Scientific Research for the Homosexuality Debate

[Bitty2002]

This is very long and took me forever to type up, BUT it is also definitely worth reading, especially for scientific people who like to research these things like Kate.

I wanted to lend some SCIENTIFIC research/evidence for homosexuality, since that is what many people want to have. Sure everyone has a bit of a choice in everything they do. Men do not have to be aggressive, women do not have to like children, but for the most part, evolution and the make-up of our brains leads us to be certain ways.

The research presented below is not simply speculation or hypotheses, but actual data found and re-found by many researchers. Of course that does not make anything 100% and there are still many questions. And please forgive the typos.

I am reading a book called The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley for my Human Sexuality and Mating class at university. Here are a number of excerpts, along with a bit of my own explanations. I may only confuse people further by trying to “clear” things up, but the language used in this book can be rather lengthy and I HOPE to try and make it more understandable…:

“There is no evidence of genes for different brains, but there is ample evidence of genes [that alter] brains in response to male hormones. (For reasons of historical accident, the “normal brain” is female unless masculinized.) So the mental differences between men and women are caused by genes that respond to testosterone.”

This means that there is no evidence that two people have two different genes, but that their gene may cause testosterone to alter the brain differently. Background information is included here:

“There are two periods when testosterone levels rise in male children: in the womb, from about six weeks after conception, and at puberty. …the first pulse of hormone exposes the photographic negative; the second develops it. This is a crucial difference from the way the hormone affects the body. The body is masculinized by testosterone from the testicles at puberty, whatever its womb experience. But not the mind. The mind is immune to testosterone unless it was exposed to a sufficient concentration (relative to female hormones) in the womb. It would be easy to engineer a society with no sex differences in attitude between men and women. Inject all pregnant women with the right dose of hormones, and the result would be men and women with normal bodies but identical feminine brains.”

Brains of men and women ARE different. Not largely, but in some spatial, verbal, etc. ways they are. The biggest thing that separates men and women’s brains is the amount of testosterone the embryo encounters while in the womb. Therefore, the amount of testosterone you are exposed to as a fetus can have large affects on your mind. The test on TheSpark.com, that guesses your sex, actually IS a somewhat valid test. There are statistical differences between the minds of men and women. And the book goes on to show how gay men have minds more similar to women than heterosexual men. Vice versa. As for your body, the second burst of testosterone takes care of that. A person with the mind of a female can have the body of a man.

[Bitty2002]

“A man develops a sexual preference for women because his brain develops in a certain way. It develops in a certain way because testosterone produced by his genetically determined testicles alter the brain inside his mother’s womb in such a way that later, at puberty, it will react to testosterone again. Miss out on the genes for testicles, the testosterone burst in the womb, or the testosterone burst at puberty—any one of the three—and you will not be a typical man. Presumably, a man who develops a preference for other men is a man who has a different gene that affects how his brain responds to hormones or a different learning experience during the pubertal burst of testosterone—or some combination of these.
The search for the cause of homosexuality has begun to shed a great deal of light on the way the brain develops in response to testosterone. It was fashionable until 1960]s to believe that homosexuality was entirely a matter of upbringing. But cruel Freudian aversion therapy proved incapable of changing it, and the fashion then changed to hormonal explanations. Yet adding male hormones to the blood of gay men does not make them more heterosexual; it merely makes them more highly sexed. (Makes them look more masculine). Sexual orientation has already been fixed before adulthood. Then, in the 1960’s, an East German doctor named Gunter Dorner began a series of experiments on rats which seemed to show that in the womb the male homosexual brain releases a hormone, called luteinizing hormone, that is more typical of female brains. […] Research in Britain, America, and Germany has all confirmed that a prenatal exposure to deficiency of testosterone increases the likelihood of a man becoming homosexual. …Men exposed in the womb to female hormones are more likely to be gay or effeminate, and effeminate boys do indeed grow up to be gay more often than other boys. Intriguingly, men who were conceived and born in periods of great stress, such as toward the end of World War II, are more often gay than men born at other times. )The stress hormone cortisol is made from the same progenitor as testosterone; perhaps it uses up the raw material, leaving less to be made into testosterone.) The same is true for rats: Homosexual behavior is more common in rats whose mothers were stressed during [pregnancy. The things that male brains are usually good at gay brains are often bad at, and vice versa. Gays are also more often left-handed than heterosexuals, which makes a sort of sense because handedness is affected by sex hormones during development….”

