NOT Born That Way

[Fat Cat]

A genetic analysis of almost half a million people has concluded there is no single "gay gene". The study, published in Science, used data from the UK Biobank and 23andMe, and found some genetic variants associated with same-sex relationships.

The Harvard and MIT researchers concluded genetics could account for between 8-25% of same-sex behaviour across the population, when the whole genome is considered.

Five specific genetic variants were found to be particularly associated with same-sex behaviour, including one linked to the biological pathway for smell, and others to those for sex hormones.

But together they only accounted for under 1% of same-sex behaviour.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49484490

In other words, there is no scientific basis for the claim that homosexuals are "born that way" due to a genetic factor. Now you can understand the real meaning of the "gay agenda".

This piggybacks on the findings of Johns Hopkins researchers who found that there is no scientific evidence that people are born gay or transgender.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/23 ... ansgender/

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicat ... -fall-2016

It should make people very cautious about any type of LGBTQ curriculum or exposure for young people and absolutely quell any type of gender transitioning treatments and counseling for youth. It also makes me question whether the gay deprogramming curriculums might make a comeback.

[nafod]

This from the New Atlantic article...

We hope to show here that, though sexual orientation is not a choice, neither is there scientific evidence for the view that sexual orientation is a fixed and innate biological property.

There is nuance in the article. Well thought out. But readers with agendas will cherry-pick it.

I’m glad no one could find a gay gene, because then it can’t be a genetic test used to dispose of unwanted individuals, like India does with females with in prenatal tests.

[Fat Cat]

This from the New Atlantic article...

We hope to show here that, though sexual orientation is not a choice, neither is there scientific evidence for the view that sexual orientation is a fixed and innate biological property.

They have to say that it's not a choice to avoid assault by the pink mafia. But if it's not a heritable trait--which we knew because, like mules, they can't breed--then it is definitively an acquired characteristic.

I’m glad no one could find a gay gene, because then it can’t be a genetic test used to dispose of unwanted individuals, like India does with females with in prenatal tests.

Why? LGBTQ are a public health hazard. Across populations they result in all manner of pathologies. Wouldn't it make sense to use gene therapy to eliminate homosexuality if there were a genetic cause?

[nafod]

This from the New Atlantic article...

We hope to show here that, though sexual orientation is not a choice, neither is there scientific evidence for the view that sexual orientation is a fixed and innate biological property.

They have to say that it's not a choice...

Based on the long list of things they say that undercut conventional thought, I don’t think they feel they have to say anything.

But you feel you decided to be a hetero? You chose to like women? You control your feelings 100%?

Not “born this way” does not mean “choice”.

[nafod]

Arrgghhhh

[SubClaw]

[Fat Cat]

This from the New Atlantic article...

We hope to show here that, though sexual orientation is not a choice, neither is there scientific evidence for the view that sexual orientation is a fixed and innate biological property.

They have to say that it's not a choice...

Based on the long list of things they say that undercut conventional thought, I don’t think they feel they have to say anything.

But you feel you decided to be a hetero? You chose to like women? You control your feelings 100%?

Not “born this way” does not mean “choice”.

No, but I didn't equate the two. I said it's an acquired characteristic. People catch diseases all the time, and not voluntarily. Is that what you're saying? That the mo's are like a disease? We should isolate them from the population?

I think people are born heterosexual because sexual reproduction is one of the basic facts of the human organism.

[nafod]

This from the New Atlantic article...

We hope to show here that, though sexual orientation is not a choice, neither is there scientific evidence for the view that sexual orientation is a fixed and innate biological property.

They have to say that it's not a choice...

Based on the long list of things they say that undercut conventional thought, I don’t think they feel they have to say anything.

But you feel you decided to be a hetero? You chose to like women? You control your feelings 100%?

Not “born this way” does not mean “choice”.

No, but I didn't equate the two. I said it's an acquired characteristic. People catch diseases all the time, and not voluntarily. Is that what you're saying? That the mo's are like a disease? We should isolate them from the population?

Not like a disease. More like if you like Cilantro or not.

I think people are born heterosexual because sexual reproduction is one of the basic facts of the human organism.

A basic fact is we are one of the few of God's creatures that don't just breed when it's that time of the month of fertility, we do it all the time (and in all kinds of different ways) for what must therefore be non-breeding purposes. Us and the Bonobos.

And scientifically, sex is completely unnecessary to reproduce now. Just a need a turkey baster and a volunteer donor.

[SubClaw]

And scientifically, sex is completely unnecessary to reproduce now. Just a need a turkey baster and a volunteer donor.

In the same vein, scientifically too, legs and teeth are completely unnecessary too. All is needed is an electric wheelchair and a blender.

[Fat Cat]

No, but I didn't equate the two. I said it's an acquired characteristic. People catch diseases all the time, and not voluntarily. Is that what you're saying? That the mo's are like a disease? We should isolate them from the population?

Not like a disease. More like if you like Cilantro or not.

No actually that is genetic: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/20 ... -your-head

I think people are born heterosexual because sexual reproduction is one of the basic facts of the human organism.

