I don't see why this is so outrageous. You're fine with a nonspecific explanation of what's happening - it's biological - but more specificity is just too weird? There are a lot of interesting immunity issues in pregnancy, and as a child develops and differentiates in its mother's womb, I can see how they might intensify depending on the developmental direction of the kid. It's not exactly a value judgement they're making here. What's the fuss?

It's not that it's weird--I just always worry about the real world consequences of studies like these. I did think the headline was weird though.

I think on this issue, though, it's not likely to help the debate whether it is absolutely determined that homosexuality is a product of nature or nurture (either of which I doubt will be the case). If it's a case of nature, homophobes will do their best to engineer it out of our genes. If it's a case of nurture, they'll "cure" homosexuality with dubious therapy treatements. Homophobia is irrational and not based on any empirical reasoning. It's a situation where people come to a conclusion and then try to arrange the facts of life around it so that the conclusion holds water. It doesn't work, nature, nurture or both.

Hard Pill
http://imdb.com/title/tt0443530/

The wording is bad. Foreign is quite an emotive word when used outside of a scientific context. The body acting on its self is a very natural mechanism (especially in women who are supposed to have more active immune systems).

The article doesn't say that studies have confirmed this immune response yet either. I wonder if the same link is true of multiple girl births?

May as well include the last bit of the article:

"It adds further weight to the argument that lesbian and gay people should be treated equally in society and not discriminated against for something that's just as inherent as skin colour."

It certainly puts paid to those crazy re-education camps in the US. Now the race will be on for 'anty-gay pregnancy supplements'. Expect them in your spam within weeks :(

Hi, all,

Actually, the BBC article's idea is not that new. Geneticist Bryan Sykes proposed a similar thing in his book Adam's Curse last year. Only he points to mitochondrial DNA -- "From its point of view, it would have been much better if [a son] had never been born, never even been conceived, so that [the mother] could concentrate on having daughters."

When it's too late or the Y-chromosome is too strong to kill off the boy prenatally (not in any conscious effort, but via natural selection), he theorizes, the mDNA spark a process (maybe antibody production?) that partly neutralizes the fetus's competing Y-chromosome, turning the boy gay.

As possible evidence that some mDNA are more successful at this than others, Sykes surveyed 500 gay men's families, finding that their mothers had significantly more sisters than brothers.

If this kind of effect is indeed true, it's interesting, but just as impossible to "engineer out of us" as the uterine effect would be. Without mitochondria, we're extinct.

I doubt there's a whole lot to worry about in that regard; the wingnuts are far more likely to try to suppress the science that proves them wrong than to try to use it to change anybody.

Ugh. Lately, when I hear about more searches for the cause of The Gay, I fear a life-imitating-weak-blockbuster situation a la X3: The Last Stand. Homo cure, anyone?

And naturally the larger question with all these why-are-you-gay studies is why do we have to know? I'm terrified that once someone targets a "reason" they're just going to try and find a way to do away with it.

Frankly, I think it would be nice to know why people have the sexual orientations they do, because it's nice to know stuff. I doubt the authors of this study had any nefarious purpose in mind, they're just Academics doing what Academics do, which is be curious about stuff.

Unfortunately, we're never going to get a believable answer to questions about how sexuality works in a society that condemns and ostracizes anyone who doesn't fit into the normative sexuality. In such a situations, any study of homosexuality can be used to try to dehumanize a class of people.

I think the most important point to make, though is that what causes homosexuality, or any other sexuality, isn't relevant to issues of rights or morals. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality, regardless of its cause, and everyone has a right to love whoever they want to.

Personally, I tend to think that social explanations make a lot more sense than biological ones (and I have no idea how strong the correlation actually is), so I think the study is propably pretty unhelpful in actually answering anything, but I don't see anything wrong with it in principal.

I'm in agreement with Yellownumber5, here, Homophobes will try to arrange whatever facts they can find to support irrational hatred. That shouldn't, IMHO, devalue the facts.

jack, my feelings exactly. btw, love your blog.

this is interesting from an evolutionary standpoint. what if indeed the mother's uterus treats the male child as if it is a foreign disease. if that is true, why is the result the male being gay? maybe it's natures way of turning something the womb feels is "foreign" into a human that doesnt want to (or cant) procreate in the traditional way. or this is natures best way of doing it. clearly not applicable at all in modern times since gay men can and do have children, and make excellent parents, but still its interesting to think about.

also i do think its perfectly legitimate for people to want to know why and how homosexuality occurs. i think alot of homosexuals wonder about it themselves, especially when they are going through hardships bc of their sexuality. i think trying to not figure it out is the same as christian conservatives not wanting to find out anything concerning evolution or other things bc the truth is scary and they are afraid it will be used against them.

like everyone else said, people who hate gays will find a way no matter what bc they dislike things that are different from what "their" almighty god says. its a way of life that they cannot intellectually handle. whether its biological or social, anti gay arseholes will find a way to try and "fix" homosexuals. sad but true

Be careful: Not all academics are simply curious. Most are at the mercy of vested interests(huge funding sources, mostly government and corporate) and are not only paid to create studies, but also to manipulate findings. There is plenty to be found, particularly in the sociological literature, criticizing academic researchers for moving away from scientific research for the sake of advancing knowledge and toward research for specific agendas. This is nothing new really, but it makes me quite leery of taking science at face value.

The scary part isn't that they're hunting for a biological reason. That seems pretty natural - scientists like controversial topics.

The scary part is that if a "reason" is found, they WILL try to come up with a way to fix it, to scan for it in the womb like they do with other "defects", and will allow homophobic parents to subject their children to "treatments". THAT'S what's scary.

Also - I find it sad that money is being spent on this research, which is relatively unimportant to daily life, instead of spending it on cancer research.

I think it's an interesting concept, but the BBC article annoyed me when they quoted an activist: "Increasingly, credible evidence appears to indicate that being gay is genetically determined rather than being a so-called lifestyle choice."

This study doesn't show a genetic link. It shows an environmental link. The BBC should stop trying to melt our brains with bad science reporting!

Good point Jenn - so who exactly is funding this research.....

