The science of sexual orientation?

[Daniel]

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/.../index.html?hp

In a nut shell: the scientific folks who found a way to change a fruit fly's sexual 'orientation' are now able to change it back.

To their surprise, neurobiologists have discovered that homosexuality can be turned on or off in fruit flies. They’d known that sexual orientation can be genetically programmed, but they didn’t realize it could also be altered by giving a drug that changes the way the flies’ sensory circuits react to pheromones.

Of course, we can all imagine what social conseratives are going to suggest once hear this new: See! I told you so! You people can change!

Personally- I don't think it's a good thing to go about 'changing' one's sexual orientation- as if one could. We aren't fruit flys after all. But you know what? One good thing that may come out of this is the idea that gay folks actually HAVE a sexual orientation, and aren't screwed up heterosexuals as fundie's suggest. Once they enter the argument...well....there's no going back.

[tdogg]

Well this could be a good counter to the 'choice' argument. The fruit flies didn't choose to change their orientation, the scientists changed it. Will be interesting to see exactly what the conservative legion has to say about this news. Whether they jump on it or wait until they figure out the best approach given the possible implications on their arguments.

Oh, and while we wait to hear their reaction, we better start praying, keeping our fingers crossed, whatever it takes to make sure none of their kind get elected in '08...if they suspect our orientation could be changed scientifically, it might just be passed into law...

"All known gays and lesbians must immediately surrender to the federal government for required orientation change procedures!"

[ladyinred]

Probably more bogus or junk science. I would remain skeptical.Here is an interesting article on "christian science" http://www.ethicsforschools.org/sexual/cause.htm

[BruceChris]

It appears to have been written by two people who do not have strong biases, but who do make assumptions that are not based on facts as I know them. Also, it's ten years old. And it is based on the assumption that everyone is either an absolute and steriotypical female, or an absolute and steriotypical male, or SHOULD be. There's no other possibilities.

So, any one who is G,L,B,or T, or intersexed, or who has any physical or mental or genetic condition that is not typical of their "one and only" gender, is broken, and can and should be fixed. And when they are fixed, they will be perfectly male or female.

Well, we all start out with bodies that are exactly the same. If we have a Y chromosome, and male hormones, and the proper hormone receptors, we will be born male. If we lack the Y chromosome, and the male hormones and the receptors, we will be born female. This by itself does not in any way imply that we won't be G, L, B or T.

So every one of us, every male and every female have ALL of the same organs, and hormones; they're just a little different in size, shape, and location.

If the three above conditions are not all either/or, we can get all kinds of babies that are not either/or. And if someone has 45, 47, 48, or more chromosomes, as sometimes happens, things get even more complicated.

We are all products of a vast, multi-dimensional sex/gender soup, and normal appearing males or females are only two obvious high points in this soup.

We need to get away from this either/or thinking, and do our best to get everyone else to do this, too. Many, many organizations are trying to eliminate discrimination against one group or another, but very few ever try to deconstruct the false, underlying assumption that cause the problem in the first place.

Remember, in Genesis 5 it says that God made ALL of us, each and every one of us male and female, not male or female.

(Will be off the air for some time; suffering from rant-fatigue)

Namaste', Bruce Chris

[tdogg]

I see it like BruceChris says. Two important points here - first that genetics doesn't say 2 groups, 1 each of perfect males and the 2nd of perfect females. There are many possibilities, and while a majority of the population may fall in one or the other, it takes the entire spectrum to make the group. Sort of similar to the Kinsey scale. Genetics is very rarely black & white, it's mostly gray.

The next great point is the male AND female part. We have the same hormones, body parts, etc. The nuances are what is different. I think we can all relate feeling that at times.

So perhaps the thing to draw from this is try to avoid putting people in neat little boxes and labeling them (this statement is not directed at any one particular person, I think generally we all do this now and then). We are all very much the same but very much unique.

[ladyinred]

Now I say don't go foolin' with mama nature.Poor little fruit flies.

