses, mostly using primary source studies. It's great there is an overview of the history, but we only need to cite secondary sources on the general consensus on these models. ] (]) ] (]) 02:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
I contributed the article to shed light on the '''moral''' debate over homesexuality by presenting '''scientific''' findings related to the contention that adults cannot change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Some (most?) arguments over morality hinge on the aspect of human volition. A person who doesn't realize what he is doing is wrong, or who "can't help it", is judged far more leniently than, say, a murderer in cold blood. Not to say that homosexuality is equivalent to murder, of course! Just that people are only judged on what they can do. A better example might be a vehicle collision. If you didn't see that other car running the red light, you aren't held responsible, whereas if you plainly say the blind person slowly jaywalking across your path in plenty of time to stop, it's a different matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I am more than aware that Misplaced Pages generally relies on secondary sources. However, per WP:BMI, this is not a medical topic and one that appears (after a search of Google Scholar) to have few secondary sources that systematically review the subject (as most of the content does not appear to systematic reviews or meta-analyses), and WP:RS does not preclude primary sources and only states that secondary sources are preferred. As far as evolution and homosexuality are concerned, kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy are the two main evolutionary hypotheses for homosexuality, and there does not appear to be a consensus about whether either is true. The only review using Google Scholar that I found that discusses kin selection or antagonistic pleiotropy does still suggest that the latter is a plausible hypothesis. -- ] (]) 03:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
I am trying hard to distinguish between '''advocacy''' (which I seem to slip into unbeknownst to my self) and providing relevant, useful NPOV articles. I look forward to receiving additional feedback from Maverick and Danny and SR and anyone else who has good ideas on how I can improve my contributions. |
|
|
|
::I'm not convinced of this argument for including so much focus on primary source studies? Many studies have questionable effect sizes, which is why it's best to avoid them, especially on a topic as controversial as this. As for not being able to find reviews, they are better reviewed and criticized in text books. |
|
|
::{{tq|"Kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy are the two main evolutionary hypotheses for homosexuality.. there does not appear to be a consensus about whether either is true"}} – they're both largely ruled out by GWAS, especially exclusive male homosexuality. There's still plausibility for antagonistic maintenance of the trait through other mechanisms such as however. |
|
|
::I'm not saying they should not be covered, the does indeed refer to both of them. I just think the coverage should be trimmed down, similar to the extent it is covered in that review. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::] (]) 04:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
], Wednesday, May 8, 2002 |
|
|
|
:::{{tq|As for not being able to find reviews, they are better reviewed and criticized in text books. ... I'm not saying they should not be covered, the Bailey review does indeed refer to both of them.}} Was not aware {{strikethrough|of}} the Bailey article is a review. What textbooks refer to them? I certainly agree that reviews would be better than the primary sources cited for the reasons that you've cited. Are there reviews of GWAS research that contradicts the kin selection and antagonistic pleiotropy hypotheses? -- ] (]) 13:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::{{u|CommonKnowledgeCreator}}, alongside the Bailey review you could refer to textbook with various chapters, or , or ] also has some discussion of evolutionary hypotheses. There are more I can find if need be. Hope this helps! ] (]) 03:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
It's been almost a year since I wrote this article. Would someone please finish it? At least the twin studies... --] 22:31 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::I'm sure that textbook would be great. Unfortunately, it has a paywall so I cannot access it. -- ] (]) 11:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
---- |
|
|
|
::::::{{u|CommonKnowledgeCreator}} – oh, just start using , which you qualify for. You get access to paywalled content from all the leading publishers. Access to the Springer collection is probably the best, as you get all their papers ''and'' books. I recommend using the 'access collection' button on each publisher and then conducting your search, rather than using the search box at the top of Misplaced Pages Library (which accesses papers in a clunky format, with poor search capability). Hope this helps. ] (]) 09:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
Maybe this research item will help: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Gay Gene Isolated, Ostracized |
|
|
BALTIMORE—On Friday, scientists at Johns Hopkins University isolated the gene which causes homosexuality in human males, promptly separating it from normal, heterosexual genes. "I had suspected that gene was queer for a long time now. There was just something not quite right about it," team leader Dr. Norbert Reynolds said. "It's a good thing we isolated it—I wouldn't want that faggot-ass gene messing with the straight ones." Among the factors Reynolds cited as evidence of the gene's gayness were its pinkish hue, meticulously frilly perimeter, and faint but distinct perfume-like odor. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 21:38 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hm. I don't know if I should laugh my gay-ass ass off or be insulted. --] 23:15 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
