Sexual Reorientation: The gay culture war is about to turn chemical:
If the idea of chemically suppressing homosexuality in the womb horrifies you, I have bad news: You won't be in the room when it happens. Parents control medical decisions, and surveys indicate that the vast majority of them would be upset to learn that their child was gay. Already, millions are screening embryos and fetuses to eliminate those of the "wrong" sex. Do you think they won't screen for the "wrong" sexual orientation, too?
Liberals are slow to see what's coming. They're still fighting the culture war. The Toronto Star, like other papers, finds a neuroscientist who thinks the new study "should erode the moral judgments often made against homosexual preferences and rebut any argument that it is a mere a lifestyle choice." Well, yes. But then what? The reduction of homosexuality to neurobiology doesn't mean your sexual orientation can't be controlled. It just means the person controlling it won't be you.
I doubt it will be just sexual orientation. Future Pundit has been discussing the implications of cognitive modifications for children for years. One's personality and outlook are the outcome of a host of fixed parameters* (biology) modulated by environmental inputs (socialization, etc.); for generations parents have been obsessed with controlling and shaping the latter. With the rise of lobotomization you saw the demand for a change in the hardware, and the popularity of drugs such as Prozac has normalized lifestyle experimentation with brain chemistry.
Homosexuality is a hot-button issue that is in the public eye. But it isn't the only personality & social trait which is strongly contingent upon the biological parameters, it's just the boundary condition. The gay culture war seems to me to be fading into the past, but we're going to open a far broader and significant engagement with nature in the near future. I think an irony in this is that traditionally cultural radicals have been the biggest proponents of encouraging individuals to deviate from their God-given inclinations, but the reality that a disproportionate number of such radicals are among the childless and cultural conservatives are among the childed suggests to me that we may see a blossoming of the "squares" in the future as deviations from the norm of the human tapestry get "evened" out.**
* Some of these parameters are obviously probabilistic, though the probability probably emerges out of our ignorance of other interacting parameters which also vary.
** I don't think being a cultural conservative entails an aversion to biochemical modification as evidenced by the widespread acceptability of formerly exotic interventions such as in vitro fertilization.
Those who think this kind of "modification" is going to be easy-peasy are gonna run smack into the law of unintended consequences pretty fucking quickly. We have, of course, already seen this with drugs like Prozac. My prediction is that as we try to modify mental structures/states/inclinations that are more complex than mood, the unintended consequences are going to get more unpredictable and more adverse.
ah, you sound so conservative! law of unintended consequences? in any case, people will use their own judgments with the risks they want to take with their children and weight it contingent upon the adversity they assume might be entailed by leaving them as naturals. if you think homosexuality is devlish you'll likely be willing to hazard unintended consequences.
I'm just afraid that if I/O Psychologists get a hold of this, Human Resources will be encouraging parents to adjust their kids to be ideal employees. Time to re-watch GATTACA.
... if you think homosexuality is devlish you'll likely be willing to hazard unintended consequences.
Or if you don't think it's 'devlish', but believe the unknown health risks of the alternative are a safer bet still.
Time to re-watch GATTACA.
the normal isn't scary. i think these sorts of changes will come one step at a time and incrementally enough that there won't be a big "shock." consider how regimented and scripted many middle and upper class parents make their offsprings' childhoods in preparation for the ideal career/life/etc. as long as those with means have small families you're going to have many yuppies willing to risk downsides for the Perfect Child.
It's somewhat surprising that tolerance of homosexuality has gone up (in the West) just as family size has gone down. Having one gay son among five kids is less of a loss than if he's your only son or only kid.
heh. points for using "the gay" as a noun phrase.
doesn't the swedish study indicate that "unique environmental factors" are responsible for most same-sex sexual activity? how do you chemically suppress that kind of phenotypic plasticity during development, years ahead of initiating events?
Or if you don't think it's 'devlish', but believe the unknown health risks of the alternative are a safer bet still.
please. that study conveniently ignores prison sex, related to the fact that "male-male sexual contact" isn't limited to men who identify as "gay." so your blogger may have a point, but his numbers have been tweaked to support his thesis.
doesn't the swedish study indicate that "unique environmental factors" are responsible for most same-sex sexual activity? how do you chemically suppress that kind of phenotypic plasticity during development, years ahead of initiating events?
"unique environmental factors" could tweak the same region of the brain through development. so you don't need to necessarily stop input a, b, c, d, z... which all lead to change in region 1. just tweak region 1 after the fact. IOW, you take the plastic and reshape it.
"Curing" the gay? You say that like it's a disease! There's nothing wrong with homosexuality! Next you will be saying we need to "cure" racial differences. The only thing wrong here is the way you view things.
