QUILTBAGS

Kanoe

Not sure how best to title this thread, I'll change it later if someone finds something more suitable.

[edit: ok I'll go with this.
There are a whole lot of issues that need to be discussed ad I'll hold my hands up and admit I'm by no means an expert on these subjects, I'm still learning about all of them but naturally I do have opinions and concerns of my own
I really was unable to bring myself to contribute to the last thread..but I entertained myself with some papers last night and came across this, all things considered I thought I would share.
here and specifically I want to reference the point re sexual orientation on Pg. 25

the limited behavioural genetic investigations to date on female sexual orientation provide some inconsistent evidence for a heritable component. However the genetic findings imply that sexual orientation is more a matter of biology (genetic susceptibility) with an element of random lifestyle influences than a factor of culture and upbringing....[snip]

[snip]...the few positive results with regard to genetic influences on female sexual orientation are confirmed by recent studies of GID. GID has been associated with sexual orientation by a considerable amount of evidence. Several twin studies reported significant heritabilities for GID ranging from 37% to 62% . Those findings support a strong heritable component to GID and may strengthen the assumption that childhood gender non conformity is the heritable component of adult sexual orientation.

It's funny that scientific research so far has failed to find conclusive proof which suggest prominent genetic markers for homosexuality, as far as it goes baby you may have been born that way but apparently the biological influencing factors are about as consequential as environmental ones. It means that we have biological capabilities but without other stimulus (inside or outside the womb) they may or may not be actualised.
There is enough evidence however to suggest that gender non conformity has greater biological influencing factors and that can be associated with adult sexual orientation.

See where I'm going here?
It irks me when a class of individuals claim to have greater monopoly on what is authentic or genuine when truth be told in the big bubbling cauldron of sexual identity there is no factor greater than the other, unless you consider the proponents of the T.

edit; I'm queer btw..

Chuchoter

You know what I think?
Trying to find causes, biological or environmental, for being gay or being trans, is a recipe to get us all killed by way of designer babies and conversion therapy for kids. It doesn't matter if its biological or anything else, its just the way you are. Searching for biological causes for things, at the very best creates an unnecessary hierarchy, and we have enough of that as it is.

Meesared

crayolastereo wrote: »

You know what I think?
Trying to find causes, biological or environmental, for being gay or being trans, is a recipe to get us all killed by way of designer babies and conversion therapy for kids. It doesn't matter if its biological or anything else, its just the way you are. Searching for biological causes for things, at the very best creates an unnecessary hierarchy, and we have enough of that as it is.

Now thats a good point!

wonderfulname

'Why?' is a question we are programmed to ask. We know why our eyes are different colours, why people are different heights, we theorise as to the greater reasoning behind these differences, just as we theorise as to the greater reasoning behind the existence of different sexualities. This doesn't entice us to change anything, we merely seek to understand. Understanding does not create social hierarchies, if anything it lessens them.

Chuchoter

I don't think it would really lessen hierarchies at all unless everyone or no-one got a biological cause. If only one group had one, then they would be seen as more legitimate than the others. Take for instance Harry Benjamin Syndrome, it tries to make out that the only 'true' transexuals are the ones with this syndrome, which is described as a form of intersex. Its not a verified syndrome yet, but you can see where the people who invented it were going with it.

wonderfulname

But everyone or no one will? If there is a biological reason for sexuality, and sexuality runs across a spectrum, then that reason covers everyone.

Chuchoter

I mean if there was only a biological reason for men but not women, or trans people but not gay people. Either way, the second you find a gene theres going to be a flood of people trying to selectively decide not to have babies with that gene. I think this is a why we should really stay away from.

wonderfulname

If, if, if, you're looking for reasons to disagree, I proposed there may not be, you flat out ignored it. And how, pray tell, will there be a flood of people trying to select their babies genes from such a conclusion? That is severely against western ethics, we have enough issues with the idea of the practice being utilised to stop genetic illnesses and disabilities, never mind in cases where it would be nothing more than the personal preference of the parent.

Chuchoter

Those ethics aren't really going to mean much in middle america or the middle east where the worst thing possible is to have a kid who is gay. There will be doctors willing to go off record and do the tests for money. Or you know China and India, where there are huge problems with people selecting fetuses on the the basis of sex even though its illegal.

How did I ignore your point? Its totally feasible gender identity works separately from sexuality or that sexuality works differently in women than men.

wonderfulname

Sorry, I misread your point in that case.

