Pride - gay or otherwise

Uninformed opinion like this saddens me. The facts suggest your opinion is wrongly held, and that sexuality is already established at birth. This recent article in the Economist suggests just that. (Apologies for posting a whole article, but it’s not viewable on the Net.)

[quote][b]
Homosexuality

Dyed in the womb
[/b]

Oct 9th 2003
From The Economist print edition

A lesbian’s sexual identity seems to be established before her birth

MEN and women blink differently when startled. That simple and well-established observation has led Qazi Rahman of the University of East London, in England, and his colleagues to evidence supporting the idea that homosexuality is a characteristic which people are born with, rather than one they acquire as they grow up. The team’s research, just published in Behavioral Neuroscience, shows that lesbians blink like heterosexual men. That, in turn, suggests that the part of their brain that controls this reflex has been masculinised in the womb.

Anyone who is startled by an unexpected noise tends to blink. If, however, the startling noise is preceded by a quieter sound, this blink is not so vigorous as it would otherwise have been. It is this lack of vigour which differs between the sexes. Men blink less vigorously than women when primed in this way.

Given such a clear and simple distinction, testing the responses of homosexuals to noise seemed an obvious experiment to do. So Dr Rahman and his colleagues did it. Their subjects, men and women, gay and straight, were sat down one by one in a dimly lit room. The muscles that cause blinking were wired up with recording electrodes, and the subjects were fitted with headphones through which the sounds (sometimes a single startling noise, and sometimes a combination of soft and loud) were fed.

In the latter case, as compared with the former, straight men had blinks that were 40% less vigorous. In the case of straight women the drop was 13%. Lesbians dropped 33% which, statistically, made them more similar to straight men than straight women. Gay men were also intermediate, although in their case the difference was not statistically significant. Even in this apparently trivial matter, it seems, lesbians have male-like brains. So what is going on?

By default, people are female. Without the influence of testosterone in the womb, a fetus will develop into a girl. The way testosterone acts to turn a fetus male is still poorly understood. It seems likely, though, that different organs respond independently to the hormone, and may do so at different times. Hormonal surges at critical moments could thus cause particular organs in an otherwise female body to become

Yeah, but where do bisexuals fit in, Sods?

[quote=“Alien”]Yeah, but where do bisexuals fit in, Sods?[/quote]They can fit in both ways.

Says he with the mighty tower of power… :shock:

Soddom’s theory still works for bisexuals if you think of a spectrum of sexuality, with straight men and hardcore dykes being the “lazy blinkers”, and then draw a line away from that in as many different directions as there are people! Wherever you are on that biological sexuality spectrum/carousel, you still only have a finite amount of lifestyle choices to fit in with.

Or are bisexuals just greedy? :wink:

Alien baited you Tigerman with a loaded question. Parents should be proud of their children no matter how they “turn out.” My mother is here in Taiwan visiting and every time she has the chance she says how proud she is of me. It is my strongest driving force.
P.S. “Turn out” is a term that parents use when they look back on their children’s lives. They are unable to read their chilren’s DNA upon birth, so they wait to see how they “turn out.” Nature and nurture still have to play out to their predestined conclusions with a dash of fate.

That Alien is always tryin’ to bust my stones :laughing: … but you don’t think that’s the first time I’d ever seen or considered one of those “can God make a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it?” type questions, do ya? :wink:

I ain’t no spring chicken… I been around… and if I told ya all that went down, it might burn off both your ears… well, maybe not. Damn! That felt like I was momentarily possessed by Formosa! :shock:

But anyway… do you agree or disagree with my reply to that clever-witted Alien’s trick question? My point was that I will neither be proud nor ashamed of my son’s sexual orientation, as that isn’t an acomplishment… its just a fact of nature… thus, nuthin’ to be prideful of or ashamed.

I will be proud of my son’s accomplishments, however, if they are deserving of such pride.

And you were saying I oughta try bedevilling your advocates? :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote=“tigerman”]
I ain’t no spring chicken… I been around… and if I told ya all that went down, it might burn off both your ears…[/quote]

Oh yeah? This is the temporary Gay Living forum, so anything goes, you
Retro-tiger-rogue! Grrrrr… :smiling_imp: But we can start another thread and hear bout yer ear-burning Grateful Dead groupie sex orgies, if you’d like.

Tigerman goes down! Damn, thet means he sucks, too. :laughing:

Only if it relates to Gay Living. And it doesn’t.

CQ, don’t get excited. I just like using that line.

[quote=“Grateful Dead in Deal”]Since it cost a lot to win
and even more to lose
You and me better spend some time
wondering what to choose

Goes to show you don’t ever know
Watch each card you play
and play it slow
Wait until your deal come round
Don’t you let that deal go down

I been gambling here abouts
for ten good solid years
If I told you all that went down
it would burn off both your ears

It goes to show you don’t ever know
Watch each card you play
and play it slow
Wait until your deal come round
Don’t you let that deal go down

Since you poured the wine for me
and tightend up my shoes
I hate to leave you sittin there
composin lonesome blues

It goes to show you don’t ever know
Watch each card you play
and play it slow
Wait until your deal come round
Don’t you let that deal go down
Don’t you let that deal go down, no
Don’t you let your deal go down
[/quote]

Not him. You can’t enjoy the head or fully appreciate the aroma unless you pour it into a glass.

[quote=“tigerman”] Only if it relates to Gay Living. And it doesn’t.
[/quote] But we could probably find some connections. There may have been birkenstocks involved, for example.

Bye for now. Looking forward to reading the Chronicles, Tigerpuff. I bet Sandqueen could add some tales of her own.

Not me. I’m as pure as an altarboy …

:laughing: Birkenstocks, guaze peasant skirts, daisy chains, clove cigarettes and patchouli!

