@fitscotgaymer
I realize this is touchy and has been abused to hell by many. I’ve helped out with too many real life horror stories in that vein, and I’ve heard even more.
That is why I am going to avoid doing what I usually do to people who toss ad hominems at me. I am going to try and politely explain myself and the other firsthand accounts (and scientific studies) I am going off of.
But I am doing it Just This Once. Abuse it and abuse me further at your own peril.
“I gotta laugh when people who have no idea what they are talking about claim that there is no proof that sexuality is largely genetic.”
Let me clarify that I Never Said that. AT ALL.
In fact, I would argue from what I’ve seen that there is significant evidence that it’s *partially* genetic (to an undetermined degree), probably from some of the very same studies (and more) that you are citing.
But there is No Proof that we’ve found the end-all-to-be-all of sexual determination, and anybody saying otherwise is either years ahead of everybody else or being very rash. That was why I commented in the first place.
“There have been studies, after studies since the 1950s and pretty much every single one found that sexuality is a GENETIC thing not a social or cultural thing.”
Not really.
I’d be hard pressed to find “pretty much every single (study)” In ANY field saying the exact same thing.
In reality, the corpus of studies out there that overall have drawn no 100% clear answer to that question, even if their insights have been helpful. Many of them do say more or less what you did, but many others don’t. In fact, they’ve ripped plenty of holes into each other about the assumptions we have about gender and sexual leanings.
For instance; how is it that if “sexuality is (purely) a GENETIC thing”, how do we explain things like Japanese Shudo and Homosexuality in Western Antiquity?
A lot of the studies that fall into the latter category ask things like "How much of the population can we find engaged in various homosexual behaviors way back when (drawing from literary and archeological sources), and weighing that against (the current) population, and asking “if Homosexuality is purely genetic, than why do nations like Sparta or Japan have such an overwhelming amount of these “Genetic Homosexuals”, usually far larger than current homosexual population there?”
And yes, they go into various reasons for how this could happen- gene flow, spontaneous mutation, number screw-ups. But in the case of the Peloponnese it’s still something like the genetic pool having something like three or so times the current population of homosexuals. That doesn’t fit the genetic theory very well.
So pray tell me, Dear Sir, if homosexuality is Only Ever Genetic, how do you explain this? Because I sure as heck don’t know, and to the best of my knowledge there still isn’t a single accepted one for it.
And that’s before we get into issues like Bisexuality, where the gap is off the charts even considering the theory that most people are bisexual to some degree.
It’s things like *THAT* that make it hard to determine, and make blatant statements profoundly premature
We just don’t know.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So what’s yours?
Because claiming that not one single person in the eons of human history has ever chosen something regarding the genders they’re interested in is about as big as “It’s never Not a choice. Ever”, particularly since the proof we have is nowhere near enough to decide that.
And that’s before I get into the fact that one of the very individuals I talked about claimed it *was* their choice. As I said before: I *don’t* know if that’s true or to what degree it is. But this is someone I know and care about where the usual pad explanations (pressured by family, etc) don’t work.
What do you say to this person? That they are simply deluded ? That they don’t know who they are?
That strikes me as being a vast claim.
“What proof would you need? For the Human Genome Project to lock down the “gay gene” before you would believe it?”
Firstly, let’s get one thing clear: The burden of proof is on you. I didn’t make a single claim beyond “we don’t know for sure”, You’re the one saying that “it’s not a choice, Ever” and hasn’t been for as long as the Earth has lived. Ergo, you’re the one who has to prove it.
Secondly, no. Because there is no reason to believe there is a single “gay gene” any more than there’s reason to think a single gene determines your skin color.
I’m asking for explanation of the various holes that have been shot in the “Only Ever Genetic” argument and for its’ truly staggering claim that human sexuality operates on a different level than most of everything else we know about human behavior, personality, and the like.
Perhaps unfortunately, I haven’t seen that happen conclusively yet.
“As a gay person I can absolutely assure you it ISN’T a choice. I would NEVER have chosen to be gay. NEVER.”
I’m sorry to hear that. And even if you decide to continue attacking me and that results in me giving you a verbal (/typed) slapdown and possibly sending for mods , and you would still have my sympathy *for that.* For future reference, if there’s some way I can help (by talking, lending advice, or what have you; don’t get me wrong and think I’m trying to “cure your gayness”), I’ll be willing .
But you have to understand we can’t take firsthand testimony as ironclad proof. As humans, we’re unreliable, varied SOBs. That’s why you can’t rely on firsthand accounts or claims completely in a scientific inquiry. That’s part of the reason why research on subjects like these are so ploddingly slow in coming to the sort of crystal clear conclusions. But we’re subjective buggers, and like I said: I have a firsthand account from *someone else* who does think they made a choice.
What would a scientist do? Take apparently mutually contradictory evidence at face value regardless of what else? Flip a coin and decide which one they stick with?
“Think about how gay people in general get treated for their “may or may not be a choice of lifestyle”?”
Yes, I’m well aware of that, even better than most. I’ve studied the Holocaust and Gay bashing in general, after all.
But not only has the details of “how gay people in general get treated because…”" changed and varied over time and between places, but the specific treatment you’re alluding to has also been accorded to other things that aren’t (strictly) genetic. So it can’t be taken as proof that homosexuality genetic or that it isn’t.
The Nazis beat on Homosexuals in the streets before murdering them in the thousands in the camps, alongside Roma, Jews, and Slavs. But they also did the same (with superficial variations, like what insults they hurled, what camp insignia they stuck on them, and how and propagandized against them) to political opponents.
But does that mean that we should assume that Slavic ancestry, Homosexuality, and support for Communism are all genetically determined? Or that they are all voluntary?
“And you think anyone would willingly choose to do that?”
Choose what? Choose the tradition amongst the pre-1853 Japanese elite that having many male consorts (was a mark of high virility and honor, that could confer all kinds of prestige and various advantages in political wrangling at court in Edo at the expense of possibly getting hit with some choice words? That (for “genetic bisexuals”) it was even more prestigious if you had many male and female consorts?
That’s the problem: this is a huge subject to tackle, and it’s hard to easily divvy it up as easily as some people covering this think. There’s a vast world and a vaster history to cover, and it’s not all the same.
I’m just a straight (as far as I know) Californian history nut trying to do the best he can with what he has, and who has looked into the subject a fair bit.
