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

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Teh Don Ditty, Jun 19, 2007.

  1. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #1
  2. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
  3. Teh Don Ditty thread starter macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    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.
     
  5. Teh Don Ditty thread starter macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #5
    That was touched upon in the article. And that's exactly what would happen.
     
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    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?
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    OK- well, I feel a little better now. But not much.
     
  8. Teh Don Ditty thread starter macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #8
    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.
     
  9. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #9
    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)
     
  10. Teh Don Ditty thread starter macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #10
    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.
     
  11. carbonmotion macrumors 6502a

    carbonmotion

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #11
    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
     
  12. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #12
    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.
     
  13. Teh Don Ditty thread starter macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #13
    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.
     
  14. carbonmotion macrumors 6502a

    carbonmotion

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #14
    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.
     
  15. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #15
    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.

    Much more profitable to have "treatments" for those and focus on the even more profitable cures for baldness and impotence.

    Warning, may cause priaprism.
     
  16. killerrobot macrumors 68020

    killerrobot

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #16
    Has anyone seen the movie GATTACA?. 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):)
     
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    I didn't say I was trying to stop it, just that it freaks me out a lot.

    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.
     
  18. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #18
    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
     
  19. Macnoviz macrumors 65816

    Macnoviz

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Roeselare, Belgium
    #19
    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:(
     
  20. noaccess macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    #20
    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
    Article
     
  21. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #21
    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.
     
  22. noaccess macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    #22
    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.

    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?
     
  23. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #23
    ?????
    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.
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    And other times it screams "Homo at 12 O'clock!" to anyone within a 5 mile radius! :p
     
  25. Macnoviz macrumors 65816

    Macnoviz

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Roeselare, Belgium
    #25
    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)
     

Share This Page