New, large study suggests sexuality not tied to a genetic marker.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Transtorm
I got bored of reading the whole argument between Aceric and *Stefan* as it got quite repetitive, however I'm quite unsure how being a law student immediately means one doesn't have knowledge of STEM subjects. A basic aspect at that. If it's that important as a STEM student I agree with *Stefan* argument.
Related to the point of the study, I honestly don't care what makes me polysexual. It's not going to change my view on things, and I'm also wondering if they did manage to determine it, what would happen with that information? Homophobic parents pushing for prenatal tests that include their child's sexuality and aborting them? I don't see much use for this information and feel efforts should be focused elsewhere.
Related to the point of the study, I honestly don't care what makes me polysexual. It's not going to change my view on things, and I'm also wondering if they did manage to determine it, what would happen with that information? Homophobic parents pushing for prenatal tests that include their child's sexuality and aborting them? I don't see much use for this information and feel efforts should be focused elsewhere.
Knowledge is knowledge - it's the duty of science to know all we can.
Original post by Aceric
Okay, you're not actually even arguing the point in this, you're just making weak appeal to definition and trying to make out like I'm not more educated than you are on the subject despite not approaching the qualifications and education I already have in the area.
So, I'm not arguing because I appeal to definition (what even...?) and you are with all those ad-hominems, straw mans, oversimplifications, inductive fallacies and appeals to authority, personal incredulity and whatnot...?
Sounds logical bro... lol.
This does not need any scientific qualifications (which you wrongly assume I do not have). The fact that you are basing all this on a fragile base does not need a clever person to actually dispute.
Original post by Aceric
Also, like I thought it would, the maths example went right over your head.
Dude, you're using something that you're doing now at A-Level in sophisticated detail to prove you know your stuff. If I started on displaying sophisticated things about Greek, Latin, Law or whatever, should I expect you to know everything inside out? Like what kind of logic is that?
Regardless, I understood your point - you, however, failed miserably to understand mine. Trying to hide behind such petty excuses isn't gonna make the cut.
Original post by Aceric
You're right I haven't read the full study, but that's because it's not publicly available - not that you'd know that, because you never bothered to check 
Oh my... hahahahahaha! Just another proof of the fool you are. That was precisely my point... Can't believe I'm arguing with someone who can't grasp basic points...
Original post by Aceric
In summary, you just made weak ad hominem attacks against my education despite me being more educated than you in the field of interest, made a weak appeal to definition and made precisely one point about me reading the study which I addressed above.
In summary:
1)You initiated the ad-hominem attacks, as you do even now. Complaining about it is silly.
2)You are not more educated in the field of interest - at all. You have in no way, shape or form the expertise of the conductors, and neither do I. Making foolish appeals to your education level -which is wholly irrelevant- only shows that you can't argue.
3)The appeal to definition was not weak - you said I wasn't good at reading. Well, I provided evidence showing that you are, in fact, the one who can't read. As I said, hiding behind excuses won't cover your massive failure to argue properly.
4)Point easily rebutted above.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by *Stefan*
Feel free to give me applicable greek law
The information given in the abstract is sufficient to draw a conclusion (N.B, the abstract is not the summary you found in the link I gave you.).
The ad-hominem was supplement - You're objectively wrong so I'll have a laugh at you whilst I tell you why.
I am objectively more educated than you, I have literally been taught this exact thing at a high standard of education. You stopped learning about this around age 15.
I don't think you understand what an appeal to definition is if you can stand behind that argument - it's a logical fallacy, there's no way to do it right.
I dont know why anyone would be at all surprised by this.
It is absolutely absurd to narrow a persons sexuality down to a single factor that permeates all.
Hmmm. Does that mean no gay gene exists? I like to know why less than 2 percent of the population is gay and not higher. Could be genetics or environment causes? My money is on the environment. I heard of a study of a gay people can be straight. It is possible but people keep crapping on that possibility. Straight people can become gay too.
Original post by Aceric
You being an arts student has a lot to do with it, you're trying to "interpret" a scientific document and you don't understand the terminology being used.