As a uber-science geek I just wanted to make the point that correlation does not equal causation. What this scientist has described according the article (I went searching for the actual science article but it hasn't been released yet) is a correlation. There is no scientific evidence or data for what might be causing this correlation.

The example I would use is that more white cars get into car accidents then any other color car. This does not mean that the color of the car causes the accidents. More white cars get into accidents because there are more white cars on the road.

The work by this scientist points to possibilities that need to be pursued, but it does not in any way definitively show what makes people gay.

Personally, as a scientist, I have always favored the notion of homosexuality being the result of evolution. There are plenty of examples of it in nature. If you are interested I would reccomend reading 'Evolution's Rainbow' by Joan Roughgarden. I would also suggest learning about kin selection theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection).

I just wanted to add that all published science articles have to list all their funding sources at the end. Once the paper goes online on monday that information will become available as well.

Charlie--

After lightning quick research on this, it appears as though The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council funded this study through the assistance of The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). I'll admit I know little about this funding agency, but a little sleuthing might bring something to light. I am a bit less skeptical as this a Canadian study and we all know how much more accepting of homosexuality they are.

Twilight Of The Golds:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120392/

As an aside, homosexuality has been found in mamals other than people.

If there were scientists truly serious about figuring out what causes people to be gay scientists would be experimenting on animals. First, learning how to predictably create gay ones, then finding out the cause.

I agree with others, once that point was reached there would be a government somewhere looking for a means of prevention.

To Jay -
You wrote:
"... to kill off the boy prenatally (not in any conscious effort, but via natural selection)..."

Natural selection is not a way of killing anything. It means that those individuals with increased fitness will have a reproductive advantage over other individuals. Translation: healthy animals have more babies.

To all -
It bothers me when groups I like (such as this blog) jump on scientific studies because they appear to show something that disagrees with certain ideas. That's what the bad guys do - we shouldn't do it. A few reasons:
1) Much of the time, the headline or article is just wrong about the findings
2) In many other cases, the article was techinically true but took findings/conclusions totally out of context (i.e. study shows correlation in certain situations, article in non-sci press says "X causes Y.")
3) Sometimes, stuff we don't like is true. It sucks. It ought not be the case. I have no idea if it's the case here; I'm not a geneticist. Hell, I'm not even a biologist. But, a la Kuhn, we can't just go around assuming that facts that don't fit within our worldview are wrong. That's what Ann Coulter does.

DT, I agree 110 percent.

The thing that doesn't make sense to me about this study, is that it would seem to me that that would mean that there are a higher percentage of gay males than there are of gay females. This would be obviously because since the womb only turns males gay and not females, there is another factor at work on males than females. I don't know the statistics, but I don't think there are more gay males than females. Of course there are probably more root causes of homosexuality in both males and females, so there could be other factors that even this out... I'm just saying...the first thing I thought of was "then what makes females gay?".

why do we have to know?

You don't have to know. You can choose to ignore, if ignorance is your preference. Jennifer, are you seriously advocating ignorance here? Hard for me to understand. As a scientist (PhD, physics) I find the scientific search for the causes of homosexuality to be fascinating. I also like Pharyngula's idea that it may be a "byproduct," like the male nipple or the female clitoris. Basically, the byproduct hypothesis says we are "programmed" by evolution to like sexual contact. Some of use just end up liking sex that does not result in reproduction.

Jenn tells us, vaguely, to suspect academics. "Most are at the mercy of vested interests." This statement is utter bullshit. What percentage is "most?" I work for a small company in the R & D department. Many of my friends and colleagues are scientists. I find your statement to be very offensive, Jenn. There is a small fringe ( less than 1%, by my estimate) of scientists on the take. I don't know any, personally, who fit Jenn's description. The foremost example in my mind would be the climate change denialists. But saying most of us are at the mercy of vested interests is completely wrong.

It doesn't surprise me that nature might have evolved a mechanism whereby a mother who has produced a bunch of male offspring stops producing offspring which, even if male, won't be competing for females. (Which begs the question: why then are their homosexual females?)

However, I don't like the phrasing that keeps coming up--mom's body rejecting the fetus, homosexuality as some kind of disease or birth defect, and of course the implication that it's somehow the mother's fault. Charlie and Katie are right in pointing out that the reason to define the "problem" is so that we can find the "solution"--that is, literally stamping out homosexuals.

John, I agree with you as well, I was going to address Jenn's paranoid comment, but you did so much better than I.

From Jenn's statement I imagined the sciences being something straight out of Brave New World or Nazi Germany, which is OBVIOUSLY not the case.

Christian fundamentalists simply don't have the money (or the vision...) to carry out any type of long range Eugenics project.

Perhaps Bill Gates does, but I think that turning gay people straight is low on his list of fiscal priorities.

OMG! I just realized...now the anti-choicers will have to permit abortions!!!!!!

Roving Thundercloud-Using your logic, this information could be just as easily used to stamp out heterosexuality as it is to be used to stamp out homosexuality. I think the argument "they're going to get rid of the gays" is highly sensationalistic.

Looking at China as a model of overpopulation gone awry, I could see this info being used more often to CAUSE homosexuality than to stamp it out.

Jeez, Eschew, now Jenn and I are both hysterical? You know, she didn't make up the concept all on her own (quote: "There is plenty to be found, particularly in the sociological literature, criticizing academic researchers for moving away from scientific research for the sake of advancing knowledge and toward research for specific agendas.") Hardly the paranoid delusion of one person, then.

I don't know about other disciplines, but certainly in the diet drugs field, almost none of the major studies on their effectiveness are paid for by the government. Paul Campos observed in "The Obesity Myth" that the conclusions posted in many such studies actually contradict the findings within those studies...because the researchers don't want to annoy their funders (drug companies).

The idea that we could just as easily stamp out heterosexuals is silly, since het is our cultural norm and is therefore desirable. And we are hardly likely to use it for population control, since Americans generally don't believe it's an issue (unless there's a drop in white births, apparently). But no, it's not hard for me to envision a day when "protecting a fetus against gayness" or even aborting it (or adopting out) because of a "risk of gayness" is perfectly possible. I'm sure there are people out there who find the idea of raising a gay kid more repellant and difficult than raising one with any other "birth defect."

