(Jan 18, 2017 09:25 PM)Syne Wrote: Yep, and the APA votes on whether something should be in the DSM and how it should be categorized. That's not science, that's appeal to consensus. But notice that even so, they limit their claim specifically to "sexual" abuse. I've already given you sources that do correlate general abuse and trauma to homosexuality (without any special focus on sexual abuse). And I asked you for evidence of causal direction, and it seems you have none. Yes, correlation does not imply causation (and yes, I often repeat that basic precept of science), but neither does correlation dismiss a relationship found in evidence...as it seems you're wanting to do. Science-denier?
No. They didn't limit it to sexual abuse. What I did notice, though, was how you just glossed over all the heavy criticism of such studies that consistently misinterpret and misrepresent scientific research on sexuality, male homosexuality and lesbianism. Science-denier? Homophobic, perhaps?
Syne Wrote:It's called choice-supportive bias. It happens when people justify their loyalty to a friend, commitment to a decision, etc. by downplaying any faults of the previously chosen subject. Who knows, maybe you are afraid that you would be less of a friend if you came to believe that gays weren't born that way. You certainly seem to think that questioning the causes of homosexuality inherently implies a whole host of vile feelings toward them. The sad part is that you have so little faith in yourself, that you feel you would take on such vile feelings should your vigilance against such evidence fail you.
No. The sad part is that you said you were here to have your biases challenged, but it's obvious that you're not up for it. See, I’m thinking that your emotional bias may be just a wee bit stronger than any that I could possibly have, being how it’s about your masculinity and all. Seems to me that you’re the one poisoning the well.
Syne Wrote:Institutionalized feminism. It's paved the way to single-parent households, which many studies cite as the single largest predictor of things like criminality, drug-use, etc.. It's demonized males and made natural male behaviors, like a need for more physical activity and competition, unacceptable. If you were raised in a culture that says you're not supposed to be quite and have manors, there's no value or benefit to being a mother, all others deserve preference over you, and any interest you have in sex must be depraved, how do you think you'd feel?
And even with all that, women are about twice as likely to suffer depression and about three times more likely to attempt suicide (although due to choice of method, men succeed more).
And their suicide rates will increase with unemployment. Too cool for school, I suppose.
Syne Wrote:LOL! So after you post something claiming women care less about sex, you hypocritically seem to contradict that...so long as you can use it to insult. You're obviously so insecure that you've become an obvious and blatant misandrist.
Well, you never know. Powerful women may start to feel the same sense of sexual entitlement. If stay-at-home dads are taking care of the house and kids then we won't be so tired. Personally, I think that we want sex just as much as men do.
Let's just cut to the chase, Syne. You're homophobic and that's that. Get over it.
(Jan 19, 2017 12:00 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: What I did notice, though, was how you just glossed over all the heavy criticism of such studies that consistently misinterpret and misrepresent scientific research on sexuality, male homosexuality and lesbianism. Science-denier? Homophobic, perhaps?
So...claiming I "glossed over" stuff you didn't even mention from a wiki link (as if failing to exhaustively address everything in a link means anything) to justify ad hominems. Ho-hum.
Quote:No. The sad part is that you said you were here to have your biases challenged, but it's obvious that you're not up for it. See, I’m thinking that your emotional bias may be just a wee bit stronger than any that I could possibly have, being how it’s about your masculinity and all. Seems to me that you’re the one poisoning the well.
Translation: "Nuh-uh, you are!"
Where was the challenge again?
Quote:Let's just cut to the chase, Syne. You're homophobic and that's that. Get over it.
Dismissing with ad hominem, the modus operandi of the weak-minded.
(Jan 18, 2017 06:31 AM)Syne Wrote: So no genetic sex differences in behavior?
You sound like you've swallowed a science-denying feminist pamphlet.
The evidence overwhelmingly favors environmental and epigenetic causes for homosexuality. Or do you deny the genetic influence upon sex differences only to hypocritically favor them for sexual preference?
The nature vs. nurture factors are outdated and you know it. They influence each other constantly. The maltreatment hypothesis relied on retrospective reporting, which we both know is very unreliable. It also begs the question; what causes maltreated individuals to be heterosexual, or better yet, what cause homosexuality in animals?
