Ignorant religious people discriminate against gays by saying that their "disease" can be cured

Ignorant religious people discriminate against gays by saying that their "disease" can be cured.

Most of the people who support equal rights for LGBT people say that it's something you are just born with.

I am 100% in support of gay rights and all, but I can't help but wonder if there is actually any genetic evidence sexual preference. I mean, if it is something you are born with, it has to be genetic (i.e. not learned), and therefore hereditary. Is this true? Are there studies on this?

I just hate taking things at face value.

Other urls found in this thread:

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938401005649
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.459.3449&rep=rep1&type=pdf
psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/78/3/524/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986
tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

wrong board buddy

Don't know, and seeing how politicized this subject is research may not be impartial.

Actually a semi-legit thread for once, let it be.

There are genetic predisposals. Genes don't guarantee anything though.

OP here, the reason I ask this is because it is a political situation that is using an argument loosely based on science. I am in the Veeky Forums board asking if this argument is on solid ground or just more political talk.

>I mean, if it is something you are born with, it has to be genetic (i.e. not learned), and therefore hereditary. Is this true?
No, that's incorrect. There are other (non-genetic) factors that can influence how one is born (e.g. prenatal hormone levels etc.)

>Are there studies on this?
Probably.

considering that majority of them had some fucked up sexual experience when they were young should say something
how could something like this even be spread genetically?

Hahah. I once made a thread in /lgbt/ questioning the nature of sexuality and I got a global ban for 3 days.

That board is completely gone. They are in their own limbo land. As cancerous as /pol/ but at least they do not leave their containment board.

this thread belongs to

You do realize that board gets that thread topic all the time, right? Like, you were likely banned because they probably saw your thread as you trying to make a controversial thread just to troll.

OP here,

Well yea, not looking for guarantees, but does a certain genetic composition statistically increase the chance of someone being gay? Is there any evidence for this (i.e. published stuff)?

True, but I guess you could consider prenatal influences from the environment as part of "nurture". However, if some prenatal hormonal influence could cause homosexuality, then this would pretty much mean that the religious people are right, i.e. that with certain "treatment" you could prevent homosexuality. I highly doubt that this is the case, but I don't really know the evidence on either side (which is why I ask).

ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE NOT REPRESSING SOMETHING? GO TALK TO A PSYCHIATRIST YOU MIGHT BE TRANS! DONT BE ASHAMED IT IS GREAT TO BE TRANS!

Not really, OP is asking if there are any studies or research into whether or not sexual orientation has a genetic basis. /lgbt/ is mostly a board to help LGBT people talk with other LGBT people and find resources for them.

lgbt nazis don't even tolerate asking questions, let alone assume genders. which makes it funnier when they think people take them seriously

>I guess you could consider prenatal influences from the environment as part of "nurture"
Correct.

>However, if some prenatal hormonal influence could cause homosexuality, then this would pretty much mean that the religious people are right, i.e. that with certain "treatment" you could prevent homosexuality.
It wouldn't mean that at all, what the fuck are you talking about? Fetal development isn't something that's easy to control, and traits like sexual orientation aren't malleable anymore once they've developed.

I just had a quick look on google scholar, here are a few studies.
>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938401005649
>citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.459.3449&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/78/3/524/

It's primarily biologically based but there's wiggle room in expression. Sexuality is mostly a spectrum that homo/hetero/bi doesn't really describe precisely enough for most. For the love of god, I'm not alluding to or attempting in any way to give credence to the retarded 844389498 genders crap. This continuum comes mainly from the varied expressions of tertiary sexual characteristics and the individual perceptions (shaped by personal experience) thereof (e.g. is it "gay" for a man who is attracted to Scarjo's face to also be attracted to another man's face that greatly resembles hers?). Much of this is governed by hormones, both at the moment and throughout gestation and life.

To really drill down on this info, you've mostly got to seek out and read papers on your own while ignoring the published discussion. It's career suicide to talk about the realities of gender and sexuality in any direct way.

Here is a twin study:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986

No hard conclusions but a genetic correlation was revealed.

They've done twin studies showing that there's something like a 30% concordance rate in identical twins. Though check that figure as it is totally of the top of my head. So people have a genetic predisposition but it isnt genetically absolute.

Like the other user said too, not memeing though it sounds harsh, a significant portion of the gay community had some childhood sexual abuse that likely informed the sexual preference. Just as most paedophiles were abused themselves. Even normal people's sexuality is formed from infant experiences. In my case i must have been solidly abused by giant tits for years.

So homosexuality has a strong "environmental" basis. But this is not, as muslims and christians believe, a case of telling your kid to play football and spank his sister but some complex interactions we are not knowledgeable of.

