Choice is clearly a factor in determining sexuality

Author: Vegasgiants

Posts

Total: 325
#271
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
I haven't read into much of the homosexual literature, but I don't understand how a self-deleting genetic expression (i.e. homosexual sex engage procreate) would be so prevalent amongst humans. In an evolutionary sense, it should be selected against because homosexual sex can't procreate, thus the genes won't be passed on.
There is no evidence that homosexuality stems from a gene that can be passed on, or at the least that it's not something carried only in certain groups which could be selected against like height or skin color. Personally, I just don't see it as any different from asking why one person likes cars while another likes motorcycles. Pretty sure no one would suggest there's a gene for that.
If homosexuality isn't a choice and can't be change, but it's also not genetic, what then determines it?

I suspect that, at least in part, car/motorcycle preference can be explained by genetics. In particular, there will be psychological traits (e.g. need for safety = car; preference for freedom = motorcycle) which map onto a stereotypical car/motorcycle preference. But that's just a suspicion. We already know that things like political beliefs are heritable. 
Unless you believe it's all determined by the soul (which has its own problems), on some level, everything comes down to our genetics.
You said previously that, "no one would suggest there's a gene" for liking cars or motorcycles. How can everything come down to genetics, and yet there's no gene involved for liking cars or motorcycles? Did I miss something?
Topic's author
#272
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Kaitlyn
You appeal to authority if you cite that webpage
Topic's author
#273
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I accept your concession 
#274
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Vegasgiants
You appeal to authority if you cite that webpage
What "webpage" are you talking about?
Topic's author
#275
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Kaitlyn
The post you responded to concerned a webmd page.


And peer review is considered the gold standard in science 
#276
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Vegasgiants
You appeal to authority if you cite that webpage
What "webpage" are you talking about?
The post you responded to concerned a webmd page.
You realized that I didn't cite that webmd page, because you confused me for someone else, and now you're too proud to admit your mistake.

I love it <3

And peer review is considered the gold standard in science 
Not at all. It's actively mocked by anyone who understands what it's about.

Thank God every respected scientific agency disagrees with you.   Lol
1) You haven't proven this at all.
[No response from Vegasgiants]
We're still waiting for you to prove this.
Topic's author
#277
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Kaitlyn
Are you actually suggesting that peer review is not used by every scientific organization in the country?

It's how we decide if your medicine is safe, your water is safe to drink and your food is safe to eat

Please name any scientific agency that mocks peer review.  Lol
#278
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Vegasgiants
You keep making a bunch of claims that you don't defend when called out on, and then you still don't defend them even when called out a second time.

No point in continuing this conversation.
Topic's author
#279
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Kaitlyn
So do you.  Who are all these scientific agencies that are mocking peer review?


Name one

You can't 


Dismissed 
#280
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Lemming
But I don't want to be attracted to pillows,
Or go through the time and effort required for such.
What time and effort? In my last post I asked you to recount the process you went through in order to shape your current sexuality, you ignored that request.

Society I grew up in normalizes and prioritized in normalcy, people being attracted to the opposite sex,
If the society I grew up in had normalized and prioritized in normalcy, people being attracted to the same sex, it's possible I would be gay now,
Possible and reasonable to believe are two different things.

The fact that society has normalized being straight but not gay gives one reason to wish they were straight, that does not mean they decided what to be sexually aroused by.

I've given you an example of how you could demonstrate to yourself if nothing else that sexuality is chosen, you refuse to take part because you don't want to. You also haven't yet provided the details of how you decided upon and eventually arrived at your current sexuality. Till one of those changes I don't see what is left to discuss here.
#281
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Kaitlyn
Do you know what environmental conditions may trigger homosexuality? 
As I remember, it was thought the environment of womb might play a role. I don't remember specifics at this point.

However, if homosexuals aren't at all attracted to the opposite sex, then there is virtually no chance that in yesteryears they would have had heterosexual sex because they would not have been inclined to do so. 
People have sex with individuals they aren't physically attracted to all the time thanks to things like loneliness and alcohol. Culture can help too - Patriarchy, arranged marriages, etc. Besides that, it also seems homosexual individuals can be born of perfectly straight parents. 

That being said, it's strange why partial homosexuality exists to any degree. What benefits are there to be found in any degree of homosexuality, or do you suspect it was a coincidental evolutionary adaption?
Ive seen it argued homosexuality might create an excess of caretakers which could be good for ensuring the survival of young and other spreading of labor theories. I'm not sure I buy this, but it is plausible. I would tend to think if homosexuality is passed along by genes, folks with homosexual tendencies are doing enough to pass their genes through the generations. 
#282
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
> 
@Kaitlyn
So do you.  Who are all these scientific agencies that are mocking peer review?
She never claimed any “scientific agency” mocked peer review…you did (strawman). 