John and Eschew,

So I'm paranoid and vague, eh? Seems as though you're quite defensive and vague yourself: "There is a small fringe (less than 1%, by my estimate) of scientists on the take. I don't know any, personally, who fit Jenn's description." Show me the research that supports your 1% theory. And of course this must not happen if you don't know anyone engaging in it. And all this depsite the fact that I never uttered "on the take." I was merely pointing out that as academic research is funded, consider the funding source in order to have a more informed analysis of the findings. Of course, this is the cardinal rule of the "soft science"--sociology: Things are seldom as they seem. As an admitted and quite self-righteous "hard scientist", I'm not shocked by your attack.
However, if you don't believe we are living in Orwellian times, well then, we're speaking different languages entirely.

If you think I am advocating ignorance, think again. It was not me who asked "why do we need to know?" Remain calm and collected at all times and you will avoid this mistake.

I never ever implied that either of you were being "hysterical" (the usage of which on a Feminist website, especially in a comment to a post about a uteral study I find ironic beyond belief, thanks for the laugh).

I do believe I said that Jenn was being "paranoid" in that she was showing an irrational and extreme fear of science and scientists. (And I think she was).

And I said you were being "sensationalistic" in that you were exagerrating the effect of this study. I highly doubt that a scientific study would lead to a systematic wiping out of homosexuality.

Perhaps you think that heterosexuality is "desirable", but I know plent of homosexuals who would highly disagree.

As far as parents getting to choose whether or not their child is a homosexual in utero, I think that is a novel idea...I would never excercise it...but if other people desired to, I wouldn't be opposed to it at all.

Then again, I like science. And think it's keen to know things.

Skepticism does not equal fear. Neither is something irrational simply because you take issue with it. If you are so keen on knowing things, this should be rather basic to you.

Oh, I see, John. You were talking to Jessica when you asked about advocating ignorance. Too bad you were too busy flying off the handle and flaunting your credentials (congratulations!)to make sure you were scolding the right woman. What I think Jessica was asking was exactly the point I was trying to make: Why do we need to know--what (whose)purpose (vested interests) will it serve?

In what way did john "fly off the handle"?

His demeanor was calm cool and collected. You might disagree with his points, but saying that he "flew off the handle" is a little bit suspect.

I guess I consider calling my informed opinion "utter bullshit" and accusing the wrong person of advocating ignorance despite the fact that she runs a blog dedicated to addressing and eradicating ignorance condescending and inflammatory, thus IMO flying off the handle. It is a phrase open for interpretation, however. Use it as you choose.

We've strayed far from the original topic. Semantics are getting us nowhere here in this discussion.

Always good times, though!

You don't have to know. You can choose to ignore, if ignorance is your preference. Jennifer, are you seriously advocating ignorance here?

Hey John, I can only assume you meant to direct this to me, Jessica, not "Jennifer."

You're misunderstanding my question. I'm asking why we need to know not because I'm "advocating ignorance." If you read the rest of my post, you should know that my concern is about what will be done once we do know. And I think that's a valid fear.

DT: I'm not jumping on the study or even saying that it's wrong. I have no fucking clue if it's true or not. But like Roving Thundercloud pointed out, the language being used is totally freaky. And my posting about the study was more about the way it's being presented and its possible ramifications--no matter how much water the actual study holds. Sorry to ramble...

Dear Eschew, it never occurred to you that I used "hysterical" deliberately? Irony does abound.

You don't think our het-dominated culture finds heterosexuality a more desirable trait? Show me a
dominant culture that doesn't prefer to remain dominant.

Jenn,

I consider "Most [scientists] are at the mercy of vested interests" to be a vague, offensive statement. Call me defensive if you like. The burden is on you to supply some information. You mention sociology. Do you have a reference? Is there any evidence to back up your assertion? It is completely at odds with my 22 years of scientific experience. Go to a scientific colloquium at your local university. Schmooze with a scientist. We're ok once you get to know us.

As to my "less than 1%" number, it's a rough, gut level estimate taken from my knowledge of the climate science community. It is not scientific. Joel Achenbach, a reporter for the Washington Post, had a great piece entitled "The Tempest" where he portrayed the most prominent climate change denialists. They are fewer than ten, and they all seem to be on Fox News. Tens of thousands of climate scientists form the consensus opinion that global climate change is real. Hence, less than 1 %.

Why do we need to know? Are we delving into epistemology here? The answer is you don't need to know. You have the right to ignore facts and knowledge you find uncomfortable or unpleasant or [fill in the blank]. It seems to me that this bespeaks an unconscious fear. I agree with Eschew Obfuscation here.

Lastly, "why do we need to know" is not a skeptical statement! "How do we know this" is skepticism.

"The more you judge, the less you love." - Balzac

Jenn-first of all the statement that John called "utter bullshit" was vague and innacurate. You have failed to support your statement with evidence, whereas he presented evidence to the contrary. Perhaps he wasn't as classy or reserved as you would have preferred him to be, but he didn't, in my opinion "fly off the handle".

Similarly, he never accused anyone of advocating ignorance. He simply asked for clarification to make sure that ignorance wasn't being advocated. He didn't ask this question in a fit of rage (as to your conclusion as to why he confused your post with Jessica's (even tho, to be fair, there are many comments on this entry, and Jess is awfully close to Jenn as far as names go...)), but rather as a point of clarification.

And Roving Thundercloud, of course I considered the possibility that you were being purposefully ironic, which is why I thanked you for the laugh (in addition to explaining how you assertion was not in fact true.)

Someone was wondering about NSERC and SSHRC, the study funding sources. They are part of a triumverate of governmental agencies (the third one is CIHR, for health research) that fund most of the academic research in Canada. (I have NSERC funding, actually). CIHR is analogous to NIH in the US, but I'm not sure the US has sources like NSERC (engineering and science) or SSHRC (social science).

Anyway, these funding sources are likely the least biased you can get in Canada - I don't think there is any agenda there.

