From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: The Gender Lie
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:54:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: eagle.1992Apr7.205404.1
Organization: Wesleyan University

jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> The following view of behavior is having a profound impact on society:
>  
> * For the most part, gender differences are acquired during development.
>  
> * For the most part, homosexuality is congenital.
>  
and then asserts
>  
> * The exact opposite is consistent with the central role of 
> heterosexuality in reproduction and the central role of reproduction 
> in evolution.  
>  
> * Hormones affect developmental paths as well as immediate responses.
>  
and finally concludes
>  
> On practical as well as theoretic grounds, the evolutionarily
> inconsistent view of gender and orientation is profoundly destructive
> and should be abandoned.
> 
   My initial reaction to your conclusion is that it is _truth_ that matters,
not whether or not we like those truths.  In history, sociology, philosophy,
these truths never are, and probably never will be, agreed upon.  But we before
us here a provable theory -- homosexuality has a genetic basis.

   There have been several studies to support this conclusion, the most
convincing one was a study of siblings.  Various homosexuals' siblings were
asked about their sexual prefernce and it was found that there was a higher
incidence of homosexuality in that group than in society at large. 
Furthermore, the incidence of both siblings being homosexual rose slightly when
the siblings were fraternal twins, and rose dramatically when the siblings were
identical twins.
   The rise from the normal sibling shared homosexuality rate to that of
fraternal twins is most likely due to a shared childhood environment, as there
was a significant increase even though the genetic relationship remained equal. 
The rate for identical twins was even higher than that, too high to be
explained by the environmental factors that caused the difference between
normal siblings and fraternal twins.

    If homosexuality has a genetic base, why is it here at all?  After millions
of years of sexually reproducing populations, wouldn't it have been wiped out? 
Obviously not.  Clearly there must be environmental factors at play, which
means that animals who have this particular genotype are only predisposed to
being homosexual, not always are.  Also, homosexuality in the animal kingdom
rarely takes place -- bisexuality is far more common.  Thus would the trait
survive.
    In the more recent human population, homosexuals would have their urge
suppressed by Society At Large, marry, and have children.  Thus would the
genotype be maintained in the population.  My prediction for wide social
acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriages -- the rate of
homosexuality would decline in successive generations.  It takes but a little
thought to realize why.

   By the way, hormones _do_ affect developmental paths, but only before birth.
The male/female sexuality of the brain has been proved to be determined in a
very short and quite early fetal time period.  There is no evidence of
post-birth major structural changes in the brain -- indeed, a good deal of
proof denies that assertion.  Sexuality isn't changed by adolescence, only
activated by it.

    This is hardly sociological, so my posting of this message to soc.men was
debated by myself, but I think truth is more important than where this message
belongs.  Homosexuality most likely is congenital;  society must alter itself
to demonstrable fact, and facts must never be ignored for the sake of
maintaining social standards.

							Max Zener
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame,alt.fan.q