Maybe it would but it obviously won't survive there for long.

Well, I am not a gayhomo man like you so I do not browse it but I had a legit question. My thread was about:

1) What exactly counts as a sexuality?
2) What is the boundary of a fetish and when does it turn into a sexuality? For example, why isn't homosexuality just a fetish for your same sex and instead is a whole sexual identity on its own. And why isn't pedophilia a sexuality, or is it?
3) If I came here to tell you that my fetish for [whatever] is actually my sexuality and I identify with it, would you accept it?

If you ask me, those are legit fucking questions to ask to the people that say that sexuality and gender are fluid. I am basically asking how fluid is sexuality? If gender isn't a binary then what is it? If you say it is a spectrum then surely you have characterized that spectrum, right?

lol.

I'd like to think that gay people are good people but bis and transexuals are the ones who took their quest for rights into a whole war against everyone not under their label.

Well that's identity politics for ya.

No it isnt a spectrum and finding a mans face attractive is literally gay. Other men dont feel like you.

It may or may not be genetic. We are not 100% sure on the underlying cause of being gay.

What we are 100% sure of is that you can't consciously change a person's orientation and attempts to do so cause dramatic harm to a person's mental health.

It may be genetic, it may be environmental, it may be a combination of both, but all we know is that it's fixed.

>finding a mans face attractive is literally gay
bu what if that man has a vagina?

I get that you those are legitimate questions, but when your board is trolled constantly with shit like "Lol, is being a pedo a sexuality?", people generally get annoyed and see it all as just another inane troll. Further, /lgbt/ generally doesn't believe in more than two genders.

A fetish is finding something not sexual sexual. Liking female primary or secondary sexual characteristics is not a fetish. Wanting to sit on a fence post in public is.

Of course it's a spectrum.

If you find a woman attractive and find a man attractive who looks exactly like that woman and you don't know they're a man, you're not gay for finding that man attractive. Attractiveness is based on traits, if you see a person with the right combination of traits that is specifically tailored to your interests, your arousal will be triggered. Your penis doesn't know the chromosomes of the person you're looking at, you just know if you find them attractive or not.

There is a spectrum though, otherwise bisexuals wouldn't exist.

Yup, this chick is really hot yo.

Well, what is sexual and what is not sexual?

Maybe I find kneecaps to be sexual and maybe I want to really fuck a kneecap. I want to rub my cock against a kneecap. What now? Am I Kneesexual?

pedophilia is a fetish
when you want little boys, it's homosexual
when little girls it's heterosexual

OP here,

Thanks for the sources!

I didn't mean that sexual orientation could be "easily" defined with some prenatal treatment. I guess I just meant to say that: if the prenatal environment influences sexual orientations, then given all possible control (other than genetic makeup), it could be physically possible (although impossibly difficult with current technology), to alter the sexual orientation of a fetus. From your first reference, it seems like this is indeed the case.

However, is there also a genetic component to this? i.e. given the exact same prenatal environment, could one genetic makeup be more likely to become gay than another?

Additionally, is the environmental influence only effective if it happens during prenatal development? As someone mentioned here, there is a (anecdotal) correlation between homosexuality and a traumatic experience growing up. Could the window of influence be larger than just while in the womb?

What fucking man looks exactly like a woman. Ive never seen a man with big hips and ass, large breasts and a soft face with big eyes and mouth. If you are anywhere in the business of liking people who could be mistaken for one or the other you are bi, or just a faggot who hasnt accepted it yet.

Good description. It's not career suicide at all though. Just let the community have whatever labels they want, don't feel like you should be deciding for them.

Three integers isnt a spectrum, its three distinct points.

Why does everyone think /lgbt/ is tumblr: Veeky Forums edition?

>1) What exactly counts as a sexuality?
A predominant disposition for one sex or the other, or both sexes. This combines sexual attraction, romantic attraction, emotional attraction and aesthetic attraction. Your either lean in one direction or both directions.
>2) What is the boundary of a fetish and when does it turn into a sexuality?
A fetish never turns into a sexuality. A fetish is a trait that reliably triggers arousal in a person. A straight man does not have a fetish for women, but that man may have a fetish for feet, for large breasts, for nurses, for tattoos, etc.
>3) If I came here to tell you that my fetish for [whatever] is actually my sexuality and I identify with it, would you accept it?
No. There is no pedosexual or zoosexual or necrosexual, those concepts come from people with paraphilias. A paraphilia is when a fetish becomes a life-consuming obsession. People with paraphilias are so fixated on them that they commonly confuse them for orientations.

Okay, thanks for clarirication. Now exactly why isn't pedophilia a sexuality?

