Study made being gay sound like a defect? Help?

WatchOut

I never really had a problem accepting myself as gay before, but it's gotten to the point where everytime I log on to the computer, I see homophobic stuff everywhere.

Yesterday I even saw this scientific study, they were making a case for why being gay is genetic. They said gay mens brains are similar to that of heterosexual womens and vice versa for lesbians. After I finished reading it, it seemed to me like they were saying, we are mentally female, who just happened to be born into a male body.

This made me feel pretty crappy about myself, like being gay was some kind of defective gene, something that wasn't supposed to happen or something.

Thoughts on this?

Meesared

Do you have a link to it?

azezil

WatchOut wrote: »

I never really had a problem accepting myself as gay before, but it's gotten to the point where everytime I log on to the computer, I see homophobic stuff everywhere.

Yesterday I even saw this scientific study, they were making a case for why being gay is genetic. They said gay mens brains are similar to that of heterosexual womens and vice versa for lesbians. After I finished reading it, it seemed to me like they were saying, we are mentally female, who just happened to be born into a male body.

This made me feel pretty crappy about myself, like being gay was some kind of defective gene, something that wasn't supposed to happen or something.

Thoughts on this?

Bull****, I've had neuro surgery twice so I asked my surgeon about it, he laughed and said it was utter non-sense.

Printemps93

azezil wrote: »

Bull****, I've had neuro surgery twice so I asked my surgeon about it, he laughed and said it was utter non-sense.

Why did you have Neuro surgery? are you epileptic?

I wouldnt believe half these studies to be honest . I don't think there is any logical explanation and trying to look for one is like being in denial or thinking yu can be "fixed" IMO

allydylan

ya a link to the study would be good, but to be honest i saw a study similar to the one you described maybe it was the same one, and i can't say that i found it offensive

and yes there is a lot of homophobic stuff [couldn't think of a better word] going around, but i manage to avoid it, it just depends on what sites you go on, what videos you watch etc.

WatchOut

Meesared wrote: »

Do you have a link to it?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html


That isn't the EXACT one I was reading yesterday, I can't find it, but I think this one is pretty similar.

watawaster

WatchOut wrote:

This made me feel pretty crappy about myself, like being gay was some kind of defective gene, something that wasn't supposed to happen or something.

Most people associate genetic mutations with hereditary diseases such as Alzheimer's or cancer susceptibility. This gives the impression that all genetic mutations are bad.

The fact is that genetic changes are natural. A simple example is the blood group 'O', which is a result of a genetic mutation of the blood group 'A' gene. I'm sure if you were blood type O you wouldn't be upset to hear you have a genetic mutation.

We all have billions of genetic mutations in our genomes and these can have positive as well as negative outcomes. Different people have different eye colour, skin tone, height, IQ, personality due to various mutations in the encoding genes that have been passed on by our parents.

SO! I hope I haven't confused you but my point is that homosexuality may well be due to a genetic mutation, but so is everything else about you.

Endymion

I was reading a post at the top of the thread, which mad it sound like having a female brain was a defect.

Q.E.D

Printemps93 wrote: »

Why did you have Neuro surgery? are you epileptic?

Christ, some people. :rolleyes:

Printemps93

Endymion wrote: »

I was reading a post at the top of the thread, which mad it sound like having a female brain was a defect.

Q.E.D



Christ, some people. :rolleyes:

Neuro Surgery is not like having kidney stones blasted .... It's just rare , I know someone who was lucky enough to escape side affect free

wonderfulname

Just wondering, why exactly did you think you were gay? There is either a scientific or sociological reason behind it, and given we are a minority that reason is going to be an abnormality. What watawaster says is right, every human variation, indeed every variation of life, is down to a mutation. Do you have green eyes? Red hair? Well then look at you go mutant!

I'd like to point out one or two things - firstly, when you look at any of those brain scan results you tend to see a spectrum, I question the polarity evident in this article, most importantly;

...they used MRI scans to find out the overall volume and shapes of brains in a group of 90 volunteers consisting of 25 heterosexuals and 20 homosexuals of each gender.

This is not a valid sample!
It also neglects bisexuality, and of course relies on personal opinion of ones sexuality (because thats all we have to go by), the cheek of connecting depression levels in gay men to such thin findings as though it supports them is absurd, especially when we can so easily point to concrete reasons as to why this is the case. We don't even know that the areas of the brain measured are fixed at birth, really there is so much wrong with this!


Back to your interpretations of the findings; even if they were valid, they aren't for one moment saying that you have a woman's brain in a man's body, I think you'll find that's something entirely different!

