h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

For the record, however it may have sounded, I never believed it was *only* genes, but rather the more complex combination of genes and environment. The only reason I stressed the point of genetic influence was that many homophobics speak about homosexuality in terms of being a sin, or a crime, or something like that, and if everyone understood that there were genetic factors at work here -- that you couldn't just wake up one morning and decide "I'm going to stop liking girls and start liking boys" -- they'd then have to acknowledge that they were discriminating on an issue not unlike race or sex. I, for one, refuse to believe that God would put someone on the earth who had no chance of salvation -- that he'd create someone who's very existance was a sin.

Nature vs Nurture is a complex issue, and one we don't have to debate here, unless you all really want to. As far as "don't ask, don't tell", I'm all for leting gays in the military -- whether they tell or not. Of course, it means that if I ever want to dodge the draft, I have to come up with something else...

~Irving

I'm not sure a genetic argument would affect many homophobes directly - I dare say many are xenophobic, racist and/or sexist anyway. However, I suppose it could affect more general attitudes to some limited extent.

Regarding draft dodging, there are alternatives. As Eddie Izzard (a sometimes transvestite UK comedian) said, with some potential recruits, the Army doesn't *need* to ask.

Sorry - I wasn't trying to suggest anyone was being a genetic determininst, or anything! Not that "genetic determinist" should be a term of abuse, but I'm going off at a tangent again....

I'm sure you're right; many homophobes might well claim that they think homosexuals have just made a "lifestyle choice", but I suspect it wouldn't change their point of view one iota if it were proven to them that, genetic or environmental, people have no choice in the matter.

On the other subject, wasn't it Iggy Pop who avoided the draft by not just /telling/ the draft officer that he was gay, but actually getting himself...er...aroused by the officer's presence?... "You couldn't just tell those guys, I figured you had to show them as well" (or words to that effect) was the quote, I seem to remember.

Well I'm glad that progress has been made even though it is too late for me to sign up. My choice of career and indeed sponsorship through University was closed to me because of my sexuality. Hopefully the next generation will be able to fulfill whatever career they chose.

I'll be darned if I let it stand in my way.

Anyway, H2G2's budding argumantative geneticist here again, I don't think your argument about maculinity/femininity was valid. I'm not at all feminine, camp or even anything like that. Unless your going to start beleiving in statistics (the second worst things next to beleiving in Microsoft) then I think you'll have to admit that's wrong. I admit it is possible that the right conditions for homosexuality to develop, i refuse to belive that it actually has anything to do with the decision process. I mean there are people who change, so it can't be unless everyone has started fiddling with their genome all of a sudden.

Sorry - "feminine" was probably the wrong word to use. I just meant that there could in theory be a plausible set of polygenes, maybe for many different aspects of behaviour and not necessarily inherited together, which could, in certain environmental and developmental conditions, make a person more likely to be homosexual, but individually couldn't be considered to be "genes for homosexuality", and could certainly be adaptive. I didn't mean that I thought all gay men are camp and that people never change their sexual preference throughout their lifetimes. I'm bisexual, generally more gay than straight, but completely straight-acting, so I'm no more keen on those views than you are...

Two budding argumentative geneticists in the same forum - oh dear. Sorry Irving.

Oh, and for the record, I utterly deny believeing in Microsoft.

OK I've done the bi-thing and found it too confusing. I mean you don't don't only just rebound to the opposite charector trait but also to the other sex. And I found fantacising about partners brother or sisters (depending on where I was at) far too disturbing. I now stick to the one, and I think my previous bi experience helps me to be straight acting. Plus I like sport so everyone seems to think that as a team player there is no way I could be gay. Excuse me! A gay man in a changing room with a lot of naked men. What gay man wouldn't try to pass off as straight to get into that situation? For all the straight men who may be reading this, don't panic I know who's who. However I'm treated as one of the boys when I'm competing and even though they know it doesn't upset my teammates. So I'm quite into the current Dawson's Creek story line showing here at present and how the team is rallying around Jack.

As for the two geneticists problem don't worry be. Economics was full of people who all held a different opinion reminds me of my college days.

Yeah, the "bi-thing" isn't the really cool and interesting life that many people who speak to me seem to think it is... That Woody Allen quote about it "doubling your chances of a date on a Saturday night"? Wrong! Your chances of a date go up by, what, about 10%? But your chances of being *rejected* more than double...

[sighs]

Ah well. Can't complain, I suppose. Such is life...

[continues running through positive-sounding- cliches until he falls asleep]

I've managed to miss every episode of Dawsons creek since the first one of the latest sries, but am dyng to know what has happened to Jack. Anyway i agree with some of what you were saying about genes earlier, and I think you're right in that there is no one specific gene, but I'm sure there are other factors involved too. I also agree that no-one shopuld beleive in microsoft, and bisexuals with two partners are just being greedy!

