LGBTitp - Part Seven

[Coidzor]

So... Bees. How to find out more about the possibilities of trained bees for this sorta thing.

And then from there to go to something more quantifiable than number of bees that pick up on it to dance about it.

[Drolyt]

Do not trust the cannibal just because he is using a knife and fork.

In other news, found an article about Gaydar.

The thing from Yu-Gi-Oh abridged? (IN AMERICA!)

[Jokasti]

It's Independence Day (In America!). You cannot have watched YGOTAS (In America!) and not say "In America!" after everything today (In America!).
Complementary American bandanas (Made in America!) free at any American store (In America!).

[Superglucose]

In other news, found an article about Gaydar.

What surprises me is that it's possible to determine someone's orientation based on their odor. It makes me all the more curious about the mechanisms that determine our sexual preferences. But that's the hard-core science geek in me flipping out about things that are just so cool.

I'm not surprised that people preferred the odor of their preferred gender; however, because this mirrors something I've noticed just as anecdotal evidence: my girlfriend (whenever I have one) likes the way I smell and keeps a sweatshirt around so she can smell me. I like the way she smells, even when she's complaining about how she stinks. So I figured that it was something along those lines: straight girls like the smell of guys and straight guys like the smell of girls, etc. etc.

Interesting that it's backed up with research.

(Normally I don't pop into these kinds of threads but that research was just so interesting I had to comment.)

[Serpentine]

There's lots of evidence that odour is related to attraction. It seems to be related to genetic difference - you think people who are more different to you smell better. Interestingly, the Pill screws it up.

[Drolyt]

It's Independence Day (In America!). You cannot have watched YGOTAS (In America!) and not say "In America!" after everything today (In America!).
Complementary American bandanas (Made in America!) free at any American store (In America!).

But unlike Bandit Keith (in America!) I'm not a Canadian (in America!) that just wishes he was an American (and a main character) IN AMERICA!

[Lioness]

There's lots of evidence that odour is related to attraction.

Yeah...BF smells lovely.

[Jacklu]

Hmmm... I guess I can understand your view on that one, Coidz, but understand, put yourself in my shoes. My genes might be mine, but they are so very very wrong and broken already. Stupid deformed X. =I Looks all withered -> y On a purely Pros and Cons level, the chance of higher disease rate is so vastly outweighed by the thought of feeling right in my body and being able to function the way I feel like I should be able to, IE: I want get pregnant! >.< Anyways... I guess it is just a matter of differing personal experience. Just like I can't truly understand how, say, a FtM feels about their body (crazy crazy people! Why would you ever want to be a guy???? DX ... *coughcough*), I don't really expect you to understand how I feel about being a MtF individual. Just like I can't understand what it is like to be you. ... *note to self, discover POV gun; bring about world peace*

[Rappy]

The idea of "gaydar" as a pheremone-sensing capability doesn't really surprise me. Personally, I can smell things better than I can hear things, and I tend to sniff things when I enter a place I haven't been before, often subconsciously.

...Sadly, this makes people think I'm weird(er).

Also, Serp, I love the Rainbow Snake avatar.

[Drolyt]

I suppose I do like the smell of girls I find attractive, oddly enough even if they are all smelly from sports or something it still smells good, but it seems to me this is only any good for me determining who I'm attracted to, I don't think it would tell me whether the other person is straight or gay. I mean, I'm fairly sure I would still like the smell of a hot lesbian. Or am I misunderstanding what this gaydar thing is supposed to do?

[Superglucose]

The point of the research is that we give pheromone based off of a) our gender and b) our orientation, and that some people are more able to read these pheromones than others.

[Drolyt]

The point of the research is that we give pheromone based off of a) our gender and b) our orientation, and that some people are more able to read these pheromones than others.

If we give off different pheromones based on our orientation my best guess would be that our subconscious probably controls our pheromones and tries to release the right ones to attract the people we want to attract. I'll bet money we create more pheromones when we are turned on and I wouldn't be surprised if our subconscious tries to manufacture certain pheromones based on what it thinks other people want. Any research on specification of pheromones based on who we are trying to attract?

[Eloi]

If we give off different pheromones based on our orientation my best guess would be that our subconscious probably controls our pheromones and tries to release the right ones to attract the people we want to attract. I'll bet money we create more pheromones when we are turned on and I wouldn't be surprised if our subconscious tries to manufacture certain pheromones based on what it thinks other people want. Any research on specification of pheromones based on who we are trying to attract?

I highly doubt something as subject to change and fluidity as sexual orientation based upon something that is as fluid as gender (tho' biological sex significantly less so), can control something as rigid as pheromone emission. My theory is that pheromones attract everything sexually, and aren't defined by gender or sex.