"Only two species have been observed showing a same-sex preference for life, even when partners of the opposite sex are available. One is, of course, humans. The other is domestic sheep."
What do these domesticated sheep have in common with gay men? They both have smaller hypothalami.
And now, back to the OP (sexual dimorphism)…what do all men and domesticated sheep have in common?
Both were the earliest animals to be domesticated for agricultural purposes.
Ha-ha! Yep, big and strong as an ox. A beast of burden. Well, now you’re just sort of a beast and burden.
biologists should have predicted this. When Darwin was developing his theory of natural selection, one of the things that inspired him was the realization that animals tend to have far more offspring than they seem to need. In theory a pair of animals need only have two offspring to replace themselves, but in practice they have as many as they possibly can – because so many of their young will die before they manage to reproduce.
It seems obvious that this built-in need to keep reproducing would manifest itself in a powerful sex drive, one that might well spill over into mating while females are infertile, or same-sex matings. Victorian scientists saw animals having more offspring than seemed necessary: today we see animals having more sex than seems necessary.
"Homosexual behavior doesn't challenge Darwin's ideas," says Zuk. Instead there are many ways it can evolve and be beneficial.
We may never find a wild animal that is strictly homosexual in the way some humans are. But we can expect to find many more animals that don't conform to traditional categories of sexual orientation. They are using sex to satisfy all sorts of needs, from simple pleasure to social advancement, and that means being flexible.
Yeah, environment affects epigenetics. And? Retrospective reporting is highly prone to false negatives, but there's little reason to suspect common false positives, which only show bias when heavily relying on interpretation or recalling details. Trauma can do that.
If you don't know the evolutionary basis for heterosexuality, you're a lost case. And if you think animals directly correlate to humans... Unless you are asserting all natural behavior must also be rational, or that animal behavior can imply orientation.
At first sight the information seems convincingly supportive. However, further research points out that the arguments made by the author contain some flaws. To begin with, Byne et al. tried to replicate this study’s findings, but they found that even though INAH 3 indeed tended to have a smaller volume in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, no difference was to be observed as far as the number of neurons within the nucleus was concerned. Presumed heterosexual male individuals have an average of approximately 60% more neurons in their INAH 3 than females. In homosexual males, the number of neurons in INAH 3 did not differ from heterosexual males. LeVay’s classification was based only on volume and not on neuronal number. Volume can be susceptible to several external pre- and post-mortem factors, such as differences in agonal state and fixation time (Byne et al., 2001). However, shrinkage during tissue fixation seems an unlikely possibility since no other INAH were affected in the same way and neuron size was identical between homosexual and heterosexual males, eliminating the possibility of neuron shrinkage. - http://healtheappointments.com/differenc...en-essays/
Come on, Syne. Open up your mind. We’re talking about children in the very first years of their life. The research they’re doing is on people 20-30 years later. If they’re generally mistreated by society as a whole, they may search their memories more thoroughly than unaffected controls.
Our results should be considered in the context of three further limitations. First, childhood measures were assessed retrospectively; therefore, recall error could attenuate estimates. A substantial minority of adults with court-documented abuse do not report abuse retrospectively. Second, because the NESARC questionnaire did not exclude unwanted encounters when asking about sexual partners, and because sexual abuse perpetrators are overwhelmingly male, men may be referring to an abuser when they endorse same-sex partners. Third, the instrumented analyses estimated the effect of abuse and maltreatment among participants who were maltreated as a consequence of poverty, parental alcohol abuse, parental mental illness or having a stepparent. These estimates may not apply to people who were maltreated under other circumstances.
From another one of their studies…
Our findings should be considered in light of 3 limitations. First, we relied on reporting of childhood gender nonconformity and abuse, therefore recall error could bias estimates. A study comparing adulthood reporting of childhood nonconformity with independent ratings based on childhood home video recordings found good concordance, however. Second, persons willing to describe themselves as having gender nonconforming behaviors in childhood may also be more willing to report abuse victimization histories compared with persons not willing to describe themselves as gender nonconforming, which would inflate estimates of the association between nonconformity and abuse. Third, our sample was predominantly white (93%); thus, findings may not apply to other groups.
You’ve already said before that what feels right for you colors your assessment of others.