[ladyinred]

So let the discussion begin. I don’t think of homosexuality or heterosexuality as an “illness” to be “cured,” but I wonder how people would use the ability to control sexual orientation — to have a designer libido. Would some people, gay or straight, who weren’t having luck attracting one gender decide to switch to the other? Would some people casually switch back and forth?
Would some social conservatives (like Leon Kass), who normally object to biologists “playing god” and pharmacologists altering “human nature,” change their minds and urge the use of biotechnology to promote heterosexuality? Would some social liberals try to restrict the use of this biotechnology? Would parents, gay or straight, want to regulate their children’s sexual orientation — and should they or their children be allowed to do so

Frankly this pisses me off . Designer libido? Alter people's sexuality? The use of biotechnology to promote heterosexuality?( Do they mean mandatory heterosexuality?) Another pandora's box?

[ladyinred]

Of course one of the statements below the article is hilarious:

25.December 11th,
2007
3:35 pm This study does not bode well for the future of fashion. Gosh, imagine how ugly our clothes are going to look with straight people designing them?

— Posted by Estebanca
26.December 11th,
2007

[ladyinred]

This one is not:

28.December 11th,
2007
3:37 pm I continue to believe that heterosexuality is normal and that homosexuality is not.

As shocking as that might be to some “modern” thinkers, I’m unlikely to change my belief.

Therefore I would hope that research in this area will continue with a long-term goal of eradication of homosexuality, just as there has been research that has succeeded in eradicating a number of diseases that once plagued (literally) mankind.

Oops, womankind too. I’d better stop now, having irritated the LGBT (a newish abbreviation, right?) “community” enough.

I vote per my views too.

Of course another posted that homosexuality caused the fall of civilizations in the past? Curious,how?
As it is we are living on a planet with 6 billion people(and who is in the majority?) Heterosexuality is alive and well and even thriving. But here are some startling scientific facts too. The earth as the population continues to grow is becoming more and more unable to maintain and sustain life as we know it. Dwindling resources for one and supply cannot meet the growing demand. IF anything we face a huge threat to our survival if the earth's reources are overtaxed and the population continues to become larger and larger as they dwindle.

I remember my response on a forum I was on and they were saying the same garbage.. "Humans may become extinct if we accept homosexuality!!!!!" As if heterosexuals will somehow magically stop reproducing? Besides I said , the earth is not exactly suffering from an under- population problem, and I added , how many heterosexuals do you all need to be happy?" I said you can quote the bible and say that God said be ,"fruitful and multiply, but he didn't mean to be idiotic it about and go to the extreme." (another biblical passage taken out of context, since it reflected more the history of it's times when the world was much less populated.) And how would homosexuality affect worldwide population in a devastating way? If homosexuality is even in nature as we now know, there must be a good reason for it. And to also point out that marriage and family are really overrated, as if there can't be meaning to life or service to God without mandating marriage and family.As if that was his sole plan for the universe. Compulsory Heterosexuality, I think not

Science :http://www.boston.com/news/world/eur...ing_resources/

Also:According to population experts, it took almost 1,900 years for the world to slowly rise from an estimated 250 million at the time of Christ to a billion and a half at the beginning of the 20th century. Then, in the 20th century alone, the earth's population has exploded as it quadrupled in size. It has reached the staggering mark of six billion people. In spite of advances in birth control, the world population still rapidly climbs.

A glimpse at the trend shows why many are concerned. According to the United Nations Population Division, it took 123 years to move from one billion to two billion population. Yet it took only 33 years to reach the three billion mark and 14 years to arrive at the four billion level. Next it took only 13 years to reach five billion, and now, just 11 years later, we have crossed the six billion mark.

From now on, it is estimated, one billion people will be added every 10 years. Provided this rate of growth–adding some 80 million new people per year–continues, the planet's population will double again in 50 years.