:I vote for the first one, though you should promptly reattach it. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::LOL - now that was unquestionably funny. :) --mav |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
All of this seems to beg the question of whether "homosexuality" is even well-defined, let alone genetically determined. Seems to me that a social construct that has, at most, about 35 years of existence in something like its current form and less than 150 years in any even vaguely resemblant form would not readily expected to be tied to genetics. For example, there is an enormous methodological problem in determining whether a particular person is homosexual. How? Self-description of identity? Self-description of behavior? Controlled study of reaction to images? Is a (behaviorally) bisexual person "homosexual" in this sense? (Thought experiment: was Oscar Wilde a homosexual? How about Virginia Woolf?) |
|
|
|
|
|
As recently as the 1960s, there was a tendency to count only one partner in many actions we would now call "gay sex" as homosexual. "Trade" were not considered homosexual. In the Spanish-speaking world, much the same obtains even today: a macho guy who has sex with effeminate men is categorized very differently from those effeminate men. With different cultural categories, a biological determinist would go looking for a gene for a different social trait. Why should anyone reasonably expect that this sort of search is any better science than phrenology? Why not expect a gene for monosexuality vs. bisexuality, or for preferring to be on the top during sex? Answer: because they are not comparably important categories in our culture so we don't go looking for them. |
|
|
|
|
|
I could probably go on at great length, but I hope I've already made myself clear without expanding this into an essay. -- ] 07:49, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is a fallacy to say that just because something is not known of or defined that it does not exist (did most of the elements not exist before they were discovered?). It is also a fallacy to state that something exists just because something is known of or defined (do UFOs exist just because they are known of?). Just because homosexuals have only been out for the last three decades or so does not mean that homosexuality (not just homosexual acts) didn't exist before then (and vice versa). |
|
|
|
|
|
:My point is that only sociological and especially biological studies can determine whether or not homosexuality is a new phenomenon or something that has always been with us. Oh and biology and sociology do interact. So if there is such a thing as a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, one would expect to see this acted upon differently in different societies. For example, in many parts of the Mid-East being gay is a capital offense. Needless to say homosexuality is highly repressed in those situations and thus does not appear to exist except as rare abberations. Please don't let past repression of "homosexuals" give you the impression that homosexuality did not exist during far more oppressive times. Let the researchers find this out. --] 08:39, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that some in the past there were a certain number of individuals who conformed reasonably well to our current notion of homosexuality. I'm just saying that there is a long history of searching for, and even seeming to find, scientific evidence for contemporary social contracts. What I am saying is that no one is looking for a genetic predisposition to be "trade", or to be a bondage bottom, or to prefer to wear lavender, because they are not important social categories in our current society. All of these are equally real, or unreal. I view with enormous skepticism any science that claims to validate contemporary social categories. A century ago, scientists were busily validating racial categories that are almost all now considered as lacking scientific validity. -- ] 21:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:? Different groups of people have different gene pools. Yes we are all remarkably alike for mammals, but there are regional variations (such as average height, skin color, pre-dispostion to certain ailments and abilities, etc.). Just because it is not PC to note these differences does not mean they do not exist (but all such claims need to be taken critically due to past abuse of those type of claims, of course). And please do not confuse 19th century ], ], and ] quacks with scientists. The comparison by example to current researchers is also a bit off. --mav |
|
|
|
|
|
Remember that they were not considered quacks in their own time. Yes, different people have different gene pools. There is probably a reasonable biological definition of "Icelanders" or "Ashkenazi", one that would correspond (closely, though not perfectly) with the normal use of the terms. But consider (for example) that there is now known to be more genetic diversity within the "negroid" people than in the entire rest of the human species. |
|
|
|
|
|