What is natural, adaptive, or genetic has little bearing to the question of what is right or wrong. You know as well as I do that we can’t appeal to nature for the answer. We’ve been battling against nature for eons, Syne. The libido is a part of our human nature.
Humans are conduits for the transmission of infectious diseases, but we’re also conduits of knowledge and information, which allows us to overcome disease prevalence. Our desire for human contact and love increases our survival rates. Our connectivity and cohesion is beneficial, and supports infrastructures and behaviors that enhance our survival rates.
Anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex, and carries other risks, as well, but so does vaginal sex. Although, the openings are close in proximity, getting pregnant through anal sex is highly unlikely. Just because one groups risks are increased doesn’t mean that it is altogether wrong. There are tips to reduce the risks associated with anal sex.
(Jan 26, 2017 04:44 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Come on, Syne. Open up your mind. We’re talking about children in the very first years of their life. The research they’re doing is on people 20-30 years later. If they’re generally mistreated by society as a whole, they may search their memories more thoroughly than unaffected controls.
And you'll note that only causes "differences in the accuracy or completeness". Perhaps you should be more discerning.
Quote:From your study…
Our results should be considered in the context of three further limitations. First, childhood measures were assessed retrospectively; therefore, recall error could attenuate estimates. A substantial minority of adults with court-documented abuse do not report abuse retrospectively. Second, because the NESARC questionnaire did not exclude unwanted encounters when asking about sexual partners, and because sexual abuse perpetrators are overwhelmingly male, men may be referring to an abuser when they endorse same-sex partners. Third, the instrumented analyses estimated the effect of abuse and maltreatment among participants who were maltreated as a consequence of poverty, parental alcohol abuse, parental mental illness or having a stepparent. These estimates may not apply to people who were maltreated under other circumstances.
Like I said earlier. Recall bias may mean abuse is under-reported, but there's no evidence that it induces over-reporting. So just like with any intimate victim statistics, we're forced to assume there are more than reported. We can't just assume there are fewer than reported without running the serious risk of dismissing actual victims.
Quote:From another one of their studies…
Our findings should be considered in light of 3 limitations. First, we relied on reporting of childhood gender nonconformity and abuse, therefore recall error could bias estimates. A study comparing adulthood reporting of childhood nonconformity with independent ratings based on childhood home video recordings found good concordance, however. Second, persons willing to describe themselves as having gender nonconforming behaviors in childhood may also be more willing to report abuse victimization histories compared with persons not willing to describe themselves as gender nonconforming, which would inflate estimates of the association between nonconformity and abuse. Third, our sample was predominantly white (93%); thus, findings may not apply to other groups.
"Good concordance" with verifiable evidence.
Now whether the gender nonconforming are more like to report abuse (even when they know it undermines their insistence on being born that way) is something I haven't seen evidence for. So until I do, I can only assume that's just speculation. Do you know of any studies that address that?
Quote:You’ve already said before that what feels right for you colors your assessment of others.
What is natural, adaptive, or genetic has little bearing to the question of what is right or wrong. You know as well as I do that we can’t appeal to nature for the answer. We’ve been battling against nature for eons, Syne. The libido is a part of our human nature.
Only if you're a slave to your feelings, desires, and biases. We can certainly appeal to logic to determine ethics, and there are such things as tantric celibacy. The mind can overcome the desires, otherwise we'd just execute all sex offenders.
Quote:Humans are conduits for the transmission of infectious diseases, but we’re also conduits of knowledge and information, which allows us to overcome disease prevalence. Our desire for human contact and love increases our survival rates. Our connectivity and cohesion is beneficial, and supports infrastructures and behaviors that enhance our survival rates.
That seems non-sequitur. Not sure what you're getting at, but human contact is what allows for epidemics.
Quote:Anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex, and carries other risks, as well, but so does vaginal sex. Although, the openings are close in proximity, getting pregnant through anal sex is highly unlikely. Just because one groups risks are increased doesn’t mean that it is altogether wrong. There are tips to reduce the risks associated with anal sex.
So...one is riskier than the other, but since they're both risky, they're both equally "a risk"? Sounds like a false equivalence. Who equated risk with wrong? I'm a proponent of allowing people to take their own risks.