As to the purpose of the study, I know in some fields the reason for doing research is that you don't know something. But when it comes to application of the knowledge, I would be concerned (if gayness was solely biological and alterable, which I have my doubts). There are a number of writers with disabilities who are critical of pre-natal testing/abortion which eliminates, say, babies with Downs. They claim (rightly) that they have good and worthy lives. So why are fetuses with their birth defect being terminated? Is homosexuality going to be the next Downs? But where do you draw the line?

"I also like Pharyngula's idea that it may be a "byproduct," like the male nipple or the female clitoris."
Posted by: JohnPkc

I wouldn't put the clitoris in the same catagory as the male nipple by any means. The clitoris is not a by-product, and by the way neither is sex. And "liking sex that does not result in reproduction" could be applied to heterosexuality as well.

"Perhaps you think that heterosexuality is "desirable", but I know plenty of homosexuals who would highly disagree. As far as parents getting to choose whether or not their child is a homosexual in utero, I think that is a novel idea... if other people desired to [do so]I wouldn't be opposed to it at all."
Posted by: Eshew Obfuscation

EO, I'm beginning to think at this point that you are a troll. Because really, that statement is a fine example of trolling. It's inflammatory. Suggesting that my parents abort or change my sexual orientation in utero is highly offensive. And also, I don't know what gay friends you have (god help them), but there aren't any out gays I know of that want to change who they are. We are happy. It's society that has the problem while reacting to our honesty. And that's one thing you learn to do quickly, is find self-knowledge and self-honesty. I think we have a leg up on the rest of the population with that.

But the idea that it could happen is laughable. No one has found out the "cause" of homosexuality, least of all these scientists. They are looking for an antibody they admit they haven't found. And I agree with some of the posts that say that suggesting the mother is treating her baby as a foreign, when we have evolved to have babies, when we originated from a primate species who had babies, and this baby is somehow foreign because it's male? I think they should explore all avenues and not stop at this street, which may turn out to be a dead end.

Why do most of you not assume that homosexuality is a product of evolution? A direct product (not a by-product) of being human? If it wasn't a desirable trait in some way then it would have been eliminated through natural selection.

Sexuality is very complex, and I think most of you need to just give the subject a rest instead of glaringly showing your ignorance about the lives of gays and lesbians.

I don't think they're saying it's an antibody, persay... it could very well just be a reaction between estrogen and testosterone that increases with each male child.

It's worth noting that this study does not account for all gay men, any gay women, or even the fact that most men are not gay. Even if a correlation is found, it could not be used to determine the sexual orientation of the child with absolute certainty. Even if it were possible, very conservative parents would likely just try to shame the child into heterosexuality from a young age instead of actually aborting. (Which in of itself is incredibly depressing, but at least it doesn't reek of eugenics, and hopefully, the children can fight back.)

However, if scientists can show that sexual orientation is a product of biology and not environment, the religious right would lose one of their main reasons to disallow homosexual couples from adopting children. Homosexuality could not be regarded by the military as a mental disease. I'm sure there's other good things I can't think of right now.

Science isn't evil, people. It's the way many politicians use science to support their own ends that is often evil.

Aw crap, I signed in and then wrote a comment. Then when I hit "post", it told me I was not signed in and then erased my comment. Crap.

So I read the actual article. Here's the title: Interaction of fraternal birth order and handedness in the development of male homosexuality

Does anyone else think that maybe we should pick on the journalists for a while, and lay off the scientists? I know that I'm biased as a scientist, but seriously.

Jessica - I realize that you were quoting the BBC, and not the actual article. Since you're a blogger, that makes sense. You blog on the news. But those folks at BBC have no such excuse. I understand that you may not have access to the article, but I'm quite sure that they did.

Also from the article: "the typical positive correlation between homosexuality and greater numbers of older brothers holds only for right-handed males."

According to the authors, the main conclusion is actually that "handedness and fraternal birth order interact with regard to sexual orientation."

So don't shoot the scientists!

Hmm... I don't see my earlier post with quotes from the actual article the BBC was misrepresenting. Maybe you can see it? Either way, one more thing: the study was funded by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

As it turns out, the actual study is pretty readable and fairly interesting. The conclusions only vaguely resemble what the BBC wrote.

Yes, DT, the article is quoted a little different from various sources. I first read it, I think, on a blog or on aol news or yahoo news, then I saw it here. I clicked on another source just now and read some of the right-handed information you explained.

They stated that their theory explains a cause of only "some" gay males. The brother factor comes into play also if the male is right-handed. If he's left-handed there is no effect. Which contradicts earlier information which found most gays are left-handed.

Also, it explained that if there was such an antibody, which they haven't found, it is released during childbirth, not during the 9 months. That's why they figure the 2nd or 3rd brother is exposed, because there could be residual left in the womb when they arrive.

Or, it could be other hormonal factors as prairelilly said. I have no problem with research, I think most of it is good. I just didn't like two things: One - the suggestion that the mother is rejecting the fetus, (when it is a natural process and if there ARE antibodies eventually found then THAT is all part of the mother/child biology as well), and Two - that posters responded with wrong assumptions about sexuality/homosexuality and one went as far as saying we could design our own child to be straight.

There is definitly a biological factor. The brother correlation does not surprise me. Neither does the womb environment. I posted earlier on another thread about how important the womb is and how we as females (mothers) can have a direct role in the orientation of the child as it grows within us. There are hormones and other physical factors to consider. Many gays and lesbians will tell you they knew when they were very young.

There is a complex mix of biology, pre-disposition, environment, culture, psychology, and even trauma factors. There is no gay and straight. There is a Kinsey scale of varying degrees of both. We just like to point to the extremes because they are visible - we can see them. We don't see the subtle variations, or the bisexuality. When 50 flamboyant gay men march in a parade someone might get the impression that all gay men are effeminate, or that there are more gay men than gay women. This is just not true.

Sexuality is filtered through our culture. And that culture is quite restrictive. Human sexual response is a different thing altogether. What some come to realize, is that homo & het sex is similar. When you get past the ick factor as you look or think about gay sex, you begin to see that. Keith Ledger from Brokeback Mountain was asked how he reacted to having to kiss a male co-star. I suppose they expected him to spit afterwards or something. He replied that he wasn't kissing the butt of a goat, he was kissing another human being.

