The Science of Gaydar (NYMag 6/25/07)

[Teh Don Ditty]

I have a subscription to this mag at home. The rents got it for buying something.

As it turns out, it's a really good mag. I found this article to be very interesting, and I hope you do too.

The Science of Gaydar - If sexual orientation is biological, are the traits that make people seem gay innate, too? The new research on everything from voice pitch to hair whorl. (http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/)

EDIT: Just to warn ya, the article is about 7 pages long :)

[Ugg]

Bad link, here's the correct one

http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/

[Teh Don Ditty]

Link fixed in OP.

[leekohler]

I hope they never find out what makes us. That would be scary. Can you imagine all the in utero gene "therapy"? We could become extinct.

[Teh Don Ditty]

I hope they never find out what makes us. That would be scary. Can you imagine all the in utero gene "therapy"? We could become extinct.

That was touched upon in the article. And that's exactly what would happen.

[miloblithe]

That was touched upon in the article. And that's exactly what would happen.

Become extinct? Nonsense.

From the article:

Especially if that view invites the opponents of gay people to consider dramatic interventions meant to stop the development of homosexual orientation in a fetus. What if prenatal tests were able to show a predisposition to gayness? How long would it be before some pharmaceutical company develops a patch to regulate hormone flow and direct the baby’s orientation?

What percentage of people would both choose and could afford such tests and treatment? 2% in the US? 0.05% worldwide?

[leekohler]

Become extinct? Nonsense.

From the article:



What percentage of people would both choose and could afford such tests and treatment? 2% in the US? 0.05% worldwide?

OK- well, I feel a little better now. But not much.

[Teh Don Ditty]

Become extinct? Nonsense.

From the article:



What percentage of people would both choose and could afford such tests and treatment? 2% in the US? 0.05% worldwide?

No, not the extinct part. I should've clarified. That some groups would be in favor of altering the child's genes. Never said that anybody would become extinct.

My apologies for not being specific.

[miloblithe]

No, not the extinct part. I should've clarified. That some groups would be in favor of altering the child's genes. Never said that anybody would become extinct.

My apologies for not being specific.

My fault for over interpreting too, no doubt. :)

I agree it would happen, probably, if it were possible (which I kind of doubt), but on the other hand I think the market would be too small to motivate any company to invest in the technology UNLESS it was easy to develop or had some other more wide scale use--say a drug that reduces the chance of premature birth by 50% and just so happens to "cure" gayness.

(not that there's any reason those two things would be correlated)

[Teh Don Ditty]

My fault for over interpreting too, no doubt. :)

I agree it would happen, probably, if it were possible (which I kind of doubt), but on the other hand I think the market would be too small to motivate any company to invest in the technology UNLESS it was easy to develop or had some other more wide scale use--say a drug that reduces the chance of premature birth by 50% and just so happens to "cure" gayness.

(not that there's any reason those two things would be correlated)

Well, there's always the Gay Bomb (except the reverse of it, so the Straight Bomb) :p

You know and I know that if they ever found a "cure" for gayness, those certain groups mentioned in the article would be all over it in a second! Trying to force their values down other's throat (no pun intended). Grrrr, makes me mad. Guess the gayness as a choice theory can be put to rest... ignorance.

[carbonmotion]

I'm not as sure as the article's author that gay people are gay purely because of genetics. I remember in college, I took a psychology class that provided some pretty convincing evidence otherwise. I guess it could be to varying degrees a mixed bag of genetic and environmental/ sociological factors. I remember reading a journal article for that class that theorized that humans are capable of bisexuality, its social pressures that repress one desire and reinforces another. I'm not sure how much i buy in to that... but lemme find a link ....ah here it is (http://pep-web.org/document.php?id=sgs.002.0179a)

[Ugg]

I'm not as sure as the article's author that gay people are gay purely because of genetics. I remember in college, I took a psychology class that provided some pretty convincing evidence otherwise. I guess it could be to varying degrees a mixed bag of genetic and environmental/ sociological factors. I remember reading a journal article for that class that theorized that humans are capable of bisexuality, its social pressures that repress one desire and reinforces another. I'm not sure how much i buy in to that... but lemme find a link ....ah here it is (http://pep-web.org/document.php?id=sgs.002.0179a)

Well, it's not merely a matter of the author's opinion but of the increasing number of characteristics that have been found through fairly rigorous scientific study. Also, you'll well note the studies that are in the works. So, before you prejudge this, you'd do well to sit back and see what other research has to say.

