Your mother really did make you a homosexual

Recent research supposedly shows that not only is male homosexuality a genetic predisposition, but that it's of benefit to the female relatives of the ... er, subject
http://www.slate.com/id/2194232/

[Aunty]

While interesting, it doesn't sound very plausible to me, but then I haven't read the original paper so its findings may have been misunderstood or misquoted in the article old fat guts has supplied. One thing it fails to do is to furnish a mechanism of how this (these) 'homosexual' genes increases female fertility and how they bring about same sex attraction when present in men. (Genes express proteins, what do the proteins do?) I also have no idea of the size of the cohort they used to develop their model, but to make it reliable it would need to be thousands.

By the way, Beryl, you do understand that the anomaly of homosexuality in a Darwinian world is not exactly a new problem, don't you? It's been around for decades luv.

[bao-bao]

I think it's already popped up on a past thread, but it's just cheesy enough to repeat:

One: "My mother made me a homosexual."

Two: "If I bought her the yarn, do you think she'd make me one, too?"

Sorry, should have but couldn't resist.

[kittyboy]

Here is the link to the original article. It was peer reviewed and so I suspect that the math and methods are sound. I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace and have a background in research methods and statistics and it seems solid work - though I am not a mathmatical modeler.


http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi ... 002282#ack


IMHO - This kind of research is important and valuable. It is more research adding evidence that homosexuality is not a "choice" but a result of genetic factors. IMHO this kind of research helps in the realm of public opinion and in becoming more accepted by society. In general, people are more tolerant of homosexuals if they believe that it is not a life style choice.

It was peer reviewed and so I suspect that the math and methods are sound. I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace and have a background in research methods and statistics and it seems solid work - though I am not a mathmatical modeler.

Pissyboy,

if you get paid for that "research" you are taking money under false pretences. The writers of the article relied on statistics compiled entirely by others, whom they listed as references; the first and primary reference was made on the basis of three selected samples - hardly the thousands that Aunty correctly pointed out would be needed, with descendants of those samples checked over a number of generations.

The "anomaly of homosexuality in a Darwinian world" which Aunty also referred to was mentioned once in passing near the beginning, but then ignored rather than addressed even though it totally negates the entire paper: "this is a possible тАШDarwinian paradoxтАЩ: since male homosexuals don't mate with the opposite sex, shouldn't any тАШgenes promoting homosexualityтАЩ have died out of the population by now?"

The article, even for me, was a clear case of baffling with bullshit and never using one word when a few hundred, a chart, some obscure formulae and a few tables would do instead. Rather similar to the purchaser of JB's publication, who gave his first aim as being "To increase the pagination of the magazine" rather than just to add some more pages.

Recommended reading for the confirmed insomniac only.

[kittyboy]

It was peer reviewed and so I suspect that the math and methods are sound. I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace and have a background in research methods and statistics and it seems solid work - though I am not a mathmatical modeler.

Pissyboy,

if you get paid for that "research" you are taking money under false pretences. The writers of the article relied on statistics compiled entirely by others, whom they listed as references; the first and primary reference was made on the basis of three selected samples - hardly the thousands that Aunty correctly pointed out would be needed, with descendants of those samples checked over a number of generations.

The "anomaly of homosexuality in a Darwinian world" which Aunty also referred to was mentioned once in passing near the beginning, but then ignored rather than addressed even though it totally negates the entire paper: "this is a possible тАШDarwinian paradoxтАЩ: since male homosexuals don't mate with the opposite sex, shouldn't any тАШgenes promoting homosexualityтАЩ have died out of the population by now?"

The article, even for me, was a clear case of baffling with bullshit and never using one word when a few hundred, a chart, some obscure formulae and a few tables would do instead. Rather similar to the purchaser of JB's publication, who gave his first aim as being "To increase the pagination of the magazine" rather than just to add some more pages.

Recommended reading for the confirmed insomniac only.

Now remember GF - I want a point by point by point rebuttal of my comments.

First of all, using non-primary data is a perfectly acceptable research method. And the article was peer reviewed. So GF - you are just flat out wrong... Go ahead admit it.

Second - Don't rely on Aunty for your research design -You don't need samples of thousands to do good research. He does not know what he is talking about. As I mentioned I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace. Studies with samples with as few as 70 and as many as several hundred have been published in my area.