The more you know, the more you understand. (And the more complicated it gets).

The following articles discuss the sociological issues and debates surrounding scientific knowledge production, dissemination, and subsequent policy decisions. They are by no means exhaustive nor do I fully subscribe to everything the authors put out there. My point, for those who find me irrational, paranoid, fearful and/or ready to shoot scientists, etc is simply this: Science, as part of society, is a socially constructed process. Despite
what many believe, many others believe that science does not simply exist "out there" to be discovered; rather there are various forces at work shaping all of the processes. I am not debating the fact that water boils at a certain temperature and freezes at another. Nor am I saying that all scientists are working for exorbitant amounts of money and prestige for some underground gestapo. I am merely stating that if you believe we as members of society participate in the social construction of our realities (Uh, hello? You're on a feminist blog)and have the capacity to work for change, then you should consider that science is also a part of the social process. And as we can hopefully agree the scientific process requires significant funding, then perhaps it is possible to be a bit more critical in analyzing scientific studies, as funding agencies have themselves to maintain. This is not as farfetched as some would believe. It's called Sociology and the particular subfields are Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, Sociology of Knowledge, Sociology of Science, Sociology of Knowledge, Power, and Expertise, Boundary Work and so on:

Sociology and the public understanding of science: from rationalization to rhetoric. Locke, Simon. British Journal of Sociology; Mar2001, Vol. 52 Issue 1, p1-18, 18p

Philosophy of Science and Sociology of Knowledge , By: Wesely, Anna, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, 13511610, Mar97, Vol. 10, Issue 1

AZT kill or cure? The social essences of scientific authority. Grinyer, Anne. Sociological Review; Nov94, Vol. 42 Issue 4, p686-702, 17p

Sociology of scientific knowledge. Baber, Zaheer
Source: Theory & Society; Feb92, Vol. 21 Issue 1, p105, 15p

Rationality and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Halfpenny, Peter
Source: Sociological Theory; Fall91, Vol. 9 Issue 2, p212-215, 4p

The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: The Constructivist Thesis and Relativism. Tibbetts, Paul
Source: Philosophy of the Social Sciences; Mar1986, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p39, 19p

The Culture of Scientists and Disciplinary Rhetoric. Pinch, Trevor
Source: European Journal of Education; 1990, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p295, 10p

I also have to thank John for linking to Wikipedia to ensure that I know the definition of epistemology. You're so helpful. Especially in your advice for me to trot on over to my local university and talk to the random scientists milling about. I work as both a quantitative and qualitative social scientist in a university. I am also a graduate student. No Ph.D. yet, but when I do get it, I'll be sure to forego the optional condescension package.

Jenn, I find it extraordinarily myopic of you to not realize that perhaps homosexuals may want to know why they are homosexual. perhaps it would give peace of mind to those who are always told they are weird and different or somehow mutated. i am sure many would want to know if its biological so they can stop thinking its something that happened or that they could have avoided when they were younger. honestly, its not all bad, and you basically just sound like the liberal version of anne coulter, trying to run away from facts.

Ms jane..can you read?

Perhaps you think that heterosexuality is "desirable", but I know plent of homosexuals who would highly disagree.

As far as parents getting to choose whether or not their child is a homosexual in utero, I think that is a novel idea...I would never excercise it...but if other people desired to, I wouldn't be opposed to it at all.

what EO said is perhaps you think HETEROSEXUALITY is desired but that many homosexuals would DISAGREE. meaning of course that many homosexuals would not choose heterosexuality if they had that choice.

second of all, i love how you took out his sentence which said "i would never do it". seriously, you are as bad as the right wing which take sources and skews what they have said all the time.

while i would be opposed to people choosing their kids sexuality, you owe EO an apology bc you were FLAT OUT WRONG. read before YOU post something inflammatory and incorrect.

Wow. It's amazing how people here jump on something they don't agree with or even try to fully grasp (which is quite common when people are faced with the unsettling idea that absolute Truth may not be as objective as we were taught), completely twist it out of shape, and then use insults to make their points. I would never have expected this from my simple statement that science is funded, therefore subject to bureaucratic and at times political processes. But then again, I hang with a certain crowd. There is a power structure involved, people. How I became this vision of denying people their right to be informed and gain understanding, I'll never know. I'm also not sure how I made it seem as though I'm running away from facts, unless of course you believe absolutely everything you read to be based on fact, which I consider extremely myopic and ignorant of the forces at work in society.

Please do not compare me to Ann Coulter. You only stoop to her level when you write me off like that.

Jenn - I wasn't comparing you, specifically, to the wicked witch of the west. I was saying that the mindset of "I don't like it, so it must not be true" is Coulter-esque.

Yes, science is subjective. We deal in truth with a lower-case "t." Philosophers deal with that upper-case stuff.

Your reading list seems a little odd to me. I've studied a fair bit of philosophy of science (though not sociology per se). Wouldn't you want to start with Kuhn? Maybe read Philip Kitcher, Helen Longino, people like that? Wouldn't you start with books before going to journal articles?

It seems to me that there are two different point here: the validity of science in general (large topic) and the validity of this particular study. As it turns out, issue two is a non-issue: it is resolved by reading the actual paper. Issue one is another story. My only concern is that, in general, people don't seem to bring it up when discussing scientific conclusions with which they agree.

(NB: that's not a personal attack. I have no clue what you do or don't do when discussing science you like. But I know that some people fall back on "science is subjective" IF AND ONLY IF they don't like the conclusions drawn from a given study.)

Thanks, DT, for pointing this out:

"Does anyone else think that maybe we should pick on the journalists for a while, and lay off the scientists? I know that I'm biased as a scientist, but seriously."

In Paul Campos' "The Obesity Myth," he discusses several reasons why there is a disconnect between what scientists publish in their studies and what the journalists glean and report from those studies. It is very interesting to see how skewed the conclusions can become when presented for the mass reading audience!

This thread has turned into a bit of a flamewar, but I must say it is the most informed and intelligent one I've seen. Maybe a result of the new posting policies?

The whole "is this study biased" issue will be put to rest when more studies come out. Peer review and new research is the real test of the substance of a study. I can only hope other institutions or researchers put the effort into finding out.

