Hacker News Reader

Comment by lolc | Hacker News Reader

In the first paragraph, did I understand the author right in saying that happy homosexual couples are a recent invention?

"[other couples] of more recent vintage with chromosomes exactly matched,"

To me, literal reading of that fragment would posit identical twins as married couples. Any other interpretations?

View on HN

Only a meta interp - the tone is literary virtue signalling.

It seems to be oblique PR for people who want other people to know they read a lot.

Honestly, I couldn't find any non-trite content among all the references and allusions.

There's certainly a lot that could be said about families, but nothing of life-changing interest or value is being said here.

I disagree strongly that homosexual couples are recent "invention" given that it is so easy to hypothesize how it could occur as a evolutionary response, and that it occurs in as many as 1500 species[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Well, the author was talking about happy couples in that list. In my interpretation it says that there were no happy, gay couples before our time. That is both wrong and ignorant. The author was too busy minding his obtuse style to pay attention to meaning I'd say.

By matching the author implies couples with XX,XX and XY,XY chromosomes, not necessarily identical chromosomes. Though, it is an odd way of introducing queer couples and does conflate gender with sex chromosomes (and intersex people _do_ exist).

> and intersex people _do_ exist

Chromosomally speaking, or by self identification?

Both I would think. Genetic chimerism is a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) Not sure what other conditions can lead to being intersex but I imagine there are others.

XXY (Klinefelter's) and X (Turner's syndrome) are both very real chromosomal intersex conditions, though perhaps intersex isn't the PC word.

AFAIK it is the PC term for most.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

The context is not couples but specifically marriages.

Ah yes, that escaped me. In that context the statement is acceptable. Thanks for clarifying that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com