"Extreme Skewing of X Chromosome Inactivation in Mothers of Homosexual Men"

i think its a horrid thing to start saying in teh scientific community that homosexuals are teh result of some genetic skew... like we are some genetic fuck up.

i think if anythign this only helps fuel teh argument that homosexuals are some mistake

my mother wouldent say im a mistake. well then again i dunno if she knew maybe dissown me...i vaugely remember her talking about when i grow up and find a woman or summat.

but yea anyway i dont care for this thanks for bringing it to the table though.

 

I don't think that at all. 'Variation' is a better way to think about it - just like hair color, handedness, etc. And when you start scientifically identifying biological or 'natural' reasons for homosexuality, it blunts the "it's a choice" bullshit arguments.

 

2 Things. First it is spelt THE not TEH.

Second every living creature, from the lowest virus to humans is the result of genetic fuck ups. Though as olides84 pointed out, the proper term is variance. Variance is the driving force behind evolution and natural selection.

 

I don't normally like to nitpick, but is there any chance you could, like, type slower, or check your posts before hitting submit? I've noticed quite often that half of what you say is indiscernible, and I think people might pay attention to your posts a bit more if they could read them

As has been said, everything that makes anyone different from anyone else is the result of 'genetic fuck ups', if there wasn't variation we'd all be the exact same. the scientific community doesn't tend to (or like to) involve themselves with moral debate and because of this, sometimes the wording used can come across as offensive. Remember that 'disorder' in a scientific context means something quite different to in a sociological context. It isn't intended to have any negative (or positive) connotations, just states difference.

 

ffs pick pick pick...ill just not bother. make everyone happy. i think the idea of me beeing the result of something skewd sucks.

hope thats clear enough.

 

sorry.. I wasn't trying to be offensive, I've always liked your points of view, I was just trying to make it so more people could read what you wrote too

 

Tbh, I know basically nothing about the original topic here.. But to talk about this little debate a bit:

ASSUMING that the original topic holds some truth, saying that would not be very different than talking about people with blonde hair and stuff. It isn't like saying: "oh your genes are broken, you've given birth to a mutant", it's more like saying: "there's a LOW CHANCE that your child will be born with this certain trait, the chances are higher depending on your genes".

As an analogy (which may be a bit wrong, again, I don't know much about this skew chromosome stuff..): I could say: there's a low chance you will give birth to a child with a recessive trait, but if both parents carry the recessive trait the probability is higher, AND if both parents exhibit the recessive trait, the probability is almost certain.

On the other hand, I would say: there's a low chance your child will be homosexual, but if the skewing of the chromosomes is higher, the probability is higher, etc.. (assuming the research holds some truth) (again, as the OP said, this is probably correlation, not causation)

Basically, it isn't about birth defects, mistakes, or "disorders" with some negative connotation; it's just PROBABILITY, and things with low probability in biology tend to be given names that are generally READ as negative, but do not imply anything negative in themselves.

Also, I find the original post quite interesting.. going to read some more now lol.

 

I've always wondered if homosexuality is the result from nature wanting to make sure humans don't overpopulate? By having same sex couples not able to naturally reproduce, the idea was maybe that humans wouldn't? Even though we obviously have overpopulated and gay couples do have children by other means in some cases.

I don't think it's a mistake, but maybe this is nature's way of saying: "Ok, don't f*** with the planet and overpopulate, so you special people can be attracted to the same sex so this doesn't happen."

 

Now to talk about the actual topic lol... Just skimmed through that site..

Number 4 was a bit misleading! Those percentages aren't really related to the skewing. It just meant that in the mothers of homosexual men, 13% of the mothers had "high" skewing, and only 4% of the mothers of heterosexual men had "high" skewing. When they did this they just defined a cut-off point of what would be called "high".. the percentages don't depict "how much" skewing there was.

But ya, this is a pretty hard thing to analyze.. I don't know exactly how they analyzed their data and probabilities and averages, but really.. there's a chance that some of the kids weren't even completely sure of their orientation at the time. The number of children the people have would mess with the results (though I think they took that into consideration and it helped the results [ie/ part where mothers of two homosexuals had higher rate of "high" skewing and vice versa]). Basically, there's a lot of probabilities and randomness within the probabilities that they're measuring lol...

Anyways, assuming there were no major flaws in the data collection, it is seen that "high" skewing occurs in both mothers, so it would definitely not be causation (little joke: unless the "heterosexual" sons of the mothers with "high" skewing didn't know they were gay, in which case this can be used as a gay tester! lol....). Only 13% of the mothers of openly gay sons exhibited the "high skewing". Though, that isn't to say that the other 86% had low skewing. There's a big range that they just left out. Would have been nice if it were like: 13% high, 57% medium, 30% low... lol.. which is probably the case.

Overall, I'd like to trust these guys and say that 13% vs 4% is a fairly large difference when looking for correlations (especially when they went into the mothers with multiple sons with even greater differences) and maybe the skewing is ONE factor that affects sexuality.

lol.. to get really nice results, instead of taking a sample of mothers, they should choose one mother with high skewing and one with low then make them have lots of babies and see how many turn out gay or not! ..joking.... but that would help, technically.. eliminate the other variable.. I'll shut up now.

 

I always thought this too, maybe we are just part of some evolution thing we don't understand yet.

 

I'm gay, my brother is not. Therefore this skewing is probably only one piece in an incredibly complex puzzle.

 

To be honest, I only read the first post, maybe someone else explained this but I have a question: How can a mother have one gay son, and one straight son? Seems to me if this skew was true, either all of her sons would be straight, or all of them would be gay.

 

Short answer: This skew thing is not a "cause of homosexuality", but there is a relation (from the research). It just deals with probabilities of one factor that contributes to it.

"If this skew was true", it would mean that having a gay son means you have a high probability of the next being gay (assuming you look at JUST the skewing factor). Really, this research doesn't mean much on its own, and can't be used to "extrapolate" or infer anything. It's just a correlation between two things. ...in my mind, at least.

 

this is also true of me. My only full sibling (both parents the same) is my straight brother. However, I have a half sister (on my dad's side, with another mother) who is gay, as well as another half sister (with a different mother from me and my other half sister) who is straight, and a half brother (with yet another different mother) who I have never met so I don't know his orientation.

Yes, my dad must have got around.

 

i always thought that too
as if the environment subtly told the mom's bodies there are enough people, so go ahead and make ones that wont lead to more children
cause you know how they say changes in environment can stimulate change :rolleyes:

 

I personally think this is really interesting. I don't have any issues with people saying that there is something different with homosexuals - there is.

I have mixed feelings with how much they study body chemistry and causes of homosexuality. On one side, more evidence that it isn't a choice is always nice, and I find it REALLY interesting, but the thought that someone might come out with a 'vaccine' or 'cure' scares the crap out of me. It's a variation, not a sickness.

 

It occurs in creatures other than humans though.

 

It's nice to think that way, but there isn't really a sentient "nature" wanting to make sure humans don't overpopulate, or anything doesn't overpopulate for that reason.

Overpopulation is a common part of many life cycles on earth, and when there are too many of an anything, it's resolved when most of them just die due to lack of resources.

I'm sure homosexuality was evolved and is beneficial in some way to the survival of the species (or more likely the family of the homosexual, kin selection makes more sense than "species selection"), or at least was at some point, (it could be a evolutionary relic).

Also, I use parentheses too much.