LGBTitp - Part Seven

[Serpentine]

I assume that "just a theory" was tongue-in-cheek.

Some of the links I posted before include hypotheses on the evolutionary function of homosexuality. The main ones seem to be: giving progressive offspring different levels of femininity and therefore reducing competition between them; gay offspring helping to raise the others and their nieces/nephews; the alleles that happen to occasionally result in homosexual individuals being reproductively advantageous in heterosexuals annnd... ionno, probably something else.

[Asta Kask]

A more serious question.

Spoiler

Show

Are dinosaur hallucinations a common manifestation of homosexuality?

[Ichneumon]

Gay also means happy, joyful, festive, bright or colorful.

[Asta Kask]

I am aware of this. That doesn't make it any less funny in a modern context.

[Ichneumon]

I am aware of this. That doesn't make it any less funny in a modern context.

Every listened to the Flintstones song?

[FoE]

"Laugh at my boner, will they? I'll show them! I'll show them how many boners the Joker can make!"

Yes, yes, language drift, har de har har.

[Pinnacle]

None of those definitions seem to make any sense in that sentence either. It's just weird.

[The Rose Dragon]

I think they mean it in the YouTube commenter meaning: i.e. stupid.

((Yes, I know that comic predates YouTube. Yes, I know not all YouTube commenters are like that.))

[Eloi]

Conclusive? In science?

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

I study poetics, and I see no open-ended questions on the precise manner in which a poem has been and can be composed in many literate cultures, besides the exact style of Germanic epics, of which I have composed one so it isn't too fuzzy on even those details. At least that science is conclusive.

Gay also means happy, joyful, festive, bright or colorful.

The trickester writer who wrote that probably used that in defense of slipping that one past the radar.

[Drolyt]

- 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.

No no no, that is terribly wrong and frankly sexist. The whole idea of "manliness" is quite modern, look at some non western cultures such as Japan where what we call effeminate is seen as the epitome of masculinity (caligraphy is manly in Japan!). In pre-agrarian societies men and women were generally equal and usually shared the work equally. Some may even have been matriarchal, although the evidence for that isn't as great as some claim/believe. At any rate the development of agriculture had nothing to do with evolution, it was just a fluke. Evolution has long since ceased to be a major force on the human species, since humans are perhaps the first species where nurture is just as important if not more important than nature. At any rate not everything a species does has to be advantageous, that's not how evolution works. Evolution is blind, natural selection is the theory of how better traits are selected for. Natural selection doesn't predict that every adaptation will actually be useful, and in fact it is to be expected that in a successful species there will be several traits that are quite useless. Fact is, homosexuality is a fluke just like everything in evolution, regardless of whether it is useful to the human species.

[Danne]

No no no, that is terribly wrong and frankly sexist. The whole idea of "manliness" is quite modern, look at some non western cultures such as Japan where what we call effeminate is seen as the epitome of masculinity (caligraphy is manly in Japan!).

I know. Hence the quotation marks. I wasn't saying that the individuals in question said to themselves, "I don't like hunting because it's manly, and therefore I shall try feminine gardening instead." They said to themselves, "I don't like hunting, just because I don't like it. Maybe I'd like gardening instead?"

In pre-agrarian societies men and women were generally equal and usually shared the work equally. Some may even have been matriarchal, although the evidence for that isn't as great as some claim/believe.

This depends entirely on the society. Some were equal. Some had divisions of labor. And in any event, again, that's not the point I was making.

At any rate the development of agriculture had nothing to do with evolution, it was just a fluke. Evolution has long since ceased to be a major force on the human species, since humans are perhaps the first species where nurture is just as important if not more important than nature. At any rate not everything a species does has to be advantageous, that's not how evolution works. Evolution is blind, natural selection is the theory of how better traits are selected for. Natural selection doesn't predict that every adaptation will actually be useful, and in fact it is to be expected that in a successful species there will be several traits that are quite useless. Fact is, homosexuality is a fluke just like everything in evolution, regardless of whether it is useful to the human species.

I'm fully aware of how evolution and natural selection work, thankyouverymuch. Things happen randomly, by chance, and sometimes they're beneficial, and sometimes they're disadvantageous, and sometimes they're not anything at all. I wasn't saying that we developed homosexuality intentionally, I was just refuting what Superglucose said about how it would be disadvantageous. There are plenty of advantages. Assisting in the development of agriculture may have been one of them. Or it may not.

