Gay at birth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dream of the iris

"Being gay is no more a "genetic disorder" than being born with blue eyes, or blonde hair.

It's a hidden genetic trait that aids in population control (imagine how many ppl there'd be in the world today if all homosexuals in history had reproduced), and is merely one in a countless ways our species, and many others species, keep up it's variety."

First off vej 33 I'd like to thank you for your contribution. Rather than saying something retarded you've actually contributed an interesting counter argument. Well here's my counter argument to your statement above....If being gay was a new phenomenom comming into existance with the rising population, then I would say this is very likely to be a trait but because being gay has been around for thousands of years it discredits the notion of being a population controller. Up until recently there has been no need for a population control because other events such as climactic changes, famines, diseases from lack of sanitation and the countless amount of wars has kept previous generations under control. Though being gay is just as threatening as being brunnette or blond it is still a genetic trait that serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever much like color blindness.

---

I appreciate your willingness to actually discuss this rationally. It's hard to find people who want to debate homosexuality through a scientific lense in both corners. Usually I'm up against Creationists. You bring up good points. I guess when it comes down to it, every variation in nature can be seen as a "genetic disorder". Hypothetically, if the first two people to ever reproduce (i want to stress that I am not referring to Adam, Eve, or any religious archetype of the like) both had brown hair, only a genetic mutation of cells could have caused blonde hair. That mutation would get passed onward, until years later it was just another variation.

I guess calling homsexualaity a genetic disorder is merely semantics. Maybe at one time it was truely a genetic disorder, a mutation, but now, like blonde hair, it is merely one of the many variaties.

The thing that makes me sad is that I think we will just never know... even if there is a gene found that causes homosexuality (or even proof that it is NOT a gene) there's just no way to go back in time and link it to any mutant cause.

Gazzeruk26, the only thing I said that wasn't man made was War's. Regardless, man made or not it is still a catalyst for human population decrease. Because Man made and non man made factors existed it ultimately took the place of "natures way of taking care of buisness", such as genetic disorders.

And as far as Vej's comment, I think you've brought us to that stopping point where the barrier of unknown forces us to limit the debate. Good job, you beat me to it you bastard lol!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vej33

It's a hidden genetic trait that aids in population control (imagine how many ppl there'd be in the world today if all homosexuals in history had reproduced), and is merely one in a countless ways our species, and many others species, keep up it's variety.

---

Hahahaha, what?? How the hell does that trait get passed along then if there is no procreation, seein' as they're gay and all?? I mean, with no progeny, how does the trait still exist? Homosexuality is usually more nurture than nature. It could be an oppressive mother, a fucked up father, a friend who was just as confused, a lot of shit. That is to say I do not deny that there could be markers indicating the potential, POTENTIAL, to be gay, but the environment must be there too.

Reality is, we just don't understand homosexuality and why it occurs. If you think you can explain, tell me why seagulls have a tendency towards homosexuality. There are much better ways for population control. Homosexuality has been prominent throughout history, most notably the Romans and Greeks because it was culturally acceptable to show affection and devotion for another man, usually a fellow soldier. "Variety" alone does not explain homosexuality, it's a mystery. I'm just trying to start a nature/nurture debate because that's where this is heading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CultureCherryPopper

Hahahaha, what?? How the hell does that trait get passed along then if there is no procreation, seein' as they're gay and all?? I mean, with no progeny, how does the trait still exist? Homosexuality is usually more nurture than nature. It could be an oppressive mother, a fucked up father, a friend who was just as confused, a lot of shit. That is to say I do not deny that there could be markers indicating the potential, POTENTIAL, to be gay, but the environment must be there too.

Reality is, we just don't understand homosexuality and why it occurs. If you think you can explain, tell me why seagulls have a tendency towards homosexuality. There are much better ways for population control. Homosexuality has been prominent throughout history, most notably the Romans and Greeks because it was culturally acceptable to show affection and devotion for another man, usually a fellow soldier. "Variety" alone does not explain homosexuality, it's a mystery. I'm just trying to start a nature/nurture debate because that's where this is heading.