To think that you know or the author of the paper you've linked to knows the basis for "gayness" is sort of ambitious, don't you think?

The majority of gay men knew they were somehow different long before they had an inkling of their sexuality. I didn't become gay, I was born that way.

All you have to do is read the stats on first born, second born and third plus born. That alone makes it pretty clear that there is some biological reason for gayness. Did you simply ignore that?

Lee,

I don't think it's a cause for worry, I think it's good to know why we are the way we are and what causes sexual attraction. Trying to stop scientific endeavor is simply unhealthy for society. Hopefully the research will never be able to come up with a so called cure and society will have to admit that gayness is an integral part of the human condition.

[Teh Don Ditty]

I'm in agreement with Ugg. I have no problem with them doing research and advancing the science behind, but once somebody tries to create a "cure" for gayness it's over the line.

I figure they (scientists) got better things to cure than teh gay™. You know, cancer, heart disease, AIDS all that fun stuff.

[carbonmotion]

Well, it's not merely a matter of the author's opinion but of the increasing number of characteristics that have been found through fairly rigorous scientific study. Also, you'll well note the studies that are in the works. So, before you prejudge this, you'd do well to sit back and see what other research has to say.

To think that you know or the author of the paper you've linked to knows the basis for "gayness" is sort of ambitious, don't you think?

The majority of gay men knew they were somehow different long before they had an inkling of their sexuality. I didn't become gay, I was born that way.

All you have to do is read the stats on first born, second born and third plus born. That alone makes it pretty clear that there is some biological reason for gayness. Did you simply ignore that?

Lee,

I don't think it's a cause for worry, I think it's good to know why we are the way we are and what causes sexual attraction. Trying to stop scientific endeavor is simply unhealthy for society. Hopefully the research will never be able to come up with a so called cure and society will have to admit that gayness is an integral part of the human condition.
yo you need to read what i just wrote, because you misread it entirely. i'm not gay so i don't know what it's like... i have close family that is tho, so i can emphasize with some of the social challenges of being gay in america. i said i don't know, im not sure how i feel about it, but i find the article to be interesting. im not sure how you're construing that to mean an argument when clearly no argument is being made as this is a subject where i have zero expertise.

[solvs]

I hope they never find out what makes us. That would be scary. Can you imagine all the in utero gene "therapy"? We could become extinct.
By the time they figure it out, if they figure it out, it won't matter. Sure, there might still be some residual debate amongst the same types of people who continue to argue such things about other races. But it will be kept to the underground and backwoods mostly. Homosexuality is already fairly mainstream, and things will only progress from there.

Besides, genetics is a lot more complicated than this, and nature even more so, even if everyone were to be administered a "cure", if one is even possible or viable, for that to be the end all.

You know, cancer, heart disease, AIDS all that fun stuff.
Much more profitable to have "treatments" for those and focus on the even more profitable cures for baldness and impotence.

Warning, may cause priaprism.

[killerrobot]

Has anyone seen the movie GATTACA? (http://imdb.com/title/tt0119177/). This all scares the ***** out of me that science is going to be able to control every aspect / characteristic / sickness (I mean Cancer, not sexual orientation) of a person. We're basically going to be born and know exactly how and when we'll die (assuming they've invented times machines by then as well of course):)

[leekohler]

Lee,

I don't think it's a cause for worry, I think it's good to know why we are the way we are and what causes sexual attraction. Trying to stop scientific endeavor is simply unhealthy for society. Hopefully the research will never be able to come up with a so called cure and society will have to admit that gayness is an integral part of the human condition.