Oh, and it wasn't an article, it was an excerpt from Intermediate Types Among Primitive Folk: A Study In Social Evolution by Edward Carpenter (1921). And it wasn't just about the development of agriculture, but also of medicines, musics, arts, etc. Basically the section was saying that people with non-traditional gender identities turn their creative energies away from traditional roles (i.e. hunting and domestic stuff), which leads to the development of new ideas, etc. Though I haven't read the book in question, and it's a little old.

[Drolyt]

I know. Hence the quotation marks. I wasn't saying that the individuals in question said to themselves, "I don't like hunting because it's manly, and therefore I shall try feminine gardening instead." They said to themselves, "I don't like hunting, just because I don't like it. Maybe I'd like gardening instead?"



This depends entirely on the society. Some were equal. Some had divisions of labor. And in any event, again, that's not the point I was making.



I'm fully aware of how evolution and natural selection work, thankyouverymuch. Things happen randomly, by chance, and sometimes they're beneficial, and sometimes they're disadvantageous, and sometimes they're not anything at all. I wasn't saying that we developed homosexuality intentionally, I was just refuting what Superglucose said about how it would be disadvantageous. There are plenty of advantages. Assisting in the development of agriculture may have been one of them. Or it may not.

Oh, and it wasn't an article, it was an excerpt from Intermediate Types Among Primitive Folk: A Study In Social Evolution by Edward Carpenter (1921). And it wasn't just about the development of agriculture, but also of medicines, musics, arts, etc. Basically the section was saying that people with non-traditional gender identities turn their creative energies away from traditional roles (i.e. hunting and domestic stuff), which leads to the development of new ideas, etc. Though I haven't read the book in question, and it's a little old.

I am simply arguing against that theory, I don't mean to be offensive, but in my opinion, backed up by considerable evidence, that theory is wrong. There is considerable evidence that almost all conceptions of gender are societal rather than inborn. Men wouldn't prefer either hunting or gardening in greater concentrations unless society told them to. There is no inborn trait that says men like to hunt and women like to garden, it is completely sociological.

The other point I was trying to make is that while homosexuality is by definition a product of evolution, it isn't affected by natural selection because natural selection ceased to act on humans once we developed culture and civilization.

[Danne]

*shrug* It's not my theory, I don't care if you believe it or not. Though it seems to make some sense to me. You say that "men wouldn't prefer either hunting or gardening in in greater concentrations unless society told them to," but there were plenty of societies that did tell them to. There are archeological sites which scientists today believe were dedicated 100% to "manly" (there's that word again...) activities such as hunting -- Gatecliff Shelter in Nevada, for example, or Vaenget Nord in Denmark. Many Native American tribes had equal or fluid gender roles, but others, such as most Sioux tribes, had very strict divisions, with men being hunters/providers and women being mothers/caretakers. There are other examples in other cultures, as well. I'm not saying that Carpenter's theory is right for all societies everywhere (or even that it's right in the first place -- again, I was just passing it on, not swearing by it) but your statement that men and women shared work equally isn't true for everywhere.

And again, I wasn't saying that homosexuality is affected by natural selection (though I disagree that natural selection has ceased to act on humans; natural selection is always at work. That's a topic for a different thread, though). I was just responding the Superglucose's comment that it would be disadvantageous.

[Drolyt]

There are archeological sites which scientists today believe were dedicated 100% to "manly" (there's that word again...) activities such as hunting -- Gatecliff Shelter in Nevada, for example, or Vaenget Nord in Denmark.

Just because these sites were dedicated to such activities doesn't mean those cultures considered them "manly". What evidence is there that women did not participate?

[Lyesmith]

Out-of-context diachronic variation makes everything funny.

Especially boners.

[Quincunx]

"1921". Found your problem. It may be fun to read sociological and societal speculations of the first few decades of the 20th century, but never use them as an impartial source! Many of them are little more than contortions to justify a bias. The social sciences hadn't yet cleaved off fully from philosophy and applied to themselves standards of impartiality and. . .darnit, can't think of the word. . .being concluded from facts, not speculated from them. Inferred, derived, something like that.

[Phae Nymna]

Gay also means happy, joyful, festive, bright or colorful.

I honestly use gay this way in most of my writing. Everyone is gay about the arrival package and they gaily run to open it. Kinda like that. It's not dead.

