Dayseed Dayseed:
Khar,
Here's an interesting test. The following article highlights a peer-reviewed, journalized study into genetic homosexuality. It isn't anecdotal; it's quantifiable.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/27 ... brothers27Now, after having read a study about innate homosexuality, (assuming you do actually read it), how do you incorporate this into your worldview of "Could be either?"
The problem with that article was more how it was
perceived by the media rather than by actual problems itself. Responses like the above from accredited health professionals are typically in line with that response out of the expert community.
Keep in mind that the study you linked directly opposes another study conducted before it by Bearman (PhD from Harvard, Sociology Prof at Columbia) and Brückner (PhD from North Carolina, Sociology prof at Yale) out of Yale which disputes the conclusions of those results. Personally, I disagree with the position that Dr. Throckmorton (Psychiatry) suggests and question his own background to some degree in this discussion. However, in this case he does effectively summarize potential pitfalls in that study, such as the fact that it does not actually discuss biological factors in detail (and excludes many which have relevant theories in biology which support ideas that homosexuality is biological for the sake of a single potential method), has no supporting publications from geneticists, and does not have the scope to be making the ground breaking news the media believes it does.
My problems with the paper revolves more around scope and potential research which has as of yet not continued, including following work from Dr. Bogaert. This three page paper is hardly a comprehensive study to prove homosexuality is biological. It is more of a paper to demonstrate indications that it is likely to be biological. However, it's worth keeping in mind as well that in that first post you took "anecdotal" from, I said "anecdotal/qualitative," of which this paper falls into the latter. The second post of mine in this thread goes on to describe potential pitfalls in qualitative analysis. For those who wish to read this publication, it can be read
here (
WARNING: PDF FILE). Likewise, a look at his publications can be found
here. People can derive their own conclusions thereof, but as I mentioned no follow-up work linking to his Brock University profile was the fastest method.
Also, don't tell Lemmy we're arguing about something from Brock University. He might mutter sarcastically something along the lines of "If you can throw a rock, you can go to Brock."
Pretty sure he shared a dislike in another thread (but my memory might be failing!).
As for the contrasting article!
Hannah Bruckner (via Yale University) is a professor of sociology who, as can be seen from the above link, has continued extensive follow up work in this field to build on previous work (in both recent publications and from her CV). Dr. Hannah Bruckner is a well respected progressive researcher, and works heavily on the studies of gender inequality, sexual experiences, and sexual orientation. An example of her follow up work is present
here and she has written a book about gender inequality called
Gender Inequality in the Life Course.
Dr. Bearman from Columbia University has likewise an impressive history with a full CV present on the link above to see his continued expertise in that field, which involves further work on papers with Bruckner. His PhD was received from Harvard. These are two very progressive people who's qualitative results, similar to the qualitative methods used by the Professor from Brock University, found differing patterns. If anyone cannot access the works, let me know and I should be able to find an alternative.
In short, that paper you linked, Dayseed, seemed bigger than it was because the media picked up on it and ran with it. The media also ran stories about the Chemist who's "calculations" showed that
the LHC was going to create black holes, when he's not an expert in that field. Doctor Roger Moore, a local Edmontonian doctor involved in the LHC project, has personally laughed to audiences about this (I have seen him speak). Considering the media ran a story from one "scientist" who was not an expert in that field which contradicted evidence in that field from numerous experts (and blew it out of proportion), it doesn't lend credence to me of how correctly done a work is. That's my opinion, anyways.
I'd also like to mention that the viewpoint I am expressing here is not a rare one. The American Psychological Association, a professional group which has shown dedication to improving understanding and acceptance of homosexuality in modern society, has a likewise definition to the one I am using here, and is quoted below (
source):
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.
It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.It's worth reading the underlying point there (which is fairly clear). As I have said in this thread, and as the APA said, there is an incredibly amount of evidence which suggests biological indicators, but there is not significant evidence provided to say the end all result is "it's biological." That is the only point I have been trying to make here, that we do not have the significant results to state that it's genetic. If we did, professional organizations such as the APA and similar bodies would be able to change their definition to more suit that, but it has not.
The APA has, like I have done, also stated the possibility of other factors which might produce homosexuality. This means that there is not significant evidence to refute the hypothesis of other potential factors which may impact homosexuality and it's development in people.
Finally, we must keep in mind that this is not the first paper or reference to these bodies which has been brought up in this thread. Lemmy and raydan have both posted references to other studies which suggest biological relations which do conflict with aspects of the study you have mentioned, the study Dr. Throckmorton has mentioned, and the official stance on a fairly progressive organization. Evolutionary biology has been brought up in the majority of my posts here, and does relate peripherally to what Lemmy and raydan both quoted.
For example, look at Lemmy's primate reference. It contradicts the idea that homosexuality becomes more due to birth order and instead states it's a psychological/biological imperative in all primates. This reads as contradictory, no? Not that either of these are wrong, they are working theories, but you can see why I define my responses as I have so far.
I'll respond to the rest later.
Thanks a ton for bringing up that article though. It's completely the sort of thing I was asking for when it comes to discussing present evidence in the field, and I appreciate you taking the time and effort to not only find it, but to also present it to us! Thanks, Dayseed!
![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")
As a follow up, when I say significant, I am using scientific terminology for acceptable statistical values to reject the null hypothesis, in whichever form that statistical and error calculation takes form (confidence intervals containing 0 and so forth).
Forum Junkie 