---

Okay, slow down.
First of all, I was in a 3 year relationship with a woman, whome I had a very healthy sex life with - I didn't know I was gay at that point in my life, but was clearly still CAPABLE of having sex with women. There were several pregnancy scares, but none that actually resulted in fertilzation. That being said, I do not have a living breathing child to prove that homosexuals CAN and WILL procreate, but I have the sexual history that says so. I've also, since that girl, been in several heterosexual relationships, each of which were sexually active. Incidentally, one of those girls' father was gay. It broke up her parent's marriage, but he was still able to have a child. You can take my word for it, or don't.

MAYBE seaguls have a tendancy towards homosexuality because back in the start of their species, the gay gene was heavily prevalent and became the dominant sexuality (but jesus christ, any walk on a beach can tell you they procreate more than rabbits lol fuckin seagulls). To be honest until you said so, I was unaware that seagulls were more prone to homosexuality, and so my guess is just that - a guess. But an educated one, none the less.

As far as nature/nurture, I do think nurture has something to do with it. I don't think nurture can cause you to be gay, but I think nurture can make you feel comfortable/uncomfortable about being gay.

My mother was not overbearing, I'm an only child I have a wonderful relationship with my mother. We've talked about it, her and I, and we've decided that PERHAPS our relationship has flourished so nicely BECAUSE i've been gay. That is not to say that I hated my mom until one day we became friends... My mother and I have been close since the day I was born.

My father was not a "fucked up father", though my parents did get divorced, I've had a very successful relationship with him. That being said, I can recall from some of my earliest memories being curious about what adult men posessed, as opposed to adult women.

I'm afraid that if you don't have the feelings and personal exploration of a gay person, you simply will not understand my point of view in that Nature causes homosexuality, but Nurture only shapes it. Whether a gay man feels comfortable coming out in his life CAN be determine by his early years, yes... but the underlying fact that even if he DOES NOT come out BECAUSE of his overbearing mother and fucked up father, He is STILL gay.

I'm not what you would consider a "flaming" homosexual. If I were standing in a line of straight men, I would not be an obvious candidate if you had to choose which one was gay. That's because I grew up not KNOWING I was gay - Nurture. But I was clearly gay from the start - Nature. Am I making sense?

Another thing I wanted to mention... let's not forget about gay WOMEN. While it is more unlikely for a gay man to ejaculate in a women, heterosexuality is not a prerequesit for a gay woman to become fertelized by a straight man.

it is very likely that, if homosexuality is a gene, it is passed down on the women's side. It could even be that the gay gene does not lie in the DNA within our chromosomes, but the DNA within our mitochonrdira, part of every one of our cells.

Any Genetics class will tell you that Mitochondria DNA is only handed down from the women's side. While both men and women possess it, every single person on this planet ONLY has the mitochondria DNA passed down from their mother. This is because, the mitochondria DNA in a a father's sperm lies within the tail, which breaks off from the head of the sperm after fertilziation. Therefor, the only inherited Mitochondria DNA any of us have are from our mother, which was in the egg, since our fathers Mitochondria DNA (passed down from HIS mother) was lost in fertilzation when the tail broke off.

Im sorry if it seems like this one is rambled, I have to go to work and I wanted to get this down before I lost my train of thought.

After smoking and reflecting: Could it be that instead of a gene "causing" homosexuality, perhaps it is more how the child develops in the womb. What I'm saying is, we all start as women essentially, and the introduction of the Y chromosome causes the fetus to become male. (I just want to say that this realization came from watching Dodgeball and porn. Just throwin' out how my mind works.) But if the sex of the fetus is somewhat askew or imbalanced, i.e. the balance of estrogen and testosterone maybe, perhaps that could account for the child becoming a homosexual. Many gay women are for lack of a better term, butch. Some masculine characteristic or trait must be peresent already. Except for reproductive organs, it is possible to change a person's complete sexual appearance with hormone treatment (Thank you Law and Order: SVU),so this notion can't be completely offbase. Anyways, if this is right, do we say it is already the nature of the child, or how the fetus is nurtured in the womb? Perhaps I'll delve deeper into how the fetus develops in the womb and how the mother can affect the child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CultureCherryPopper