What they are saying is that parallels can be drawn between some areas of the brain of gay men and straight women. The brain is complex, with different areas governing different things, it's not just a lump of matter that thinks.
Ask yourself, what are the odds this study was conducted exclusively on camp as Christmas gay men and stereotypical straight women? Quite high. If you take a camp man who reacts subconsciously quite femininely you would expect the area of his brain which governs these actions to be more feminine. We cannot say that he was born with this small, feminised, aspect of his brain in its current state, nor can we say that there is any link between his sexuality and this aspect of his brain, and we most certainly cannot conclude that the same is true for all gay men.

Note to self: stop ranting about how hyped up study is.

Look, the fact is the scientific community hasn't come up with a concrete answer to why? (although the last time i checked they were going down the hormonal as opposed to genetic route?), don't take everything you read as gospel, and more importantly don't worry about it, just live your life.

Printemps93

Does it really matter whether we have an explanation into why we're gay or not .
Studies like these are not only pointless but I could think of several different ways which the money spent to carry this out could have been put to better use

wonderfulname

How on earth is the expansion of human knowledge, in any form, pointless? How do you know how much it cost? It's probably a post grad study, it was conducted at a medical university - if that is the case then without it there would be one less doctor in the world, damn doctors, being all pointless...

Printemps93

Its another way of trying to make us all seem like outcasts of some sort IMO
That to me is fairly pointless

wonderfulname

No, that's entirely your own assumption, all we have is an article about a study and you claim to know exactly why it was conducted? That some faceless Swedish student is out to get us? For the love of... Look, there is nothing in our existence that we will not at least attempt to understand, thats humans for you, I find the idea of someone wanting to remain ignorant of the way we work far more perplexing than a minor study being carried out on a fairly hot topic.

Goodshape

watawaster wrote: »

The fact is that genetic changes are natural.

Natural.... and awesome.

Endymion

wonderfulname wrote: »

Just wondering, why exactly did you think you were gay? There is either a scientific or sociological reason behind it, and given we are a minority that reason is going to be an abnormality. What watawaster says is right, every human variation, indeed every variation of life, is down to a mutation. Do you have green eyes? Red hair? Well then look at you go mutant!

In order for something to be an abnormality you must first accept that there is a norm. You dismissed the idea of a norm yet continue to talk about abnormal.

These conversations are abnormally and flawed. Even you idea that there has to be on root cause "scientific or sociological" is flawed never mind the idea that you believe science or sociology can explain all things. What if, dear I say it, the cause is something no one has every thought of before...

wonderfulname

You seem to have a very limited view of what science actually is, in simple terms it is the study of everything in nature through observation and experimentation, technically sociology is a science, if we discover a new way of looking at things it will be a science, I really don't understand your argument.

Normal is the majority, or the original, homosexual is a deviation from one of the above, otherwise mankind would not exist, we aren't talking philosophically here, the "everyone is different" argument doesn't fly.

ixoy

I'd be curious about the scientific angle to this, or what it can reveal and I don't think it's a vendetta or anything of the sort. If it's a crusade it's presumably with the view to understanding.

It does remind me a bit potentially of a short story by Greg Egan called "Cocoon", which does examine the concept of pre-natal genetic tampering to remove the idea of the "gay" gene. Egan's one of the most rigorous adherents to science in his writing out there and it has a disturbing plausibility.

wonderfulname

Currently searching for this short story, it sounds interesting.

Printemps93

wonderfulname wrote: »

wanting to remain ignorant of the way we work

We work the exact same as everyone else
People like peas and we have those that dont ......
we're not all the same just because we fall under the same category does not mean we all work the same

Endymion

wonderfulname wrote: »

You seem to have a very limited view of what science actually is,

I think you're not a scientist. Science may be the study of "everything in nature through observation and experimentation", but science cannot explain everything in nature. Many of the theories which people take as absolutes are very modern, evolution is a prime example of this. The theory of evolution is constantly evolving, though I'd hasard that you're ignorant of that fact. To the ignorant, science and sociology seem to hold all the answers to the informed, but science simply points out the questions. A real scientist wouldn't be an enfadic as you're being Professor.

if we discover a new way of looking at things it will be a science

So theological studies is a science? For millennia people have been looking at things from that prospective. It seems blindingly obvious that god made people gay.

You say that normal is the majority (whopping great fallacy). Kinsey showed that upwards of 35% of men will have some same sex experience in their life. In combination with not being a scientist, I'd bet you're not a statistician. Homosexuality isn't 1-2% of people at the fringes, it's central to human society, and has been for thousands of years. If you'd studied genetic theory, which I highly doubt, you'd know that abnormal regressive mutations, if that's what homosexuality is, would have died out long ago.

