nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Scans see 'gay brain differences'

[Deleted User]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.stm

Scans see 'gay brain differences'

The study suggests sexual preference is set in the womb

The brains of gay men and women look like those found in straight people of the opposite sex, research suggests.
The Swedish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain's halves in 90 adults.
Gay men and straight women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and straight men.
A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual preference was set in the womb.

Scientists have noticed for some time that homosexual people of both sexes have differences in certain cognitive abilities, suggesting there may be subtle differences in their brain structure. This is the first time, however, that scientists have used brain scanners to try to look for the source of those differences.

As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay

Dr Qazi Rahman
Queen Mary, University of London

This puts a new twist on the theory that sexuality is set at conception.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

When someone speaks in absolutes and claims scientific evidence (e.g., Qazi Rahman), especially in press statements (BBC), that causes me to pause...

Would a scientist that relies on the conventions of the scientific method say: "As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more -- if you are gay, you are born gay." (?) Or would they use more caution when offering conclusions, using such words as "suggests" or "statistically significant?"

I have not read the journal article that he has referred to, but I will try to find it using Google Scholar Beta (provided that I can see the whole article in English for free, and not an abstract or have to pay for it).

Not having read the article yet, something hit me that was reported here. The total number of subjects was 90? If they were almost equal sized groups (90/4=22.5 or approximately 22 to 23 subjects per group), and there were 4 experimental groups for brain scanning? (just guessing the research design from the BBC report)

Straight male
Gay male
Straight female
Lesbian/gay female

If so, we already have a statistical problem in terms of representation and generalisation to the world human population of billions (or worse, to the subpopulations of different gender-oriented persons) from this study.

For example, to represent a human population of 100,000 people, you would need a minimum of 384 subjects in your randomly drawn sample to be significant at the p<.05 level of confidence (Isaac & Michael, 1997, Handbook in Research and Evaluation, 3rd Ed., p. 201).The .05 level is typically the most statistical error allowed when measuring human populations, with conclusions from samples with larger error normally being rejected; i.e., .06 or .07 or so forth). In other words, to represent all humanity on the planet, they would need more than a mere 90 subjects (or 22.5 subjects for 4 subpopulations), hence, to say there is "no argument" is media spin and not scientific.

I am also concerned with how they selected the subjects to be compared when brain scanning. How was sexual orientation defined and determined for each subject selected? If only four groups, are they "pure" this or that in sexual orientation, or kinda this or that? What about bisexuals? Where do they fit? (etc., etc., etc.!)

I did find an earlier article published by Rahman and Wilson (2002), "Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation," Personality and Individual Differences 34(8): 1337-1382, wherein it was concluded that: "Sexual orientation is characterized by a bipolar distribution...in males. In females, its distribution is more variable..." Well, if males are either/or, but females are variable, how did they find females that were not "variable" for brain scanning in the study Rahman cited?

Don't you just love sweeping generalisations?:rolleyes:

RandolphEsq

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

When someone speaks in absolutes and claims scientific evidence (e.g., Qazi Rahman), especially in press statements (BBC), that causes me to pause...

Would a scientist that relies on the conventions of the scientific method say: "As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more -- if you are gay, you are born gay." (?) Or would they use more caution when offering conclusions, using such words as "suggests" or "statistically significant?"

I have not read the journal article that he has referred to, but I will try to find it using Google Scholar Beta (provided that I can see the whole article in English for free, and not an abstract or have to pay for it).

Not having read the article yet, something hit me that was reported here. The total number of subjects was 90? If they were almost equal sized groups (90/4=22.5 or approximately 22 to 23 subjects per group), and there were 4 experimental groups for brain scanning? (just guessing the research design from the BBC report)
Straight male

Gay male

Straight female

Lesbian/gay female

If so, we already have a statistical problem in terms of representation and generalisation to the world human population of billions (or worse, to the subpopulations of different gender-oriented persons) from this study.

For example, to represent a human population of 100,000 people, you would need a minimum of 384 subjects in your randomly drawn sample to be significant at the p<.05 level of confidence (Isaac & Michael, 1997, Handbook in Research and Evaluation, 3rd Ed., p. 201).The .05 level is typically the most statistical error allowed when measuring human populations, with conclusions from samples with larger error normally being rejected; i.e., .06 or .07 or so forth). In other words, to represent all humanity on the planet, they would need more than a mere 90 subjects (or 22.5 subjects for 4 subpopulations), hence, to say there is "no argument" is media spin and not scientific.

I am also concerned with how they selected the subjects to be compared when brain scanning. How was sexual orientation defined and determined for each subject selected? If only four groups, are they "pure" this or that in sexual orientation, or kinda this or that? What about bisexuals? Where do they fit? (etc., etc., etc.!)

I did find an earlier article published by Rahman and Wilson (2002), "Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation," Personality and Individual Differences 34(8): 1337-1382, wherein it was concluded that: "Sexual orientation is characterized by a bipolar distribution...in males. In females, its distribution is more variable..." Well, if males are either/or, but females are variable, how did they find females that were not "variable" for brain scanning in the study Rahman cited?

Don't you just love sweeping generalisations?:rolleyes:

+1

What he did said :rolleyes:

Reku

Good post Blue Lagoon.:)

passive

This thread is ghey.

Stabshauptmann

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Not having read the article yet, something hit me that was reported here. The total number of subjects was 90? If they were almost equal sized groups (90/4=22.5 or approximately 22 to 23 subjects per group), and there were 4 experimental groups for brain scanning? (just guessing the research design from the BBC report)
Straight male

Gay male

Straight female

Lesbian/gay female

If so, we already have a statistical problem in terms of representation and generalisation to the world human population of billions (or worse, to the subpopulations of different gender-oriented persons) from this study.

For example, to represent a human population of 100,000 people, you would need a minimum of 384 subjects in your randomly drawn sample to be significant at the p<.05 level of confidence (Isaac & Michael, 1997, Handbook in Research and Evaluation, 3rd Ed., p. 201).The .05 level is typically the most statistical error allowed when measuring human populations, with conclusions from samples with larger error normally being rejected; i.e., .06 or .07 or so forth). In other words, to represent all humanity on the planet, they would need more than a mere 90 subjects (or 22.5 subjects for 4 subpopulations), hence, to say there is "no argument" is media spin and not scientific.

If you need 384 sample for 100,000 people, for 4 billion would you need millions of samples? If so thats obviously impractical.

While in general determining the sample size depends on (1) the level of confidence (2) margin of error tolerated, and (3) variability in population studied; does the central limit theorem not suggests that a sample size of 30 would be fine?

Maximilian

Well, if the study is to believed, gay men are more feminine than straight ones and laser beams (I think they're called) are more masculine than straight women.

I don't think you need to test the whole world to know that this conclusion is largely true (though not always). I think they should do an extensive study on those so-called lipstick laser beams, with full HD video, photos and leather gear, just to be sure.

r3nu4l

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

does the central limit theorem not suggests that a sample size of 30 would be fine?

No! Would you feel safe taking a drug that didn't have any adverse reaction in the 30 people it was tested in? If that was the case then the FDA and EMEA wouldn't demand that a drug be tested in thousands of people before it could be released for general sale.

I've seen the results from clinical trials of drugs that are already approved after over ten years of exhaustive testing and guess what? We still see new adverse events in people that hadn't been tested before. This is due to the quirks of human biology. We really are all unique and while testing in thousands of people gives you some degree of safety, it's no guarantee. There is no way thirty people is anywhere near enough. Maths and mathematical theories are great but the central limit theorem cannot be applied just because it seems plausible and fits the Maths!! There are too many variables.

EDIT: Great post Blue_Lagoon.

Double EDIT: This is in AH??? Sorry folks.
/puts on AH hat: Ahem, er, dis tread is hurtin my brain, let's talk about poo and the gheyness of poo!

Intothesea

That seems to be a pretty imprudent declaration to
me too. Maybe Dr Rahman is 'doing his bit' for the
ghey population? :pac: /AH ansa

I think the more interesting finding is the amygdala
-wiring because it appears to do away with the need for
cause/effect-proving childhood scans. I'd say the
participants were screened by general interview and
selected on the basis of accounts describing similar
initial sexual development. I'd like to see them account
for volume difference by specific brain area(s). Maybe
other studies will add to/refine this.

Gone West

Brane scann0rz!

Sounds very sciency.
I was expecting neurobiology at the very least tbh, and more than likely some fancy positron emission tomography/neuro expert claiming this.

kevmy

While I do agree with Blue_Lagoon on the size of the population studied being too small to be statistically significant, I would still say the results are interesting and still be considered relatively significant. Especially if all of the straight males showed the same/similar results as the gay women and vice versa.
I also think there have been larger scale studies done on men and women before which set out that men have asymmetrical brains whereas women more symmetrical brains. So I wouldn't write this study off

Basically interesting but still not conclusive.

r3nu4l

kevmy wrote: »

So I wouldn't write this study off

Basically interesting but still not conclusive.

Exactly, but for the study investigator to come out with such a conclusive statement is bizarre.

All scientists know that one study cannot be conclusive, perhaps the guy is a medical doctor, they're generally not as clued up on these things as tehy seem to think they are.

Lol at FuzzyLogic

Neurology is a science, silly boy! :pac:

Earthhorse

Don't our brains develop over time?

If so, isn't that development subject to our life experience?

Dave!

Earthhorse wrote: »

Don't our brains develop over time?

If so, isn't that development subject to our life experience?

That's what I would query too.

It has been noted for example that London taxi drivers (who have to study routes for years before they become drivers) have larger hippocampi (which is related to navigation and spatial awareness) than the general public, and that part of the hippocampus gets bigger the longer you are a taxi driver. So there are actual physical changes within the brain throughout your life resulting from your environment, choices, etc.

If they studied the brains of new-borns, and then again in later life, and found some significant results, then I'd be a bit more convinced.

Still, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if gayness is genetic. But I'd need more evidence to make such a statement as "As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay".

Phantasm

So what's the craic with those greedy bisexuals?

Red Hand

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

If you need 384 sample for 100,000 people, for 4 billion would you need millions of samples? If so thats obviously impractical.

While in general determining the sample size depends on (1) the level of confidence (2) margin of error tolerated, and (3) variability in population studied; does the central limit theorem not suggests that a sample size of 30 would be fine?

Stage 3 clinical trials often have 5000 and more subjects participating in them when testing a drug. That would be across maybe 4 years for a population size much smaller than 4 billion, as only a certain % of people are going to be struck by the particular disease the test drug is treating them for.

You can't draw that many conclusions from 30 people with much degree of confidence.

Good post B!ue.

[Deleted User]

passive wrote: »

This thread is ghey.

Yore face is ghey.

challengemaster

Very good post B!ue..

This is causing me to think - If straight people have "regular brains", gay people have "opposite sex brains", then what do bisexual people have? Some kind of cross? And if true, would that mean that bisexuality is a step in the direction of evolution? Or what does it really mean? So many questions can come from this if it's to be believed. Unfortunately it's not really science that's at fault but ourselvess and our (in)ability to understand and comprehend, keeping us from really knowing the answers.

That said, who gives a sh!t.

Overheal

So thats why uncle ron wears a tin foil hat. huh.

kevmy

r3nu4l wrote: »

Exactly, but for the study investigator to come out with such a conclusive statement is bizarre.

All scientists know that one study cannot be conclusive, perhaps the guy is a medical doctor, they're generally not as clued up on these things as tehy seem to think they are.

Lol at FuzzyLogic Neurology is a science, silly boy! :pac:

Unless of course he said something along the lines of "If the results of this study are borne out in other larger studies then as far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay"

However then Johnny Fleet Street got a hold of went "If the results of this study are borne out in other larger studies then as far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay" and said print.

This happens shockingly often, I remember the same thing happened with the cocaine on banknotes story last year.

Although I take your point about doctors:rolleyes:

thecaptain

Once again you have all missed the point.

The reason behind this story; to get the masses used to pre birth screening. All well and good I hear you say, save lives and all that. Not the case, all those not genetically "superior" will be terminated within 20 years.

Bioethics.ie and transhumanism for more information.

[Deleted User]

thecaptain wrote: »

Once again you have all missed the point.

The reason behind this story; to get the masses used to pre birth screening. All well and good I hear you say, save lives and all that. Not the case, all those not genetically "superior" will be terminated within 20 years.

Bioethics.ie and transhumanism for more information.

Isn't it great when you're right and the world is wrong!

Is there ever the chance you may be wrong!

Creature

Everyone knows gay brains are pink and normal (yes, thats right, I said normal) brains are grey.

Posted via intergalactic space telephone.

robby^5

So are there actually still people who think the gays choose to be gay? lolworthy.

tallaght01

kevmy wrote: »

Although I take your point about doctors:rolleyes:

r3nu4l wrote: »

All scientists know that one study cannot be conclusive, perhaps the guy is a medical doctor, they're generally not as clued up on these things as tehy seem to think they are.

Obviously not true. This guy IS a scientist. He's a psychologist with a PhD.

I hthnk medical doctors contribute huge amounts to research aswell as just clinical practice. Just look in the NEJM, or the JAMA or whatever medical journal you like.

We have to interpret data, and make clinical decisions accordingly. By and large, we do a reasonable job of it, and usually have an evidence base to our practise.

This study is interesting. But it has a big "so what?" question mark over it, though, doesn't it?

Homer

Creature wrote: »

Everyone knows gay brains are pink and normal (yes, thats right, I said normal) brains are grey.

Ghey Brain...

RandolphEsq

Dave! wrote: »

That's what I would query too.

It has been noted for example that London taxi drivers (who have to study routes for years before they become drivers) have larger hippocampi (which is related to navigation and spatial awareness) than the general public, and that part of the hippocampus gets bigger the longer you are a taxi driver. So there are actual physical changes within the brain throughout your life resulting from your environment, choices, etc.

So you can catch the gayness from a gay if you are forced to be in close quarters with that gay!

Bottle_of_Smoke

so bisexuals are just greedy then

kevmy

tallaght01 wrote: »

Obviously not true. This guy IS a scientist. He's a psychologist with a PhD.

I hthnk medical doctors contribute huge amounts to research aswell as just clinical practice. Just look in the NEJM, or the JAMA or whatever medical journal you like.

We have to interpret data, and make clinical decisions accordingly. By and large, we do a reasonable job of it, and usually have an evidence base to our practise.

This study is interesting. But it has a big "so what?" question mark over it, though, doesn't it?

Pfft.. psychology isn't real science.

And medical doctors know relatively little about scientific method (don't get me wrong great at what they do but usually they are not experimentalists).

thecaptain wrote: »

all those not genetically "superior" will be terminated within 20 years.

First one to go the AH poster know as thecaptain

tallaght01

kevmy wrote: »

And medical doctors know relatively little about scientific method (don't get me wrong great at what they do but usually they are not experimentalists).

I disagree. To get a consultant job you will nearly always have had to work in research fulltime at some point, and have produced peer reviewed papers. In the department where I work, we have a "journal club" every week where we dissect papers.

At the end of the day, we have have to be able to interpret the validity of the paper, in order to decide whether the findings are clinically relevant. Most papers relating to sensitivity/specificity of imaging techniques that I've seen have come from radiologists.

I would also imagine that most of the current medical graduates have a science degree aswell as their medical degree(it's certainly true in the UK, not sure about Ireland).

kowloon

tallaght01 wrote: »

In the department where I work, we have a "journal club" every week where we dissect papers.

And solve groovy mysteries.