This certainly won't be easy, but we need to work on this as hard as we can. I'm in the camp that believes that we're changing our environment too fast for us to adapt, so we need to take an active role in our development. Let people screen for or chemically modify whatever they can.
It's not going to create a permanent underclass, because we've already done that, so that argument doesn't work.
It's not going to be done only by the rich anymore than elective surgery is only done by the rich. Has plastic surgery created a permanent underclass yet?
The other major objection is the same as for genetic engineering: you're tampering with God's creation. As if we're somehow perfect as we are. I don't think it's any of my business if you decide to screen your kids for intelligence, genetic disorders, or the gay. I say go for it. What I'm more worried about is the negative correlation between litter size and conservativeness.
/lol @ Marina for missing the point
/lol @ Marina for missing the point
dude, don't point at the tardz. it's rude :-)
dude, don't point at the tardz. it's rude :-)
hahahahahahahahahahahah
Am I the only one who didn't think the society of Gattaca was that bad? A philosophy paper explaining why the "hero" of that film deserves our censure is here.
What I'm more worried about is the negative correlation between litter size and conservativeness.
Shouldn't that be a positive correlation? Boys from quiverfull families should be much more likely to be gay due to the 'older brothers' effect: the effects should be mildly interesting at least...
Am I the only one who didn't think the society of Gattaca was that bad?
It was more nonsensical than scary, that they would keep genotyping everyone all the time, if all the data was supposedly on record...
This is sad for me; I'm gay, and I'm pretty much watching the beginning of the end of the little community that I've found a home of sorts in. I much rather prefer the good ol' days of oppression, where I at least have the support of people who love and care for me, to the brave new world of my "tribe's" extinction.
But, as I said over in the Slate conversation, I can't get on board with people who think this type of thing should be banned. What kind of a person puts abstract values like "embracing the diversity of the human species" over the well-being of their children? Not the type that is likely to actually parent, I think.
Also, I think it's worth noting that if even only half of mothers of potentially gay sons opt for this initially, that will still cut the numbers of gay men from maybe six out of one hundred to three out of one hundred. As the numbers dwindle, more and more parents on the fence will opt for the treatment just to spare their kid the increasing difficulties of growing up gay in a straightening world. Eventually, I think the numbers will dwindle to the point where homosexuals will become too few to compose a viable movement or subculture, and that will be it.
Hopefully history will remember the good (Michelangelo, Oscar Wilde, etc...) and not the not-so-good (Ryan Seacrest, AIDS).
you have any citations on seacrest??? perez hilton duz not count.
That's what you took from my heartfelt post?! Pearls before swine... :)
Seriously, I just assumed he was based on the fact that he has major gayface. Could be wrong, though.
marc, well, the frequency of the gays might decrease, but like the deaf your kind can also maintain your numbers through a combination of genetic interventions and reproductive technology in the future. there's an easy way for gays, liberals, atheists, blah, blah, to perpetuate themselves: BREED. if the Good, True and Right as you see it is of enough Worth to perpetuate indefinitely into the future so that the memory of your kind shall not fade into a distant echo from the past then forgo the consumption of present satisfaction and invest your marginal time and income into offspring. this is a general frustration i have with the general atheist and/or liberal fear of religious and/or conservative fecundity: the remedy for differential replication consist simply of expending more marginal income and wealth on the raising of children. of course, the analogy with politics & religion is weak insofar as attempts to "convert" for these identity communities can be very efficacious. not so much so with male homosexuality i think, and not at all for deafness or blindness if these are cured in the future.
Breeding might be easy, but raising a kid not so much.
but raising a kid not so much.
who said anything about *raising* .... ;-)
Having one gay son among five kids is less of a loss than if he's your only son or only kid.
Only if you are interested in genetic posterity. If you just want to enjoy life and that your offspring are happy, then who cares?
Anyhow, guess that single children are just less likely to be gay: the most publicited of the two recent studies clearly suggests that having older brothers increases significatively the chances of being gay among males (no idea about females). They mentioned epigenetic in-womb likely causes but one could equally think of "epigenetic" enviromental/psycho-social childhood causes as well (i.e. admiration for those older brothers and possibly being used to have a subordinate position in personal relations with other men).
In any case it's clear it's not just raw genetics, even if it may affect the way the brain works. So it's not like you can control that via phoeticide.
there's an easy way for gays, liberals, atheists, blah, blah, to perpetuate themselves: BREED.
No, no. Most of us were born in hetero, conservative religious enviroments. There's absolutely no need to breed: we just represent an important side of naturally occurring human variability. Genetics is not all certainly.
But society would certainly improve if certain categories of people (i.e. tories and fundamentalists) who now breed in clear excess would not. That would speed up change and increase the joy of life. It's certainly not the same being gay, liberal and/or atheist against the current (that causes emotional and psycho-social difficulties - exhaustion in general, as you have to fight for every single bit of freedom, outside and even inside yourself) than within the current.