I didn't say I was trying to stop it, just that it freaks me out a lot.

I'm not as sure as the article's author that gay people are gay purely because of genetics. I remember in college, I took a psychology class that provided some pretty convincing evidence otherwise. I guess it could be to varying degrees a mixed bag of genetic and environmental/ sociological factors. I remember reading a journal article for that class that theorized that humans are capable of bisexuality, its social pressures that repress one desire and reinforces another. I'm not sure how much i buy in to that... but lemme find a link ....ah here it is (http://pep-web.org/document.php?id=sgs.002.0179a)

You must have missed part of the article. The author mentions environmental causes as well. As a matter of fact, he mentions several different possible causes.

[Don't panic]

yo you need to read what i just wrote, because you misread it entirely. i'm not gay so i don't know what it's like... i have close family that is tho, so i can emphasize with some of the social challenges of being gay in america. i said i don't know, im not sure how i feel about it, but i find the article to be interesting. im not sure how you're construing that to mean an argument when clearly no argument is being made as this is a subject where i have zero expertise.

carbonmotion, i hate to be the grammar police, but i've noticed you frequently use the word emphasize in your posts.
it's a nice word, but you're looking for empathize.
empathize= to feel empathy, understanding and sharing someone else's feelings
emphasize= to place emphasis on, to stress or point out
sorry for the OT

[Macnoviz]

Well, let's hope this research can prove being gay is not a choice (obviously), but not come down to 1 gene, rather some complex system of biology, genetics, environment and sociolgy. That would even perhaps stop some ex-gay movements, rather than give them an actual (as opposed to fictional) method of "curing" gayness.

P.S. this is the best case scenario, other ones are possible:(

[noaccess]

Referring to the issue of in utero methods of altering sexual orientation, and this may be somewhat naive, I'd hope acceptance (referring mainly to developed secular states) will preceed the advent of actual gene 'therapy' or hormone patches, which seems pretty reasonable. Point is, If most people understand that having a gay child is no problem, they won't be as biased and maybe not care enough to tinker with their kid's body. If need be, in order to make people more tolerant, there are 12 HIV vaccine projects under way right now (and we know how much people still link AIDS to us gay people), out of which one (Merck) is so successful, they're confident they'll have it released within the following years, and last time I checked they were still on schedule. I'll post a link when I find it.

With widespread acceptance, legislation might change towards good, but as unstable as things are right now and with the divided opinions... Still, I guess there's hope for the future.

EDIT: Wasn't exactly accurate on the so successful part, but
List of projects, including the Merck one (http://chi.ucsf.edu/vaccines/vaccines?page=vc-03-00)
Article (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=73541)

[Queso]

I still don't think it is genetic. All foetuses start off female, roughly half change over to male. I think there's something in that process that influences sexuality, but it's something going on with either the mother or the environment in the womb at the time of change that is the influencing factor.

I can't back any of that up of course. It is just a theory I wanted to share.

Anyway......

Gaydar is often so subtle nobody but gay people can pick up on it. It's that quarter of a second extra in eye-to-eye contact, or that slightly quizzical look you can read when they're talking to you. The only reason we notice it in others is we know we're doing it ourselves. It's far more complicated than the way you speak or do your hair.

[noaccess]

I still don't think it is genetic. All foetuses start off female, roughly half change over to male. I think there's something in that process that influences sexuality, but it's something going on with either the mother or the environment in the womb at the time of change that is the influencing factor.

I can't back any of that up of course. It is just a theory I wanted to share.
In the article, the author also considered the possibility of developing hormone patches that the mother could use during pregnancy to influence the baby's sexual orientation, as opposed to the much more complex (and hypothetical for now) genetic modification techniques.

