|
|
|
|
Thanks for that link, David - it's a useful summary.
The Camperio-Ciani study seems to be generally well thought of (I remember reading about it in New Scientist a couple of times), and interesting in that it recognises there may be multiple causes of homosexuality.
One evolutionary advantage to having a tendency to be gay passed down through the female line has not been mentioned. Anthropologically speaking, a very common form of society is matrilineal (after all, it is possible to know exactly who a kids mother is, but until very recently paternity was impossible to prove). In such societies, there is a strong tendency for the effective unit to be mother + mothers brother + kids, though the father is usually involved to some extent. By this, I mean that the mothers brother tends to assume much of what we think of as the fathers role - moral leadership by example, presenting the kid at ritual and social events, discipline, etc.
In these circumstances, a gene which increased fertility in a woman, and had a chance of also being present in her brother (making him less likely to have kids of his own, so "freeing up" the time he would have spent with his own kids) would mean that the woman was likely not only to have more kids but also to have a better chance of more help providing for them. That makes very sound evolutionary sense.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, NW.
I had not thought of the role of the mother's brother in raising her children -- largely because, of course, it's not done all that much any more. It would be an extension of the idea I mentioned of "gay man helps bring up members of his tribe, thus ensuring the survival of many common genes", but it is presumably particularly reliable since he is related so closely to the mother.
Since we don't have that sort of society any more, this hypothetical advantage has disappeared except in certain circumstances. The advantage of a mother being more fertile is not much use if she ends up wasting time and energy on children who don't have children of their own, or support any of their siblings and siblings' children. This presumably means there there is a selection pressure that may, over thousands of years, eventually get rid of gay people. Of course, this assumes a mostly genetic basis to homosexuality, and that there aren't other advantages to having gay children.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Been thinking about this for a while. I reckon that if there is no advantage to woman in carrying such a gene (because birth control offsets her increased fertility, and because the involvement of her brother is less likely to result in more successful offspring), and also there is no disadvantage (assuming modern society provides good support for all offspring, so the mother doesn't have to favour any of them) the evolutionary pressure either way would be zero.
If we're talking about a gene carried on the X chromosome, so transmitted only through the female line, the breeding or non-breeding of males doesn't seem directly relevant to the selection pressures on that particular gene.
However, it's over twenty-five years since I studied population genetics, and I was never that good at it at the best of times. It's an interesting question, and next time I'm back at my Mums I might dig out one of my old textbooks and re-visit the question.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NW said,
>Been thinking about this for a while. I reckon that if there is no advantage to woman in carrying such a gene (because birth control offsets her increased fertility, and because the involvement of her brother is less likely to result in more successful offspring), and also there is no disadvantage (assuming modern society provides good support for all offspring, so the mother doesn't have to favour any of them) the evolutionary pressure either way would be zero.
There is a huge disadvantage. If a mother has a gay child, then she is less likely to have another child; and that gay child is less likely to have children of his own. Mothers these days tend only to have between one and three children. If one is gay, then there are fewer offspring left to carry on her line, and thus it's more likely to die out! It's elementary Darwinian natural selection -- you don't need to bring genetics into it. (He didn't, because he couldn't, but he didn't need to in formulating his theory.)
>If we're talking about a gene carried on the X chromosome, so transmitted only through the female line,
To be pedantic, males have X chromosomes, and a father can pass his on to his daughter (though not his son), who in turn may pass it on to her own son. It's true that a boy's X chromosome always comes from his mother.
>the breeding or non-breeding of males doesn't seem directly relevant to the selection pressures on that particular gene.
Well, you're right that the gene can be passed from daughter to daughter without 'causing' anyone to be gay. But if every male a mother produces is more likely to be gay, and hence not reproduce, then it stands to reason that these will stand in the way of daughters and straight sons. Mothers usually don't know their sons are gay until it's too late to have any more -- and most wouldn't want to have more, anyway. Over many generations, unless offset by a significant advantage such as uncles mentoring their nephews and nieces, this represents a strong selection pressure against that gene.
