Kind of hopeful we can stop using genetics as a way of justifying queer peoples' existence. Whether it's conditioning, a choice, or genetics, shouldn't really be a factor in how you treat queer people.
What they found was 5 areas of the genome that had predictive potential for people being gay or straight. Combined, they were able to predict about 25% of what makes someone gay. The other 75% is environmental.
Note that some "environmental factors" may still be genetic in nature. For example there is strong evidence in animals that the prenatal environment has an impact on homosexual behavior. Which means that a mother's genetics can be correlated with her children's sexuality. Therefore a gene could impact homosexuality through changing the environment in the mother's womb. In that case the child having that gene would be correlated with the child being homosexual and the gene would show up in this study. But the differences between the child's genetics and the mother's would be an environmental factor.
Pandering to what bigots need is not productive or helpful.
It's difficult to think of a PC analogy here, so maybe... super villain mind control device strapped to someone's head. Provably unjustified behaviors due to the mind control device implies the ethical thing to do is try to remove the device. Treating someone normally implies an implicit belief that they're normal. Sound biological evidence that being queer is just how some people are feels like the best way to reinforce that belief and remove requirements for heteronormativity.
> wouldn't you want their existence to be justified
In my ideal world, I would want my existence to be justified even if I 100% chose to be bisexual, gay, trans, etc. So yes, I do want it to be justified, but I don't want genetics to be the justification.
This paper suggests genetics control at least 25% of variance in sexual orientation. We know hormone profiles control another decently large proportion. Are you saying you are upset that deterministic factors cause queer identities? or are you trying to say you wish a deterministic factor for queer identities wasn't necessary for equal treatment?
The first feels strange, the latter makes a lot of sense.
The reason we should be tolerant of homosexuality is because it's as healthy and harmless as heterosexuality, not because it's some sort of handicap.
The predictability of something isn't the issue though. It's whether or not something is actually in your control. Being gay is not a choice.
If homosexuality were purely a choice then there would be great perceived harm in allowing gay individuals to influence other individuals to be gay. It's hard to construct examples of this because being gay is not a choice, and any hypotheticals here would come off as very bigoted. There's people in this very thread already jumping on the opportunity to suggest that if it's not all genetic that maybe we're culturally encouraging kids to be trans. Consider for a moment that opinions like this aren't out a desire to oppress people, but fear that kids are being manipulated into sex change operations. That's FALSE, but in an alternate universe where its just a choice... it's arguably true. The harm is dependent on the nature of it. Trans suicide rates are really high. In this INCORRECT alt world where we're 100% its just a choice, people being supportive of trans gender folks look like they're the ones at fault for leading people down a dark path.
> The reason we should be tolerant of homosexuality is because it's as healthy and harmless as heterosexuality,
I agree. But the reason we MUST be tolerant of it is because its an inherent natural part of human nature.
Who shouldn’t be treated equally?
I'm also ok with furries, but I don't think they're so intrinsic that we need to protect fursuits and light animal roleplaying in the workplace.
apologies if something I said there was off color in terminolgoy