I’m trying to say that no matter what your sexual orientation may be, the connectedness and cohesion of any relationship is beneficial, not only to the individual, but society as a whole.
"My opinion on homosexuality in general is a meta-ethical stance (what is right) not a normative-ethical position (what ought be done).".—Syne
Looking towards a cause of homosexuality assumes that it is an undesirable deviation from the heterosexual norm.
Well that's in question, isn't it? Do gay men tend to have stable, long-term relationships, or does the natural male promiscuity only become mutually reinforcing once they desire equally willing participants? Do homosexuals believe in the sanctity of the marriage they claim to want so much, or that only about feeling accepted?
Even if homosexuality is genetically caused, it could still be an undesirable deviation from evolutionary fitness.
Evolution consciously makes neither decisions nor value judgements.
Some deviations are naturally eliminated from the gene pool, some aren't. If the ostensibly undesirable from a subjective point of view aren't eliminated, there is generally a reason they aren't - a well-documented case in point being sickle cell anaemia.
People don't die of homosexuality, nor do they (if one adheres to the nature argument) spread it around. The only real question is the one of why it survives as a deviation.
The trick is in discerning that reason. Another trick is in realising that there may be more than one reason. Arguing that homosexuality is a result only of this or that is fraught with risk.
The nature vs nurture argument is still precisely that - an argument. Without a specific genetic identifier being positively identified, there are no real indicators for either other than say-so. Most opinion among the scientific community appears to be moving toward nature, at this point, and if that is the case, then it should be fairly obvious that it's not going to go away anytime soon. Not in the West, at any rate.
Having said that, though, there is a strong correlation between parental relationships and homosexuality, but then you're stuck with a chicken-egg scenario in itself, when trying to determine if the parental relationship is a result of natural predetermining factors, or if it results in them.
When comparing what we think we know with what we'd like to know, science is in it's infancy.
It's be interesting to know if homosexuality is becoming more common over time (or if it's becoming more common where it's tolerated, which would lead to even more study), but that is data no one has access to at this point, mostly due to social factors, but also due to the fact that accurate record keeping is a relatively recent practise. And even when I say "accurate record keeping" I'm still doing so with a nod toward social dictates, the stigma being so strong that even in societies where it is tolerated, at this point in time, there are many for whom the desire to conform is strong enough they'd never admit to being homosexual - even to themselves - which might be a reason it has survived, just as an aside.
It's fairly easy for a women to permit herself to be fucked even if she doesn't enjoy it, plenty of women who are fucked without permitting it, and plenty of reasons for men to fuck the wife even if they don't particularly want to.
You only have to do it a couple of times for the kids to come, and after that it's no longer necessary to pretend anything.
A homosexual person only has to do it with the opposite sex a few times in order to procreate. Other than that, they can do as they please. And that's where social expectation comes into play.
Two more things.
1. Monogamy (or stable, long term relationships) is an evolutionary advantageous practise only under some circumstances. Generally speaking, it doesn't actually exist other than as a social concept. Speaking of it in this context is useless and distracting, and is a social argument rather than a scientific one.
2. Modern science is on track to making the whole argument obsolete. Adoption aside, the increasing prevalence of surrogates and test tube pregnancies completely relegates any argument regarding homosexuality to the evolutionary scrap-heap of the irrelevant. We humans are good at that sort of thing.
Oooo! I like it. Not bad, Ben. Not bad at all. That’s one way that nurture/culture could have had a positive effect on their reproductive fitness. Just think about what Tiassa was saying in regards to the all the married men, the so-called heterosexual males (It’s not gay if…). That would be friggin' hilarious if homophobic attitudes contributed to their reproductive success (skeletons in the closet).
I’m a little confused, though, because Syne has been listing properties, possible causes, and implications. We could continue to go back and forth in this process, but he said that his opinion was a meta-ethical stance. I thought that meta-ethics wasn’t concerned with properties, or whether or not something was right or wrong, but more about how we determine whether something is right or wrong. So, it seems to me that we might want to ask how normality and deviations from normality affect our concept of right and wrong.
Jan 19, 2017 12:00 AM
(This post was last modified: Jan 19, 2017 12:15 AM by Secular Sanity.)
Unless you are asserting all natural behavior must also be rational, or that animal behavior can imply orientation. 