It's very strange how us genetic abnormalities keep getting spun out each generation. It's almost as if we've complete normal and part of the human evolutionary cycle.

That's the problem with these debates. Too many people with half baked notions they haven't bother to think through before spouting nonsense like they're an authority on the matter.

"Gays must be abnormal, otherwise there would be no children". Christ.

Some people have sex with both genders, genus.

wonderfulname

Printemps93 wrote: »

We work the exact same as everyone else
People like peas and we have those that dont ......
we're not all the same just because we fall under the same category does not mean we all work the same

I meant humans.

Endymion wrote: »

I think you're not a scientist.

Evidently, that is a pretty ironic statement.

Endymion wrote: »

Science may be the study of "everything in nature through observation and experimentation", but science cannot explain everything in nature.

Yet. Thats the idea.

Endymion wrote: »

Many of the theories which people take as absolutes are very modern, evolution is a prime example of this. The theory of evolution is constantly evolving, though I'd hasard that you're ignorant of that fact.

No, it is not constantly evolving, it is constantly refining, as is our view of absolutely every other area of science, perhaps this essay may give you a different perspective.

Endymion wrote: »

To the ignorant, science and sociology seem to hold all the answers to the informed, but science simply points out the questions. A real scientist wouldn't be an enfadic as you're being Professor.

Seriously, are you even reading what I'm saying? Science is not the contents of a textbook science is the quest for understanding through observation and experimentation, what you'll find in a book are merely results, any verifiable answers will have to go through a scientific process, even if the area of study in which we find them is not one which we now know, it will still be a science

Endymion wrote: »

So theological studies is a science? For millennia people have been looking at things from that prospective. It seems blindingly obvious that god made people gay.

Show me the observations and experimentations, oh wait, there are none... Religion cannot validate its claims, therefore it is not scientific.

Endymion wrote: »

You say that normal is the majority (whopping great fallacy). Kinsey showed that upwards of 35% of men will have some same sex experience in their life. In combination with not being a scientist, I'd bet you're not a statistician.

You're obviously no statistician yourself, what happens if 50% of a population dies without reproducing through every generation? Having a same sex encounter does not make you gay, 35% does not a majority make, kinseys work is highly outdated, please, please, research things anew and for yourself.

Endymion wrote: »

Homosexuality isn't 1-2% of people at the fringes, it's central to human society, and has been for thousands of years. If you'd studied genetic theory, which I highly doubt, you'd know that abnormal regressive mutations, if that's what homosexuality is, would have died out long ago.

I mentioned green eyes earlier, that's a recessive gene, but dang those green eyed mutants just won't die out! Stop questioning my level of education/understanding through such ridiculous argument. Woop di doo, gay is not a modern phenomenon, what's your point? Estimates for the % of people who are gay ranges from 4-13% by the way.

Endymion wrote: »

It's very strange how us genetic abnormalities keep getting spun out each generation. It's almost as if we've complete normal and part of the human evolutionary cycle.

You have absolutely no concept of what I've been saying do you? Again - we still have not linked sexuality to genetics, nor have we established the natural state of human sexuality (could be bi or hetro), so this point of yours is based purely on assumption.

Endymion wrote: »

That's the problem with these debates. Too many people with half baked notions they haven't bother to think through before spouting nonsense like they're an authority on the matter.

Ooh, the irony :rolleyes:

Endymion wrote: »

"Gays must be abnormal, otherwise there would be no children". Christ.

Some people have sex with both genders, genus.

They're called bisexuals, genius. Quote me correctly in future that beautiful piece of spin is misleading.

allydylan

i think people are reading too much into a little study, studies like this are pointless, you can find or conduct a study to prove almost anything you want so this study isn't worth getting upset about

oli2

WatchOut wrote: »

I never really had a problem accepting myself as gay before, but it's gotten to the point where everytime I log on to the computer, I see homophobic stuff everywhere.

Yesterday I even saw this scientific study, they were making a case for why being gay is genetic. They said gay mens brains are similar to that of heterosexual womens and vice versa for lesbians. After I finished reading it, it seemed to me like they were saying, we are mentally female, who just happened to be born into a male body.

This made me feel pretty crappy about myself, like being gay was some kind of defective gene, something that wasn't supposed to happen or something.