I guess you're right and that the purely genetic approach is more improbable compared to the in utero environment or actual early life environment.

Anyway......

Gaydar is often so subtle nobody but gay people can pick up on it. It's that quarter of a second extra in eye-to-eye contact, or that slightly quizzical look you can read when they're talking to you. The only reason we notice it in others is we know we're doing it ourselves. It's far more complicated than the way you speak or do your hair.
I haven't had the opportunity to compare how I perceive people around me against others when it comes to gaydar, but this sounds about right. Whew... Just a thought.


And... right now I'm sorry I don't have the opportunity to subscribe to this mag since I'm in Germany. The article is perfect, and I fit every criterion, apart from being ambidextrous. What's the name of the author again?

[Don't panic]

I still don't think it is genetic. All foetuses start off female, roughly half change over to male. I think there's something in that process that influences sexuality, but it's something going on with either the mother or the environment in the womb at the time of change that is the influencing factor.


?????
excuse my french, but where did you pull this crap from?
ever heard about the Y chromosome?

one thing is arguing for a point of view/theory, an entirely different matter is passing utter nonsense as something with any scientific base.

[mactastic]

Gaydar is often so subtle nobody but gay people can pick up on it.
And other times it screams "Homo at 12 O'clock!" to anyone within a 5 mile radius! :p

[Macnoviz]

?????
excuse my french, but where did you pull this crap from?
ever heard about the Y chromosome?

one thing is arguing for a point of view/theory, an entirely different matter is passing utter nonsense as something with any scientific base.

I think he tries to say that the foetuses only develop gender-specific "parts" after some time. This is a scientific fact. That's also one of the reasons men have nipples (although reason is perhaps not the best word).

But of course the foetus itself is male or female from the conception. (or hermaphrodite, but that's another story)

[-::ubermann::-]

If they find what causes gayness i would get it, i wish i were gay

[leekohler]

If they find what causes gayness i would get it, i wish i were gay

Why is that? I don't know why you'd wish for that.

[atszyman]

I hope they never find out what makes us. That would be scary. Can you imagine all the in utero gene "therapy"? We could become extinct.

I don't know, if such a "cure" were to become available I'd love to be able to go up to some of the fundamentalists who are pushing or taking the drug and ask them point blank, "You're using science to alter the baby God gave you?" Just to see if they can somehow reconcile their use of something from the Godless evolutionists to alter the baby God saw fit to bless them with... oh the irony.

[noaccess]

I think he tries to say that the foetuses only develop gender-specific "parts" after some time. This is a scientific fact. That's also one of the reasons men have nipples (although reason is perhaps not the best word).

But of course the foetus itself is male or female from the conception. (or hermaphrodite, but that's another story)
Ditto. Don't panic, maybe it would be better if you did your homework next time. Just a suggestion.

[-::ubermann::-]

Why is that? I don't know why you'd wish for that.
as i am not good with women i tried with men with success
problem is that im not gay :(

[Don't panic]

I think he tries to say that the foetuses only develop gender-specific "parts" after some time. This is a scientific fact. That's also one of the reasons men have nipples (although reason is perhaps not the best word).

But of course the foetus itself is male or female from the conception. (or hermaphrodite, but that's another story)

then maybe he shouldn't say something that isn't even remotely related to what he 'means', and present it as a scientific fact?

in males, testes form around the 6-7th week, directed by genes in the Y chromosome. When the Y chromosome is absent, ovaries form.
testes secrete testosterone, which is the main (not only) determinant of sexual phenotype in humans.

edit:
Ditto. Don't panic, maybe it would be better if you did your homework next time. Just a suggestion.
i think i know foetal development pretty well, thank you, but maybe i'll take a refresher.
meanwhile i'd suggest you start with some elementary school text and move upward at whatever pace you find convenient.

