2
   

Questions about Homosexuality

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:03 pm
Thanx for clarifying for me, Phoenix. They really didn't say enough about the hormone thing for me to get a good grasp on that.

I do remember the left-handed/right-handed issue. I remember also when I was in 3rd grade they made me use this stupid wire brace for when I held a pen or a pencil. I have always held it like I had my fingers really wrapped around it. Hard to describe. But, they wanted me to hold it with two fingers on one side of the pen and my thumb on the other side of it like NORMAL PEOPLE Shocked . I HATED IT! I felt like a freak because of that stupid wire brace. Didn't work either. I still hold my pen or pencil the WAY I DO IT! I'll never forget that. Funny, I'll never forget it, but I hadn't thought of that in so many years. The scales are literally falling from my eyes. Shocked
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:07 pm
MA- So you have had a personal experience with people attempting to make you into what you are not. With you, it was a small piece of behavior. Can you imagine what it must be like for a boy who is criticized, or shamed, when he is merely behaving the way that he has been programmed biologically?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:09 pm
I am beginning to, Phoenix. I'm definitely seeing things I've never seen before. Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:09 pm
:-)

I haven't seen the 60 minutes piece, but I think the idea is that hormones help set things in place. That was alluded to in the long article we read back towards the beginning (can try to find that specific part).

But do you remember the part about how some people are born with both male and female sexual organs, and what has been done historically is that the male organs were removed (:!Smile and the child was raised as a girl.

What they found is that these "girls" almost always had "male brains" -- they were attracted to women, they hated to wear dresses, etc., etc. These were people who were treated with female hormones and given every environmental cue to act like girls -- but it didn't happen.

Bodies can be adjusted, skin can get softer, breasts can even grow, but brains are set and it takes a lot more to get them to change.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:11 pm
(Phoenix, have you read this whole thread? Kinda going over ground that's been gone over. :-))

Found the pertinent part of the long article:

Quote:
The cases of children born with disorders of "sexual differentiation" offer insight. William Reiner, a psychiatrist and urologist with the University of Oklahoma, has evaluated more than a hundred of these cases. For decades, the standard medical response to boys born with severely inadequate penises (or none at all) was to castrate the boy and have his parents raise him as a girl. But Reiner has found that nurture - even when it involves surgery soon after birth - cannot trump nature. Of the boys with inadequate penises who were raised as girls, he says, "I haven't found one who is sexually attracted to males." The majority of them have transitioned back to being males and report being attracted to females.

During fetal development, sexual identity is set before the sexual organs are formed, Reiner says. Perhaps it's the same for sexual orientation. In his research, of all the babies with X and Y chromosomes who were raised as girls, the only ones he has found who report having female identities and being attracted to males are those who did not have "receptors" to let the male sex hormones do their masculinizing in the womb.

What does this all mean? "Exposure to male hormones in utero dramatically raises the chances of being sexually attracted to females," Reiner says. "We can infer that the absence of male hormone exposure may have something to do with attraction to males."
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:13 pm
Not too long ago, I watched a docu about a boy, raised as a girl, because of a botched circumcision. It was one of the most harrowing things I've ever seen. The parents took him to a psychiartrist, who berated him and possibly assaulted him to guilt him into accepting that he was a girl (which he wasn't).

He killed himself shortly after the airing.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:14 pm
I've seen a few shows on TV about those born with both sex organs and their parents deciding at their birth what sex they should be. I cannot imagine what this must be like for someone who had the chance to be a female when born (which they are in their brain and vice versa) and yet a decision someone else made for them............oh man. Talk about a slap in the face! That's what I've been doing! I've been deciding for someone else what they should be?! Shocked Shocked

I'll be back in a bit.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:14 pm
soz- No, I had not read that. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:16 pm
Actually I was asking whether you'd read this whole thread, that we're on, not the specific article -- but the article is good, too! Here it is:

http://shecomesfirst.typepad.com/ian_kerner/2005/08/what_makes_peop.html
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:18 pm
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Globe_and_Mail_Boy_raised_as_girl_suffered_final_indignity_11MAY04.htm
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:24 pm
Thanks, Lash.

(So sad, that story.)
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:31 pm
I remember the show Lash is talking about. I remember how sad he was. I remember his parents thought they did the right thing because of what the doctors said. They seemed pretty sad too. Maybe with more information out there today like there is, this kind of thing won't happen again. I hope it doesn't.