This isn't about interpretation of sentences, this is about scientific terminology - do some research into statistical analysis and statistics. The way they wrote the sentence is the way it was meant to be read.
I'm saying the study has not shown any significant correlation between genetics and expressed sexuality, implying that the cause may instead lie with epigenetic, hormonal or psychological matters.
You're having a knee-jerk reaction to this post because primarily, you are not educated in scientific fields and research and secondarily because you don't want to even consider the thought that there is another cause for sexuality than genetics.
This isn't about interpretation of sentences, this is about scientific terminology - do some research into statistical analysis and statistics. The way they wrote the sentence is the way it was meant to be read.
I'm saying the study has not shown any significant correlation between genetics and expressed sexuality, implying that the cause may instead lie with epigenetic, hormonal or psychological matters.
You're having a knee-jerk reaction to this post because primarily, you are not educated in scientific fields and research and secondarily because you don't want to even consider the thought that there is another cause for sexuality than genetics.
And you, presumably a science student, are seemingly believing a study with a clear sampling bias, not concluded, and not even peer-reviewed actually means anything?
If one twin is gay then the other is also very likely to be, regardless of whether or not they were raised together (don't remember exact stats). This in itself shows it's tied to genetics. There may not be a gay gene, but some combination can clearly yield a brain structure that makes a person gay.
Original post by Aceric
Feel free to give me applicable greek law
The information given in the abstract is sufficient to draw a conclusion (N.B, the abstract is not the summary you found in the link I gave you.).
The ad-hominem was supplement - You're objectively wrong so I'll have a laugh at you whilst I tell you why.
I am objectively more educated than you, I have literally been taught this exact thing at a high standard of education. You stopped learning about this around age 15.
I don't think you understand what an appeal to definition is if you can stand behind that argument - it's a logical fallacy, there's no way to do it right.
The information given in the abstract is sufficient to draw a conclusion (N.B, the abstract is not the summary you found in the link I gave you.).
The ad-hominem was supplement - You're objectively wrong so I'll have a laugh at you whilst I tell you why.
I am objectively more educated than you, I have literally been taught this exact thing at a high standard of education. You stopped learning about this around age 15.
I don't think you understand what an appeal to definition is if you can stand behind that argument - it's a logical fallacy, there's no way to do it right.
Hmm... More searching into my posts. Intriguing.
No it is not. I can't fathom you're still not over this. You have no idea on how research is made and used. Why try to prove otherwise when it's the truth?
"Objectively" - is this some joke? Laugh as much as you want, it won't help your cause.
Finally, whether you are more educated than me on this topic is completely irrelevant. You do not have 1/100 of the knowledge of the people conducting the research, and evidently you don't have the slightest idea on how research is meant to be cited. Appealing to your educational level, which is neither uncommon nor commendable, means nothing. Next time try picking up the subject matter at hand instead of derailing things out of proportion with your arrogance and hiding behind petty excuses.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Little Toy Gun
And you, presumably a science student, are seemingly believing a study with a clear sampling bias, not concluded, and not even peer-reviewed actually means anything?
What sampling bias?
.
In-utero factors could cause it instead of genetics, which would affect both twins.
Original post by Nadile
If one twin is gay then the other is also very likely to be, regardless of whether or not they were raised together (don't remember exact stats). This in itself shows it's tied to genetics. There may not be a gay gene, but some combination can clearly yield a brain structure that makes a person gay.
In-utero factors could cause it instead of genetics, which would affect both twins.
Original post by Aceric
What sampling bias?
I thought you would be an expert in this being presumably a science student and all?
Only 23andme's customers can possibly participate in this. This is basically convenience sampling which has restricted the sample based on residency, wealth. and survey only a particular type of people who for some reason want to know their ancestry. The fact that they only have 77% heterosexuals whilst they themselves said estimations topped out at 7-8% homo or bisexuals clearly demonstrated that this is not a representative sample.
More interestingly is that despite this, they claimed that the sample was in line with the estimated range, conveniently counting 'homosexuals only' as 'gay, lesbian or bisexual' just to pretend that it's representative.