[Macnoviz]

I don't know, if such a "cure" were to become available I'd love to be able to go up to some of the fundamentalists who are pushing or taking the drug and ask them point blank, "You're using science to alter the baby God gave you?" Just to see if they can somehow reconcile their use of something from the Godless evolutionists to alter the baby God saw fit to bless them with... oh the irony.

That would be cool, and I'd love to see them in that situation, but you're forgetting that in their little world, fundamentalists think they are absolutely right, and in a matter of seconds they'd come up with some mangled, out-of-context bible verse that "proves" their right. I have faced a lot of religious people, and some of them are so full of it you can't actually discuss something, even if you're right, they would find something to stop the discussion, like saying it's wrong to judge them on that (as if they care about judging someone for being born gay) or that you can't understand it (as if they understand what's it like to be gay).
If there's one thing I learned as a seminarian, it's that whereever there's a fundamentalist, there's a way he proves himself right *sigh*

[atszyman]

That would be cool, and I'd love to see them in that situation, but you're forgetting that in their little world, fundamentalists think they are absolutely right, and in a matter of seconds they'd come up with some mangled, out-of-context bible verse that "proves" their right. I have faced a lot of religious people, and some of them are so full of it you can't actually discuss something, even if you're right, they would find something to stop the discussion, like saying it's wrong to judge them on that (as if they care about judging someone for being born gay) or that you can't understand it (as if they understand what's it like to be gay).
If there's one thing I learned as a seminarian, it's that whereever there's a fundamentalist, there's a way he proves himself right *sigh*

I know, but it's fun to watch them squirm, if only for a second.

[LethalWolfe]

I hope they never find out what makes us. That would be scary. Can you imagine all the in utero gene "therapy"? We could become extinct.
Hey, don't bogart the fear, man. If genetic manipulate of the pre-born comes to pass it's not just the gays that are gonna get f'cked with.


I don't know, if such a "cure" were to become available I'd love to be able to go up to some of the fundamentalists who are pushing or taking the drug and ask them point blank, "You're using science to alter the baby God gave you?"
All they'll say is that they are using the information provided by God to save people from leading a life of sin and going to hell.

Just look at the Terri Schiavo situation. The Christian Right was up in arms about it being God's will that she lives, but when the man made machines were turned off she done well died. I guess God decided she'd lived long enough at pretty much the same time the plug got pulled. Nifty coincidence don't you think...:rolleyes:

There's no reasoning w/self-serving, egotistical hypocrites.


Lethal

[atszyman]

HAll they'll say is that they are using the information provided by God to save people from leading a life of sin and going to hell.

At which point you ask them, "in the absence of the cure, is it wrong to abort a gay fetus?"...

I think my goal at that point in life would be trying to make the fundamentalist's heads explode... somehow I think all the irony would be lost on them... might make a fun reality show...

"An engineer and a fundamentalist locked in a tiny house for days..."

[Macnoviz]

At which point you ask them, "in the absence of the cure, is it wrong to abort a gay fetus?"...

I think my goal at that point in life would be trying to make the fundamentalist's heads explode... somehow I think all the irony would be lost on them... might make a fun reality show...

"An engineer and a fundamentalist locked in a tiny house for days..."

I think it's fun enough to see them doubt, if only for a few moments. I tried it this afternoon on someone with some more conservative thoughts (not the grade of fundamentalism you find in America, but enough to have an argument with). Me and my friend pointed out the flaw in church law, where the reason for homosexuality being a sin, is that it's not furtile, which is the basic reason for having sex. At least, that was how he sees it, actually catholicism also sees sex as something to be enjoyed within the boundaries of marriage. This is where the flaw is: if sex is just about reproduction, it shouldn't be allowed while the woman is not ovulating, or pregnant. If it's also about love, it should also be allowed as love between 2 men or 2 women.
He remained silent for a long time, and concluded there was a problem.
at least that's something

EDIT: yes, I may not agree with the churches sexual moral, I do agree with most of the other views and I am still a seminarian, so I could soon be available in a catholic church near you (if you live in Belgium)

[Queso]

then maybe he shouldn't say something that isn't even remotely related to what he 'means', and present it as a scientific fact?
OK, let's just post what I mean to avoid confusion. Now I'll confess I'm not a geneticist, so the language I use on this subject is probably laughably basic and I'll be the first to admit that others here will have greater knowledge. But here goes.....