She clearly said your assertion that peer review is the gold standard among scientific agencies is factually inaccurate because “anyone who understands them” (ie - they’re purpose and intent and processes) “mocks them. “

Your lack of defense in substantiating your own tripe is what is and should be, dismissed. 

Topic's author
#283
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
TWS

Then show me these scientific agencies that mock peer review


I see no evidence for that claim


Dismissed 
#284
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Vegasgiants
TWS

Then show me these scientific agencies that mock peer review


I see no evidence for that claim


Dismissed 
No one here made that claim. No one. 

You’re interpreting someone did because you’re incapable of admitting you’re wrong on your clearly established strawman assertion she (and now me) did. 

You’re wrong. Own it. 
Topic's author
#285
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
TWS


Who are you posting to?

The guy you have blocked?   Lol
Topic's author
#286
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
#287
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Double_R
@ADreamOfLiberty
@TWS1405_2
I agree and disagree with parts,
But suppose I'll focus on Will.

Do you view acting/will as 'exactly the same as choice,
Or do you view there as differences between the two concepts.

We 'can effect our genes though, I'd argue.
Though we might not 'want to effect our genes, if it's not in our genes, conscious mind, or circumstance.

As an example,
Though I'm not sure if body parts = genes,
Also I suspect it's a fair bit crude/primitive still, in many ways.
But various organs or pieces of organs removed,
Or substances taken, as some people do under medical guidance,
Can effect inclinations of the body encouraging thoughts/actions, to the mind.

Well, I wouldn't say I ignored your request,
But I suppose I didn't answer it 'specifically.

Life experiences have an effect on a person's preferences,
Doesn't matter if it's food, politics, philosophy, religion, sex.

Some life experiences are like a drop of water, hitting and carving a path into stone, over years,
Others like a high pressure water blaster, on just for a moment.
. . .

Cultivation of a person, maybe isn't an exact science,
Where one can say with certainty 'this person will be this if nurtured this way,
People not 'so powerful in perception and understanding.

'Could be I'm wrong,
And that sexual attraction is as hard coded as a person having schizophrenia,
Though even that, nurture can have an impact,
But I don't think I'm wrong.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If my life experiences had been full of homosexual tone,
Might be I'd be gay or bisexual now,

I 'assume but do not know,
That your argument to this would be,
"In that case you were 'always gay or bisexual, you just didn't know it, a 'Real straight person could never be turned gay, sexual preferences are hard coded."
- Not a real quote by Double_R

My view is more tiny percentages though, of possibility, of influence,
I also think tiny percentages can be added on, or subtracted, by life experiences or changes to body.

#288
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Lemming
I agree and disagree with parts,
But suppose I'll focus on Will.

Do you view acting/will as 'exactly the same as choice,
Or do you view there as differences between the two concepts.

Yes, by definition they are (infer) the same thing:

" to determine by an act of choice"


Will; willed; willing; wills
1
a
: to cause or change by an act of will
d
: to determine by an act of choice

#289
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
Ok. So I was right then, you do believe the science is wrong on homosexual attraction.
Topic's author
#290
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Public-Choice
The science is inconclusive 
#291
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@TWS1405_2
Would you say there is a difference between choice,
And 'functional choice?

I ask this, as I can imagine a ship with a rudder,
But if the rudder is full of holes, badly decayed, to the point it no longer influences outcome,
It does not seem to me much different than having 'no rudder,
Even if 'technically, the ship could be said to have a rudder.

"Technically, they still have a choice...their predicament just makes them weak to take a stand."

#292
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Vegasgiants
The science is inconclusive 
Only because there's a few holdouts.

When you have a study looking at 400,000 people it usually isn't seriously questioned by any scientist worth his aalt until someone finds a mistake or the authors come clean and admit they were frauds.

Considering nobody found a mistake yet and the authors did not come clean to anything, then the science is basically settled.

400,000 people is statistically representative for a population of 40 billion even. That's the gravity of the size of the population used in the study. It's pretty conclusive evidence, regardless of the holdouts and their correlative studies.

Correlation =/= causation. Every science researcher learns this. A correlation just means further study is required. Considering the further study basically happened already, it's not conclusive that any gene leads to homosexuality.

It's about time we looked into that other correlation nobody wants to talk about, the one where a disturbingly large amount of LGBT+ people were abused as children.
#293
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Kaitlyn
Based on what you're saying here, would you go so far as to say it can't be recessive?
Um, let me try to phrase it better:

Note that when I say 'the' allele it is only in the abstract since having functionality spread out across multiple genes is one of the ways things become complicated (and thus non-deterministic).

I am saying that the allele(s) involved (if any) are so non-deterministic that it wouldn't matter if they were dominant or recessive because they wouldn't predict much of anything.