So it has been shown that the level of testosterone in the womb can have profound effects on sexuality. Embryos that are exposed to less testosterone or more female hormones are more likely to be gay. This article does not spend much time on gay women, however it has shown that girls whose mothers took progesterone (a hormone that acts much like testosterone) during pregnancy to lessen the chance of miscarriage, are often more likely to be tomboys. It makes sense that if a female embryo is exposed to too much testosterone it will be more likely to be a lesbian and if a male embryo is exposed to too little testosterone it is more likely to be gay. Other studies by other people also add to this. For example a number of years ago I read an article that studied the tension of the eardrum. Men and women are typically different. Because of this, when sound enters the eardrum and bounces back off, it will bounce off at different frequencies. Gay men have frequencies like women and lesbians have frequencies like men. Now the kicker was that fraternal twins, one boy one girl, also have different than normal frequencies for their sex. This gives evidence that it is due to hormone exposure in the womb, since fraternal twins would be giving the other embryo some of its “juices”. Another interesting tidbit: sons of diabetic mothers who were taking female hormones during pregnancy usually have effeminate sons. And ANOTHER interesting tidbit: women under heavy stress are more likely to have girls than boys. How can this be if men pick the sex? I dunno it is complex, but it has evolutionary findings. Poor families tend to have more girls, because poor women can marry up. Rich families have more sons because sons must inherit goods to attract prime women so that the best genes are passed on. It is a race named after the Red Queen in Alice through the looking glass. (If you want to know more about this, let me know)

[Bitty2002]

Back to the book:
“It is clear, however, that the cause of homosexuality lies in some unusual balance of hormonal influence in the womb but not later on, a fact that further supports the idea that the mentality of sexual preference is affected by prenatal sex hormones. This is not incompatible with the growing evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined. The “gay gene” that I will discuss in the next chapter is widely expected to turn out to be a series of genes that affect the sensitivity of certain tissues to testosterone. It is both nature and nurture.
It is no different from genes for height. Fed on identical diets, two genetically different men will not grow to the same height. Fed on two different diets, two identical twins will grow to different heights. Nature is the length of the rectangle, nurture the width. There can be no rectangle without both. The genes for height are really only genes that respond to diet by growing.”

What this is saying is that hormones are the nurture part and genes are the nature part. It takes both. The genes most likely determine HOW/To WHAT EXTENT the testosterone affects the brain and HOW MUCH testosterone is released in the first place.

He mentions the next chapter, so I will include the main points of it as well, for they were also interesting:

“In the early 1990s, there was a flurry of interest that a “gay gene” had been found on the X chromosome. The excitement faded as it proved hard to replicate the original study. (A rule in science is that for a study and its results to be respected and accepted it must have results that other people can get when they also do the same study or similar studies. This means that one or a few studies found evidence for this, but others could not match it. It does not mean they contradicted it, simply, that no one could confirm it. ~ Bitty) But twin studies show that homosexuality is heritable, and one day the genes that can cause a man to be gay—perhaps in response to maternal genes expressed in his mother’s womb—will be found.”

I will sum up a bit of the following paragraphs: Basically he mentions that evolutionarily, it seems odd that a “gay gene” would be passed on, since typically gay people do not reproduce as much as straight people. However, much of the research that lead people to believe the “gay gene” must be on the X chromosome led two men, Laurence Hurst and David Haig, to believe that instead of the X chromosome it was the genes found in mitochondria. Here is some background info: Men give half the genes that form a human in his sperm. It mixed with half the genes stored in a female’s egg. They add up to the total genes a person needs. However, sperm are small, they only contain the 24 genes and a tail so it can swim. The egg however is very large and must “feed” the growing embryo as well as supply the cell structures. So the egg has many other parts, including mitochondria, energy producers, look it up if you are confused. It is believed that these evolved from small bacteria, which has small amounts of genetic material. SO, that means that every human receives 24 genes from its mom, 24 for its dad, AND cell structures including mitochondria from its mother. That mitochondria has DNA of its own. Therefore, we all have identical mitochondria DNA as our mother. Some joke that if that is true, then we should all have the same since we are all descended from Eve. Well whatever, I am a Christian and don’t believe in that.

If this is the case and the “gay gene” can be found to be linked to mitochondria DNA, then that would explain why it continues to be passed down.

[Bitty2002]

I thought I would add something seemingly completely unrelated, but also about evolution and the theory on survival of the fittest or that gays are a waste of space. If you think about it, by today's standards, the "best genes," are held by the most successful: the richest, most "scientific" *rolls eyes*, and the most intelligent. However, this irony is that these "good gene" people aren't reproducing very much...at least not compared to the "average-below gene" people. If you think about it, lower IQ'd people have tons of children, whereas the higher IQ's have 1-3.