I think we need to remember that there are many more things we agree on than we disagree. I think we can all agree that the search for knowledge is a general good. We can all agree that people can distort that knowledge for their own purposes. We can all agree that we must look critically at any statments of fact made by anyone, scientists, journalist or otherwise, in order to dig down to the truth. Remembering these things could help make our arguments much more effective.

Well, DT or katie or whoever, that would mean that I expressed my opinion of the conclusions and "I don't like it". Take a look. I did not. I respectfully responded to labyrus' comment that academics are just being their curious selves...and here we are.

I referred to the articles in an effort to support the notion that I am not pulling this out of my ass due to my irrational fear of all things scientific. Articles are easy to read online. Books, not so much. If you take a look at them, you'll see that they are not as one-sided as you probably expect. My aim is to illustrate the legitimate debate occurring within the literature.

Actually, the article in question is "Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation" to be published in PNAS. You may be able to view the article on PNAS's website http://www.pnas.org/papbyrecent.shtml

As a scientist, I have to say that, yes, most scientists are biased (we are HUMAN) in one way or another due to MANY different factors including, but not limited to, funding sources, motivation to publish, motivation for tenure, etc. However, they are also extrodinarly driven by a desire for understanding and truth. Any single article should always be read with some degree of scrutiny. But as with all science, that is not an excuse to dismiss any specific finding, because as any good scientist knows, nothing is taken as fact until it can be replicated, and further supported. Part of the problem is that scientists are so mistrusted (when they say something people don't like) and so overly trusted (when the opposite is true). The general public desperately needs a better grasp of basic science.

The authors are proposing (without a ton of evidence--I am NOT saying I agree or disagree with thier conclusions) that homosexuality has a biological root---this is not the same as a genetic root...which is why it would not be selected for or against in natural selection.

JJ - my mistake. They are quoting the PNAS article, but I the one I referenced, published in "Hormones and Behavior" in March 2006, appears to be a report on the same study.

Jenn - you wrote "There is plenty to be found, particularly in the sociological literature, criticizing academic ...it makes me quite leery of taking science at face value."

That isn't the same thing as saying that science can be insufficiently objective. I think it's an innocent until proven guilty vs. guilty until proven innocent issue.

You also wrote that you are planning on getting your PhD without the "optional condescension package." That is admirable, and I hope to do the same. That said, it doesn't hurt to start early.

I see the validity of the articles vs. books thing. However, there are many journals that are not freely available online (unless you're at a research institute or university), so you have to go to the library anyway. Also, *some* books assume less background knowledge than do many articles. The disadvantage is that they can be much longer.

FYI, katie and I are not the same person.

MsJane said: (heh heh get it, Jane Said...heh heh)

"EO, I'm beginning to think at this point that you are a troll. Because really, that statement is a fine example of trolling. It's inflammatory. Suggesting that my parents abort or change my sexual orientation in utero is highly offensive."

I never suggested that your parents should have changed your sexual orientation or aborted you at all. That's rediculous! What I did say is that if parents in the future wanted to make family planning choices based on uterine evidence of their fetuses characteristics, I support their right to make those choices (even if I don't condone the choices that they make). I never said that I thought parents should do anything.

The reason I feel this way is simple, it's because I'm pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Based on your logic, since I am pro-choice on abortion, I'm advocating the abortion of all babies, and that's obviously not true. Again, I don't like the idea of abortion, and I would never actively pursue abortion options for my signifigant other (I don't think)...but I support the availability of the option if people desire it.

How you grossly misinterpreted what I said is far beyond my comprehension, perhaps you understand more of my position now.

"And also, I don't know what gay friends you have (god help them), but there aren't any out gays I know of that want to change who they are. We are happy. It's society that has the problem while reacting to our honesty. And that's one thing you learn to do quickly, is find self-knowledge and self-honesty. I think we have a leg up on the rest of the population with that."

Who said I believed anything differant than what you just said right here? However, that doesn't mean that heterosexual parents necessarily desire to raise homosexual children. If they have the ability to control the sexuality of their children and it isn't harmful to their offspring, why should they be denied that ability? Because you like being gay? I really don't think the two issues effect one another.

"But the idea that it could happen is laughable. No one has found out the "cause" of homosexuality, least of all these scientists. They are looking for an antibody they admit they haven't found. And I agree with some of the posts that say that suggesting the mother is treating her baby as a foreign, when we have evolved to have babies, when we originated from a primate species who had babies, and this baby is somehow foreign because it's male? I think they should explore all avenues and not stop at this street, which may turn out to be a dead end."

I don't think the idea is that rediculous at all. In the 1800's the notion that a man would step foot on the moon was probably a lot more rediculous than the current idea that you one day we might be able to predict the future sexuality of a fetus. These scientists aren't the only ones searching for the causes and indicators of homosexuality, I'm sure you can feel safe that this isn't the only avenue they're exploring in this regard.

"Why do most of you not assume that homosexuality is a product of evolution? A direct product (not a by-product) of being human? If it wasn't a desirable trait in some way then it would have been eliminated through natural selection."

Every biology teacher (and most science teachers) I've ever had used that damn annoying analogy that "when you assume something you make an ASS out of U and ME". I don't assume anything when it comes to theoretical science. I do think that the possibility definitely exists that homosexuality is a evolutionary trait that is a check against overpopulation. But it isn't necessarily a point of view that begs assumption (like the assumption I make when I drop a ball it will hit the ground). And like I said before, I know many homosexuals that think the trait is desirable. In the same way I would support a heterosexuals choice to raise a heterosexual child, I would support a homosexuals choice to choose to raise a homosexual child. However, your logic is flawed. Using your logic, than mental retardation, sickle cell anemia, severe inherited deformities, etc are desirable conditions simply because they haven't been wiped out through the process of evolution. That logic simply doesn't make sense.

"Sexuality is very complex, and I think most of you need to just give the subject a rest instead of glaringly showing your ignorance about the lives of gays and lesbians."