I don’t reveal specifics. Anyway… that’s all becoming a blur now in the attics of my mind.

[quote]Bu Lai En wrote:
My point is this. Noone is ‘born gay’. Sure whether we prefer men or women and to what degree, is probably mostly biologically determined, but our sexuality and how we express it is a product of both socialisation and individual choice. I don’t believe in homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and definitely not meterosexual. Everone (well nearly everyone) is just sexual. Some prefer blondes, some like long legs, some like dicks and some like tits. Some like the whole damn lot, and some are very choosy.Brian

Uninformed opinion like this saddens me. The facts suggest your opinion is wrongly held, and that sexuality is already established at birth.[/quote]

Don’t quote me out of context Closet Queen. :x

You didn’t actually read my post did you?

If you’d bothered to read it before responding, you would have seen that I was making the distinction between being sexually attracted to the same-sex (biologically determined) and being ‘gay’ (environmentally determined). I realise that ‘gay’ doesn’t really mean this, but there is no semantic distinction that I know of between the two in queer theory (the biologically determined preference, and the social role) the way there is between the terms sex and gender in feminism/women’s studies.

To simplify it for you - you may be born preferring men to women, but you are not born liking Barbara Streisland movies and with an expensive taste in shoes.

Brian[/quote]

As a gay man I agree with you. I think that your level of sexual attraction to members of the same-sex, the opposite sex or both sexes is determined at birth. But, I do think that our environment plays a role in how we express that in the world around us. Hence, me originally saying that biology was a function that controls sexuality, not the function.

Ok… again I’ll use myself as an example. When I first started coming out to people and getting involved in the gay community, I came out to one of my friends. He told me that he had always thought I was straight. He had had a lot of gay friends over the years (and still does) and didn’t see any “gay-ness” in me. A year later, he told me he thought I was “gayer” than I was before. And, as I thought about it, I realized he was right.

Does that mean I wasn’t born gay, but now was? No. Does that mean that my level of attraction toward tall, muscular, hairy men had gotten stronger over the year? No. But, it did mean that going from the close-minded, oppressive environment of my childhood and early adulthood to the more open environment I had been living in for that year, had made me more comfortable being gay. Therefore, I was able to (and did) express more of my true personality and self.

My environment had for 30 years played a roll in who I was, how I behaved – i.e., expressed my sexuality – etc… And, my new environment was having the same (but different) effect. Many gay men in Taiwan, no matter how strongly they are attracted to men, let their environment (their family, society, etc) effect their behavior and how they let their sexuality interact with the world.

I think my 30 years in that oppressive environment is also why I don’t like the terms “queer” and “fag.” To me, growing up as I did, those terms had a definite negative connotation. They were always said as slurs against gay people. Therefore, I still find that I shy away from those words.

Ok… did that make any sense what-so-ever?

[quote=“Bu Lai En”] Don’t quote me out of context Closet Queen. :x

You didn’t actually read my post did you?

If you’d bothered to read it before responding, you would have seen that I was making the distinction between being sexually attracted to the same-sex (biologically determined) and being ‘gay’ (environmentally determined). I realise that ‘gay’ doesn’t really mean this, but there is no semantic distinction that I know of between the two in queer theory (the biologically determined preference, and the social role) the way there is between the terms sex and gender in feminism/women’s studies.[/quote]

Don’t get your knickers in a twist, Bri. Apologies if I have misrepresented your sentiments, but any misrepresentation stems from your being footloose and fancy free with the terminology. I did read your post, and I have just re-read it. The essential problem is you draw a distinction between sexuality and being gay, but you provide no clear distinction between the terms. You say sexual preferences are

Exactly. because as far as I know there are no terms that make the distinction between your biological sexual preferences, and your ‘sexuality role’. As I said, I was just ‘borrowing’ the word ‘gay’ to mean this for the purposes of my argument. Some people might look at a man who is totally unattracted to other men and say he is really ‘gay’ right? Also you must know homosexual men who have got the response “but you don’t look or act gay”. Anyway, I admit, the words are not really up to the discussion.

‘And an expensive taste in shoes’, I said.

I was being simplistic, but look at the ‘Gay Test’ on the fun and games forum. If you like musicals and buy expensive shoes, you are graded as more ‘gay’. These are the ‘sexuality roles’.

Let me go back to the analogy with gender studies. Your sex is whether you are man or woman. This is biologically determined. Your ‘gender’ is whether you are maculine or feminine and this is largely determined by society and individual choice. It is also variable between cultures. So feminine qualities (in some people’s books) include liking pretty clothes, being submissive, being graceful, enjoying housework and having no head for figures etc.

Now the (stereotypical) ‘sexuality roles’ for being ‘gay’ include things like enjoying Barabara Streisland movies, having an expensive taste in shoes, being well groomed, being a great dancer, being both sensitive and bitchy, flamboyancy etc. This is variable between cultures, is not biologically determined (unlike sexual preference itself), and of course is not true of all, or probably even most, ‘homosexuals’ (here I’m using that word to mean those men born with a sexual preference for other men).

That’s what I meant by “noone is born ‘gay’”. I think I made it clear, that I was using the word ‘gay’ (in the absence of more precise terminology) differently from how it is usually used.

Brian

There will come a time when being straight or gay will be like today being left handed or right handed. No one will give it much thought one way or the other. Just the way people are.

Another 5,o00 years, however, until we get there. A long way off. First, the major supernatural religions have to die a natural death. 3000 years. Then people have to readjust to a new age religion, 1000 years. Then people have to redefine human nature, 1000 years. Total = 5000 years more.

But in the meantime, we can start here and now. today. Tigerman, good on ya for reading Sullivan. He’s pretty good.