[tdogg]

Great information Lady! And, staggering stats. Yes, the estimated 10% of gays and lesbians are going to wipe out humanity as we know it. Sheer stupidity. But then, I find most reactions to GLBT are based on a total lack of knowledge. "Ignorance"

[ladyinred]

Also I posted those statistics as a reality check, since the fundies seem to think there is no problem with overpopulation of the earth or the dwindling of resources. Science has proven otherwise. We know there is poverty and starvation the world over. Here is something the religious right can't censor even though they deny there are problems with the environment and global warming. They can't censor science overseas,even though they try to do it here.(Not that they care, they think they'll be caught up in the rapture with the Lord,(After they of course help create the mayhem they call "armegeddon" that they think will bring the" Lords" return) why bother to help change things for the better or care about "trivial matters such as the environment?")
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealan...-oceans-report
If we aren't careful we may someday be on the verge of ecological collapse with serious consequences such as mass starvation, brought on not by the wrath of God but the senseless destruction and negligence of man. I was watching an interesting documentary on North Korea, that was filmed a few years back, the people were starving and resorted to even cannabilism because of the gross negligence of the leader toward his people, he had ordered farmers not to plant agricultural crops but opium. People were actually selling human meat on the market masquerading it as pork. Starvation drives people to do desperate and horrible things. Also on the environment:http://rac.org/Articles/index.cfm?id...75&pge_id=2403

More on the right's views on environment:http://www.emagazine.com/view/?757 excerpted from this article:The Republican Party platform in Bush’s home state warns of what to expect from a federal government guided by religious right radicalism. The Texas platform “reaffirms the United States of America as a Christian Nation,” and seeks to nullify the separation between church and state. It would abolish the EPA, and the Departments of Energy and Education. It dismisses global warming as “myth.” And it promotes public school education “based upon Biblical principles,” not upon secular humanism, which teaches Darwinian evolutionary theory and a scientific worldview.

Texans have paid the price for their leaders’ anti-environmental stance. During George W. Bush’s time as governor, the state gained the honor of having the dirtiest air in America. It also ranks 47th in water quality, and has the seventh-highest rate of release of toxic industrial by products.(people here drink the water and breathe the air with possible serious health consequences) Interesting article on upper respiratory problems and the Ozone in houston. http://www.mothersforcleanair.org/aqinfo/ozone.pdf
The right isn't just attacking the gay community , they are attacking the very fabric and wellbeing of our society and it's citizens. I don't just post these things because I have some "terrific imagination." If there is a "judgment day", I'm sure God will meet them there.Reality check: And what kind of air and water do they think their children are drinking and breathing? And it's not just the air it's the food:http://www.pbs.org/now/science/mercuryinfish.html
,http://www.environmentaloncology.org/node/40 I guess arrogance knows no bounds they probably think they are magically exempt from the damaging effects of a polluted environment.One thing is environmental factors beyond our control that can cause human devastation(hurricanes, tornadoes for example) another is the willful and malicious destruction of the environment. Why do I think they are reprehensible, because they want to willfully cause destruction without thinking about the impact on others lives this may bring. Do they not think about the consequences of their own actions, evidently not.

[tymejumper]

That was a very interesting article, it underscores how anyone can take any study and find the parts that support their viewpoint and publish them to make others believe its the truth. The main point of contention in that article is the statement "homosexuality was unknown in the western world before the 19th century" and "their are some cultures where homosexuality was unknown so there is no word for it".

To make clear a few things, the word HOMOSEXUAL was not even known to mankind, it was not created nor coined until the 19th century. No one ever used the word because it was UNKNOWN. So, therefore, in a really convoluted way, homosexuality did NOT exist until the 19th century.

The second thing, that it was rare in some cultures so no word existed for it, is also bullarky. The fact there was no word for it, or one that was translatable to our "homosexual" does not mean it did not exist there. Actually, same sex relationships were VERY common in past history from the beginning of time. The Romans, the Greeks(ie: going greek/male on male sex)indian cultures(twospirit/Shamen were often gay) and many African cultures are heavy with homosexuality. Some cultures are still known for male to male relations until boys have to marry then they give up their male lovers and procreate.

I believe when the facts are presented with all the evidence, people will see for themselves that being homosexual is genetic and irreversable. But, until then, leave the fruit flies alone! Let them be, well fruits!