At first, whatever the chromosomes the father's sperm has fertilised the egg with, the foetus starts off with a female appearance. At this time, prior to the development of testes, the foetus has not yet received that kick of testosterone that will turn it into a male child, even though its eventual sex has been already chosen. It is in all sense and purposes developing in a female direction until those tiny proto-gonads start producing the necessary. Although I'm not sure of the mechanisms, I think that if testosterone levels in a XX foetus are present at this stage, there is a stronger chance that the resulting baby girl will grow up as a lesbian. If they are lower than usual or the testosterone production begins late in the XY foetus, there is a greater chance the child will grow up gay. Extremely abnormal levels in either direction can also lead to later transgender identification.

It's not exact, and without a medical background I could just be pulling nonsense out of my arse, but that's where I'm coming from. If you can prove it wrong I will gladly amend my thinking.

[Macnoviz]

by the way, has anyone read the ads around this thread?

talking about serious flaws in the system...

[leekohler]

as i am not good with women i tried with men with success
problem is that im not gay :(

So- you were successful with men, but it just wasn't your deal, right? I was a little confused.

But in any case, don't worry. You sound young, the ladies will take notice at some point.

[aquajet]

i tried with men with success
problem is that im not gay :(

Don't worry...the right guy will come around soon enough and change everything. ;)

[Don't panic]

OK, let's just post what I mean to avoid confusion. ...

OK, now we are getting closer, except the early stages are not 'female' but rather 'non-gender'.
If the fetus is genetically male (meaning it has an X and Y chromosomes, rather than two X) a molecular cascade is triggered that leads to the development of the initially bipotential gonad into testis (mostly through the action of a Y-linked gene called SRY). In absence of the Y chromosome, the bipotential gonad will develop into an ovary.
the type of gonad developed (and the resulting hormonal balance) determines most of the subsequent events that eventually lead to sex determination and characteristics.
So the determination of the gonad type (testis vs. ovary) IS entirely genetic, and genetics are the major deteminants of secondary sexual characteristics, including sexual orientations (which is why the vast majority of people are "straight" -~90%-).
That said, the situation is indeed more complex and a lot of factors, genetic, epigenetic and environmental, contribute to the final 'sexual make-up'. Some are well-established, some are controversial, and the relative abundance on testosterone during development certainly plays an important role.

but it is a far far cry from the idea that everyone starts off as female and than about half of the people becomes male, for misterious reasons that do not include their genes:

I still don't think it is genetic. All foetuses start off female, roughly half change over to male. I think there's something in that process that influences sexuality, but it's something going on with either the mother or the environment in the womb at the time of change that is the influencing factor.

[skunk]

I could just be pulling nonsense out of my arse, but that's where I'm coming fromNice image.

[Queso]

Nice image.
Hehe. And if that doesn't count as gaydar I don't know what does :D

[solvs]

Why is that? I don't know why you'd wish for that.
Woman are crazy? :p At least in my experience. If I were gay, at least I know I wouldn't be falling for any more lesbians again either.

I could just be pulling nonsense out of my arse, but that's where I'm coming from
That's what he said.

Badumpbump.

[leekohler]

Woman are crazy? :p At least in my experience. If I were gay, at least I know I wouldn't be falling for any more lesbians again either.

Well.....now be careful! :)

I guess their are some advantages. I've had a few female roommates. That "time of the month" was tough to deal with. Everything would be my fault no matter what. I usually avoided being at home during that. No offense ladies, but try not to throw things at me for no reason when you don't feel good. :) And believe me, I get it. If I had to deal with that, I'd be angry too.