Now please do not take this as my view of "good genes." I am simply talking how evolutionists and scientists talk about genes that are deemed good for any species. So is stupidity and promiscuity the "fittest" of our species? If we only look at things with a scientist’s eye we miss something. Or if we only look at things like an evolutionist, like some people seem to look at things, we are a pretty sad race. We should allow for rape and harems, men should hunt and women should gather and nurture children. BUT morals and culture is NOT evolution. We have developed our minds in some ways far beyond others. The primitive parts of the brain were first established, then the more complex cortex was added. So first and foremost we have these primitive ways that are still affected by evolution, such as sex roles. However, we also have a highly evolved cortex that allows for complex reasoning and morals. So if we feed into what evolutionarily makes sense, then a lot of things would need to change. Women's roles in society for one. It is morals and our reasoning that set us apart. So, it is up to everyone whether to let these "rules of science" govern your life and how you view homosexuals or people that are different instead of your morals and reason. If you want to see homosexuals as genetic mistakes that should be aborted, then you are completely ignoring the progress we have made as a human race.

The key is that if you want to be negative, you will be negative. If people are gay solely because they choose to be, well then you can hate them and abhor them because they chose to be that way. If they were genetically and/or hormonally made gay, well then you can hate and abhor them because they are different and genetic mistakes. It is up to you whether or not to hate or just accept. No matter what evidence or lack of evidence there ever is, it is up to you how you view life and those people around you.

[forre]

Bitty2002, Great analysis! Well put.
Variation is the key to any successful evolution. Without diversity any civilisationed is "sentenced" to death. A universal law of nature.

[denial]

Bitty2002, thank you for the explaination of the book. I would not able to understand and read it. Really appreciate this.

If this is the case and the “gay gene” can be found to be linked to mitochondria DNA, then that would explain why it continues to be passed down.

aha!


But I have a question.. what is MIND scientifically?

[Bitty2002]

denial, what exactly do you mean by what is mind scientifically? If I am guessing right, you have a brain, which is completely biological, but it isn't simple like say a toe. The brain is complex and allows for reason, complex thought, personality, etc. So testosterone affects the mind in ways that are obvious: men are agrressive, women are more nurturing. Yes of course this is not true for everyone, but statistically it is. Brain differences between sexes occur in infancy. Boys prefer objects, girls people. Girls prefer dolls and people games like "family", boys prefer aggressive object games. Now some argue this is because of what toys they are give. But numerous studies have shown that when twins, one boy one girl, are set in a pile of toys from birth, dolls and trucks, girls go to the dolls, boys to the trucks. No one showed them how boys should act or what toys they should like. They had options. These little differences are caused by exposure to testosterone in the womb. Different exposure amounts will cause different levels of Masculine or feminine minds. Did that answer your question or were you aksing something completely different?

[Kate]

forre,

Variation is the key to any successful evolution. Without diversity any civilisationed is "sentenced" to death. A universal law of nature.

First of all, civilisation has nothing to do with natural evolution, it is linked to cultural evolution. And how exactly does homosexuality contribute to natural evolution? As far as I am concerned, it slows down evolution. If you don't know what you are talking about, try - sshhh.

Bitty2002, biological science is mostly based on experimental work. This book that you read might have some so called "proof", but I am sure you can find experimental "proofs" to oppose the research presented here. It's all a metter of what you want to believe. Sure, homosexuality might have something to do with hormonal levels. So does Cushing's Disease (excess urinating and excess drinking of water) and POEM Syndrome (Parathyroid disease). Cushing's disease is a result of a genetic variation, too. Does it contribute to successful evolution? No.

There is nothing wrong about being homosexual. You don't have to find scientific proof to justify your sexuality.

[Bitty2002]

Kate, first I would like to comment on your snide little remark: “There is nothing wrong about being homosexual. You don't have to find scientific proof to justify your sexuality.”

That was far from my intention. I don’t need anything but the love I feel to justify my sexuality. It isn’t like I need to justify when I find a male attractive, cause I do find them attractive, does that surprise you? In fact, I am not really sure if “I” personally am someone that has been affected by too much testosterone in the womb. Yes I was more of a tomboy than most as a child, but for the most part I am relatively androgynous and absolutely love babies. What does that mean? I have no idea. All I know is that I happened to open my mind to the possibility of loving a female and I fell in love with a female by chance. I equate it to 40 years ago when people would be hung for loving someone of a different race. Most people would not consider dating another race. To some it is even disgusting. Does that mean that those people who DO love someone of another race is some genetic mistake? I have trouble believing this. To me it just seems like a preference of taste and a state of open-mindedness. However, that does not mean that some people are not hormonally affected. I am sorry but when 5-year-old boy wants to be a girl (see Ma Vie En Rose) they probably DO have some hormonal, genetic influence. Does that mean they should be shot?

