|
|
|
|
Did a germ make you gay?
got linked to this article from a science and philosophy forum i'm a member of... its an interesting read... but one thats likely to cause a great deal of contention
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/calebcrain/gaygerm
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'gets on soapbox'
that's what happens when sensible scientists start speaking out on areas outside their narrow speciality. Truely, a case of knowing "more and more about less and less"!
Yes - there is apparently a high 'fitness cost' associated with homosexuality.
Yes - mothers of gay men do want grandchildren.
BUT this doesn't at all imply that a genetic cause of homosexuality is improbable. There has been significant recent research tending to show that the SISTERS of gay men tend to have MORE AND HEALTHIER surviving children than women who do not have a gay brother, across a range of societies. This is the "genetic befit" reflected in grandchildren, which may outweigh the 'fitness cost'. I'd guess that being a straight man (overall lots of kids) is a good idea in times of plenty, but 'woman having a gay brother' is a good idea in times of scarcity (overall fitter or better cared for kids with good survival chances) - these are the kinds of diverse pressures that tend to lead to a genetic balanced polymorphism (ie one that does not tend to die out).
'/soapbox'
Unfortunately, I can't put my hands on the report of this research at the moment - it was in an issue of "New Scientist" earlier this year, among other places, but I think I've thrown that copy away. Damn, meant to keep it, too.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13783
|
|
|
The article appears to be based upon supposition rather than fact. Under these circumstances it is scientifically irrelevant, albeit amusing.
I do not mind if my homosexuality was caused by a genetic accident, if it is inherited, if it is an acquired condition, if it came via nurture or if it cam by any yet tobe specified route. I am neither "proud to be gay" nor "ashamed of being gay". I am as I am, and am content, in the same way that I now have very greying hair and am content with that.
Had I been given a choice I would have chosen heterosexuality. It is easier to be heterosexual and the pool for a mate is far wider.
If the state of being homosexual is caused by an infective agent of some description, where is the "plague of homosexuality" that such an agent would create?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13783
|
|
|
By the way - 1999 is the date. So not recent at all, then 
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> The article appears to be based upon supposition rather than fact. Under these circumstances it is scientifically irrelevant, albeit amusing.
>
Actually, it's just damn bad science. The authors have clearly confused "I can't think of any possible benefits ... " with "there ARE no possible benefits".
My previous rant was about "scientists" who stray outside their field, and fail to consult anyone with appropriate knowledge in the field they're straying into. The importance of the unit "mother+children+mother's brother" in social, and sometimes economic terms in a significant number of non-western societies was something I had drummed into me twenty-five years ago at University (BSc Anthropology), the importance of considering genetic tendencies in populations by referring to (probable) shared genes among menbers of the same family was starting to be understood at the same time ... and so forth.
It's no wonder that science has such a bad popular image when such crass errors are made.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13783
|
|
|
NW wrote:
> timmy wrote:
> > The article appears to be based upon supposition rather than fact. Under these circumstances it is scientifically irrelevant, albeit amusing.
> >
>
> Actually, it's just damn bad science. The authors have clearly confused "I can't think of any possible benefits ... " with "there ARE no possible benefits".
You know it is not even good enough science to be "Bad science". They have an untested hypothesis, perhaps not even that How the article hit daylight I have no idea.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