Only if you are interested in genetic posterity. If you just want to enjoy life and that your offspring are happy, then who cares?
the enjoyment of life is contingent upon the character of the offspring. the argument i think re: why homosexuality might be more tolerated in a society with large families is that parents are more tolerant "imperfection" from their offspring if they have several of them to satisfy the various expectations. i.e., youngest children in large families are indulged. only children in upper middle class families are expected to be as Perfect as Possible.
marc, well, the frequency of the gays might decrease, but like the deaf your kind can also maintain your numbers through a combination of genetic interventions and reproductive technology in the future. there's an easy way for gays, liberals, atheists, blah, blah, to perpetuate themselves: BREED.
I agree that it's a possibility, but most gay men I've met as of right now have little interest in raising children. It doesn't fit in well with the gay lifestyle, which affords a certain freedom from society's expectations which many gays embrace enthusiastically. Granted, there might be a seismic attitude shift among gays if we are faced with real extinction.
I think I would only breed a deliberately gay kid if I lived in a community with a lot of other gays doing the same thing, so that I knew my kid wouldn't grow up feeling inordinately different from all his peers. That's a big part of the gay experience which straight people underappreciate, in my opinion.
Homosexuality isn't the only issue - genes associated with atypical neurologies, or just personality traits that society doesn't recognize as valuable, will probably also be targeted.
Shyness, depression, social awkwardness, the weakly-autistic traits associated with being a geek/nerd... The human genetic ecology could be devastated by being 'improved'.
Shyness, depression, social awkwardness, the weakly-autistic traits associated with being a geek/nerd... The human genetic ecology could be devastated by being 'improved'.
You could offer the same prescription to remedy this that Razib offered gays: geeks could deliberately breed other geeks, though they may want to send their geek children to private, geek-only schools so they don't get picked on too badly by the sudden flood of outgoing jocks. :)
So what are the primary known factors (environmental or genetic) that increase the odds of homosexuality?
For example, it's conventional wisdom that elite boy's boarding schools result in a higher rate of homosexuality. Is there evidence to support this? I imagine many elite families worry about that trade-off -- the kid might become a Senator, or might become gay, or maybe both. It certainly seems plausible that going thru puberty in an all-male environment could result in early sexual experiences being homosexual, and that that could have lasting neurological effects.
With girls, the conventional wisdom is that competitive sports are a risk. Not sure if that CW is about early sexual experiences or just normalizing a more masculine behavior pattern. I'm pretty sure there is data to support a much higher rate of lesbianism in elite athlete women, but that could be entirely the result of self-selection.
You could offer the same prescription to remedy this that Razib offered gays: geeks could deliberately breed other geeks, though they may want to send their geek children to private, geek-only schools so they don't get picked on too badly by the sudden flood of outgoing jocks. :)
this is just silicon valley & caltech.
I don't think that's likely for a variety of reasons. Not so much that I think an authority is going to mandate what can and cannot be included in the genome (although that is a concern), but that many different authoritative structures involved in the research of traits and the application of the technology will systematically bias parents towards choices the authorities feel are best.
Medicine has a long history of paternalism, and few people will be able to look directly at the data to determine what associations a gene complex really has. The research perspectives we choose to take and the emphasis on the results will skew the choices people make.
Imagine doctors offering to reduce the chances a child will be schizophrenic, and not mentioning that the genes in question are also associated with creative thought...
Razib: please check http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm
It's obvious that J28 is around the corner (at least three studies about the supposed causes of homsexuality in so few days!) but anyhow... what this other article suggests is that genetically the causes (some of the causes?) of male homosexuality may simultaneously give greater fecundity to their sisters (or other relative females). So in a sense gays also breed... indirectly.
And it also means it's a nonsense to try to control it eugenically: apart of going against human rights and dignity, it also goes against the evolutionary reality. We don't really need these studies to know: if the trait is there, it's for a reason, that should be valid for rationalists and for deists equally. It's just common sense.
And it also means it's a nonsense to try to control it eugenically: apart of going against human rights and dignity, it also goes against the evolutionary reality. We don't really need these studies to know: if the trait is there, it's for a reason, that should be valid for rationalists and for deists equally. It's just common sense.
no, you're engaging in the is-ought fallacy. it isn't a fallacy if you apply it consistently i guess, but i doubt you'd want to do that. so it's not common sense; it's discretionary support for your priors.
Re: the study Luis linked to, "Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality" is a really crappy title - their model is not human or homosexuality- specific.
oh, here's the full article alluded to above (it's open access).