I see that you say that pedophilia can vary within homosexual pedophilia and heterosexual pedophilia but that is just means that there are two sexualities attached to the pedophilia label. A pedophilia binary, if you will.

In fact, what if you are attracted to genderfluid kids? Maybe pedophilia is actually a spectrum, you fucking racist.

Go to any orange board ;)

except /pol/ of course. They're good Christians.

Its a fetish, knees dont exhibit sexual dimorphism. They have no sexual attributes.

>This combines sexual attraction, romantic attraction, emotional attraction and aesthetic attraction. Your either lean in one direction or both directions.

Thanks for that dictionary definition grandpa but it is clear that lgbtq+zxdjwhdhuw people don't work with the gender binary anymore.

It is a spectrum so what now?

The left is biological female the right is biological male. I'm not saying either of them are attractive but they look pretty close to each other.

You need to stop thinking in extremes. If you see someone from behind at a distance bending over and it looks like they have a nice ass, and then they turn to you and have a beard, you are not gay because you had sexual interest in something for a moment. Arousal is based on cues.

> fetish for large breasts
You mean normal heterosexuality? Not a fetish.

>knees dont exhibit sexual dimorphism

Yes they fucking do. I bet that if I gave you a man's knee and a woman's knee you would immediately be able to tell the difference. Well, at least you would if you ever had any kind of interaction with women which clearly you don't have if you think that female knees look like male knees topkek.

This is the perfect use-case for a twin study. Here's a (potentially biased, not sure) aggregation:

tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html

Are traps, dare i say it,gay?l

>Thanks for that dictionary definition grandpa but it is clear that lgbtq+zxdjwhdhuw people don't work with the gender binary anymore.
I don't think it's clear, I disagree. I think sexual orientation is an apt descriptor

Y, dare I say it, es

If you are meaning transexuals who have surgery to hide it, then falling for that wouldnt be on a spectrum if they were convincing. To your input everything was female and elicited arousal. Upon discovering otherwise all arousal would disappear.

It is a fetish, just an extremely common one. Some men prefer small breast to big ones. Most men have a limit of how big they want their partners breasts to be as well

It might be possible in the future to influence someone's sexual preferences by some kind of hormone therapy, but there obviously needs to be a ton of additional research on the subject before we can fully understand it.

The religious 'treatment' or gay conversion therapy however is antiscience as fuck and of course will never work, no matter how much they want it to.

You are gay if you've ever looked at a man's ass and felt sexually aroused m8, quite literally gay.

>This is the perfect use-case for a twin study. Here's a (potentially biased, not sure) aggregation:
not really, if you are interested in prenatal events

cloning studies when

Sigh.

Fetishism isn't merely the sexualization of something that's not specifically sexual, it's fixation to the point where it disrupts and replaces "normal" arousal. Like a foot fetish isn't liking feet. It's feet are essentially the only thing that you get aroused by.

I hate when laymen start using psychological jargon. They always forget that for everything described in the DSM, the mere presence means nothing. It's the degree to which a trait is present (specifically that it starts interferring with quality of life) for it to qualify as that condition.

>It may be genetic, it may be environmental, it may be a combination of both, but all we know is that it's fixed.

bullshit... that's probably what they said about all diseases... we eventually found a drug to alter the fundamental chemistry that causes them...

No, the difference is in the hair, remove that and on a non-muscular man the knee will look the same. It is just bone and ligament.

>From your first reference, it seems like this is indeed the case.
Sure. With perfect technology we could do a lot. But that doesn't mean that it's changable after the fact, like religious nuts claim.

>However, is there also a genetic component to this? i.e. given the exact same prenatal environment, could one genetic makeup be more likely to become gay than another?
Probably. Third study in my previous post is a twin study. Some other people posted some too. Traits like sexual orientation are multifactorial (i.e.arise due to a complex interaction between genotype and environment), and polygenic.

>Additionally, is the environmental influence only effective if it happens during prenatal development? As someone mentioned here, there is a (anecdotal) correlation between homosexuality and a traumatic experience growing up. Could the window of influence be larger than just while in the womb?
Probably also yes. But it most likely won't extend to much beyond the critical phase for e.g. language learning. Plasticity drops quite sharply after that.

No it's several many points. There are in-betweens, like men who have preferences for certain 'male' or masculine features but aren't necessarily interested in men, and so on. It's a lot more complex than 'gay or not gay'

Until we find a reliable way of changing sexual orientation, it's not wrong to say it's fixed. This does not mean that it will always be that way or that new information or new discoveries can't change our understanding.

Isn't that one of the most basic tenets of science?

what we also know is that this guy's retardism isn't fixable

Liking female secondary sexual characteristics is quite literally not a fetish. Sorry. You are using the argument "well faggot dont like it" as a defence.