[Scorpina]

Whenever I hear 'gay' used that way, I'm always reminded of Mr. Burns:

Burns: So, Smithers, what are your plans for the weekend? Something gay no doubt?
Smithers: *gasps* What?
Burns: Oh, you know! Mothers, lock up your daughters, Smithers is on the town!
Smithers: *relieved* Er... exactly sir.

[Danne]

Just because these sites were dedicated to such activities doesn't mean those cultures considered them "manly". What evidence is there that women did not participate?

Common archeological consent is that women did not go to the places in question. I'm afraid I don't know the details; I am not an archeologist.

"1921". Found your problem. It may be fun to read sociological and societal speculations of the first few decades of the 20th century, but never use them as an impartial source! Many of them are little more than contortions to justify a bias. The social sciences hadn't yet cleaved off fully from philosophy and applied to themselves standards of impartiality and. . .darnit, can't think of the word. . .being concluded from facts, not speculated from them. Inferred, derived, something like that.

My problem? I never once claimed it was a sound source (I noted that it was old) or that I subscribed to the theory, though it seems to make some sense or I wouldn't have shared it. "Some sense" doesn't mean it's accurate, just that I thought other people might find it interesting. It could be accurate, at least to a certain degree, but it could also be complete nonsense. Again -- I was tossing out a few suggestions as to how being LGBT could be beneficial to the species, not saying that any one of them were conclusively the case.

Edit: @^: Who are Burns and Smithers?

[Nano]

Simpsons characters, insofar as I am aware.

[ZombieRockStar]

Whenever I hear 'gay' used that way, I'm always reminded of Mr. Burns:

Burns: So, Smithers, what are your plans for the weekend? Something gay no doubt?
Smithers: *gasps* What?
Burns: Oh, you know! Mothers, lock up your daughters, Smithers is on the town!
Smithers: *relieved* Er... exactly sir.

Well...someone had to link this. Might as well be me.

The all-knowing Wikipedia is telling me that "gay" has undergone several shifts in meaning over the 800-ish years since its introduction into English. The "carefree" connotations helped it shift to mean "sexually immoral" as early as the 17th century, where a gay man was an adulterer and a gay woman was a prostitute. In other words, sexually carefree. It appears that its early use to mean homosexual was primarily a euphemism or code on the part of those who used it in about the 1920s, but it may have been earlier than that. I think the idea is that "gay" has always had multiple meanings, some innocent and some not-so-innocent.

Oh, what the hell. One more funny link: the grandest story of the naughty nineties becomes the gayest picture of the fighting forties! (bonus points for starring the very gay—as in womanizing adulterer—Errol Flynn)

[Drolyt]

Well...someone had to link this. Might as well be me.

The all-knowing Wikipedia is telling me that "gay" has undergone several shifts in meaning over the 800-ish years since its introduction into English. The "carefree" connotations helped it shift to mean "sexually immoral" as early as the 17th century, where a gay man was an adulterer and a gay woman was a prostitute. In other words, sexually carefree. It appears that its early use to mean homosexual was primarily a euphemism or code on the part of those who used it in about the 1920s, but it may have been earlier than that. I think the idea is that "gay" has always had multiple meanings, some innocent and some not-so-innocent.

Oh, what the hell. One more funny link: the grandest story of the naughty nineties becomes the gayest picture of the fighting forties! (bonus points for starring the very gay—as in womanizing adulterer—Errol Flynn)

Good links. Yeah, gay like many words has shifted a lot over time. Even though it is usually considered the more offensive term I like it better than homosexual, which sounds so clinical, like a disease.

[Ostien]

"1921". Found your problem. It may be fun to read sociological and societal speculations of the first few decades of the 20th century, but never use them as an impartial source! Many of them are little more than contortions to justify a bias. The social sciences hadn't yet cleaved off fully from philosophy and applied to themselves standards of impartiality and. . .darnit, can't think of the word. . .being concluded from facts, not speculated from them. Inferred, derived, something like that.

This assumes that sociological functions can be completely integrated into a scientific model. A big assumption. Many in the social "sciences" would disagree that they are science, that that standard can be achieved or even would be desirable to achieve. Controlling for variables and experimental methods are at the core of science. Controlling for social variables and experiments on humans are all together different. This would assume you can find a "control" human,a human outside social influence or in which all social influence is completely understood, which if we are trying to study the effects of social influence you cannot do.

