I always come back to the thought. Is it genetic or a choice that I like chocolate. I dont recall making the choice to like chocolate. I just always have. I mean . . . I HAVE TO EAT but what I eat. . . is that a choice or a genetic predisposition. Rocket River In the end . . it is an academic argument . . . one that means nothing.
I'm not sure what it is determined by. Could be nature (entire species hardwired), could be nurture (environment and life experiences), could be choice (concious decision to be hetero or homosexual), could be hereditary (parents pass it on, but not entire species predisposed). Or it could be any combination of those. But it is an assumption to say that our reproduction process determines how our entire species is innately heterosexual.
I disagree. It is a very important question (at least as it relates to our culture... I personally couldn't care less and it wouldn't affect my thinking about gay vs. straight no matter the answer), and science is going to figure this out soon. Make no mistake, it means a lot to many people.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm arguing solely from a scientific standpoint because no one really knows for sure what determines sexuality. While I do agree that culture does influence a person's attraction towards another, that does not change the fact that reproduction can only be achieved through heterosexual behavior.
Like I said, being disposed towards anything or being innately anything doesn't mean it's 100% going to happen that way. But I see our discussing is about to go in circles, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Like I said, unless you can prove that ALL people are predisposed to being heterosexual, you can't prove then that homosexuality is a choice. So having a "tendancy" toward being hetero really proves nothing, even if that were the case.
I don't think it will ever be demonstrated to be explicitly genetic. I think it's just something that's conditioned in ways that aren't traceable or recognizable, like all other attractions.
There are little structures in the brain, where if I give a baby girl testosterone at just the right time, I can make her love girls, and withhold it from boys and make them attracted to boys. There are certain behavioral associative cues which aren't intrinsic but become hardwired (like a shoe fetish, for instance) by association with the core cues. But the most basic foundation attraction doesn't work by association. If you take a 100% developmentally normal hetero boy, deprive him of women for his entire life, and then at about 15 years old show him a hot, unclothed woman giving him mating cues (hair flip, preening behavior, arched back, etc), you don't have to explain to him that that is where he wants to put his penis. When he sees her, he knows and he can't make himself not want to. This works on the same level that lets male dogs know to mount female dogs who are in heat. People desperately want to believe that they aren't mechanistic and reflexive like that, but they are. Homosexual cues are just as locked in.
The time in question is before birth, right after the same hormones actually determine whether you grow a penis or a vagina. While we're at it, you can give a little boy a vagina with the proper withholding of testosterone, though why you'd do that on purpose, I don't know. IIRC, all this occurs during the second trimester. Since the case you speak of involves a post birth/post developmental attempt, it doesn't really apply. The brain structures involved in gender sexual attraction had already been built and finalized. In fact, the case you site is a pretty good one for proving that sexual attraction gets locked in very early and doesn't change on a whim.
Why does it mean alot? If you have a definate answer one way or another . . . What would this knowledge be used for? For what purpose? I don't think it should matter one way or the other. That said. Evolutionary speaking . . . from what I understand of it. . . Adaptations/evolving action would be toward the survival of the species. Something that would help the species survive and continue. Hardwiring a person for an action that could not bare children would seem to run counter to that, would it not? Rocket River
Wow, a true lesson on genetics and logic in one short post. Question 1: are most people who, you know, actually work in genetics stupid? Why do the vast majority of them consider homosexuality a biological setting and not a choice? Question 2: if they haven't located a "stupid" gene, does it mean that all stupid people choose to be stupid? I'm down with that, if you say it's true. Would simplify a lot of my conflicted feelings of anger versus pity around here.
I don't understand how people are saying that being transgendered is a choice. If anything this is more muddled than the question of sexuality being a choice. There are several different categories of people that fall into the transgender spectrum. Maybe you are thinking of transsexuals, some of whom choose to undergo sex reassignment surgery? Anyways, given the scientific evidence available and my own personal experience as a bisexual female, I believe that sexuality is mainly genetic. If I could choose to just be attracted to males, my life would definitely be easier. Also, the word preference does not necessarily equal a conscious choice. You can have genetically predisposed preferences.
There has also not been a study that proves male attraction to female. Until such a study exists people are just choosing to be straight. That's a choice that's fine by most homosexuals but the hell outta here with the whole people are born straight crap.