Would you agree that there is sociological rather than a scientific reason that contemporary scientists are looking for genetic "causes" of homosexuality rather than genetic "causes" of (exclusive) heterosexuality? If not, we are so far apart on this that I'll just drop the discussion with you and leave others to form their own conclusions. -- ] 23:40, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree but your question seems odd: The reason there is a genetic cause of heterosexuality is obvious; since we cannot reproduce asexually at least some men and women need to have sex to propagate the species. And there is a great deal of previous research on that subject and why sexual reproduction evolved in higher taxa and why it has persisted for so long. So some current researchers are investigating questions that do not have clear answers yet. But others continue work on refining answers as to why heterosexuality exists. Their work just doesn't grab headlines. --mav |
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly. But reproducing doesn't make one a "heterosexual" or, as I remarked above, we'd have to call Oscar Wilde a heterosexual. Ditto Leonard Bernstein. A strong case could be made that heterosexuality, as we now know it, is as much a social construct as homosexuality, as we now know it. |
|
|
-- ] 01:19, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:By "heterosexuality" I meant "sexual attraction primarily to the opposite sex". That is not a social construct. The reason this is useful in an evolutionary sense is that it encourages reproduction. --mav |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, obviously. Trivially. But clearly, these studies don't directly study, say, "sexual attraction primarily to the same sex." "Attraction" is very hard to measure. At best they study patterns of actual behavior. At worst they study who-knows-what (e.g. as the article notes in passing, the criteria for the classification of gay and non-gay in LeVay's study seem a bit murky; I make that remark not on the basis of this article but of other things I have read about the study). -- ] 08:59, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== homosexuality and natural selection question == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am curious to know if anyone has ever come across any information on the web concerning the genetic basis for homosexuality in light of the generally accepted theory of natural selection. I am writing a short paper on the subject and I am having trouble narrowing my internet searches sufficiently to uncover anything. Basically, my question is this: If a gene for homosexuality exists in the human genome, why has it not been "weeded out" after countless generations in which the most highly reproductive individuals would have been selected for? Obviously homosexuals would have passed on their genes far less frequently than heterosexuals, so how is it that these genes are still present in the human populations of today? Hopefully some of you will know a possible answer to this question or perhaps be able to suggest likely places on the web where I can seek it out myself. I appreciate your time in reading this message. |
|
|
|
|
|
-Brook |
|
|
:I know the "kindly gay uncle" theory has been proposed, meaning that a family member who does not reproduce has the time and resources to help nieces and nephews out, thus propagating his family's genes. Sounds rather dodgy to me, but some people do or have accepted it. ] 18:29, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It isn't at all obvious that gay and lesbian people would pass on their genes far less frequently considering the intense pressure to be straight and reproduce over the last few hundred years. Gay people pass on their genes all the time, in fact, gay and lesbian teenagers are twice as likely to impregnate someone or be impregnated (http://www.lesbianinformationservice.org/pregnancy.rtf). See: ] and ]. ] 17:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==What the studies show== |
|
|
|
|
|
''Cut from article:'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:These studies lend credence to the idea that there is a ] component to ], or that ] and ] may be partly the result of some otherwise innate physical characteristic(s). |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, this is exactly the '''opposite''' of what the studies show. They '''take away credence''' from the idea that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation; they don't bolster it at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
Unscrupulous or careless journalists may have '''cited''' these studies, or used ] to make it '''seem''' like the studies provided evidence for the "gays are born that way" hypothesis. |
|
|
|
|
|
But the researchers themselves say that such a conclusion is a misrepresentation. --] 17:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
From the article: |
|
|
:''These are theories: hard empirical data is lacking'' |
|
|
Shouldn't this be "These are hypotheses"? This article is mostly scientific, and as such should use the scientific definitions of theory/hypothesis, not the popular ones. ] 01:42, 13 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if there's no argument... ] 17:54, 28 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
There are 3 undated Citation needed tags. One of them is from March 2007, so if someone more familiar can take a look and see whether they are still needed. Thanks Slywriter (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
PMCID: PMC10757681 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51346
The disparity in sexual identity in monozygous twins may relate to the time of splitting of the zygote– twins resulting from splitting on or before day 5 after fertilisation are free to develop their own sexual identity; twins splitting after day five have the same identity.
.svg){kind=small}
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): C.ler2022 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bcruz-cisneros.