Ok, my mum is an evolutionary and environmental biologist and she tells me that EVERYTHING is affected by both genes and environment. There are no pure cases, even gender can be affected by natural events. Also, that article about hand shape is, in all honesty, a load of dingo kidneys. It was in Nature in full and described what they thought MAY happen if the study was allowed to continue. It was so comical the editors put it opposite Daedlus. My mum laughed at it because androgens like testosterone only affect long bones.

Also, the figures for sexuality were 100% balanced bisexual, just environment shifts you to one side or the other. The population overload theory was disproved by looking at lions...

If we're talking biology, maybe dividing 'environment' into pre and post-birth would be useful - before birth, it's pretty much a matter of chemistry, and there are things that happen to a developing human before birth that aren't necessarily dependent on the genes it posesses. Post-birth, there's the matter of society to add to the equation.

From what I've read, it seems that sexual preferences are substantially dependent on inheritance *and* gestation, through mechanisms much more complex than the influences of one or two genes. What effect later influences have appears less certain, though it seems clear that the society a person grows up in will have a definite influence on how someone chooses to express their sexuality.

I agree that all this finger-length nonsense sounds about as scientific as palmistry or biorythyms, and the real point seems to be that whether a person's sexuality is entirely inherited, learned, or any combination of the two, they should be treated like any other human being.

Well as Berilia, ie me said earlier, the finger size thing was appropriate to me. OK maybe just coincidental, but it works for my boyfriend as well.

Discuss?

The finger size thing is supposed to be relevant to lesbians, because the lengthened forefinger is supposed to be a male characteristic. It's utter cobblers.

Eloquently put as before. Ah well, so maybe that is not one of the genetic indicators.

Hmmm. I never read the research on that one, so it might be shoddy. But the idea of a physical characteristic indicating a personality trait wouldn't be so far-fetched. Many people who work with horses, for example, will swear that certain head shapes tend to coincide with certain personailties. Now, I'm not at all saying that people are like horses!!! (Please don't yell at me, guys!!!). I'm just saying that genetics is so complex, and we know so little about it, that I would never say "never." Look at Downs Syndrome, for example: a very specific set of mental AND physical characteristics tend to be present.

Still, bad research is bad research, and I know there's lots out there. Having never read the article, I really shouldn't even bother to comment.

P.S.

DD, YOU are Berilla!!??? Just read your journal entry. Cheers, as they say in your part of the world. Never be afraid to be yourself (except in situations where it's likely to put you in danger ).

Sometimes it takes courage to live your life as you see fit. Such is the way of the world.

Cheers bp.

Coming back to the genetic bit, I'd be interested to see how anyone can explain gender being decided by a physical factor.

I'll have a go, but could you clarify your question, otherwise I think I'd be likely to answer a differnt one than you intended?

a) By 'gender', do you mean simply the nature of reproductive organs, or do you include some measure of the brain's apparent gender (eg preferences for gender-typical behaviour)

b) What counts as a *physical* factor (or a non-physical factor)? -genes, hormones, or something else (like the temperature-dependent sexual development of some reptile species).

Nearly every mother will tell you that each of her children already had a definite personality from the word "go." Some are stubborn, some are accomodating, some have a quick temper, some are calm and laid back, some are controlling. Are these personalities later shaped and modified by events in the child's life? Absolutely. Can "in-womb" experiences rather than strict genetics account for some of these characteristics? Probably, I'm not sure. Do genes play a role in personality? Again, the experience of millions of women over countless generations would seem to indicate this is the case. (and the uncanny tales of identical twins seperated at birth who have similar interests would seem to back this up). Can we ever be certain? No, because the necessary experimentation, using "controls" who get no stimulation, would be cruel.

How, for example, would you explain why some people are "morning people" and some people are "night people." I am the latter. My mother tells me recently that I have been since I was brought home from the hospital nearly 30 years ago. As an infant, I rarely woke before 9:30 am. Twenty-five years (since school age) of being forced to wake up early ("conditioning") have not changed that one iota. I STILL find mornings painful, still have more energy at night, regardless of how much or how little sleep I have, regardless of a daily schedule which forces me to wake up at 6:30 every day. My own "internal clock" tells me that wake-up time should be somewhere around 10am, bedtime should be somewhere around 1am, and any other schedule, despite a lifetime of conditioning, feels unnatural to me.

Why should gender determination or sexual preference be so different from any other personality trait? Personally, I believe that our personalities are a combination of nature and nurture.