A recessive trait following Mendelian inheritance would be something we couldn't possibly miss. As has been already posted in this thread twin studies prove it.

Now a recessive trait would serve to make sure there were never too many deviants in the analysis of general benefit, but that would be a factor multiplied by the  factor that not everyone with the genes are going to become deviants.

Is that clear? It could be recessive or it could be dominant, or neither (that's a thing) and that's something we wouldn't be able to determine until we've identified the genes. We can't do that until we know what the trigger is.

What we can rule out is that there is an allele (even if recessive) that when expressed causes you to be a sexual deviant. The uncertainty is not modeled by recessive vs dominant.

It's very possible that the genetic component is super generic, related to a bunch of stuff, and is indeed much like a gene that makes one like motorcycles. In that case though the complicated part is neurological or biochemical. Which means we're not going to figure it out any time soon; yet I am certain one day we will have a very good understanding of neurology and how the brain actually works.

It's just a slog of research about a phenomenon occurring before our eyes constantly. It's not like faster than light travel or hyper dimensional speculation.


Perhaps, as some others are saying in this thread, it is epigenetic and only expresses under certain environments (maybe only in advantageous environments). That could be a way for this gene to avoid extinction.

But that would raise another big question: are there environments wherein homosexuality is advantageous?
Epigenetics can't be ruled out, but it's not a magic word to me; it's just one category of control system; the vast majority of which are utterly subconscious.

For example if I speculated that there was a biochemical reaction (pure hormone/pheromone communication and protein reaction) due to the environment that caused your brain to go deviant and stay that way would it really have any meaningful difference from an explanation involving epigenetics?

In reality all these different systems interact with each other constantly. Any given function could rely on altering gene expression, protein domino logic, ion gradient changes, neuron signals, protein-like-RNA unfolding a bit, etc... etc... all at once (in different parts of the process).

All we can do right now is bracket what is possible by ruling out a few possibilities based on what we don't observe and what natural selection would allow.

I already gave my retelling of oromagi's theory of increased fitness for homosexuality. The environment where that would be considered more useful would be somewhere children are at risk and require a lot of help from adults; but not an environment with limited food or water as adults eat and drink a lot.

There is no reason it would need to react to the environment though; it is enough for a trait to be useful at the time to be selected; it doesn't need to detect when it would be useful, although sometimes it can and that kind of usefulness does tend stick around.


If homosexuality isn't a choice and can't be change, but it's also not genetic, what then determines it?
Control systems beyond our conscious control. That can be the subconscious (which is probably the answer), or it could be gene switching (expressed proteins can change even with identical DNA), or it could be a pure chemical equilibrium of some complexity.
I thought the subconscious was determined by genetics, too, hence the variations in it.
Everything ultimately arises from genetics, but people mean something specific (or should) when they say "it's genetic". They mean you can map someone's genome and make a prediction.

I think it was TWS who used "green eyes" as his example of this. Now the fact that I am typing in English is certainly something made possible ultimately by my genes. My genes built the cells and proteins of my brain. My genes determined the patterns by which neurons link; but knowing English is not genetic.

Capacity for diversity vs predestination.


By "gene switching", do you mean epigenetic?
Yes


What exactly is a "pure chemical equilibrium" of some complexity? I've never heard of that term before.
Well I was just covering all the bases. I don't know enough biology to know any examples off the top of my head. From an evolutionary standpoint they would certainly have been prevalent near the start of every new biochemical pathway; but probably just as certainly they would eventually be augmented by active control via in-situ proteins, epigenetics, etc...

Take ion (like sodium or hydroxide) flow through pores in a cell membrane for example. I think there are examples of both active and passive control. In passive control the proteins of the pore itself interact with differing concentrations on either side and that closes or opens the pore. There is no signalling, no waiting for new proteins or hormones to be manufactured. Just chemistry.

I don't know of any examples of life generating its own (pH) buffers, but I would be very surprised if it never happens. In fact I suspect my own blood and cytoplasm are buffers to some degree by design.

The context here is sexual attraction so no matter where the story starts it ends in the brain. A chain reaction of signal chemicals ending in "find men hot" is a bit like a fairy tale and quite inexplicable.  Like I said, covering all the bases.
Topic's author
#294
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Public-Choice
A few holdouts?  There is no scientific agency on the planet that says they agree there is strong evidence for what the cause of sexuality is.  Not one.

A single study no matter how big would never be used by itself to make such a claim.  Good science must be replicated independently to get considered conclusive 


The science here is clearly inconclusive 
#295
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
We 'can effect our genes though, I'd argue.
Though we might not 'want to effect our genes, if it's not in our genes, conscious mind, or circumstance.
There will come a day when we rewrite our own genes. It is inevitable (like nuclear energy).