Third - Just because you do not understand the math behind the study does not invalidate the study. That is why there is a peer review process... - I assume you know what that means?

Finally, This research though a small contribution contributes to the overall body of knowledge on gays and lesbians. Gay and lesbian research at the level of the social sciences and the hard sciences is becoming much more common and accepted. In general IMHO this is a very good trend. In the social sciences it begins to take away the stigma associated with gays and lesbians. At the level of the hard sciences we are beginning to see that homosexuality has a strong genetic component. Those findings go along way toward helping gays and lesbians argue for equal treatment as homosexality is similar to left-handedness or other genetic traits.


So if you would like to tell me about your research qualification, your Phd. is in what area? Unless it is in math or some modeling field I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Now - On with the rebuttal. Remember, I would like you to start by saying.... I know more about the authors of this paper becuase I have a PhD in.... and I am so smart becasuse....


There you go I have given you your opening statement.

First of all, using non-primary data is a perfectly acceptable research method. And the article was peer reviewed. So GF - you are just flat out wrong..

Flat out wrong about what? I pointed out that they had made no original research (not that this is unacceptable), that no research used covered a number of generations (which would be useful when studying inherited traits) and that some research samples were inadequate.

Second - Don't rely on Aunty for your research design -You don't need samples of thousands to do good research. He does not know what he is talking about. As I mentioned I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace. Studies with samples with as few as 70 and as many as several hundred have been published in my area.

I didn't. "The first and primary reference was made on the basis of three selected samples ". As in one, two, three. Not "as few as 70 and as many as several hundred". A study being "published" has no bearing on its validity. Research for a paper whose central theme is genetic inheritance needs, obviously, to be made over more than one generation; none of the references were, relying on hearsay and recollection instead. This is not "a perfectly acceptable research method", neither is it acceptable to briefly mention then ignore any "paradox" that contradicts the conclusion.

Third - Just because you do not understand the math behind the study does not invalidate the study. That is why there is a peer review process... - I assume you know what that means?

I said it was "baffling with bullshit", not that I was baffled. The "math" are pointless if the original data is flawed, which does invalidate the study. A "peer review process" is a review by one's peers; it does not of itself validate a study, particularly when you see the same "peers" validating each others' research.

This research though a small contribution contributes to the overall body of knowledge on gays and lesbians. Gay and lesbian research at the level of the social sciences and the hard sciences is becoming much more common and accepted.

It contributes nothing unless the original data is sufficient and correct. It was not. Accepted by who - other gay and lesbian researchers (the "peers" who review each others' studies)?

In the social sciences it begins to take away the stigma associated with gays and lesbians. At the level of the hard sciences we are beginning to see that homosexuality has a strong genetic component. Those findings go along way toward helping gays and lesbians argue for equal treatment as homosexality is similar to left-handedness or other genetic traits.

What "stigma"? I have never encountered anything but "equal treatment", as I have said elsewhere, but neither have I had to look for some shield to hide behind as an excuse for my inadequacy.

So if you would like to tell me about your research qualification, your Phd. is in what area? Unless it is in math or some modeling field I don't think you know what you are talking about.

I made Airfix kits when young, does that count? If you think that you need a Phd in order to understand the relatively simple mathematical formulae used in these studies it says little for your educational system. Pissyboy, your background ("I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace and have a background in research methods and statistics") and mine (my own business) are as dissimilar as it is humanly possible for them to be. Does that make one of us "smart" (something I have never claimed to be) and one of us someone who doesn't know what they are talking about? Along with many others you seem to be so immersed in your own search for "equal treatment" and the removal of any "stigma" that you have become as bigoted as those you set out to "argue" with, accepting anything that is by your "peers" and meets your needs and rejecting anything else. Sad.

[Brad the Impala]

It contributes nothing unless the original data is sufficient and correct. It was not. Accepted by who - other gay and lesbian researchers (the "peers" who review each others' studies)?


What "stigma"? I have never encountered anything but "equal treatment", as I have said elsewhere, but neither have I had to look for some shield to hide behind as an excuse for my inadequacy.

This seems to be a recurring theme. Because you have never suffered unequal treatment, you deduce from your statistical sample of one, that anyone who has suffered such treatment is inadequate in some way.

[kittyboy]

First of all, using non-primary data is a perfectly acceptable research method. And the article was peer reviewed. So GF - you are just flat out wrong..