Anyway, it doesn't necessarily have to be on the X chromosome, nor is there necessarily only one gene that has this effect.
David
[Updated on: Fri, 12 January 2007 14:39] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, sounds convincing.
(Goes away to think about it some more in a quiet corner)
NW
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David, where you ask the question:
"Just out of interest, why would you wish to defend Mr Rutz? Say I'm a religious fundamentalist, and I write a post that says:
>God loves everyone! Except gay people who will rot in hell!
Would you defend all of it just because you happen to agree with half of it?"
Of course I would reject that sort of thing outright!
I think that most of the time the writer will imply things like that when they are bigotted, but not always. I really do try to look at things objectively if it is actually at all possible. I would never reject an entire thing because some part of it were false; I guess it is much like the optimist sees the glass only half empty and the pessimist sees it as only half full.
I refuse to reject entirely everything that Mr Rutz says on the basis that I might find some things wrong. I tend to ignore the bias and look at what the guy is writing; I know that is naive but I know that I do that. Further, I dont reject what you say in rebutal to what he writes, but add that to what I am seeing in the article. Some of those things are really hard to prove one way or another and for a fact I am not going to rush out and try to remove all traces of soy from my diet. On the other hand, I dont think we should rush to include more soy in the food we eat either. Maybe we should excersize some caution and not dismiss it all. I dont think that the food industry is going to be totally unbiased in what it says about soy and the facts are probably somewhere in between.
Anytime someone tries to tell me something in an absolute manner, I am a bit sceptical. Thank goodness I am not as stupid as the way some of my statements seem to come out when I write them here. English grammar and writing was my poorest subject in school and I guess it shows.
David, if I ever give you the idea that I think negatively about you, please dismiss that idea. You give some very thoughtful responses and I do apprecitate it.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yes, in my responses about this I forgot to ask you why you considered it to be so bigoted? Since I didnt see it as being anti-gay or something like that, does that make me a bigot somehow?
Maybe I have gone thru life not knowing how much others hate me, but I dont feel so bad about that. I guess being naive does have some value; or maybe the word should be 'oblivious' as I think that a lot of times I completely miss an insult directed at me. I know that while I was growing up I guess I maybe trained myself to be oblivious to things as it got me by a lot of issues. My way of fending off someone who would pick on me at school or elsewhere was to just ignore it. Yeah I will have to think about how I react to things more.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken said,
>Oh yes, in my responses about this I forgot to ask you why you considered it to be so bigoted?
I think I covered that in my original response. However, I'll repeat my reasons here.
>Since I didnt see it as being anti-gay or something like that, does that make me a bigot somehow?
No -- but I do think it makes you unobservant. There is a clear right-wing, non-scientific, hysteria-inducing stance to it. Maybe in America you're desensitised to these things, but it's unlikely that anything like that would be published in the popular British press, because the stance is so obviously biased against gay people and even people with no particular interest in gay issues would smell a rat. It might even be illegal (though I don't know what the laws are on this subject - Aden, do you know?).
Here are a few quotations:
>Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant.
"Deviant" is a pejorative, loaded word.
>My larger concern is that the increasing number of less robust 15-year-olds who are already "struggling with their sexual identity" will be shoved over that thin line into homosexuality.
We're gay because we're not robust? This would have been politically incorrect forty years ago.
>No, they won’t wake up some morning with floppy wrists and a nasal lisp, but they may begin to gravitate toward social circles where they feel more comfortable — and less expected to be rowdy or brag about a string of sexual conquests. And once a teen is ensconced in a homosexual milieu, breaking free from it could mean abandoning his best friends.
Why should you need to "break free" from homosexuality? What is a "homosexual milieu" and why is it any worse from a "heterosexual milieu"? Where's the evidence that a gay man is "trapped" into being gay for the rest of his life? Quite apart from anything else, he implies that being gay is a choice.
These are weasel words -- you might not notice them on a cursory reading, but they are definitely not unbiased.