It's Independence Day (In America!). You cannot have watched YGOTAS (In America!) and not say "In America!" after everything today (In America!).
Complementary American bandanas (Made in America!) free at any American store (In America!).

You Americans, ugh. We call that "Washington's Rebellion Against The Sensible United Kingdom Government Day" in the United Kingdom if we are arsed to remember it.

There's lots of evidence that odour is related to attraction.

Hm. *sniffs girlfriend* Conclusive field studies has proven that correct.

[Drolyt]

I highly doubt something as subject to change and fluidity as sexual orientation based upon something that is as fluid as gender (tho' biological sex significantly less so), can control something as rigid as pheromone emission. My theory is that pheromones attract everything sexually, and aren't defined by gender or sex.

Nothing the body does is rigid, there are all kinds of systems dedicated to regulation of things that you really would hope don't vary that much, like breathing and heart beat. It is not at all unlikely that our state of mind affects the production of certain hormones which in turn control which pheromones are created in what concentrations and how often they are released.

[Superglucose]

I highly doubt something as subject to change and fluidity as sexual orientation based upon something that is as fluid as gender (tho' biological sex significantly less so), can control something as rigid as pheromone emission. My theory is that pheromones attract everything sexually, and aren't defined by gender or sex.

Actually, depending on how it's defined, gender is more rigid than any chemical generation by the human body.

Frankly it all bears study, but I don't want to round up 100 homosexuals, 100 transsexuals, and 100 heterosexuals of both genders (and in the case of transsexuals, we're going to go with grouping by chromosomes just because I have to pick an arbitrary point to begin) and subject them through DNA analysis, pheromone analysis, and a bunch of other tests (to be determined by someone with a PHD in biology) trying to dig it all out.

Mostly because people get a bit titchy when you say "I'd love to run tests on you to see why you are the way you are!"

Which is really too bad, because if we can unlock the mechanisms behind arousal and sexuality we'll be several dozens of steps closer to figuring out why the human body works the way it does. And we'd have conclusive evidence regarding whether or not orientation is a choice! Not that it'd stop the debate, of course (people is dumb yo), but still.

Of course we'd get through all of this and find out that it's about gene expression and then it sails waaaay over everyone's head and we have to start over only this time doing twinsets of children who are born genetically identical but have different orientations.

Is it bad that right now I wish I had the technical knowledge to actually run all these tests? Humans are fascinating!

[Serpentine]

Superglucose, I urge you to do a Google Scholar search. There's heaps and heaps and heaps of studies on this sort of thing - on beauty, on sexuality, on pheromones (which I think the existance of in humans has been called into doubt), on smell (which is separate to pheromones), on body shape, on attraction...
For starters, you might like to look for the smell test. They got a bunch of people to wear t-shirts for a week. Then they took the shirts and got another bunch of people (other sex, no homosexual test that I'm aware of unfortunately) to rate them by smell. The higher the rating, the more genetic difference.

To get you started.
Same thing with "homosexual" in the search.

I <3 Google Scholar so much.

[Superglucose]

I've searched. I've found nothing interesting at all. It's slightly disheartening... but most of the questions I have are completely unanswered.

[Serpentine]

What question, specifically?

edit: The paper the original link was about.

Another interesting one: "Using a brain imaging technique, Swedish researchers have shown that homosexual and heterosexual men respond differently to two odors that may be involved in sexual arousal, and that the gay men respond in the same way as women."

[Superglucose]

To clarify right now: I do not think homosexuality is some kind of disease. I don't think it's a mental problem or condition or whatever. I have no problem with homosexual people (or bisexual or transgender or pansexual or whatever sexuality you ascribe to yourself). Your life, your choice. It may not be my choice, but it's certainly no better nor no worse than my choice.

Most of the stuff I've found on sexuality are historical analysis of trends in how people of different orientations were treated (to me? yawn) or are psychological profile studies (again, yawn).

I'm more interested in how gene expression effects sexuality than how culture might affect sexuality.

The second link is closer but it still doesn't unravel the truth. I mean what it says to me is that gay men are attracted to men and gay women are attracted to women. But as has been said before, brain chemistry is largely fluid. We know this is the case or people wouldn't have intermittent periods of depression. Finding out that there is an actual biological difference between people who are gay and who aren't isn't the same as finding the mechanism that causes that difference, if you understand my meaning.

Well, actually, this here pretty much sums up my position on that article (which is good, don't get me wrong!)