A basic fact is we are one of the few of God's creatures that don't just breed when it's that time of the month of fertility, we do it all the time (and in all kinds of different ways) for what must therefore be non-breeding purposes. Us and the Bonobos.

And scientifically, sex is completely unnecessary to reproduce now. Just a need a turkey baster and a volunteer donor.

Again, you're having a hard time following the discussion. You may have sex for lots of reasons, disappointing women is its own reward, but we only reproduce sexually. The mere fact that homosexuality is an acquired characteristic that leads to the inability to reproduce, the spread of disease, highers rates of drug use, depression, and suicide, etc. means its a valid public health threat.

[nafod]

No, but I didn't equate the two. I said it's an acquired characteristic. People catch diseases all the time, and not voluntarily. Is that what you're saying? That the mo's are like a disease? We should isolate them from the population?

Not like a disease. More like if you like Cilantro or not.

No actually that is genetic: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/20 ... -your-head

I think people are born heterosexual because sexual reproduction is one of the basic facts of the human organism.

A basic fact is we are one of the few of God's creatures that don't just breed when it's that time of the month of fertility, we do it all the time (and in all kinds of different ways) for what must therefore be non-breeding purposes. Us and the Bonobos.

And scientifically, sex is completely unnecessary to reproduce now. Just a need a turkey baster and a volunteer donor.

Again, you're having a hard time following the discussion. You may have sex for lots of reasons, disappointing women is its own reward, but we only reproduce sexually. The mere fact that homosexuality is an acquired characteristic that leads to the inability to reproduce, the spread of disease, highers rates of drug use, depression, and suicide, etc. means its a valid public health threat.

Gayness in no way prevents reproducing for guys. Just means 0.01% of sex is for reproducing, and the other 99.99% is for what people pretty much have sex for anyway...because it feels good. Or it asserts power if you're in prison. Or you need the money.

What percentage of sex had by humans is done for reproducing purposes, would you say? And what percentage is for other reasons?

We've evolved to have sex for lots and lots of reasons that have nothing to do with knocking out kids.

Billions and billions of dollars and effort have been spent by humans trying to figure out how to have sex and NOT reproduce. Money talks, in this case.

[Fat Cat]

What are you estrogenicizing about? We are discussing the logical consequences of overturning of all conventional wisdom and LGBTQ orthodoxy about the origins of homosexuality.

For the past several decades, the line has been: "research shows that sexual orientation is likely caused partly by biological factors that start before birth." But now, science casts that into doubt.

Surely we will have to reckon with our new understanding, right? If it's an acquired characteristic, given how unhappy the outcomes are, we should want to prevent it from spreading right? We should be looking for therapies to cure it, right?

[Turdacious]

We've evolved to have sex for lots and lots of reasons that have nothing to do with knocking out kids.

Billions and billions of dollars and effort have been spent by humans trying to figure out how to have sex and NOT reproduce.

That's quite a contradiction in two sentences.

[nafod]

What are you estrogenicizing about? We are discussing the logical consequences of overturning of all conventional wisdom and LGBTQ orthodoxy about the origins of homosexuality.

For the past several decades, the line has been: "research shows that sexual orientation is likely caused partly by biological factors that start before birth." But now, science casts that into doubt.

Surely we will have to reckon with our new understanding, right? If it's an acquired characteristic, given how unhappy the outcomes are, we should want to prevent it from spreading right? We should be looking for therapies to cure it, right?

I guess you could work to prevent it from becoming more prevalent. But is it in fact becoming more prevalent? The percentages increasing? Have you felt the pull, for example. Think you’re susceptible to the spread?

I saw nothing to suggest it is increasing.

I’m sure therapies to “cure” it, I.e., change homosexuals to make heterosexuals feel more comfortable, are a waste of time.

I generally think an awful lot of psychology research is BS anyway.

[nafod]

We've evolved to have sex for lots and lots of reasons that have nothing to do with knocking out kids.

Billions and billions of dollars and effort have been spent by humans trying to figure out how to have sex and NOT reproduce.

That's quite a contradiction in two sentences.

How so?

[Fat Cat]

I guess you could work to prevent it from becoming more prevalent. But is it in fact becoming more prevalent? The percentages increasing? Have you felt the pull, for example. Think you’re susceptible to the spread?

It seems to me that segregating them from healthy society could be the safest approach. Sort of a quarantine until we better understand the vector(s) of transmission.

I saw nothing to suggest it is increasing.

The opposite is also true. You have seen nothing to suggest it is not increasing. And for that matter, you would have to acknowledge that LGBTQ is far more prevalent in society than when you were younger, which could suggest that it is increasing.

I’m sure therapies to “cure” it, I.e., change homosexuals to make heterosexuals feel more comfortable, are a waste of time.

People died of sepsis for millennia until the development of penicillin. There was no cure, until there was. Perhaps we just need to keep trying?

I generally think an awful lot of psychology research is BS anyway.

Without question.

[Sangoma]

So these guys didn't find a gene of homosexuality. What if it is a combination of genes that predisposes to gay behavior? What if it is a combination of genes that define pre-natal hormonal levels which, when triggered by an environmental factor or factors, can make a person gay?