This is without pointing out the fact that they haven't done enough statistical tests on these and have not provided any data on the correlation between sexuality and genetic markers. Or that they have only been matching them with the phenotypes they categorized. In fact, there's no way you can see it's well done - there's no information on what they have actually done to the data. We don't know if they have done tests only with the exclusive groups, or all the groups, or if they have grouped them into bigger groups and attempt to find an association. Or if they have done it by gender/sex.
Heck, we don't even actually know who they consider homosexual or heterosexual. Six of the seven sexuality questions are not about identification, whilst everywhere in the report mentioned only people who identify themselves as something. So what data are they actually using?
More on the sexuality questionnaire: It says 'answers were provided on a 7 point scale ranging from heterosexualonly to homosexual only' - wait what? This answer does not work with six of the seven questions!
With*whom*have*you*actually*had*sex?*
Hmm...Homosexuals? Heterosexuals? What has that got to do with whether I'm homosexual or heterosexual?
Whom*do*you*have*sexual*fantasies*about?*
So basically guys who have fantasy about lesbian sex are homosexuals?
To*whom*are*you*sexually*aJracted?*
Hmm...So gays who are always attracted to straight guys are actually straight?
Whom*do*you*feel*more*drawn*to*or*close*to*emoBonally?*
So...girls who prefer their gay best friends are also gay themselves?
Which*gender*do*you*socialize*with?*
Homosexual and heterosexual are not even genders.
In*which*community*do*you*like*to*spend*your*Bme?*In*which*do*you*feel*most*comfortable?
So girls who like going to gay clubs are basically gay themselves?
You also have a gross misunderstanding of the terminology in statistics. That no significant association found does not mean it's proven that there is no associations. It merely means it's not proven that there is any association, which is why they said the work continues. Since there are no data at all provided, there's no way of knowing how close the numbers have been.
There's nothing that suggests that the study was decently done - instead, it seems like the study was a mess. We don't know much about their participants, we don't know what they have done to the data, we don't know how they have tested their data, we don't know how they actually classify their participants, we don't even know how the questionnaire could possibly work.
Original post by Aceric
The information given in the abstract is sufficient to draw a conclusion (N.B, the abstract is not the summary you found in the link I gave you.).
And my professors at Oxford asked us to read the whole thing and not just the abstracts because often the conclusions are inaccurate and misleading. Silly Oxford academics who are clearly too poorly and lowly educated to not know that information given in abstracts are always sufficient for the drawing of conclusions!
Only idiots or people pushing an agenda ever thought it was.
Homosexuality (which often means paedophilia) is often acquired as a result of mental trauma after being sexually assaulted/raped as a child.
Homosexuality (which often means paedophilia) is often acquired as a result of mental trauma after being sexually assaulted/raped as a child.
Original post by 31/03/1492
Only idiots or people pushing an agenda ever thought it was.
Homosexuality (which often means paedophilia) is often acquired as a result of mental trauma after being sexually assaulted/raped as a child.
Homosexuality (which often means paedophilia) is often acquired as a result of mental trauma after being sexually assaulted/raped as a child.
Got anything to substantiate that claim?
And only idiots ever thought there was a "gay gene", but it was perfectly reasonable to think that it is a complex trait with genetic and environmental contributing factors, especially with the evidence from twin studies. If it turns out not to have any genetic influence then fair enough, but it is just plain wrong to think that you would have needed to have an agenda to think up until now there was a genetic input.
Original post by 31/03/1492
Only idiots or people pushing an agenda ever thought it was.
Homosexuality (which often means paedophilia) is often acquired as a result of mental trauma after being sexually assaulted/raped as a child.
Homosexuality (which often means paedophilia) is often acquired as a result of mental trauma after being sexually assaulted/raped as a child.
Posted from TSR Mobile
This is well known. One of the biggest twin studies drew a total blank on a genetic component:
Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M., & Martin, N. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 524–536.
The most interesting finding of this study was that homosexuality was familial, not genetic - it runs in families.
The American Psychological Association advises:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
Sexual orientation is largely a choice - you or I could choose to have sex with our own sex, like ancient Greeks.