Spoiler

Show

The different pattern of activity that Dr. Savic sees in the brains of gay men could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. If sexual orientation has a genetic cause, or is influenced by hormones in the womb or at puberty, then the neurons in the hypothalamus could wire themselves up in a way that permanently shapes which sex a person is attracted to

I've seen fairly compelling arguments for sexuality being based on both nature and nurture, as it were, and frankly to me the best explanation so far is "a little from column A, a little from column B." But I'd like to know for sure.

Part of the curiosity, at least for me, is that homosexuality seems to be an evolutionary disadvantage. Which of course opens all sorts of new questions, especially considering that it was typical in ancient Greece to be bisexual. So if you'll pardon the wording here for a moment since I'm just trying to describe what is a VERY touchy subject as best I can; perhaps it isn't the heterosexuals who are "normal" but the bisexuals. To be very honest, considering that sex is (at least supposed to be) a very enjoyable activity it strikes me as normal that humans wouldn't be all too fussed who they share it with. After all, I enjoy football and I don't care if the person I'm playing with is a chick or a dude. And yet we're very picky about who we share it with.

And it all wraps up in these absurd observations I make based on society, and then the questions of what society and our culture put on us (which is fairly sizeable and accounts for the vast majority of our behavior). Which of course brings me back to my original desire:

Compelling evidence of what it is in our brains in terms of the genes (or gene expression) that drives sexuality.

Mostly because discerning what society does or doesn't cause is almost impossible to do from a scientific standpoint. I mean seriously, isolating a child from society is not only torture under the Geneva Conventions (solitary confinement, etc.) but virtually impossible to do. And computer simulations aren't worth crap because a simulation is by definition based on our assumptions... and we know nothing so far, because it's impossible for us to test for things outside of society!

And yes, I'm very, VERY aware that a lot of these arguments are used by *******s who like to dump on the LGBT community. You'll just have to take my word that I'm not one of them or flame me mercilessly. I really am just this naturally curious about the way humans work. I remember the first time I talked to a transgendered person. She asked if I had any questions and I said, "No... well... none that you could answer." She said "try me" and I started asking many of these same questions. What in the genetic code, if anything, is causing this? Is it epigenetic expression? If so, is there a particular series of events in your childhood (exposure to chemicals, way you were raised... epigenetics can be triggered by anything really) that lead up to it? What, fundamentally, causes transgenderism?

So I'll step out of this thread now (I'm usually not too welcome here) so you can get back to... well whatever you guys normally talk about. People usually get upset when I talk like this, claim it's dehumanizing or whatever. I'm not sure how it's dehumanizing that I want to study humans to see what makes me tick... but then again I am wired differently from everyone (as are you, and you, and etc. etc.) so who knows? All the same, and each deliciously unique.

[Serpentine]

Are you thinking of the biological causes of homosexuality (which I happen to have links on handy), or the biological effects of homosexuality (which I have only just had brought to my attention)?

[Superglucose]

Do you have conclusive biological causes of homosexuality? If yes then PLEASE LINK!

[Serpentine]

Conclusive? In science?

*snrk*
*snort*
*ha*
*haha*
*AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*
*sniff* >wipes tear from eye<

Here's what I've used in arguments recently:

A paper on the genetics of homosexuality
Evidence on the effect of birth-order (aka non-genetic pre-birth biological causes) on homosexuality:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/mt0r1667527314x5/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10051890
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...3871576&db=all
Theories on evolutionary advantages of homosexuality:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...4831825&db=all
http://www.springerlink.com/content/mt0r1667527314x5/
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/ar...363-8/abstract
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a713630022

I'll have a quick look for other stuff. Birth order seems to be a/the major one, though.

[Superglucose]

Conclusive? In science?

*snrk*
*snort*
*ha*
*haha*
*AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*
*sniff* >wipes tear from eye<

Hi. Physicist here. I'm fairly sure you're experiencing gravity right now? And feel the chair on your bum? Yeah that's electromagnetic forces of repulsion from the valence electrons in your bum and the electrons in the chair.

So yeah, science can get pretty conclusive.

Still I'll take a look at your links.

Ugh. The first two were painful and I hope the rest are better. The first explores sexuality in insects, which biologically are pretty damn far from humans. Most specifically, as said in the article, there is serious doubt as to whether or not these butterflies even have hormones, which are pretty much the cause of everything sexual in humans.

As for the second, it accounts for (possible) variances in terms of what personality traits a man is attracted to (and attracts, for that matter) and suggest that a similar effect happens in lesbians. I suppose it's ok to claim that homosexuality in males is "probably a by-product" of a system designed to limit "unproductive competition" except that no such competition exists on the female end. A man can reliably fertilize at least one unique female per day so I guess he would need to demonstrate a little more how there would be unproductive competition amongst the females.