No dear Kate, I was not searching for your acceptance. I was merely putting out there some research I found interesting. Take it how you will. And for you to say that there is nothing wrong about being homosexual is a laugh. I think it is pretty obvious that the majority of people see homosexuality as something to be hated, abhorred, shunned, avoided, etc. Please don’t pretend not to have a problem with it when I have read numerous things you have written where you have said gays are disgusting. So truly, can you honestly say there isn’t something about it that bothers you? I don’t think so. The best thing to do is try to UNDERSTAND it. That is all I was doing, shedding some light on something that society is afraid to look at.

Now for the rest of what you said: “As far as I am concerned, it slows down evolution.” That was a good choice of words Kate. As far as YOU are concerned, it slows it down. But you don’t know everything there is about the intricacies of evolution do you? Neither do I. So it is your opinion. AND, cultural evolution actually has quite a bit to do with natural evolution. Look at make-up, birth-control, corsets, mate poaching, lying about commitment level, adultery, etc. These are all cultural evolutionary tactics that fight against sexual evolution. Youth and beauty are signals of fertility and good genes. Commitment tells females that a person will be there to help rear her children, giving that child 10% greater chance of survival. But if you lie about these things, with make up and the such, how do those things help natural evolution? Men like thin women. Women 10-15% below average in weight are HIGHLY likely to be infertile. So for men to be drawn to thinness really isn’t helping evolution is it? Yet men are evolutionarily drawn to thin women, call it the “sexy son” theory or “good genes” whatever you want. It is more complex than you think. This is all called the Red Queen theory. It is like an arms race to outwit others. Like I said, stupid people often have MORE children than smart, successful people nowadays. This was not the case thousands of years ago, when harems and the such gave powerful men many children. However, today, that education you respect sooo much, Kate, actually causes people to have less children. So once again culture effects natural evolution. Not everything is natural evolution based. Just because YOU can’t see how it helps natural evolution doesn’t mean that things in life do not have a purpose. Honestly, if being gay were a huge flaw, there wouldn’t be so many gays, for your lovely evolution would wipe those non-breeders out. Look at how we kill ourselves with fatty hamburgers and fries. That is because evolution has programmed us to search out sugar and fat, things that were not found easily when we were cave men. However, today we can find it easily and it is killing us. What does that mean Kate?

I remember a conversation we had a while ago about clones and research with embryos. The “advances of science” and how you absolutely loved the idea. Let me think here…clones are not part of the “natural evolution process” and clones are often discussed because people want to clone organs, to help people dying from defective or diseased organs. We are also searching for embryonic cures, stem cells to treat diseases and genetic problems. Almost all medicine helps those that would otherwise die or be left behind. Now I have a question for you…aren’t all of these things against “natural evolution”? According to your natural evolution we should leave these stragglers behind. The fittest should reproduce. We should not let people who are deaf or blind or with genetic diseases live or reproduce, that would only hurt evolution. However, culture and morals are what drive medicine. We love and so we save. We don’t club deformed people. We do not leave deaf people out to die. Or my favorite is redheads. Did you know that being a redhead with light skin, etc. is a mutation? Do we kill Lena for being a genetic fallacy? Is she a mistake?

Unless rather than curing, your interest in gene research is so that we can abort or kill off the people that are weaker or not normal. However, once again that goes against natural evolution. All people are needed in a society. If there wasn’t diversity, as Forre stated, then there would cease to be a race to improve. Evolution would cease to exist. There would be no Red Queen theory and no change. Where do you draw the line of “evolutionarily acceptable" Kate? Sensitive straight men? Redheads? People who lose their hair? Not having 20/20 vision or perfect hearing? Not having all A’s? Dyslexic? The things you talk about seriously fringe on a Hitler mindset or at least Naturalistic Fallacy (look it up if you don’t know what that means). If it isn’t beneficial or fittest, should it die? Should we not feed the poor because they can’t survive on their own? Men should be allowed to rape, murder, and commit adultery…because that is part of their aggressive nature and desire to spread their seed.

And, Kate, if science were just a “matter of what you wanted to believe,” then it wouldn’t be respected. If I can claim this to be true and you can claim others to be true, then what truth can there be in science? Please, can you provide some of those studies you talk of that would oppose this research? Because, until you counter it, mine stands strong. And, of those studies you find, can you please make sure that A. it was done by a respectable researcher, B. the results were repeatable and found in others studies, and C. as recent or more recent than these studies? Then maybe we can have a real discussion.

