London Times: Scientists Claim to Have Discovered Gay DNA- Page 2

[HorseTears]

Posted: 2/18/14 at 5:53pm

Thanks for the caps, Namo. If you or anyone who agrees with you wouldn't mind helping me wrap my mind around this concept, I'd greatly appreciate it. I find it interesting. I think we're mislabeling "choice", but perhaps you can show me the light!


I'm a little out of my depth here, but I still think we're confusing the evolution of an individual's sexual orientation with choice. I often have really illuminating conversations with a friend of mine who is a PHD candidate in sexual and gender identity studies at San Francisco State. I don't know if that's the exact title, but that's a general description of what she's working on and what she's been studying since her undergrad years. From what I've--casually, no doubt--read and what she's told me, in general, women's sexual identity has more fluidity than men's and is less set in stone. For some women--and no doubt, some men--it is possible for their orientation to shift in minor or dramatic ways. Everything from getting slight crushes on women to transforming from a heternormative housewife to a full blown lesbian. But that is a shift or an evolution of their orientation, not a conscious choice.

That same friend has gone through dramatic changes in her orientation. I've known her since we were both 12 and until she was twenty she felt and believed that she was 100% heterosexual. And she comes from a super liberal, hippy, progressive family with plenty of LGBT family members and role models. But, in her early 20s, she started to feel attractions to women for the first time ever and by her mid-20s, she felt about a 50/50 split in attraction to men and women and chose to describe herself as bisexual and chose to have sexual relations with both men and women. The evolution of her orientation continued now into her late 20s and her attraction to the opposite sex has, in her words, disappeared and she feels exclusively attracted to the same gender and now chooses to describe herself as a lesbian and chooses to sleep exclusively with women. She's a very self-aware and open woman. She is 100% sure that she wasn't "born this way" and that she was deeply satisfied in her sexual relations with men in her teens and early 20s. But, her orientation evolved as she aged. She experienced that evolution and she chose to act upon it, but she didn't choose the orientation itself.

You said your friends are telling you that they chose to be with other women. This could mean a multitude of things: that they've always been bisexual, but are choosing now to exclusively sleep with the same sex, it could mean that their orientation has evolved from exclusively heterosexual to homosexual, it could mean that they were always bisexual but the degree to which they are attracted to women has increased and the degree to which they are attracted to men has decreased, it could be that they were always homosexual but had repressed it or conditioned themselves to fit into heteronormative behavior, but were now living openly and truthfully as lesbians. But surely that is them experiencing the evolution of their sexual orientation and then making choices about how to act upon (or not act upon) the desire they experience with that orientation? Have they explicitly told you that one day they sat down and said, "even though I'm still attracted to men, I'm going to consciously will myself into only being attracted to women."?

To be clear, I believe it would be arrogant and incredibly self-involved to insist that everyone's--male or female--sexual orientation is set in stone from birth and will never evolve or develop in unexpected ways. But that is not the same thing as saying someone can make a conscious choice to change his/her orientation.







Updated On: 2/18/14 at 05:53 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/18/14 at 5:56pm

Well, I'll see if I can't get in touch with the women I know who told me they felt they made a conscious decision in their later years to inform them that they did it wrong.

ETA It seems like there will always be somebody to inform you that the way you describe your experience in the world is wrong. And then they'll explain it in a way that better fits their vision of the world and re-describe your experience for you. And THAT way, it's easier to make sweeping generalizations they like after they help you to fit squarely into them.

Updated On: 2/18/14 at 05:56 PM

[HorseTears]

Posted: 2/18/14 at 6:07pm

Namo, I don't know why we need to get defensive or snarky. This is not a personal attack against you or your friends. I think it's a fascinating discussion. If my post has come across as dismissive, I apologize. No one but his/herself knows the truth about his/her own identity. I don't presume to tell your friends what they have or haven't experienced.

