NYTimes on Genetics/Behavioural link

[andrewducker]

Here.

One needs to be wary of these kinds of studies, partly because researchers drawn toward this field may have subconscious biases of their own. Moreover, many of the studies on the biological basis of homosexuality are flawed by small numbers or by the difficulty of finding valid random samples of gays and heterosexuals.

Still, while the data has problems, it is piling up — there are at least seven studies on twins. If there is a genetic component to homosexuality, one would expect identical twins to share sexual orientation more than fraternal twins, and that is indeed the case. An identical twin of a gay person is about twice as likely to be gay as a fraternal twin would be.

Earlier this year, the journal Personality and Individual Differences published an exhaustive review of the literature entitled "Born Gay?" After reviewing the twin studies, it concluded that 50 to 60 percent of sexual orientation might be genetic.

Many studies also suggest that sexual orientation may be linked to differences in brain anatomy. Compared with straight men, gay men appear to have a larger suprachiasmatic nucleus, a part of the brain that affects behavior, and some studies show most gay men have a larger isthmus of the corpus callosum — which may also be true of left-handed people. And that's intriguing because gays are 39 percent more likely to be left-handed than straight people.

O.K., these theories are potentially junk science until the studies are replicated with much larger numbers. But we also shouldn't ignore the accumulating evidence.

"There is now very strong evidence from almost two decades of `biobehavioral' research that human sexual orientation is predominantly biologically determined," said Qazi Rahman, the University of London researcher who led the blinking study. Many others don't go that far, but accept that there is probably some biological component.

Comments

Re: *scream and leap*

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I'm just wondering how you'll tell when serious research is carried out? How would you know if one of the pieces cited in the article was real research?

Er... because this is a re-hash of the various junky bits of "science" that have been carried out over the past ten years or so, and I recall at the time (starting with genuine interest, and moving on to repeated disillusion) that not one of them described any kind of research on human sexuality being carried out with scientific rigour. Small samples, using self-identified gay people, rather than large samples of randomly-selected people, were the norm.

But it's also possible they aren't - but you aren't even vaguely interested in that possibility, are you?

Oh, come off it. I'd be fascinated if someone was genuinely interested in doing real research into human sexuality. You're just pissed off because I am not interested in a re-hashed report of junk science.

Re: *scream and leap*

[andrewducker]

'd be fascinated if someone was genuinely interested in doing real research into human sexuality. You're just pissed off because I am not interested in a re-hashed report of junk science.

Aah, that's fair enough. See, if you'd started off with that line rather than:
People care about trying to find a biological component for homosexuality because they want to discriminate against queer people. There is no other reason.
then you'd have had me nodding in agreement from the start.

Re: *scream and leap*

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

People care about trying to find a biological component for homosexuality because they want to discriminate against queer people. There is no other reason.

And I still think that's what informs the research. I'd be very interested to see who's funding this kind of dreck.