[Kappa]

katbeidar, why don't you just go all out and instead of saying "If you don't know what you are talking about, try - sshhh.", say If you don't know what you are talking about, try shuting the fuck up"? I mean. For all I know, it's your hypocritical closedmindedness that holds back evolution, not the fact that us homos, in your opinion, don't contribute to overpopulating this goddarn planet.

You want evolution? Evolution is the fact that some members of the forum don't have wisdom teeth. Why? Because like someone I know in this forum, they're kind of useless.

Now if there's a reason why Bitty2002 wrote this analysis, it was to counterfeit your 18th century thinking.

[forre]

Originally posted by katbeidar
forre,

First of all, civilisation has nothing to do with natural evolution, it is linked to cultural evolution. And how exactly does homosexuality contribute to natural evolution? As far as I am concerned, it slows down evolution. If you don't know what you are talking about, try - sshhh.

Our civilisation has very much to do with natural evolution because we evolve on different levels. Spieces with the most variations survive better in different environments. Homosexuality is just another variation. So, try a few more classes at the Uni, Kate, before claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Waves "hello"

[Kate]

forre,

Spieces with the most variations survive better in different environments. Homosexuality is just another variation.

I rest my case. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

And I am sorry to dissapoint you, but I have no intention to start a pointless arguement with you, my dearest forre.

Whatever happened to short posts?

[denial]

Bitty2002, thank you for the answer.

[shizzo]

This is the greatest thread on the planet.

Posted by katya :
You don't have to find scientific proof to justify your sexuality.

Yarr - you do.

Otherwise, what do we have to stand on, to support our
lifestyle, to provide as evidence when questioned? The
opinions and thoughts and emotions and experience that
can be acquired via an alternative sexuality?

That'd just sound gay.

I rest my case. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

It seemed like a fairly viable point to me. Variation yields
more probable possibilities concerning evolution and growth,
both cultural and physical - adaptation is more reliant in
this case. Rendering a highly logical statement as baseless
would require a more detailed explanation on your side. The
rules of plausibility can't just be ignored without giving a
valid reason.

[forre]

Originally posted by katbeidar
forre,

I rest my case. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

And I am sorry to dissapoint you, but I have no intention to start a pointless arguement with you, my dearest forre.

Whatever happened to short posts?

No dissapointment here. Just skip your claims about who is knowing and what and everything will be fine.

Okay, I'll wait until you upgrade your knowledge, including social orientation.

[Kate]

forre, Do you ever say ANYTHING with substance?

I just wanted to add, Darje, you seem to be the one closeminded to people who have a different view of homosexuals. I like homosexuals, I have nothing against them. I just think homosexuality doesn't make sense in natural evolution. That's all.

[forre]

katbeidar, ... Good luck!

[shizzo]

Posted by katbeidar :
Do you ever say ANYTHING with substance?

Her comments hold just as much substance as yours have.

you seem to be the one closeminded to people who have
a different view of homosexuals.

Something contributed entirely to what's subconsciously
regarded as a "fundamental faith" which shouldn't need a
detailed comprehension. It's one thing to be against a form
of rampant hate - it's another to be indifferent about it.

[taty994945]

I agree with everyone on this thread.

[Kate]

forre, you are acting you age, good. By the way, I am sorry if somewhere along the lines of my posts you picked up a hint that you need to reply to my every post. You don't.

cniaju, forre's post are with no substance, if you can't see that - too bad. She is just trying to insult me, and it's not working, cuz I'm used to it by now.

I don't not mind people hating homosexuals. In fact, I don't respect people who don't approve of homosexuals. Homosexuals are still people, with families, jobs and emotions. And I think they deserve to be treated like normal people.

Ordinary life is the exrtaordinary thing we can give them. And I have changed my views a lot on homosexuality since I've come to this forum and interacted. The first thing I thought when I saw the downloaded ATTSS video was, "Don't let mom see it". Then next thing that went through my mind was, "Tatu are not lesbians, they are faking it for money and popularity". The third things was, "Eww". Now, I can except homosexuals making out in front of me, I can understand that they have the same feelings I have for the opposite sex, but for the same sex. I can interact with them without thinking "s/he's are gay" every second... That's a lot of progress, since I come from a VERY homophobic family, and my parents and sister still don't except the "right" way to look at homosexuality, unfortunatly. I am working on it, though. I debate with them about homosexuality at least once a week. Lol.