Even the title:
>Soy is making kids 'gay'
It might not sound bigoted to you, but it does to me. This statement is not justified scientifically, and its prominence is completely disproportionate to the amount of actual discussion or evidence in the article. It's put there because the editors know that it will whip up their readers into a frenzy.
Does this make you any less likely to trust Mr Rutz? I will ask a couple of unbiased straight friends what they think if an opportunity comes up and see what they say. I would be extremely surprised if it didn't.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken said,
>I tend to ignore the bias and look at what the guy is writing; I know that is naive but I know that I do that.
It's a pity -- the amount of bias often tells you if the writer is twisting the facts.
>Anytime someone tries to tell me something in an absolute manner, I am a bit sceptical.
Like 'Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality'? That's an absolute, and, if you look at the paragraph around it, entirely unjustified statement.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like 'Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality'? That's an absolute, and, if you look at the paragraph around it, entirely unjustified statement.
I think that he did offer some reason to believe that it is a possibility that there is a causal relationship, but he then went on to make a bold leap to make that statement. I agree it is an unjustified statement from that viewpoint but you are saying since it cannot be proven absolutely true that it is even not a bit possible to be true in any amount. Drug companies commonly claim that their drugs will do certain things and are perfectly safe and then some years later, admit that there is some slight difficulty such as deformed births and death. I say this to bring up the point that some of the information in the article seems to have some merit and I would like to check it out rather than dismissing it as being so absolutely wrong.
I hoped I could try to clarify things a bit and get you to see my thinking. It is not easy to do this without sitting across from you and redirecting your assumptions about what I am trying to say. I dont think that you would just dismiss it all without some kind of critical reading and looking into the claims. I assume he is exaggerating things for effect which is sure not a good way to do things. From the way you are critical of what this man has said, he must be making up the whole thing and has nothing to base his reasoning on and I find it hard to accept that. Things are rarely that black and white. (hope noone takes offense at the word black  )
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I didnt see those things as bigoted when I read them. Maybe it is just me as I spent so many years ignoring any kind of desparaging remarks whether directed at me or not. I did that to keep from having any kind of reaction to thing that really I guess did hurt me. I know that I keep finding examples of this in how I view things now. I am sure I made myself purposely insensitive to lessen teasing or bullying towards me. I thought I wasnt letting that interfere with my objectivity and I know that it is very objective not to see offense in something, but I then sometimes miss things which should make me take offense. I hope I said that well enough you can get my meaning.
I remember when I told Jim C about my past and got to the point where I was telling him about my brother's reaction to my being home from the Navy, he had a totally new view of it than I had ever percieved. I had been kicked out of the Navy and was home and my brother was pressuring me to tell him why I was out of the Navy. I wouldn't say anything (I was not about to tell him I was gay and that was the reason) and it got to the point where my father had to interfere to stop my brother from hitting me. My father was an extreme example of someone you could call "milktoast" so that was a surprise to me he came between us. Jim said immediately to me that my brother was an asshole and it actually shocked me to think he would think that when in my mind the reason for the dispute was all my fault for getting kicked out of the Navy. I was justifying my brother's actions towards me!
So I know I have this reluctance to see anyone in a bad light.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... because I honestly don't think our position is very different. The problem is that you keep saying things like:
>From the way you are critical of what this man has said, he must be making up the whole thing and has nothing to base his reasoning on and I find it hard to accept that.
I'm afraid this is a very antagonistic statement. It's false reasoning and it upsets me that you persist in claiming that I hold this position. I'll accept I'm a bit touchy at the moment because of Nigel's thread, but, honestly, it's like banging my head against a wall!
I am perfectly willing to accept that soya is controversial and that it may have 'feminising' effects. If this is what you're trying to tell me then you don't need to -- I already know! What I do object to is the obvious bias of the article, and the poor logic used by the author to back up many of his more outrageous claims. As far as I can tell, that is also what Mr Morford objected to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean#Soy_controversy
>I think that he did offer some reason to believe that it is a possibility that there is a causal relationship, but he then went on to make a bold leap to make that statement.