I know my post was long, but I was genuinely asking you whether these friends had explicitly told you that they had actively and consciously decided to change their sexual orientation, or rather, if they were experiencing an evolution of their orientations and then choosing behavior (ex: sleeping exclusively with women) that aligned with that evolved sexual orientation? I think those are two different things and I'm confused as to which your friends are describing. And if they are saying that they actively and consciously altered their sexual orientation, did they describe to you how they were able to do this and how long it took them to, for lack of a better term, rid themselves of their prior orientation?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/18/14 at 6:13pm

Because. My point is not everyone agrees with the original assertion. Period. Not everyone does. Honestly, what the **** difference does it make what my friends told me, and they were activist friends and it was the late-80s and gender studies hadn't evolved to such a state where a smart grad student could tell them they didn't understand a single thing about themselves that they were saying?

It doesn't ****ing matter what steps they experienced or if they came to understand their sexuality in an evolutionary manner that conforms with contemporary orthodoxy. What difference does it make?

People can be who they want, they can call themselves any one of the dozens of contemporary gender options, and they can choose their sexuality.

Again, for the final time, WE don't all agree that sexuality is definitely genetically determined.

The end.

Somebody, anybody else, can take up this ****ing baton.

Updated On: 2/18/14 at 06:13 PM

[HorseTears]

Posted: 2/18/14 at 6:32pm

Namo, regarding identity--what one calls oneself--be it sexual orientation(straight, gay, bisexual, asexual, heteroflexible etc) or gender identity(agender, bigender, cisgender, genderfluid, genderqueer etc.)--I certainly wasn't suggesting that anyone but the individual should be able to choose what label(s) s/he subscribes to or doesn't subscribe to. And I fully appreciate that not everyone got to come of age in an era in which there was this much awareness about sexual and gender identity. That's not what I was discussing. I don't think you really answered my question regarding: evolution of orientation vs. choice. But, I hear you, you've had this discussion before and you've said your piece and I'll respect that.

How about this, if anyone else reading this thread has ever successfully consciously changed his/her sexual orientation, and is willing to speak about the experience, could you tell us how you were able to actively alter your orientation and, if you don't mind, tell us why you chose to do it. Again, I'm talking strictly about being able to actively choose your orientation, not about experiencing an evolution in your orientation and then acting upon it. OR, if you know someone else who has been able to change his/her orientation, what did s/he tell you about the process? OR, if there is some literature on actively changing one's sexual orientation you'd recommend reading, please direct me there so that I can educate myself.

And, I'll repeat, no offense whatsoever is intended. I am simply trying to deepen my understanding of this discussion.



Updated On: 2/18/14 at 06:32 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 2/18/14 at 7:25pm

Choice or not a choice?

It's a red herring.

First of all, do we have a choice about anything. Free will is not universally believed to exist.

Second, what difference does it make if it's a choice or not? Is that ever a basis for moral stances on anything.

Third, if we were to legitimize gay love because being gay is not something a gay person has chosen then what does that mean for our bisexual brothers and sisters? - and please don't tell me that bisexuality doesn't exist.

All that being sad, what we are dealing with here isn't politics, or shouldn't be politics, but rather science. Not scientific inquiry but rather what we do with science puts us potentially in moral jeopardy.

[HorseTears]

Posted: 2/18/14 at 9:42pm

First of all, do we have a choice about anything. Free will is not universally believed to exist.

Oh boy. You're bringing up some big philosophical and scientific questions, henrikegerman. I'm not sure I'm equipped to properly discuss the neuroscience of free will. That discussion is just one giant black hole. A metaphorical black hole, as I believe Stephen Hawking now says that black holes don't exist either.


Second, what difference does it make if it's a choice or not? Is that ever a basis for moral stances on anything.

How is a quest for knowledge--in this case an understanding of how someone could actively choose their orientation as opposed to just experience it--taking a moral stance? As for whether choice is ever a basis for moral stances on anything, isn't choice (or free will) at the core of most of our moral stances and laws?


Third, if we were to legitimize gay love because being gay is not something a gay person has chosen then what does that mean for our bisexual brothers and sisters? - and please don't tell me that bisexuality doesn't exist.

I honestly have no idea what this^ statement means. Of course bisexuality exists. The assertion, as shown in numerous peer reviewed studies and held by the American Psychiatric Assoc is that a person's sexual orientation is not a choice. This applies to gay, straight and bisexual people across the spectrum. Acknowledging that one's sexual orientation is not a choice is not contrary to understanding that people's orientations can also shift/expand/evolve throughout their lives.

But when someone claims that, contrary to the available science, they are able to consciously choose their orientation, I don't think there's anything morally wrong with wanting to explore that claim. Surely if a select group of people are capable of willfully changing their orientation, this is something worth being curious about. Look, I don't like the taste of plain milk. Could I wake up tomorrow and choose to drink a glass of milk everyday despite not enjoying the taste? Sure. Could I wake up tomorrow and find that my taste has evolved and that I now, much to my surprise, like the taste of milk? Sure. But could I wake up tomorrow and willfully force my taste buds and all of the areas of my brain responsible for recognizing and appreciating taste to suddenly like the taste of milk? That feels like a bit of a stretch to me, but if it is possible, wouldn't you want to know more about how that process works or why certain people have this deeper level of consciousness than others?


All that being sad, what we are dealing with here isn't politics, or shouldn't be politics, but rather science. Not scientific inquiry but rather what we do with science puts us potentially in moral jeopardy.

Absolutely. There are some deep moral issues to wrestle with there, but my interest in this thread was really focused on the claim that some people can choose their orientation and I'm curious to know how this is biologically/psychologically possible. If it is possible for some people to willfully choose their orientation, as has been asserted in this thread, I think it would be fascinating to know more about how this happens. If the suggestion being made is that we shouldn't deepen our scientific understanding of the origins of sexual orientation because we could end up lending credence to the arguments of right-wing lunatics, I'm not sure that's entirely fair. And, yes, of course this all circles back to the question of free will.

God, my head hurts now.



Updated On: 2/18/14 at 09:42 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/18/14 at 10:00pm

For the last time Horse Tears and TRULY I am not going to spell this out again.

My objection was with LH writing that "WE all know it's genetic" in the original post. As you can see, OTHER people in this thread had problems with LH speaking for anybody but himself. It wasn't just me. I mentioned the women who said what they said about their sexuality not as a peer reviewed study result or even as a story that could possibly meet the contemporary gender studies understandings of sexuality. My point is that I knew some women who felt they made a choice. I am sorry I didn't do a full intake with them so I could answer your curiosity. HOWEVER, nobody here is saying PEOPLE CAN CHANGE THEIR SEXUALITY. I said I knew some people who felt they made a conscious choice later in life.

I am sorry I introduced that minor point, it was never ever ever to say that "people can change their sexuality." It was to say "WE" don't all "know" something that science has not proven and I hope to hell never does.

Okay? Can this end now?

[HorseTears]

Posted: 2/18/14 at 10:10pm

Thanks, Namo. Let's leave it there.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 2/18/14 at 10:40pm

"Of course they were born that way, I mean, who would choose to be gay?"

I've actually heard well-meaning people say that, and I always say "Me!"

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/18/14 at 10:44pm

I wouldn't trade some of the dicks I've sucked for anything!

[HorseTears]

Posted: 2/18/14 at 10:51pm

Me too, Jay Lerner-Z!

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 2/19/14 at 12:27am

"I wouldn't trade some of the dicks I've sucked for anything!"

I wouldn't necessarily say for anything, but I certainly wouldn't trade them for vaginas.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 2/19/14 at 3:02am

I always find it strange when people say that homosexuality is caused by genetics because I am gay, but I have an identical twin who is straight. We have the same DNA, and we were raised in essentially the same environment. We spent our early childhood almost entirely at each other's side, and we were in the same classes at school through 6th grade, so we shared so many experiences together. I don't feel that my sexuality was a choice, but that's not to say that I wouldn't choose it. And I can only speak for myself and my personal experience. I've often pondered how it happened that I am attracted to men while my brother is attracted to women, but I have to think that it's the same reason that I like classical music while he prefers jazz. Why I enjoy Sex & the City while he likes Breaking Bad. Why I like Dickens while he only really reads nonfiction. There are so many other factors that shape who we are beyond genetics and environment in early development. Genetics could certainly play a role in determining sexuality, but that seems highly unlikely in my own case.

[artscallion]

Posted: 2/19/14 at 7:27am

For me the bigger issue here is the red herringness of it all, as Henrik states. The big rush to prove that "I was born this way; it's not my fault. So you CAN'T discriminate against me!"

Does anyone here really think that if it is eventually proven to be a matter of pure genetics, that the oppressors of gay folks will step back and say, "Oh, okay. Sorry to have bothered you." Of course not. They'll re-frame the argument around another point.

Sure, march forward in the name of science. But I don't expect that it will end, or even soften the debate. In fact, as some have said, the search for a cure might make it worse.

[tazber]

Posted: 2/19/14 at 7:42am

We can look to the Coultergeist for a glimpse of how such a gay gene would be spun:

The general premise of her words: Gays and lesbians should become pro-life, because liberals may start aborting their unborn gay children once a homosexual gene is discovered.

“The gays have got to be pro-life. As soon as they find the gay gene, guess who the liberal yuppies are gonna start aborting?,”


Link

Updated On: 2/19/14 at 07:42 AM

[javero]

Posted: 2/19/14 at 9:22am

Sometimes I think that what is lost in the unending debate about nature vs nuture in the context of human sexuality is that some people choose persons, not genders.

I'm a straight guy but I've never been sexually attracted to every female whom I happened upon, including my own mom. I have no idea whether that's the result of socialization or my brain (or genes) being somehow hard-wired to repel any apparent urges of physical attraction to her, notwithstanding any latent Oediphus/Eureka issues.

I'm likely the least qualified among us to chime in here but the question begs...what bars most heteros today from engaging in incestuous liaisons with family members of the opposite sex, psychology or socialization? I'd also like to share a personal anecdote...90% of the men who have ever hit on me have been married men or men who live with women. There seems to code among influential men on the DL that they don't pursue men who aren't into vagaga.

Sorry if it appears that I'm conflating one topic with the other.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 2/19/14 at 9:25am

"How is a quest for knowledge--in this case an understanding of how someone could actively choose their orientation as opposed to just experience it--taking a moral stance? As for whether choice is ever a basis for moral stances on anything, isn't choice (or free will) at the core of most of our moral stances and laws?"

Clearly many people have asserted a link between accepting homosexuality and concluding that it is not a choice. It is that proposition, and not behavioral dna research (into sexuality or anything else), that I object to.

As to your other point, before we get to choice in assessing morality, I would suggest that we generally first consider whether the thing potentially chosen is something harmful. Today most people accept religion as ultimately a choice (albeit one impacted by early conditioning). But discrimination based on religion is broadly (if not universally) condemned. And the reason for that is not because it isn't a choice (which it is; at least it is when we exclude the question of the neuroscience of free will in general and in the abstract; that exclusion being your respectable and understandable "choice," HorseTears, not mine), but because people generally believe that unless someone is foisting their religiously based moralizing or prejudices on us, it is none of our business what religion someone "chooses" to practice. It is a private matter which causes no social harm (or even if we might believe that religion does cause practical harm, it is not a harm that we generally cite to support depriving individual practitioners of their civil rights and equality under the law).

The gender of those someone is sexually attracted to, romantically loves, or gets it on with is similarly none of our business and should pose no moral threat to us. This is true whether it is an innate and or indelible trait or whether it is something within one's arguable control.

The flip side of this is that there are many things which science suggests are not within the control of the actor but the law still requires to be criminalized. One example is that many believe that for a great many (if not perhaps all) pedophiliacs, the act of having sex with young children is an irresistible impulse acquired from themselves being victims of child sexual abuse. Let's assume for a moment that this is true. It does not follow from that that pedophilia practiced by those who "have not chosen it" should be lawful or that those who have not chosen it should not be subjected to having their liberty restricted. Although we may not wish to punish childhood sex abuse victims who have fixated on the trauma and relive it as adults with other children, we obviously still have to consider the harm that they are perpetuating, legislate accordingly and isolate offenders from children. (Of course the considerations I have just outlined bring up questions of how and where to isolate pedophiliacs, and of the interplay between criminality, mental illness, addiction).

Although the threat of imprisonment can not always deter the potential offender from "choosing" to offend, it does not follow that the offense must therefore be deemed socially tolerable.

***

I think you understood, although it wasn't very clear from parts of your response, that I wasn't suggesting that there was anything morally corrupt or wrong about the research. I applaud it. It's a completely valid scientific inquiry. It's what many view as the moral application of the results which I question, not the studies themselves.

****
You are right in saying that sexual orientation as a genetic determinant may apply to bisexuality as well as hetero and homosexuality. My point was a different one. If sexual orientation including bisexuality is genetically determined, there remains an issue as to "choice" of romantic and or sexual partner/s of the bisexual. If, for instance, one is, for the sake of the argument, a Kinsey 3, should one's "choice" of a same sex partner be less socially acceptable than a Kinsey 6's "non-choice" of a same sex partner? I would hope no one would suggest that.











Updated On: 2/19/14 at 09:25 AM

[artscallion]

Posted: 2/19/14 at 9:27am

"...what bars most heteros today from engaging in incestuous liaisons with family members of the opposite sex, psychology or socialization?"

An interesting question that would also apply to gays. People go on and on about how hot my brother is. I can see that he has all the qualities that would make a man hot. Yet I feel absolutely no attraction to him.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/19/14 at 10:17am

Please give your brother my card.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 2/19/14 at 10:29am

The thing that makes this conversation frustrating is that it's a lot of time discussing a concept that is useless and rudimentary. The idea that we're 'born this way' is useful for about a minute to make ourselves feel better about our poor gay lots in life. But then, you get over the hump of shame ('See...I can't HELP myself. I was born gay. Like some people are born with other deformities!'), and move towards living an integrated life where the question doesn't matter because it just is. And yes...some women have experienced fluid sexuality. Some women have experienced sexual trauma at the hands of a man and choose to explore relationships with women. Some men spend time working out sexual abuse as children in physical ways that may go against their supposed DNA. And some people are absolutely certain they are born this way. And that must be the truth...for them.

If there's a gay gene, is there a separate, bisexual gene? Or is it just the gay gene diluted with a little too much club soda, like the drinks at The Duplex? And what does it all matter in the end? I simply do not need justification for who I am. Facebook recently went from what? Two gender options to 50? To recognize the vast possibilities of gender identification and expression. I'm very much doubtful that there is one gene or cause of sexual orientation. And even if there is one thing to point to, I still fervently believe that it doesn't matter and that, indeed, it's even the wrong question to ask.

Updated On: 2/19/14 at 10:29 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/19/14 at 12:18pm

I hope people read that post carefully, sonof, not least of all because it is so beautifully written. Apparently my name next to something not as calm and measured is a REAL stumbling block for some.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 2/19/14 at 12:35pm

Marry me SonofRobbieJ

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 2/19/14 at 12:54pm

"I still fervently believe that it doesn't matter and that, indeed, it's even the wrong question to ask."

And I think, at the end of the day, that's where the difference comes in for some homosexuals. Some believe it does indeed matter while others don't. That's the way of the world.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/19/14 at 1:52pm

What Robbie said.

And because lesbians.