Wow lol please go look up female knees and then shave your own disgusting knee and compare.

>Fetishism isn't merely the sexualization of something that's not specifically sexual, it's fixation to the point where it disrupts and replaces "normal" arousal.
so pedophiles are fetishists?

> """DSM"""

>Liking female secondary sexual characteristics is quite literally not a fetish
Correct. But having a recurring fixation and desire for particular feature is a fetish.

Almost all straight men like breasts. Not all straight men have a fetish for breasts. Plenty straight men do have a fetish for breasts. You don't seem to understand what a fetish is.

What's a "male characteristic". Because if its a normal feature on a healthy woman its not a "male" trait. If you like your women flat chested with a deep voice and short hair you are a faggot who hasnt owned up to it yet.

Orientation is a broad classification that can be broken down further into various other categories. That does not render it obsolete as a classification.

Kinda. They're a slightly different case (mainly because of typically different etiologies) and it's sort of incongruous to claim that they are sexualizing something nonsexual given the role the idea of innocence plays in many's sexual views.

Sorry i upset your fetish mate, no girl is ever going to let you lick her knees.

If a guy is attracted to women with flat chest, deep voice and short hair, but gets no arousal whatsoever from a man with a flat chest, deep voice, and short hair, he's not gay.

You can't bother using a classification system for something if you're not going to follow it rigidly

Wrong

What's a 'normal feature'? Does liking short haired girls somehow gay now? Sounds like you're projecting m8.

Everything is nonsexual until your brain makes it sexual.

your third point contradicts your first... nigger

I don't have a knee fetish. It is an example. Why isn't a knee fetish a knee sexuality?

And the reason I am angry at you (Well, I am not angry, just disappointed) is because you reek so much of virginity that you can't even see the difference between male and female knees.

He would is the point, he's the sort of person who sees a man bending over from a distance and starts getting a hard on as literally said earlier.

Sure thing bub.

Except it doesn't. Fucking moron. Do I need to explain why not?

Sounds like you're upset m8. Go listen to your Prince CD and dress up in that scarf you took from your mother's bedroom.

Penises, ovaries and wombs are quite literally sexual regardless of qualia.

On what basis is a man being attracted to a woman, who he correctly distinguishes as a woman and not a man, gay?

KEK this is some hard projecting my dude, your insecurities are literally bleeding into your post. Seek help m8 ;^)

They are sexual in that they facilitate sex. They are not sexual in the context of arousal unless you find them arousing.

Feet can be sexual to a person. Penises can be completely nonsexual to that same person. We're talking in the context of sexual arousal, not reproductive function

The reason you are angry at me is because you secretly want to fuck me but are so unsure of yourself you'd rather keep pretending your straight.

Knees arent a sexual feature. They're not dimorphic. You might as well fuck your dog at this point. They've got four.

Somewhere before being attracted to her.

So you mean sexually desirable not just sexual then.

OP here,

So... can we get back on topic? Is there actual scientific evidence for all the opinions thrown around here? Or is Veeky Forums just full of people with strong opinions based on zero actual data?

I thought I had made it clear that nothing is inherently nonsexual because anything can be sexual depending on what an individual finds sexual. Sexual in this case being something that stimulates sexual interest, I thought that was completely clear.

Are you an idiot? Several people have already posted studies. But you haven't looked at them.

I have a scientific instrument that can detect the smallest readings of microhomos even across the internet and ive got to say its been going off the charts every time you post.

What are you doing on the science board?

There isn't a science board on Veeky Forums. Veeky Forums is just /pol/'s personal version of /s4s/ at this point

Well then certain things are quite inherently sexual as they have a sexual function. You cant pick and choose.

Bailey & Pillard (1991), mentioned in this aggregation, studied both identical and fraternal twins and found a 250% difference in coincidence rate between them (compared to a 500% coincidence rate between identical and adopted siblings)

Bailey and pillard probably mad sucked each other's dicks during the study.

this unfortunately
i will mourn Veeky Forums's loss

Do you not understand what context means

Something that facilitates sexual function does not make it inherently sexually arousing.

How many people do you think find the appearance of ovaries to be incredibly arousing?

> leftism and science dont really go well together
Who knew

Science is independent of liberalism or conservatism. Anyone can twist information to further their own agendas and beliefs but knowledge is knowledge.

Now fuck off.

Yes, in general politics and science don't go well together. Just look at how anti-science /pol/ is.

Most people find the idea of jamming themselves in and blasting all over the ovaries appealing. Imagine how you feel when the third pozzer of the happy hour has just entered the bathroom stall and is unzipping behind you and that's roughly how we feel as we are about to pump a woman.