But in any case it doesn't explain in depth the mechanisms of homosexuality, but rather implies that birth order matters in cases of...

you know what? It's not important. I don't want to clutter up this thread by discussing (any more) the concerns I have with the rigor of research being done on biological causes of homosexuality I try not to have arguments about whether or not homosexuality exists because I try not to get into arguments about whether or not the earth is round: flat-earthers can actually make an eloquent and logical point, but who cares?

"A million people can call the mountains a fiction, yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them" -- Randall Monroe

I'll discuss my curiosity on this matter elsewhere. Sorry to temporarily hijack your thread! I love you all! Ciao!

[Serpentine]

Oh yes? And what is gravity? Explain the origin of the universe and quantum mechanics, please? But if you must insist, replace "science" with "biology and up".

Some more stuff:
Homosexuality and biology.
Is Homosexuality Biologically Influenced?
A "natural history" of homosexuality.
"Female homosexuality appears to be familial"
Gay alleles make nicer men.
A book about evolution and homosexuality.
Family members of gay people have more kids or something.

<3 Google Scholar. So much.

edit: That first lot of papers I found in a hurry. Guess I should look into them properly first. These ones look better, I think.

[Anethiel]

Hi. Physicist here. I'm fairly sure you're experiencing gravity right now? And feel the chair on your bum? Yeah that's electromagnetic forces of repulsion from the valence electrons in your bum and the electrons in the chair.

So yeah, science can get pretty conclusive.

Well, we can make experiments to verify a theory such as gravity or electron repulsion. Ethics limit us (and thus, the conclusiveness we can reach) a little bit more when it comes to human beings.

[Murdim]

Well, we can make experiments to verify a theory such as gravity or electron repulsion. Ethics limit us (and thus, the conclusiveness we can reach) a little bit more when it comes to human beings.

That goes waaaay beyond that. For one thing, saying that an objective criterion is linked to a subjective trait (or that a subjective trait is universal or universally inexistant, or that two subjective traits are intrinsically linked) is basically an unfalsifiable affirmation. If someone affirms being straight despite having the gay hormone/gene/pheromone/EEG/lisp/whatever, you can just dismiss him as a closet case at best, a liar at worst.

J. M. Bailey can say that every transwoman is either an extreme case of homosexuality (whatever that means) or a fetishist who is just turned on by the idea of being a woman, or that male bisexuality does not exist. Even if you are a counterexample yourself, you can't prove him wrong since you can't prove your subjective experiences. In the end, this is your voice, your words against those of Science™.

I'm not saying that social sciences are useless or fundamentally wrong. I'm just saying that we should never, ever take them at face value. But again, I've already ranted more than enough on that subject, and it already frustrated me to no end.

... and here I am again, only posting to throw rants. That's pretty depressing. Well, at least this one won't be sanctioned as flaming. I hope.

[Anethiel]

*snip*

... and here I am again, only posting to throw rants. That's pretty depressing. Well, at least this one won't be sanctioned as flaming. I hope.

I agree with your position; my comment was mostly a tongue-in-cheek one. I should have used a smiley, but I guess what's done is done. I'm sorry if I caused you to rant.

[albis]

I'm starting to sense a pattern to how every time a new LGBTitp thread is opened, it's always already several pages into some discussion that, try as I might, I can't manage to trace all the way back... I blame it on short attention span and lack of time to actually read everything through (as opposed to skim over in the hopes of catching the most important points)...
Anyway... I'm back! (Though I'll probably return to my studies up until July 9th, after this)
Nothing much to tell about, besides my failure with a really nice girl at my university, for whom I had the hots, that revealed herself to be disappointingly straight. oh well. It's all about points of view, and she still cuddles me and lets me sleep with my head on her (very impressive) chest during boring classes. XD

[Danne]

Part of the curiosity, at least for me, is that homosexuality seems to be an evolutionary disadvantage.

Not really. There are all sorts of advantages for the species to have individuals who don't reproduce. For example:

- Biological population control. Resources are limited, and it's better to have a smaller number of healthy individuals than a large amount of organisms you can't support.

- Childcare. There will always be orphans; individuals who can't have their own children can take care of children without parents. Additionally, they can provide aid to their siblings in raising their nieces and nephews.

- I recall one article I read which indicates that LGBT individuals may have been major contributors to the development of agriculture. Essentially, a man who is more effeminate (because he's gay, or because he's a she, or just because) and isn't interested in "manly" hunter/gatherer activities would be more likely to stay put and work on a farm. I can't remember all the details, but I'll see if I can dig up the article if anyone's interested.

[Jokasti]

If homosexuality is a disadvantage, then it is only because you've decided you don't want to pass your jeans genes down.
Also gravity is just a theory.