After smoking and reflecting: Could it be that instead of a gene "causing" homosexuality, perhaps it is more how the child develops in the womb. What I'm saying is, we all start as women essentially, and the introduction of the Y chromosome causes the fetus to become male. (I just want to say that this realization came from watching Dodgeball and porn. Just throwin' out how my mind works.) But if the sex of the fetus is somewhat askew or imbalanced, i.e. the balance of estrogen and testosterone maybe, perhaps that could account for the child becoming a homosexual. Many gay women are for lack of a better term, butch. Some masculine characteristic or trait must be peresent already. Except for reproductive organs, it is possible to change a person's complete sexual appearance with hormone treatment (Thank you Law and Order: SVU),so this notion can't be completely offbase. Anyways, if this is right, do we say it is already the nature of the child, or how the fetus is nurtured in the womb? Perhaps I'll delve deeper into how the fetus develops in the womb and how the mother can affect the child.

---

lol i really like how you started this off "after smoking and reflecting". i wish I could've had this conversation with you being high as well, but i am sticking to my month-long fast from cannabis...

anyhoo, i like where you're going with that theory you have. it could very well be the environment in which the fetus is subjected, in which case one could say that was Nurture. But to me, because hormones and chromosomes, of which would be imbalanced causing homosexuality, is all genetic, I'd hav to go with Nature.

GOOD STUFF!!

Well, with the way this is going, I think it makes alot of sense for the environment the fetus had in the womb.

About the hormone treatment though, I saw a documentary about a guy who was born a guy, but then something went wrong for his circumcision and so they just turned it into a gender reassignment and tried to have the boy grow up as a girl and simply keep the procedure a secret from the child so that she never knew that she was a boy. That lead to alot of problems because the...now girl, grew up being very emotionally unstable because of first, being teased, second, not knowing how to feel about the opposite sex. I think that sort of backs up the theory of being born a certain way, and after reading what CultureCherryPopper put, that makes alot more sense.

This is an article about the man who had his penis cut off due to infant circumcision. He killed himself a couple of years ago. I remember seeing him on Oprah a while before he died.


TORONTO STAR, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Tuesday, 11 May 2004.

David Reimer, Victim of Circumcision
Sex, lies and a quest for identity
The boy raised as a girl suffered for social experiment
David Reimer's life says much about forces shaping us

DEBRA BLACK
STAFF REPORTER

David Reimer was the victim of an experiment gone totally awry â?? an experiment that suggested nurture could trump nature.

The 38-year-old Winnipeg man, who was born a boy but raised as a girl after a botched circumcision, took his own life last week.

But for some, his death and his life will not be in vain.
Reimer's tortured experience as a girl leaves a lasting legacy in the field of gender identity and the debate over what shapes a human being: nature or nurture.

"David was a hero," said Milton Diamond, a psychologist at the University of Hawaii, at the John A. Burns School of Medicine in Honolulu, who was involved in Reimer's case.

"David didn't give permission for what was done to him. Even though he didn't have a penis, he still knew he was male," Diamond said.

Thanks to Reimer, many psychiatrists and psychologists have had to rethink their theories on what determines sex, says Ken Zucker, psychologist-in-chief at Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and a specialist in gender identity.

Reimer's life story was described in a 2000 book by New York-based writer John Colapinto, As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl. His story was also featured on Oprah.

In the early 1970s, one theory held that gender was flexible and a child could be taught to be a man or a woman. "The (Reimer) case has taught a lot of people in the field that things are a lot more complex when it comes to gender than people originally thought 30 years ago," said Zucker.

"Where we've really had a lot of advances is in recognizing biology has a predisposing influence on gender identity and gender roles.

"But the environment is also important."

After a botched circumcision led to the removal of his penis, Reimer was renamed Brenda and raised as a girl, later receiving female hormones.

His parents were following the advice of psychologist Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Positive reports in medical journals suggested Reimer was adapting successfully to his new gender as a girl.

`Even though he didn't have a penis, he ... knew he was male'

Reimer felt responsible for his twin brother's suicide

Many, from feminists to learning theorists, embraced the case, using it as an example that gender could indeed be taught.