Sue and Betty are coming over in the morning to talk with me. We're going to have a long talk and really get things out in the open. Thanx everyone for helping me to see where and how I was so wrong in my thinking. It's not easy to face but it is necessary.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:35 pm
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 05:42 am
60 Minutes Show wrote:
While biologists look at hormones for answers about human sexuality, other scientists are looking for patterns in statistics. And hard as this is to believe, they have found something they call "the older brother effect."

"The more older brothers a man has, the greater that man's chance of being gay," says Bailey.

Asked if that's true, Bailey says, "That is absolutely true."

If this comes as a shock to you, you're not alone. But it turns out, it's one of the most solid findings in this field, demonstrated in study after study.

And the numbers are significant: for every older brother a man has, his chances of being gay increase by one third. Older sisters make no difference, and there's no corresponding effect for lesbians. A first-born son has about a 2 percent chance of being gay, and the numbers rise from there. The theory is it happens in the womb.

"Somehow, the mother's body is remembering how many boys she's carried before," says Breedlove. "The favorite hypothesis is that the mother may be making antibodies when she sees a boy the first time, and then affect subsequent boys when she carries them in utero."

"You mean, like she's carrying a foreign substance?" Stahl asked.

"And if you think about it, a woman who's carrying a son for the first time, she is carrying a foreign substance," Breedlove replied. "There are some proteins encoded on his Y chromosome that her body has never seen before and that her immune system would be expected to regard as 'invaders,'" he added.


Actually, I have an idea, which is all my own, but makes a lot of logical sense to me. If a woman has many sons, with the same man, and the sons all reproduce, there will be a lot of people out there with a similar genetic makeup. In earlier times, when there were a lot less people, that would mean that the possibility of combining two sets of similar genetic material (when the sons had children) would increase. That might increase the chance of more recessive genes, and with it medical problems, which would genetically weaken the population.

So by evolution limiting the numbers of sons by the same mother who would reproduce, that would be more favorable to the human species. Therefore, is it possible that homosexuality is an evolutionary adaptation, that would assist in strengthening the gene pool. The fact that homosexuality exists in other animal species would indicate to me that there may have been some evolutionary advantage.

What do you think?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 09:50 am
Could be. That would make sense with the "aunt/ uncle effect" theory, too:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1910594#1910594

Personally, I think that there is no single answer for any of these main two questions; why people are homosexual (in evolutionary terms) and what makes a person homosexual. I think it's likely that especially the latter will end up being a combination of many different aspects that end up aligning in a certain way. Or could even be that there are different biological aspects for different people, and that the difference accounts for the variety of intensities. For example, maybe a three (bisexual) experienced one or two of the possible factors, while a six (homosexual) experienced ten different factors and the orientation was therefore reinforced.

Interesting science, anyway, will be really cool to see where it all goes.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 11:45 am
Soz- Oh, I agree. I think that life is far too complex to attempt to put everything into neat, little boxes. I think that there are probably many many different combinations and permutations, genetic, hormonal, environmental, and who knows what else, that would make some people gay, and some straight.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 11:52 am
Phoenix, Very good! A new idea that sounds reasonable concerning evolution and its limiting nature.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 01:38 pm
I suggest decreasing genetic diversity (inbreeding) would have far more dire consequences than a potential increase in homosexuality vis-à-vis a healthy growing population.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 04:07 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
I've seen a few shows on TV about those born with both sex organs and their parents deciding at their birth what sex they should be. I cannot imagine what this must be like for someone who had the chance to be a female when born (which they are in their brain and vice versa) and yet a decision someone else made for them............oh man. Talk about a slap in the face! That's what I've been doing! I've been deciding for someone else what they should be?! Shocked Shocked

I'll be back in a bit.


Erm... That's not exactly the same.

I mean, with you, your decision didn't necessarily change anyone. Just because you decided somebody else had to act in a certain way, didn't mean they had to in the end.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 07:44 pm
Wolfie,

I understand that it's not the same. It struck me when I was typing it that it was what I was doing. I had to sit back and think about it quite a bit.

If I don't accept someone the way they are completely then I am (i.e.,) deciding they should be something/someone else.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

A good cry on the train - Discussion by Joe Nation
I want to run away. I can't do this anymore. Help? - Question by unknownpersonuser
Please help, should I call CPS?? - Question by butterflyring
I Don't Know What To Do or Think Anymore - Question by RunningInPlace
Flirting? I Say Yes... - Question by LST1969
My wife constantly makes the same point. - Question by alwayscloudy
Cellphone number - Question by Smiley12
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 06:41:20