Could you please give a full quotation of the 'reason'? I'm pretty sure he doesn't give any evidence whatsoever, not even a casual relationship, that homosexuality has anything to do with the 'feminising' effects of soya.
>Drug companies commonly claim that their drugs will do certain things and are perfectly safe and then some years later, admit that there is some slight difficulty such as deformed births and death.
Commonly? It has happened, but it's very uncommon indeed. It's hardly standard practice -- if it were, the drug companies would be being sued into oblivion pretty much every day. Please give examples!
Of course, soya is not a drug. It has been 'tested' (by consumption) without significant problems for thousands of years, unlike manufactured drugs which may only be tested for a couple. From that one can deduce that only in extreme cases (a severe 'overdose', or consumption very early in life) is it likely to cause problems, if any. This doesn't mean that it doesn't have a mild effect on everyone -- only that it's not a significant one.
BTW, you can add a > at the beginning of a line to show it's a quotation. It makes it easier to see, because the board software puts it in italics.
David
[Updated on: Sat, 13 January 2007 12:22] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh so now I know how to make those quotes appear in italics.
Hey Deeej, I think we are not so far apart as I might have imagined at first. I read the article again and you are not necessarily being unreasonable. I stand corrected about a lot of it, but still wish to look into it.
I do not certainly trust my government and some large corporation to give me the absolute truth of something that could turn against them in some way. I am very suspicious of the drug companies now. About 75% of all ads on tv here are for some kind of drug. "Ask your doctor about xxxxx" is very common to hear and that is pretty disturbing to me. To me drugs are drugs whether something to make me high at a party or something my doctor wants to give me to feel better. I avoid them both as much as I can.
Anyway, as to truth and government in the same sentence, it is almost impossible to have. But I am still a conservative in nature. I dont have to necessarily be Republican to be conservative. There seems to me to be so much hate and discontent from both sides of the political spectrum here in the US that I sometimes wonder why I even bother to vote. It is like trying to decide which branch of the mafia you want to be in office.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Ken,
>I do not certainly trust my government and some large corporation to give me the absolute truth of something that could turn against them in some way.
It is not so much the government that has an interest in covering up the truth -- corporations do, but that's because if they make a mistake they will lose a huge amount of money. In an ideal world you should be able to trust the government more, because it doesn't have an interest in making or keeping a quick buck. Of course the government doesn't want to start a panic, but unless it is in those companies' pockets (and is even more corrupt than I thought!) I don't see any reason why the FDA can't be as impartial and scientific as possible. I'll admit I'm looking at this from the point of view of an idealist outsider and don't know a lot about it.
>I am very suspicious of the drug companies now. About 75% of all ads on tv here are for some kind of drug. "Ask your doctor about xxxxx" is very common to hear and that is pretty disturbing to me. To me drugs are drugs whether something to make me high at a party or something my doctor wants to give me to feel better. I avoid them both as much as I can.
In the UK prescription drugs are advertised to doctors but not to patients (which is illegal). (My parents, both doctors, are targeted with any number of pens, pads, coasters, mugs, mouse mats, clocks, Swiss army knives, which is great for me because I have no idea what any of these drugs do -- the doctor is expected to know -- and we never run out of these items.) I think that's a great deal more sensible. Unless a patient has extensive medical knowledge, he will not be able to choose a drug based on its merit. Consumer advertising is often misleading, especially if it's marketed to people who don't have the technical knowledge to understand in full what the product does.
>I dont have to necessarily be Republican to be conservative.
No. I personally still associate the word 'conservative' with the Tories (the UK Conservative Party) who are really very moderate and progressive in comparison to many right-wing 'conservative' parties found around the world. They are not perfect, but I don't object to people voting for them.
>There seems to me to be so much hate and discontent from both sides of the political spectrum here in the US that I sometimes wonder why I even bother to vote. It is like trying to decide which branch of the mafia you want to be in office.
I like that analogy. I think it holds, to varying degrees, with any political system, unfortunately (except non-democratic ones, where there's only one branch).
David
[Updated on: Mon, 15 January 2007 13:22] |
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