As an example,
Though I'm not sure if body parts = genes,
Also I suspect it's a fair bit crude/primitive still, in many ways.
But various organs or pieces of organs removed,
Or substances taken, as some people do under medical guidance,
Can effect inclinations of the body encouraging thoughts/actions, to the mind.
Yes, and I think they tried all of these to cure homosexuality.

e.g. they tried castration, psychoactive suppressants, disciplined meditation, etc.. etc...

What a horror show, and something I remember whenever anyone appeals to popular opinion. An analogy might be: Colorblind? cut out your eyes.

I believe the most likely hypothesis is that the psycho-sexual structure is built sometimes from 6-14 years old. It's READ-ONLY-MEMORY from that point on.
#296
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
READ-ONLY-MEMORY?

I see that it's a technical term, having to do with computers,

But the 'meaning escapes me.
#297
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Vegasgiants
There is no scientific agency on the planet that says they agree there is strong evidence for what the cause of sexuality is.  Not one.
That's the point. No scientific agency worth its salt believes it is genetic because the science is basically settled on it not being genetic.

If homosexuality was genetic they would all agree it was. The only thing they agree on, though, is that genetics plays an insignificant role.
Topic's author
#298
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Public-Choice
You make my case for me.  We certainly can't rule out choice
#299
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
@NoBodyInParticular
If there was a 110 year old woman, Missing teeth, Overweight, Bad hygiene,
And a 27 year old man, Clean white smile, Physically fit, Clean.

Though I'm straight myself, I'd like looking at the guy more than the woman.
Seems to me that there's factors other than 'just sex that influence what people find physically attractive in other people.

Short hair, Jeans, And a healthy muscle tone used to be considered 'way too masculine, during one era and culture of the past.
But many women rock such a look nicely.
Some times and cultures, Used to be a man 'needed a beard to be seen as a man, Women seem to find clean shaven men attractive enough.
There's women who practice 'manly arts such as shooting guns, And driving their own cars, Really just another facet to their character.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Where am I going with this?
Well, one I'm lacking sleep for one, so I ramble, a bit,
But, more on topic, for two. .
. .
It seems to me more a 'deliberate 'choice,
That no matter a person's 'look,
No matter our 'instincts upon looking at them,
'Some people prefer a particular sex, 'generally speaking,
Whether it be their same or opposite.

If it wasn't a 'choice,
Would people not mind transexuals?
. . .

I'm explaining this poorly,
The genetic argument, 'sounds that people would just prefer X characteristics,
Yet there are individuals androgynous, or even having characteristics of the other sex,
Such as a bearded lady,
But one wouldn't call a man who suited after such a woman, gay.

I suppose the argument 'against this,
Would be people fully in the genetics camp, arguing that genetics demand a person be attracted to what they 'recognize as this or that sex.

Yet to me it seems more a matter of 'principle,
Of sticking to a definition that one prefers,
Not that I'm saying trans are unprincipled,
Just that people who still view them as their born sex,
Have their view as a principle, as thought out logic.
.  . .

If a man likes masculine women, is he gay?
If a woman likes feminine men, is she gay?
Doesn't 'seem that way to me,
Yet if the person is focused on the 'concept, of a person's 'true sex, it seems a 'bit a choice to me.

I don't mean this as conclusive,
Just airing my thoughts, rambling, and sleep deprived.

#300
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
READ-ONLY-MEMORY?

I see that it's a technical term, having to do with computers,

But the 'meaning escapes me.
Programs in computers are stored in memory. Some memory can be changed (update the program) by the computer itself. Others must be set by special means. Still others can be set once, but not changed after that.

I was postulating that there is a period of plasticity  while the psycho-sexual structure is forming when it is open to change; but after a certain point (probably when the structure is complete) it is no longer open to change.

Another analogy would be writing with pen instead of pencil, or the shape of a tree's branches.

The relevance is to point out (again) that it's not a dichotomy. Just because we can't change it when we try doesn't mean we were born that way.


Would be people fully in the genetics camp, arguing that genetics demand a person be attracted to what they 'recognize as this or that sex.
When you realize that there are people who become aroused at the sight of a shoe, reasonable doubt about the existence of a generalized (and pervertable) psycho-sexual system must be gone.

Whatever other factors may be in place there is something that allows us to be attracted to just about anything. That is the opposite of hardcoded. So no we aren't predestined to identify males by a beard, if evolution 'wanted' us to identify by sex without error it would have used pheromones.

Instead pheromones affect us but only subconsciously.

Sexual selection is a very important force in evolution and ours has been completely enslaved to our abstracting mind.

Yet if the person is focused on the 'concept, of a person's 'true sex, it seems a 'bit a choice to me.
You correctly assume that there is no possible way your genes know about "true sex" vs "having a beard or muscles". You are missing the fact that the subconscious thinks too, it has access to all of your perceptions and concepts.