Flat out wrong about what? I pointed out that they had made no original research (not that this is unacceptable), that no research used covered a number of generations (which would be useful when studying inherited traits) and that some research samples were inadequate.

Second - Don't rely on Aunty for your research design -You don't need samples of thousands to do good research. He does not know what he is talking about. As I mentioned I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace. Studies with samples with as few as 70 and as many as several hundred have been published in my area.

I didn't. "The first and primary reference was made on the basis of three selected samples ". As in one, two, three. Not "as few as 70 and as many as several hundred". A study being "published" has no bearing on its validity. Research for a paper whose central theme is genetic inheritance needs, obviously, to be made over more than one generation; none of the references were, relying on hearsay and recollection instead. This is not "a perfectly acceptable research method", neither is it acceptable to briefly mention then ignore any "paradox" that contradicts the conclusion.

Third - Just because you do not understand the math behind the study does not invalidate the study. That is why there is a peer review process... - I assume you know what that means?

I said it was "baffling with bullshit", not that I was baffled. The "math" are pointless if the original data is flawed, which does invalidate the study. A "peer review process" is a review by one's peers; it does not of itself validate a study, particularly when you see the same "peers" validating each others' research.

This research though a small contribution contributes to the overall body of knowledge on gays and lesbians. Gay and lesbian research at the level of the social sciences and the hard sciences is becoming much more common and accepted.

It contributes nothing unless the original data is sufficient and correct. It was not. Accepted by who - other gay and lesbian researchers (the "peers" who review each others' studies)?

In the social sciences it begins to take away the stigma associated with gays and lesbians. At the level of the hard sciences we are beginning to see that homosexuality has a strong genetic component. Those findings go along way toward helping gays and lesbians argue for equal treatment as homosexality is similar to left-handedness or other genetic traits.

What "stigma"? I have never encountered anything but "equal treatment", as I have said elsewhere, but neither have I had to look for some shield to hide behind as an excuse for my inadequacy.

So if you would like to tell me about your research qualification, your Phd. is in what area? Unless it is in math or some modeling field I don't think you know what you are talking about.

I made Airfix kits when young, does that count? If you think that you need a Phd in order to understand the relatively simple mathematical formulae used in these studies it says little for your educational system. Pissyboy, your background ("I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace and have a background in research methods and statistics") and mine (my own business) are as dissimilar as it is humanly possible for them to be. Does that make one of us "smart" (something I have never claimed to be) and one of us someone who doesn't know what they are talking about? Along with many others you seem to be so immersed in your own search for "equal treatment" and the removal of any "stigma" that you have become as bigoted as those you set out to "argue" with, accepting anything that is by your "peers" and meets your needs and rejecting anything else. Sad.

Again you are just flat out wrong. Applying mathematical modeling to the previous findings of a genetic link to homosexuality is original research. You may not understand the concept but that does not make it less valid for those who do understand the concept.


Again you are wrong тАУ the paper cites another study which used family histories from three independent sample. That was among a number of other citations in the paper which indicate a genetic influence on homosexuality. You mischaracterize the citations in the paper. Sad.

I am glad you were not baffled by the math. Damn you are smart. However, the peer review process does validate the study. It is a review by others who do similar work тАУ mathematical modeling I assume in this case тАУ and the process is designed to advance science by making sure work is original and sound.

Wrong again тАУ the paper contributes in a small way toward the understanding of homosexuality as a genetic trait. IMHO тАУ that is an important line of research.

You made Airfix kits as a youngster тАУ that does not make you a pilot тАУ just as having read and then having an opinion on a paper does not make you a qualified researcher.

And finally you are RIGHT (I suspect that must be satisfying that you are finally being validated) I am immersed in my own research. I love what I do.


I want my point by point rebuttal..... I want my rebuttal.

[Smiles]

" ... I want my point by point rebuttal..... I want my rebuttal ... "

Perhaps the Board will get lucky one day and Gone Fishing will change his debatin' technique.
The breathless quote from the lesser mortal(s) followed (inevitably) by a precise and devastating Cartesion/GF logic gets a little stale after the 8th or 9th quote/rebut and loses customers quickly exiting stage left to the safe haven of gogo bars and beach umbrellas (so shallow are we).

Frankly, at this point a good old " ... yer a goddam idiot, so shut the fuck up ... " would seem absolutely refreshing.

Cheers ...