Middle America is governed by Federal America in instances such as this, off the record testing wouldn't have a great impact, also you have to weigh up the fact that middle american values are based on biblical interpretation, those interpretations are very strongly against designer babies - what you are most likely to see in this case is it taken as confirmation of the viewpoint that gay people have been burdened by god, that they should remain celibate and be respected for such, this is the nice end of the catholic view no?

As for eastern and middle eastern cultures, knowing that different sexualities are not demonic or poor choices would do a lot more good than harm.

Platinum2010

crayolastereo wrote: »

the middle east where the worst thing possible is to have a kid who is gay.

Being Middle Eastern I can confirm the worst thing is to have a Kid who turns out to be disloyal to his/her family , to be a thief or to be a child molester .
Not everything on Eastenders is factual

wonderfulname

Platinum2010 wrote: »

Being Middle Eastern I can confirm the worst thing is to have a Kid who turns out to be disloyal to his/her family , to be a thief or to be a child molester .
Not everything on Eastenders is factual

Apologies, we are generalising quite a bit, we don't mean to say everyone from a geographical area has particular extreme views, just that negative perceptions are known to be a pretty large issue in these areas.

Chuchoter

A lot of countries still have severe penalties for it, a lot of these in the middle east. Obviously most would not, but there are going to be people with too much money who will decide not to take chances.


Orange-large penalty
Dark orange-life imprisonment
Brown-Death.

We have already seen doctors all over the world attack gay people because of a biological reason. We saw what happened with Dr Maria New, who gave out untested drugs to try to prevent intersex girls from being too masculine or lesbian. The kids that got the drug ended up with bigger problems than they started with.

Platinum2010

I understand where the Negativity comes from In these locations but I know Coptic families (Christian Middle Eastern Families) who have gay children , the big issue over there is the fundamentalist Muslims .
The Media has created this view that ever since 9/11 all Muslims are fundamentalist terrorists .
The Eastern World is not everything that the media makes it out to be

Annasopra

wonderfulname wrote: »

If, if, if, you're looking for reasons to disagree, I proposed there may not be, you flat out ignored it. And how, pray tell, will there be a flood of people trying to select their babies genes from such a conclusion? That is severely against western ethics, we have enough issues with the idea of the practice being utilised to stop genetic illnesses and disabilities, never mind in cases where it would be nothing more than the personal preference of the parent.

I read or heard somewhere that The pro life movement in the US tried to use crayolos argument to sign up LGBT people - basically saying that if people found there was a gay gene then they would have abortions to get rid of them

wonderfulname

Platinum2010 wrote: »

I understand where the Negativity comes from In these locations but I know Coptic families (Christian Middle Eastern Families) who have gay children , the big issue over there is the fundamentalist Muslims .
The Media has created this view that ever since 9/11 all Muslims are fundamentalist terrorists .
The Eastern World is not everything that the media makes it out to be

I don't believe for one second that it is, don't worry.

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I read or heard somewhere that The pro life movement in the US tried to use crayolos argument to sign up LGBT people - basically saying that if people found there was a gay gene then they would have abortions to get rid of them

I don't doubt that they would, I must look it up, however I would take anything they say with a rather large pinch of salt.

Platinum2010

wonderfulname wrote: »

I would take anything they say with a rather large pinch of salt.

+1

AndrewJD

You can't avoid researching something because you are afraid of what you will find. Scientific research at it's best is dispassionate and completely open. Besides, if it gets to the stage where LGBT babies are identified and aborted with any frequency, I'd imagine society would have much larger more worrying problems than keeping the numbers of gays up.

Pet

Firstly, finding a genetic-neurodevelopmental-biological underpinning for homosexuality would, once and for all, end all claims that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" or whatever, thus putting an end to gay-conversion nonsense and a large amount of bigotry in that vein. Surely a good thing, no?

Secondly, the kinds of people who would genetically engineer their foetuses and the kinds of people who would take great lengths to avoid having a gay child are almost mutually exclusive, in terms of education levels, political leanings and socioeconomic status.

Kanoe

I wasn't really trying to create a hierarchy, I was trying to level the playing field but it does interest me and I am genuinely curious to know where we draw the line of acceptance if they all fall under the same scope in a bio gentic approach. I'm not really fond of the "born this way" solution to the issue either, I'd much rather a broadening of the mind approach when dealing with the variables.