Nobody said anything about the lives of gays and lesbians in this post or the responses!?!?!?! This last paragraph simply perplexes me.

eschew (i'm going to spell it correctly 'cos i want to),

first off, for everyone in the blogosphere, it's "rIdiculous", not "rEdiculous"... ugh. people are mispelling that word like it's going out of style.

anyways, as far as MsJane's argument, it's not what you said; she took your comment to a logical extreme that really was not implicit in your intent.

however, what she's pointing out by it is that people could be selected out and aborted based on characteristics that are not accepted within larger society, allowing the juggernaut of nazi-ish eugenics to rear its ugly head.

truth is, as we're better able to detect certain traits prenatally, these are discussion we need to have.

also, as a point of fact, sickle cell anemia severely reduces the chance of contracting malaria, so it is a desireable characteristic, evolutionarily speaking.

as far as this study is concerned, though, it's kind of unlikely that homosexuality will be able to be detected in the womb, if for no other reason than that sexuality is not binary.

i've found that my own sexuality has been much more wired by social pressures than anything else; as i've grown and matured, i've found that the boundaries are much less solid than we're trained to believe.

A politically incorrect explanation of both homosexuality and homophobia in men is that it originally evolved as a satellite strategy. It would predict that gay men at least in Pleistocene times were sporadically and opportunistically heterosexual and that at the biological level homosexuality is a ruse. The homophobia in this model would be an arms race as alpha men develop beeter abilities to detect satellite maneuvers.

This would explain my observation that alpha men seem the most homophobic but tolerate female homosexuality ( provided its not linked with feminism that threatens patriarchal values ). Perhaps female bisexuality was tolerated even preferred because a wife cheating with another women did not saddle the alpha man with the burden of raising a child by another man.

Cayte, the biological explanations I've seen account for homosexuality but not homophobia, which to my knowledge has not been documented yet outside homo sapiens. The most popular explanation for homosexuality on the science blogosphere seems to be kin selection - in other words, the spinster aunt serves a supporting role similar to this of the post-menopausal grandmother.

Let's take this one step at a time EO:

Quote:
"That's rediculous! What I did say is that if parents wanted to make family planning choices based on uterine evidence of their fetuses characteristics, I support their right."

Response:
Yes, this is exactly what I object to, and I've said it in two posts. Fetuses should not be removed or altered due to their discovered sexual orientation! So you can go call Katie now and tell her that I'm not apologizing. By the way, rediculous is spelled "ridiculous."

Quote:
"I never suggested that your parents should have changed your sexual orientation or aborted you at all."

Response:
Let's put two and two together. You support the right to get rid of homosexual babies,...um..I'm gay,...I'd say that means me. Sorry if you think I'm taking it personally. And again, call Katie.

Quote:
"that doesn't mean that heterosexual parents necessarily desire to raise homosexual children. If they have the ability to control the sexuality of their children and it isn't harmful to their offspring, why should they be denied that ability? Because you like being gay?"

Response:
No, not because I'm gay. Because it would be freaking WRONG. I don't give a shit if het parents don't "desire" to raise gay children. They shouldn't be able to get rid of them or change them. You think doing that is "not harmful?" How would you feel if I said that I "support" the right of parents to get rid of male babies in utero who are determined to have small penises? It would save them grief in the locker room later on, so let's get rid of 'em. Or change them to female.

Quote:
"In the same way I would support a heterosexuals choice to raise a heterosexual child, I would support a homosexuals choice to choose to raise a homosexual child."

Response:
Homosexuals do not want to raise just homosexual children. Just because we don't hate ourselves doesn't mean we'd want that. We want our children to be who they are. My god, who would want that power?

Quote:
"Using your logic, than mental retardation, sickle cell anemia, severe inherited deformities, etc are desirable conditions simply because they haven't been wiped out through the process of evolution. That logic simply doesn't make sense."

Response:
No dear, your logic doesn't make sense. Besides pointing out that another poster proved a benefit to sickle cell anemia, I would say that retardation and deformities, these things you chose to use in your examples, are defects not variations. They are distortions and conditions caused by alcohol & drug abuse, environmental toxins, and genetic family history. Half of the planet has had some kind of homosexual thought, experience, youthful experimentation, relationship, fling, or bisexual fantasy. Half of the planet on the other hand, is NOT Retarded.

Ms. Jane said...

"Yes, this is exactly what I object to, and I've said it in two posts. Fetuses should not be removed or altered due to their discovered sexual orientation! So you can go call Katie now and tell her that I'm not apologizing. By the way, rediculous is spelled "ridiculous." "

I Say-
So, I guess you think it should be illegal to perform abortions on women who know the sex of their fetus, and desire it as a way of producing an offspring of the opposite sex?

How would you determine (legally) when an abortion is done for reasons that are ethical as opposed to unethical (based on your own understanding of ethics)?

MsJane said-
"Let's put two and two together. You support the right to get rid of homosexual babies,...um..I'm gay,...I'd say that means me. Sorry if you think I'm taking it personally. And again, call Katie."

I say-
So, you're saying that if your parents had known you were a homosexual in utero, they would have preferred an abortion as opposed to raising you? I think that speaks more about your parents than it does about my point of view. But, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. I also said that I not only supported the right of parents to abort homosexual fetuses, but that I equally supported the right of parents to abort heterosexual fetuses. You're skewing it to make it appear as if I'm advocating the elimination of homosexuality. And, I'm not. While that possibility exists within my socio-political view, it is not something that I advocate. There is a DEFINITE differance. Regardless of whether or not you wish to recognize it.

I have no idea what Katie has to do with this discussion. Again, I think there is a disconnect.

MsJane said-
"No, not because I'm gay. Because it would be freaking WRONG. I don't give a shit if het parents don't "desire" to raise gay children. They shouldn't be able to get rid of them or change them. You think doing that is "not harmful?" How would you feel if I said that I "support" the right of parents to get rid of male babies in utero who are determined to have small penises? It would save them grief in the locker room later on, so let's get rid of 'em. Or change them to female. "

I would feel absolutely fine if parents could tell pre-natally that a male offspring would someday have a small genetalia and chose to abort that baby because they desired one with a larger genetalia. Your support that I responded to seemed to use the logic that you are happy as a gay woman (I conclude that you're a woman based upon the handle that you use is MsJane), so that means that my idea was preposterous.