[ladyinred]

LOL... I'd say don't mess around with the fruitflies either. But you are correct that homosexual was not a term that was coined until the nineteenth century.Freud didn't even see it as an aberration. But why is the word homosexuality used in the new bible translations?Why does this study concern me because it opens up a can of worms and they were specuilating on how the research might be used to alter someone's sexuality. And someone evidently did see this as research that could do such a thing and eradicate homosexuality:

"Therefore I would hope that research in this area will continue with a long-term goal of eradication of homosexuality, just as there has been research that has succeeded in eradicating a number of diseases that once plagued (literally) mankind."

I wanted to find some information on the researcher and apparently he is a grad of the university of Utah.
Note his response :I asked Dr. Featherstone if it might be possible one day to quickly alter humans’ sexual orientation. Here’s his answer:

Although I am not sure my research is a big step in this direction, I think that ultimately the answer will be: Yes. After all, the goal of neuroscience is a complete understanding of brain function. Understanding in science is typically demonstrated by the ability to control a process.

I'm not personally against science but I just wonder if this ressearch wasn't purposely done to find a way to alter sexuality. I guess if they can't do through their so-called reparative therapy they'll try to find away to do it through science. I was diturbed by something I as watching on tv awhile back where they were using science to alter babies genetic makeup, parent's could actually custom design their children, for example if they wanted blue eyes, blonde hair. Do we really need that? That takes away the unique characteristics of a person. I guess Hilter wanted to genetically alter humans so he could produce his aryan nation of blonde and blue eyed Germans, so why not here? Of course Hitler thought people with darker skin were inherently inferior, but curious though he was not blonde and blue eyed. Perhaps we should call this genetic holocaust.

[tymejumper]

Originally Posted by ladyinred

But why is the word homosexuality used in the new bible translations?

Sadly, someone read the bibile and then decided that being gay was what God was talking about in the verse "man shall not lie down with man as with woman". How do we really know that is what was being takled about? I do know that anal sex was used in biblical times as a form of birth control. Perhaps it was because there were not many people in the world and we needed to make more so guys were told to get as much as they could and make babies. Also, the Christains were hateful of the Roman peoples and gay relationships were the norm there. What better way for the Christtains to make it seem as if the Romans were terrible monsters but my "proving" that their god said what they did was wrong? They pulled out there little black book with a snotty look and said "there, see? even the bible says its wrong" does this sound so much different than todays conservatives?

Originally Posted by ladyinred

Perhaps we should call this genetic holocaust.

I believe that mother nature is smarter than to allow us to mess with her too much. We thought that antibiotics would kill bacteria, leave it to her to make a resistant bacteria! If they attempt to make all straight babies, then mother nature will find a way to subvert that too. She will probably fashion a recessive gene that will still pass the gay gene on and they can't find a way to turn off!

[ladyinred]

Frankly I hope mother nature kicks their butt

[Megandy]

Originally Posted by ladyinred

Note his response :I asked Dr. Featherstone if it might be possible one day to quickly alter humans’ sexual orientation. Here’s his answer:

Although I am not sure my research is a big step in this direction, I think that ultimately the answer will be: Yes. After all, the goal of neuroscience is a complete understanding of brain function. Understanding in science is typically demonstrated by the ability to control a process.

well, first of all, fruit flies don't have the complex brain structure that we do, so good luck trying to change humans' sexual orientation since there's so many things that we still don't understand about the human brain!!!

I didn't read the entire article, but i have been browsing the responses here. Looking at the article and the ridiculous conclusions that the researchers are coming to just makes me roll my eyes. And of course, the media will ALWAYS twist scientific research into whatever propaganda they are trying to push.

[Megandy]

Originally Posted by tdogg

"All known gays and lesbians must immediately surrender to the federal government for required orientation change procedures!"

Ain't nobody changing my sexual orientation! I'll go down kicking & screaming!

[tdogg]

Originally Posted by Megandy

Ain't nobody changing my sexual orientation! I'll go down kicking & screaming!

I'm right there with you Megandy!!!