Thoughts on this?

sounds like you're saying women are inferior.

wonderfulname

Sounds to me like he's saying he doesn't feel that his sexuality equates to him being of the opposite sex internally...

oli2

wonderfulname wrote: »

Sounds to me like he's saying he doesn't feel that his sexuality equates to him being of the opposite sex internally...

but he says that this quality is defective, and makes him feel less about himself.

i would be offended at their ignorance in general, rather than the fact they're comparing me to a woman, because the fact that i would take offense to that makes it seem that i view being a woman or associating as one "shameful", for lack of a better word.

wonderfulname

I would take offence to the idea that my sexuality equates to me being a man inside, because I'm not, and the concept in itself is the backbone of much homophobia, he feels as though he is being misgendered, wrongly granted, but it's a valid feeling.

watawaster

wonderfulname wrote:

This is not a valid sample!
It also neglects bisexuality, and of course relies on personal opinion of ones sexuality (because thats all we have to go by), the cheek of connecting depression levels in gay men to such thin findings as though it supports them is absurd, especially when we can so easily point to concrete reasons as to why this is the case. We don't even know that the areas of the brain measured are fixed at birth, really there is so much wrong with this

This issue of sample size cannot be overemphasised!!

I am surprised, and dissappointed, that newscientist has entitled the article "Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex". This bold title suggests that a definitive conclusion has been drawn. However the statistically insignificant samples of 25 heterosexuals and 20 homosexuals can in absolutely no circumstances be used to infer the sample characteristics upon the general population. I would be interested to know the peer reviewing process of the PNAS journal, which should have ruled out derivation of any conclusions from the study.

A more appropriate title to this article would be "Study suggests that neuoroanatomy of homosexuals may show more similarities with the opposite sex than with their heterosexual counterparts"

Now can we all forget about this study, which would be akin to a final year project of an undergraduate medical degree.

azezil

Printemps93 wrote: »

Why did you have Neuro surgery? are you epileptic?

No, I have a brain tumour.
Hmmm perhaps that's why I'm gay *strokes chin*

Printemps93

azezil wrote: »

perhaps that's why I'm gay *strokes chin*

I think we were just born this way

wonderfulname

As if by magic...

diddlybit

WatchOut wrote: »

I Yesterday I even saw this scientific study, they were making a case for why being gay is genetic. They said gay mens brains are similar to that of heterosexual womens and vice versa for lesbians. After I finished reading it, it seemed to me like they were saying, we are mentally female, who just happened to be born into a male body.

Oddly enough, this theory was the first theory on homosexuality ever and was adopted by German sexologists and what would be the first homosexual activists in the 19th century. Ulrichs called it a Urning and coined a whole host of other terms that to describe many folks of different sexual persuasions. It was only later that it became patholgised.

The taxonomy of Uranismus

• Urningin (or occasionally the variants Uranierin, Urnin, and Urnigin): A female-bodied person with a male psyche, whose main sexual attraction is to women. ("lesbian" or "transman")
• Urning: A male-bodied person with a female psyche, whose main sexual attraction is to men. ("gay" or "transwoman")
• Dioningin: A "normal" (heterosexual and feminine) woman.
• Dioning : A "normal" (heterosexual and masculine) man.
• Uranodioningin: A female bisexual
• Uranodioning: A male bisexual.
• Zwitter: Intersexual
• Urningthum, "male homosexuality" (or urnische Liebe, homosexual love) was expanded with the following terms:
• Mannlinge: very masculine, except for feminine psyche and sex drive towards effeminate men ("butch gay")
• Weiblinge: feminine in appearance, behaviour and psyche, with a sex drive towards masculine men ("queen")
• Manuring: feminine in appearance and behaviour, with a male psyche and a sex drive towards women ("feminine straight man")
• Zwischen-Urning: Adult male who prefers adolescents. ("pederast" Conjunctive, with tender and passionate feelings for men
• Disjunctive, with tender feelings for men but passionate feelings for women "metrosexual"
• Virilisierte Mannlinge: Male Urnings who have learned to act like Dionings, through force or habit ("straight-acting gay")
• Uraniaster or uranisierter Mann: A dioning engaging in situational homosexuality (e.g. in prison or the military)

Taken from Wikipedia, so the accuarcy of teh definiations could be debated.

Ich bin Uranodioningin. Try saying that in a bar after a couple of drinks, trying to chat someone up.

Printemps93

diddlybit wrote: »

Ich bin Uranodioningin. Try saying that in a bar after a couple of drinks, trying to chat someone up.

I'll try that and report back on Sunday !:D

WatchOut

oli2 wrote: »

sounds like you're saying women are inferior.

wonderfulname wrote: »

Sounds to me like he's saying he doesn't feel that his sexuality equates to him being of the opposite sex internally...

wonderfulname - that is what I'm saying.
oli2 - it has nothing to do with me thinking women are inferior. If I was a gay WOman I think I'd still be annoyed at this study saying that I had the brain of a straight man.

I've read through all of the comments people have left and saw a lot of people disagreeing on several things so I think my best bet is to try and ignore these studies from now on and just try to be happy with myself