My response had nothing to do with the fact that you are gay, it had to do with the fact that your support for your point was that "And also, I don't know what gay friends you have (god help them), but there aren't any out gays I know of that want to change who they are. We are happy. It's society that has the problem while reacting to our honesty. " This has nothing to do with my point that some parents might prefer to raise heterosexual offspring, and if they have an opportunity to guarantee a heterosexual offspring, than they should have an opportunity to do so. This isn't about the happiness of the offspring, it is solely about the satisfaction of the parent. If a fetus is aborted, it was never truly an offspring to begin with.

MsJane Said-
"Homosexuals do not want to raise just homosexual children. Just because we don't hate ourselves doesn't mean we'd want that. We want our children to be who they are. My god, who would want that power? "

Now you're speaking for all homosexuals? Who gave you that position? I know of at least a few homosexuals who would definitely prefer (if they procreated) to raise homosexual offspring. By the same token, not all heterosexual parents desire to only raise heterosexual children... so what's your point? I never stated anything to the contrary...if heterosexual parents desire a homosexual child, I support their decision similarly.

Like you I want my children to be who they are. But, by the same token, I recognize that there are some parents (both gay and straight) who would be better equipped and would prefer to raise offspring that were either gay or straight, why should I interfere with their ability to do so legally? What negative consequence would occur? (If any.)

Ms. Jane said-
"No dear, your logic doesn't make sense. Besides pointing out that another poster proved a benefit to sickle cell anemia, I would say that retardation and deformities, these things you chose to use in your examples, are defects not variations. They are distortions and conditions caused by alcohol & drug abuse, environmental toxins, and genetic family history. Half of the planet has had some kind of homosexual thought, experience, youthful experimentation, relationship, fling, or bisexual fantasy. Half of the planet on the other hand, is NOT Retarded. "

I say-
First of all... Sickle Cell Anemia is a real problem here in the United States of America, and malaria isn't. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a person alive who felt lucky (or would "prefer", which is the word I used, not that there was a benefit, but rather that the condition would be preferable) that they were born with sickle cell anemia. Sure there might be an accidental benefit, but that doesn't mean that the biological condition is "desirable".

Second of all, I wasn't saying that homosexuality is a form mental retardation. Obviously. I was refuting your argument that said that because homosexuality hadn't been eradicated through natural selection means that it could be a desirable condition. The existance of the condition alone doesn't make it biologically preferable (which is what your assertion said).

I wasn't refuting the statement itself, only your methodology in discussing it. I was discussing a flaw inherent in your argument as opposed to discussing two individual traits. I know it's easy to confuse, that's why I'm explaining myself.

Third of all, your cosing statements are not describing a person that would describe themselves as homosexual. Ten percent of the world would describe themselves as homosexual, not fifty percent. Additionally, I never said or even implied that homosexuality was a defect.

The conditions I described are both variations AND defects (scientifically speaking). The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Variations can both be defects and advantages. What I was actually discussing was your support for your points, the support which I found flawed for the logical reasons I layed out. At no time (as I've said before) did I actually compare and contrast aspects of the variations.

I'm ok with our disagreement...but in no way am I a troll or inflammatory. Perhaps you don't agree with my political viewpoint on this individual issue, but that does not mean that my stance is incomprehensible.

I'm sorry my political viewpoint offends you.

EO, I appreciate the long explanation, I do, but I think what you fail to understand is the context in which you say certain things. If we were having a discussion about eugenics, we would all be on a level playing field and you would walk away with your opinions and I with mine.

But that's not where we were. This is a feminist site, not a site for scientific theory. And the subject at hand was homosexuality and the causes thereof. When the possibility of identifying and "fixing" or aborting a fetus with homosexual tendencies was raised....you did not trot out any even-handed theory. What you said was this:

"I think that is a novel idea."

Novel idea. No mention of heterosexuality. And frankly, who would be aborting babies for that reason if hets are encouraged, accepted, enjoy protection of the law, etc., enjoy advantages in divorce court and dozens of other things. Really, come on.

Things got heated, and way before I arrived on this thread you described previous posters as being "paranoid," "irrational," and "sensationalistic."

There are better ways to communicate.

To clarify my position, yes I am for abortion on demand. Yes, I am for the choice of a woman to NOT HAVE A CHILD or NOT have more children. It is not ethical, and I therefore do not support, the aborting of a girl baby in the quest for a boy baby, or the aborting of a brown-eyed baby in favor of a blue-eyed baby. This is eugenics. It is not a problem right now, and laws are not generally passed against something unless it becomes an issue.

In my last paragraph you misunderstood what I said. I did not say more than 10 percent self-identify as gay. Not many people do, frankly. It is the rare person who decides to self-identify, and rarer yet who comes out of the closet. The group I included was much larger. I won't requote it here.

To be fair, I never called a commenter "paranoid" "irrational" or "sensationalistic".

I described comments using those terms, but not the commenters themselves. Here's what I said...

"...I was going to address Jenn's paranoid comment..."

"...I think the argument "they're going to get rid of the gays" is highly sensationalistic..."

and

Well, I couldn't find the irrational comment, but I'm confident that I used that in reference to a comment as opposed to a commenter.

Perhaps the differance is non-existant in your mind between labeling a commenter and labeling their comment, but in my mind, there is a world of difference, dear.

MsJane, if you support abortion on demand, then you will be allowing eugenics. I really don't understand how the former doesn't permit the latter.

Also, eugenics is an issue. There are cases where abortion was used to choose the gender of the next birth. There was a case in England where a cleft palate was the reason for an abortion.

Jessica, "why do we have to know?" Because we are on a long journey to figure out what makes us tick.

Dave...Which is precisely why I have the view that I do...you can't support a mothers choice on abortion on demand, without supporting a mothers choice in eugenics.

Jessica:
Why are you trying to sensationalize this? Bogaert has been publishing these results for a decade and has established one of the least assailable findings about homosexuality. You don't seem to know how much of a battle ground [in a biochemical, not a political sense] a uterus is. Alarmist wording gets quoted and spreads quickly. Please find more constructive ways to engage your readers.