Hacker News Reader

Comment by drocer88 | Hacker News Reader

From the link: "Research from the 1990s2 showed that identical twins are more likely to share a sexual orientation than are fraternal twins or adopted siblings."

Study here : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9549243/

"We present an overview of behavioral genetics research on homosexual and heterosexual orientation. Family, twin, and adoptee studies indicate that homosexuality and thus heterosexuality run in families. "

View on HN

This thread seems very insistent on pushing the environmental case when presented with evidence to the contrary. It’s like I stumbled into a Republican convention in the 90s.

Baseless theories: people do this to feel better about LGBT discrimination or the idea of sexuality being out of our control is too scary for dudes who haven’t come to terms with their own masculinity. The latter isn’t necessarily shade, I’m not sure I figured it out until my mid-20s.

Hello, 1990 called. It's 2021, gender (including sexuality) is fluid.

And yet, it's the other commenters who seem backwards to you?

I'm really not seeing anything in the above comment that indicates they don't see gender as fluid.

"pushing the environmental case when presented with evidence to the contrary"

Parent wants to push the "fixed gender" case instead.

It goes beyond that. The fear is that genetics will show that people are in fact not blank slates, and even further that there advantageous and disadvantageous traits common to groups of people.

I'm sure you can surmise the implications of this. Evolutionary biology has been making steady gains in the "nature not nurture" department and it has become an absolute lighting rod to discuss.

You can believe that homosexuality is at least partly environmental while also believing that people should have the freedom to be as gay as they want to be.

I don't really like these appeals to motive; this is quite an interesting empirical question that's disconnected from discrimination. Even if it would turn out that homosexuality is a choice (I don't think it is, but let's assume it would be) then this wouldn't change my position one iota. People choose whether to smoke weed or not, and I also think people should have the freedom to choose to do so.

I'm not so sure what the evidence says on this, but it appears it's less of clear-cut "it's 100% genetic" than it seems to be. These things are notoriously hard to study.

The real problem seems to be that people are afraid that the "God hates fags" people will run with these kind of things, but these people will do their thing anyway no matter what the science says on account of being homophobic twats.

I'm a little confused, you seem to be using choice and environment like they are synonymous here. It's a small nitpick but, even if this is environmental or epigenetic it doesn't necessarily mean that people get to choose the environment they exist in, at least in their formative years.

That's not at all what was being said. The question of what causes homosexuality or heterosexuality is an interesting scientific question. Even if it were purely by choice, that doesn't reflect on any other characteristic of a person, and any fear that homophobes might try to use some hypothesis or another for their propaganda doesn't matter because they don't care about science anyway.

Reading my post again, I probably could have chosen some better wording here and there. However, the point is that it doesn't matter if homosexuality is either environmental or a choice: the effects people having gay sex remains the same: people have gay sex with no negative consequences to anyone at all. Nothing more. And therefore they should have the freedom to have as much gay sex as they damn well please. Everything else is, quite frankly, just bullshit.

As I pointed out in my other comment[1], I definitely chose to have gay sex at some point and certainly could have chosen not to. I don't think it's so black/white.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26073364

Of course! I should have mentioned that I absolutely agree with the thrust of your original comment :) I should have been less confrontational with my opening statement.

"environmental" doesn't mean it's a choice or that it can be effectively changed. For example environmental factors during pregnancy could have influence, but once someone is born it could be mostly determined. That would be entirely consistent with sexuality being somewhat genetic, mostly environmental, but unable to be changed after birth.

To be honest, as a gay man, I find the opposite is often true: that somehow insisting on homosexuality being genetically preordained is needed in order to argue against sexual-orientation-based discrimination. That is, if it is an inborn trait then gay people shouldn't be discriminated against because they "can't help it".

I've always found that somewhat offensive, because it somehow takes the sub/unconscious opinion that being gay is defective: "You wouldn't discriminate against someone with a severe birth defect, well gay people can't control it either." Fuck that. Whether it comes about from the genes, or through the environment, or most likely through some combination of the two, it is completely illogical for anyone who has ever felt sexual attraction of any kind to argue that it can "controlled", so I don't need some appeal to "it must be in my genes" to make me feel better.

Also, there are already protected classes that are partly or wholly matters of choice. Religion, pregnancy, familial status, veteran status.

On a related note, I don't see that the is it a choice? question is even meaningful in the first place. Preferences aren't generally something we get to choose. I could probably learn to like some unfamiliar genre of music simply by listening to a lot of it, but you could offer me a heap of money to like the PHP programming language and I'd still be unable to do so. My opinion of it isn't something I can so easily will to change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com