I don't think this is the first time that Male Homosexuality has been linked with increased fecundity of female relatives. There was an Italian study published in the J Royal Soc a couple of years ago which asserted the same thing based on interviews of (I think around a hundred each of) gay and straight men matched for SES, etc. Female fecundity was interpreted as meaning the total number of children born.
I wonder how strong the correlation between perceived female beauty and fecundity is. If the coefficient is high, we could tell the homophobes to keep away from the good looking women, lest they end up with gay children.
no, you're engaging in the is-ought fallacy. it isn't a fallacy if you apply it consistently i guess, but i doubt you'd want to do that. so it's not common sense; it's discretionary support for your priors.
Not sure. Anyhow, in this case, it's clear (as I said before) that the very vast majority of homosexuals are born in heterosexual couples. And you and others mentioned that gays tend to have very low reproductive rates. So there must be a reason why the trait appears once and again and not in a very marginal tiny remnant but quite frequently. Of course, genetic reasons are probably just part of the reasons but they are there too.
oh, here's the full article alluded to above (it's open access).
Thanks, I did not notice before.
Female fecundity was interpreted as meaning the total number of children born. I wonder how strong the correlation between perceived female beauty and fecundity is.
I also suspect there may be a correlation. If the gene (or genetic combo) makes men more "femenine", it may also make women more "femenine" and therefore more attractive in general. I don't think we still understand well the genetics behind sexual dimorphism, do we?
/lol @ Marina for missing the point
dude, don't point at the tardz. it's rude :-)
hahahahahahahahahahahah
Why are you guys mean and condescending. I thought you should make newcomers feel welcome on this blog.
I thought you should make newcomers feel welcome on this blog.
no.
Wonder who is the "tardz" here. ^^
Supposing homosexuality is caused by biological but non-genetic factors (e.g., it is caused by chemical processes affecting a fetus' brain), how would "pre-homosexual" fetuses be identified? Wouldn't this be possible only in the presence of physical or phenotypical traits distinguishing the "pre-homosexual" from the "pre-heterosexual"? Otherwise I think such screenings might not be accurate in eliminating the undesired type at all.
Supposing homosexuality is caused by biological but non-genetic factors (e.g., it is caused by chemical processes affecting a fetus' brain), how would "pre-homosexual" fetuses be identified? Wouldn't this be possible only in the presence of physical or phenotypical traits distinguishing the "pre-homosexual" from the "pre-heterosexual"?
You give the fetus a barbie doll and see what he does. Seriously, I think the route of "treatment" will be to identify uterine environments that are associated with homosexuality, then altering the environment within safe and established parameters.
Dr Valerie Grant's theory has some currency for me in this regard...high testosterone and 'dominance' in women as a result of elevated stress.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article…
Could this elevated testosterone also have an influence on the greater number of male children born after a period of warfare?
The stresses of war influencing and increasing mothers' testosterone. In my experience there is truth in the stereotypically dominant gay mother scenario couple with the weak or hostile father.
Many gay men have children, myself included. I have 2 children as does my gay partner.(4 girls in total) We are both the second sons, myself of 2 and he of 5. I know many gay men with children.
I suspect that fa'fafine in Polynesian culture and shamans in Amerindian culture historically have been positions adopted by those with a greater degree of 'otherness'....with possible benefits to their extended families if they themselves did not have children.
Dr Valerie Grant's theory has some currency for me in this regard...high testosterone and 'dominance' in women as a result of elevated stress.
Makes some sense in my experience but just some. Anyhow (and this is important) most people have both in a quite balanced manner (assuming they have several children, of course), including energic women. I come from a large family and most branches have both daughters and sons. One of my aunts had only boys and could be argued that she is a high-testosterone woman but other subbranches have only girls and the women in those nuclear families do not seem more low-testosterone than any others: in fact they are the only career women around, what would rather suggest they are less "girly", right?
Many gay men have children, myself included. I have 2 children as does my gay partner.(4 girls in total) We are both the second sons, myself of 2 and he of 5. I know many gay men with children.
Obviously from hetero relations. The gays I know do not have children. I know of lesbians who have pondere the issue quite seriously - and of gay men who have offered their sperm for it - but this doesn't seem to alter the general rule that gays, specially gay men, in neutral conditions (i.e. no conservative/family pressure to behave as straights) are much less likely to have children.
...
...I think the route of "treatment" will be...
I think there will be no "treatment" except under fascist conditions maybe. The issue is way too complex to "treat" it and modern society doesn't seem interested in such "treatments" anymore.
What I think is significantly more likely is that once we develop artificial/outside the body wombs (which will cause a social revolution the likes of which we've never seen when we figure it out), standardized uterine environments, when used, will reduce environmental variation in how kids turn out, possibly reducing homosexuality as a side effect.