Even abstracts of the articles below show that the issue is very complex.

Biological and psychosocial determinants of male and female human sexual orientation.
The biological basis of human sexual orientation: is there a role for epigenetics?
Brain research, gender and sexual orientation.
Biological aspects of gender disorders.

Epigenetic underpinnings of developmental sex differences in the brain.

As interest in epigenetic processes grows, the importance of these genomic modifications in normal and pathological biological systems is becoming apparent. The currently unknown mechanisms for permanent sexual differentiation of the neonatal brain are beginning to be addressed through the study of epigenetics. As outlined above, recent findings suggest that epigenetic processes such as DNA methylation and histone acetylation may play an important role in the creation and maintenance of sexual dimorphisms in the brain. Sex differences in the epigenome are prevalent in the developing brain in regions classically considered sexually dimorphic as well as other brain regions known to exhibit sex differences but not necessarily of the same magnitude or obvious functional significance. Importantly, many of the observed epigenetic changes are mediated by hormones and are only apparent during the critical period for sexual differentiation of the brain, lending credence to the hypothesis that hormone exposure during the critical period organizes the bipotential brain via epigenomic alterations. It is well established that epigenetic processes are integral to determining cell fate in the developing brain [93]. Likewise, gonadal steroids exert ubiquitous actions on the developing brain to determine cell fate and neuronal anatomy, the question remains as to how, when, and how much hormonally-induced epigenetic mechanisms contribute. For instance, do estradiol-induced patterns of gene methylation determine sex difference in the distribution of different cell types by controlling gene expression, or does estradiol differentiate cellular fate which in turn causes sex differences in epigenetic markers? The study of the involvement of epigenetic mechanisms in sexual differentiation of the brain is still in its infancy. A better understanding of the mechanisms by which hormones alter the epigenome and a more comprehensive analysis of the genes impacted by epigenetic regulation during sexual differentiation is necessary to fully understand the importance of these processes in the establishment of the sexually dimorphic brain.

Sorry for the long quote, there is no way around it.

[Fat Cat]

Its entirely possible that there is an epigenetic cause or contributing factor. Of course, that would put homosexuality in the realm of manipulable outcomes, and thus subject to treatment or perhaps vaccination. But, in the open air prison we call the modern world, you're not supposed to talk like that.

Also, you have been reported to your local Human Rights Council.

[Turdacious]

We've evolved to have sex for lots and lots of reasons that have nothing to do with knocking out kids.

Billions and billions of dollars and effort have been spent by humans trying to figure out how to have sex and NOT reproduce.

That's quite a contradiction in two sentences.

How so?

Biologically, the only purpose of sex is reproduction. We like it, so we try and separate the two. What human evolution exists that creates another purpose for sex?

[Fat Cat]

We've evolved to have sex for lots and lots of reasons that have nothing to do with knocking out kids.

Billions and billions of dollars and effort have been spent by humans trying to figure out how to have sex and NOT reproduce.

That's quite a contradiction in two sentences.

How so?

Biologically, the only purpose of sex is reproduction. We like it, so we try and separate the two. What human evolution exists that creates another purpose for sex?

I don't think that's entirely true. Nafod's point about humans and bonobos is that we use sex for a lot things, some of which, like relaxation and bonding, have bio-chemical underpinnings but aren't directly tied to reproduction. I don't think he's wrong about that. That said, sexual reproduction came first, and was present long before higher mammals like us found other uses for it.

[Turdacious]

We've evolved to have sex for lots and lots of reasons that have nothing to do with knocking out kids.

Billions and billions of dollars and effort have been spent by humans trying to figure out how to have sex and NOT reproduce.

That's quite a contradiction in two sentences.

How so?

Biologically, the only purpose of sex is reproduction. We like it, so we try and separate the two. What human evolution exists that creates another purpose for sex?

I don't think that's entirely true. Nafod's point about humans and bonobos is that we use sex for a lot things, some of which, like relaxation and bonding, have bio-chemical underpinnings but aren't directly tied to reproduction. I don't think he's wrong about that. That said, sexual reproduction came first, and was present long before higher mammals like us found other uses for it.

So related to child rearing— the other biological imperative?

[Fat Cat]

Maybe?

[Sangoma]

Its entirely possible that there is an epigenetic cause or contributing factor. Of course, that would put homosexuality in the realm of manipulable outcomes, and thus subject to treatment or perhaps vaccination. But, in the open air prison we call the modern world, you're not supposed to talk like that.

Also, you have been reported to your local Human Rights Council.

Did you know that Australia does not have the Bill of Rights?

[Wild Bill]

Man came to a doctor.
"Doc, i think i am gay :("
"What your profession? Are you a musician?"
"No"
"Are you an artist or an actor?"
"No, i am metalworker on a factory."
"Then you are not a gay, you are simply a faggot"

[Turdacious]

Maybe?

The suggestion that bonding happens is a little ridiculous. In the context of a committed relationship it can happen, in the context of someone you picked up at last call it probably won't (and shouldn't).