Of course, like any behaviour, there are a small number of people who find they cannot do anything else than their preference, this seems to be about 1 in 100 people. You would probably find a similar fraction unable to stop brushing their teeth in a certain way etc.. So homosexuality is a choice for most of us and hard to stop, even if they wanted to stop, for a very few.
Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M., & Martin, N. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 524–536.
The most interesting finding of this study was that homosexuality was familial, not genetic - it runs in families.
The American Psychological Association advises:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
Sexual orientation is largely a choice - you or I could choose to have sex with our own sex, like ancient Greeks.
Of course, like any behaviour, there are a small number of people who find they cannot do anything else than their preference, this seems to be about 1 in 100 people. You would probably find a similar fraction unable to stop brushing their teeth in a certain way etc.. So homosexuality is a choice for most of us and hard to stop, even if they wanted to stop, for a very few.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Nadile
If one twin is gay then the other is also very likely to be, regardless of whether or not they were raised together (don't remember exact stats). This in itself shows it's tied to genetics. There may not be a gay gene, but some combination can clearly yield a brain structure that makes a person gay.
Where did you get that? This is not the current academic opinion. Probably the largest twin study on this issue comes to exactly the opposite conclusion:
Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M., & Martin, N. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 524–536.
Even those studies that suggest a genetic component do not explain much of the variance of the trait by that component. Homosexuality is almost certainly an often familial trait with small genetic and large environmental influences.
Original post by Macy1998
Hmmm. Does that mean no gay gene exists? I like to know why less than 2 percent of the population is gay and not higher. Could be genetics or environment causes? My money is on the environment. I heard of a study of a gay people can be straight. It is possible but people keep crapping on that possibility. Straight people can become gay too.
Pretty obvious, the Emperor Justinian (538 & 544 AD) got fed up with the large number of gays around and introduced the death penalty to stop it. Draconian punishments continued for centuries and we were left with only those who really wanted to be gay or were obsessively inclined to being gay - of course, you or I could be gay if we wanted, like people in many societies throughout history - the Roman Empire before Justinian for instance.
Original post by newpersonage
Pretty obvious, the Emperor Justinian (538 & 544 AD) got fed up with the large number of gays around and introduced the death penalty to stop it. Draconian punishments continued for centuries and we were left with only those who really wanted to be gay or were obsessively inclined to being gay - of course, you or I could be gay if we wanted, like people in many societies throughout history - the Roman Empire before Justinian for instance.
No. That happened because of the Old Testament. Let's not hide behind our fingers now. And it didn't change anything in terms of numbers.
So, you are attracted to the same sex?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by *Stefan*
No. That happened because of the Old Testament. Let's not hide behind our fingers now. And it didn't change anything in terms of numbers.
How do you know? Forget Justinian, homosexuality between males was institutionalized in Athens and Sparta.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
I know several men and women in their early twenties who have enjoyed a variety of sexual preferences although this is not as common in the UK as some other countries. Tourists on the Greek Islands for instance. I dont think any are repressed, in fact the opposite, they are hedonists.
(edited 8 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- OCR A- Level Biology 2023
- Unofficial Mark scheme: AQA GCSE Biology Paper 1 Triple Higher Tier 16th May 2023
- Eduqas A-Level Biology Component 2 [16th June 2023] Exam Chat
- Psychology 8 marker
- Warwick university
- economics essay
- Why does the second marker that mark FYP give a really big diff from first marker?
- AQA A Level Geography Paper 2 (7037/2) - 6th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA GCSE Biology Paper 1 Triple Higher Tier [16th May 2023] Exam Chat
- OCR A-level Sociology Paper 3 (H580/03) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- OCR A-level Latin Paper 4 (H443/04) - 20th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A Level Business Paper 1 (7132/1) - 23rd May 2023
- Can I get all 10 evaluation marks on a Psych 16 marker without using other studies?
- Edexcel A-level Psychology Paper 2 (9PS0 02) - 25th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- WJEC A-Level Biology Unit 4 (A2) [16th June 2023] Exam Chat
- Bowlby 16 marker
- why are families getting smaller and smaller?
- What jobs can i do with a science degree?!?!
- OCR A A-Level Biology Biological Diversity [16th June 2023] Exam Chat
- Edexcel A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (9RS0 01) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