That does not mean you cannot infer conclusions based on what we currently observe, it does not mean you cannot fruitfully study social constructs, social norms, human behavior and question them and try to deduce why things might be the way they are. Just don't pretend you have all the factors figured out when you don't. Don't pretend you are doing science. That's just bad science.

[Coidzor]

Doesn't mean you shouldn't try to not be a useless source, dripping with malice, bias, and misinformation.

[Ostien]

Doesn't mean you shouldn't try to not be a useless source, dripping with malice, bias, and misinformation.

Errr... umm... I was in no way defending a 1921 research paper that is probably terrible. As for trying not to be a "useless source, dripping with malice, bias, and misinformation." I in fact said the opposite, I said that you could indeed provide fruitful knowledge on social systems/constructs. So I have no idea why you would be directing that at me

I was simply disagreeing on the assumption that everything useful has to be a science and disagreeing that research on social constructs can even be scientific, especially when you are misusing science, misusing it to a degree that would make anyone who is an actual scientist vomit.

[Drolyt]

I agree that the social sciences are not science. Science is not the end all be all.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Science is the process of hypothesizing, testing, and refining until you figure out how or why something works. Just because you can't boil something down to a number with three or four decimal places doesn't mean it isn't a science. Double-blind studies are just as scientific as growing things in petri dishes, and seeking statistical significance is as valid as seeking complete certainty; it's the methodology that matters, not the results. The social sciences may have fewer proven theories and laws and more correlations and working hypotheses, but that doesn't make them any less of a science; in fact, any field that would "pretend you have all the factors figured out" wouldn't be a science, because as soon as you know all the answers, you're not longer doing science.

[Drolyt]

Science is the process of hypothesizing, testing, and refining until you figure out how or why something works. Just because you can't boil something down to a number with three or four decimal places doesn't mean it isn't a science. Double-blind studies are just as scientific as growing things in petri dishes, and seeking statistical significance is as valid as seeking complete certainty; it's the methodology that matters, not the results. The social sciences may have fewer proven theories and laws and more correlations and working hypotheses, but that doesn't make them any less of a science; in fact, any field that would "pretend you have all the factors figured out" wouldn't be a science, because as soon as you know all the answers, you're not longer doing science.

People disagree on what makes science science. I only consider something a science if you can reduce it to a controllable experiment, which is impossible in the social sciences. This doesn't make the social sciences any less useful; note that by my definition mathematics isn't a science either and yet mathematics is arguably the basis of all modern knowledge. In the end though I'm not interested in convincing others on this matter, I'd rather agree to disagree.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

People disagree on what makes science science. I only consider something a science if you can reduce it to a controllable experiment, which is impossible in the social sciences.

How exactly do you define a controllable experiment, then? I mean, if you're testing "Do people of race/gender/ethnic background/education level/whatever A do/like X more or less than people of race/gender/ethnic background/education level/whatever B," you can grab a good random sample of the population with trait A and a good random sample of the population with trait B and do an experiment with that. You don't have to distill experiments to a single independent variable to have a meaningful test that yields statistically significant results, and in fact even in the "hard" sciences like physics or chemistry it's not always possible to reduce experiments to such a pure level.

This doesn't make the social sciences any less useful; note that by my definition mathematics isn't a science either and yet mathematics is arguably the basis of all modern knowledge. In the end though I'm not interested in convincing others on this matter, I'd rather agree to disagree.

I didn't think you were ripping on the social sciences, I was just confused by your definitions of science. As soon as I get your definition of a controllable experiment, I'll stop pestering you, I promise.

[Danne]

All I have to add on the "what is science?" debate is that science is a process, a way of thinking, and is not necessarily the same thing in different subjects.

Here's something that Aziraphale's book question reminded me has been bothering me. I've noticed a lot of celebrities coming out as bisexual these days. (I can't name names; I don't really follow celebrities. All I know is every other week I open my Yahoo! account and the news blurb is talking about another one coming out.) Honestly, my first reaction is, "Bah! They're just doing it for attention." And then I cringe and kick myself, because I'm bisexual, and shouldn't I be the first person to give them the benefit of the doubt?

What's your opinion? Is it trendy to be bi? A good way for a famous person to get a little more attention? Or are they genuine? Is this a good thing for the LGBT community because it gets the public accustomed to us, or a bad thing given that a celebrity's every act can be caught on camera and an "out" celebrity can easily be caught doing something bad (not because they're out, but because they're human, but that can shed bad light on them/us)? Or am I reading into this way too much?