But nothing was further from the truth in this case, said Dr. Keith Sigmundson who was a supervising psychiatrist for Reimer from when he was 8 to 20 years old. Reimer didn't adjust well to being a girl at all and began having difficulties at school.

"By the time Reimer was 11, the whole experiment was falling apart," said Sigmundson, who was brought into the case by the Winnipeg school system. Reimer was eventually told when he was 13 that he had been born a boy. He rebelled and went back to being a boy.

"From that point on he sought out all the surgery," said Sigmundson.

"He totally changed how he was presenting himself and struggled with a number of operations. He eventually lived his life as a man."

Reimer got a job in a meat-packing plant in Winnipeg. He married and was a stepfather to three children.

Up until about a year ago, he was in "top form," said Sigmundson who remained in contact with him.

But Reimer felt responsible for the suicide of his twin brother two years ago, the psychiatrist said.

Then he slumped into even more of a depression after losing his job and separating from his wife.

His mother, Janet Reimer, told Canadian Press that she believes her son would still be alive had it not been for the devastating gender study. "I think he felt he had no options. It just kept building up and building up."

Many of the changes in the way social scientists, psychologists and psychiatrists think about gender has happened because of Reimer and the controversy surrounding his life.

"At the time, there was a major controversy in our society over whether an individual's personality and their adaptation of their gender was a result of how they were born versus how they were raised," explained Sigmundson. The only one thing that is clear today is gender is a combination of many factors, including biology and learning, he noted.

"There are certain immutable things that happen in your chromosomes and in utero that develop the gonads that have an impact on your brain which set the pattern for the rest of your life," he said. "That's essentially what we know now."

Sigmundson and Diamond were responsible for revealing publicly that Money's experiment had failed and all was not well with Reimer's new gender. They published a report in 1997 in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine that outlined Reimer's rejection of being a girl.

"His life was very difficult," said Diamond, crying as he spoke to a reporter. "And I think the legacy is the whole issue of how people identify and see themselves as male and female.

It's not as simplistic as putting people into blue rooms and pink rooms. Certainly our environment makes a difference and how we're brought up makes a difference. But we come to the game with our own inherent natures and how those things interplay can't be predicted."

TORONTO STAR, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Tuesday, 11 May 2004.


David Reimer, Victim of Circumcision

Sexual identitiy and sexual orientation are two different things.

The case of the boy with the botched circumcision (yikes!) raised as a girl deals with sexual identitiy --- how a person identifies themselves as male or female.

And whether a preson is gay straight or bi, deals with sexual orientation --- whether a person is attracted to the opposite or same sex.

I tend to think that people are born with both their sexual identity and their sexual orientation. I don't know if it is genetic, or something to do with the environment in the womb, or exposure to hormones or chemicals, but I don't think it is something that a person chooses. I don't think a person can be trained to have a different sexual identity or sexual orientation.

The case of the boy raised as a girl is a good example. He knew he was a boy, even thought he did not have a penis.

There are also people who are born with an opposite sexual identitiy to their physical characteristics. These are the poeple who dress and act like the opposite sex and may be interseted in sex change surgery. They are not gay. They truly believe on the inside that they are the opposite sex. Gay people are not like that. A gay man, knows he is a man and does not want to be a woman --- he is a man attracted to other men.

I think that people with an oppostite sexual identity and homosexual sexual orientation occur "naturally" and that there is nothing they or anyone else could have done to change it. People who try to live differently from their sexual identity and sexual orientation are very unhappy.

I always think it's hilarious when people try to claim that sexual orintation is something you choose. I think it was maybe Pat Roberston who was saying something like this when someone asked hiim if he chose to be straight, and he said yes. So was he saying that he is actually equally attracted to men and women, but he chooses women? If that is the case, then I think he is probably actually bi, and he's missing out on half of his sexuality.

For myself, I always knew I was attracted to girls from the time I developed an attraction to anything, and that was probably before I really even had a concept of gay or straight. It's not something I chose, it was just the way I was. I'm sure the same is true for gay people --- it's not something they choose, it's just the way they are.