Talk:Biology and sexual orientation/Archive 1

message: I am curious to know if anyone has ever come across any information on the web concerning the genetic basis for homosexuality in light of the generally accepted theory of natural selection.  I am writing a short paper on the subject and I am having trouble narrowing my internet searches sufficiently to uncover anything.  Basically, my question is this: If a gene for homosexuality exists in the human genome, why has it not been "weeded out" after countless generations in which the most highly reproductive individuals would have been selected for?  Obviously homosexuals would have passed on their genes far less frequently than heterosexuals, so how is it that these genes are still present in the human populations of today?  Hopefully some of you will know a possible answer to this question or perhaps be able to suggest likely places on the web where I can seek it out myself.  I appreciate your time in reading this message.
-Brook
:I know the "kindly gay uncle" theory has been proposed, meaning that a family member who does not reproduce has the time and resources to help nieces and nephews out, thus propagating his family's genes.  Sounds rather dodgy to me, but some people do or have accepted it. Tuf-Kat 18:29, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
::It isn't at all obvious that gay and lesbian people would pass on their genes far less frequently considering the intense pressure to be straight and reproduce over the last few hundred years. Gay people pass on their genes all the time, in fact, gay and lesbian teenagers are twice as likely to impregnate someone or be impregnated (http://www.lesbianinformationservice.org/pregnancy.rtf). See: situational sexual behaviour and causes of sexual orientation. Hyacinth 17:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Points taken. However, even without those specific extraordinary pressure(s), gay people are capable of reproduction. Hyacinth 01:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  homosexuality and natural selection question 

message: Cut from article:
:These studies lend credence to the idea that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation, or that homosexuality and heterosexuality may be partly the result of some otherwise innate physical characteristic(s).
Actually, this is exactly the opposite of what the studies show. They take away credence from the idea that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation; they don't bolster it at all.
Unscrupulous or careless journalists may have cited these studies, or used selective quotation to make it seem like the studies provided evidence for the "gays are born that way" hypothesis. 
But the researchers themselves say that such a conclusion is a misrepresentation. --Uncle Ed 17:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These are theories: hard empirical data is lacking
Shouldn't this be "These are hypotheses"?  This article is mostly scientific, and as such should use the scientific definitions of theory/hypothesis, not the popular ones. CyborgTosser 01:42, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What the studies show

message: Apologies to all for the mistaken replacement of 'subject' to 'participant'. Thanks to User:Jmabel for correcting it.
I was replacing 'subjects' with 'participants' in several articles to make them comply with modern thinking and psychology guidelines.  The term 'participant' is now commonly regarded as more appropriate than 'subject' when referring to humans that consent to take part in experiments. I was skim reading the articles and did not notice that the humans in the experiments this article were dead. If I had noticed that, I would have left the terms as they were.
In case anyone is interested, examples of the psychology guidelines that mention the use of terms like 'subject' and 'participant' include:
* The British Psychological Society style guide '10.2 Inappropriate labels'
* The American Psychological Association (APA) style guide. I understand that the subject/participant issue is in APA 'Chapter 2 Guidelines to Reduce Bias in Language' but I have not read it directly. I undertand that it says something similar to: "Terms like participants,respondents, or students should be used instead of the term, subject". It is referred to in the APA FAQ I've noticed that subjects is often changed in copyediting, most often to participants. Why?
Bobblewik  (talk) 09:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  subject -> participant 

message: So, I was bold.
I did not address this theory, though:
::Apparent homosexual behavior provides a stealth mechanism for slipping past alpha males in some species; like most putative explanations, that does not explain inheritance of female homosexuality.
You might argue that the ability to appear non-competitive to members of the same gender gives advantage, whether male or female.  Personally, I find this theory a little badly formed, because it seems more like an evolutionary theory in support of bisexuality, but not purely homosexual attraction, per se.  Except perhaps as an maladaptive side-effect.  But that doesn't mean that the pros and cons of this idea shouldn't be included in the article.  But I'm not sure I have a clear grasp of what people who believe in this theory actually are advocating.  Perhaps someone else is more familiary with the theory or there is documentation of the ideas of a popular advocate? 
-- Beland 03:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality as decoy theory

message: I got a personal request to fix the intro section so that it's no more than three paragraphs or so, to keep the TOC near the top.  So I refactored the intro and headerized.  Following the general rule of putting layperson-accessible content first in scientific articles, I moved the Politics section up.  I also moved the "Twin studies" section up, because this type of study seems to most directly address the question at hand. -- Beland 00:11, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: Reported by the BBC today here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm - may be of interest to the keepers of this article. Pcb21| Pete 08:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Now integrated into the article.  Thanks for pointing this out! -- Beland 06:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New study 

message: The material in this section appears to be taken largely from a report similar to  or perhaps this same one.  The current Wikipedia text seems to summarize the BBC report incorrectly in that it conflates two different scientific theories.  I will attempt to fix it. -- Beland 05:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this section now accurately represents my understanding of what the BBC was reporting.  It would be very worthwhile to dig up the original studies to make sure what we are reporting accurately represents what the journal articles said. -- Beland 06:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: I found this in the "Homosexuality" article:
:Georgetown University explaining the widespread homosexuality and attractions in adolescence has theorized this may be an integral part of bonding to reduce inter-species aggression later in life when many become bisexual.
I couldn't find any more information about this through a quick Google search.  It sounds like a dubious theory, but is very likely being misreported here, so I'm removing it until more research on the subject can be done. -- Beland 04:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwinism