Medical treatment carries possible side effect of limiting homosexuality

[roo_ster]

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-adrenal-20100815,0,5576220.story

If an expectant mother's baby has a high risk particular birth defect (congenital adrenal hyperplasia), that birth defect can be treated/prevented in the womb with drugs (to the mom).

So far, so good.  Happy mommy, healthy baby.

Not quite so fast...

It seems that mothers who go through with this treatment and have girls, have girls that are significantly LESS prone to lesbianism or masculine behaviors than those that don't undergo treatment and behave more like females than those who did not undergo treatment.

This has the homosexual lobby up in arms.



This is interesting for several reasons.
1.Points to a biological (in utero) causation for masculine females and some lesbians
2. Undermines the argument for genetic causation and makes the case for regarding (some) homosexuality as akin to a birth defect.

[Firethorn]

"behave more like females than those who did not undergo treatment."

So by what standard are we measuring 'female behavior'?

Because that could just as easily be measured by how much girls like dolls vs cars, whether a daughter wants to go hunting with her parents, firearm shooting, etc...

Even if she does like guys...

Edit:  Oh yeah, real feminine:  Treated girls are more likely to be 'shy' vs 'aggressive' for untreated.  Oh, and the article doesn't cite any percentages for reduction in homosexuality.

Hmm...  chances of attraction depends on exposure to androgen?  Sounds like free-martin cows - where a cow is pregnant with twins, one male, one female.  The male fetus ends up aborting, but leaves hormone changes on the female.  She ends up being a rather masculine cow - normally sterile, but was sometimes used to tell when the cows were in heat and ready for the bull, as she might go so far as to attempt to mount females in heat.

As for homosexuality not being a disease... Well, it does lead to issues.  I'm not about to suggest that we try to 'fix' existing people, but it becomes much murkier in the womb.

[PTK]

Indeed, and quite my question as well.

[taurusowner]

Since the purpose of sex is reproduction, and homosexuality interferes with that, it sounds like a biological error if it's biological at all.

Question:  If they found a treatment for unborn babies that lowered the chances or sterility in females, would people oppose it?

[Firethorn]

Since the purpose of sex is reproduction, and homosexuality interferes with that, it sounds like a biological error if it's biological at all.

I've read studies that show marked differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals in the brain.  So my conclusion is that yes, on average at least, it's biological.  How much that biology is affected by genetics, I don't know.

What I also don't know is what positive benefits that the gene makeup for homosexuality might have otherwise.  It could be a bit like Sickle Cell - a little bit of it helps make you resistent to Malaria; but both copies causes other problems.

Question:  If they found a treatment for unborn babies that lowered the chances or sterility in females, would people oppose it?

I'm sure you could find some nuts out there that would.

[makattak]

I'm sure you could find some nuts out there that would.

Kind of like the deaf people opposed to cochlear implants?

[taurusowner]

I've read studies that show marked differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals in the brain.  So my conclusion is that yes, on average at least, it's biological.  How much that biology is affected by genetics, I don't know.

What I also don't know is what positive benefits that the gene makeup for homosexuality might have otherwise.  It could be a bit like Sickle Cell - a little bit of it helps make you resistent to Malaria; but both copies causes other problems.

I'm sure you could find some nuts out there that would.

Sickle cell is genetic and by its very nature can be passed on.  Homosexuality in its very nature prevents reproduction, therefore its alleged benefits cannot be traits meant to appear in subsequent offspring , which by the nature of the condition, cannot exist.  Its essentially like claiming being born without reproductive organs is meant to help the species. Something that by its very nature hinders continuation of the genetic line cannot really be considered biologically positive.

[BridgeRunner]

Except that evolution is not actually goal-directed. 

[taurusowner]

Except that evolution is not actually goal-directed. 

But organisms are. Life seeks to live and propagate.  Everything from single cell organisms to humans seek to reproduce.  It's even one of the 7 "required traits" for something to be considered a life form.  An organism that by its very nature cannot or will not reproduce is a negatively damaged organism.

[BrokenPaw]

[Re: opposing in-utero treatments for female infertility]I'm sure you could find some nuts out there that would.

At the risk of being labeled a "nut":  I've always had some ethical questions about the whole "medically-enhanced fertility" thing.  Specifically, if a person is infertile, or a couple is infertile together, perhaps there's a reason for that (not necessarily an "intelligent design" reason, but quite possibly a "this person's or couple's children are likely to have problems severe enough that pregnancy makes no positive sense evolutionarily" reason). 

Just as with the natural miscarriage of a non-viable fetus, but earlier.

To use every bit of available science to work around that, to give a child to a couple that nature has been preventing from conceiving...I believe there are ethical issues there.

An anecdotal case from my own experience.  A friend of mine had been trying with his wife for...many moons...to conceive a child.  Umpty-thousand dollars in fertility treatments later, >poof< pregnancy.  Spina bifida.  Child paralyzed from the waist down.  Yes, yes, an anecdote does not a statistic make.  But it's certainly not a counter-argument.  Perhaps the infertility was Nature's way of saying "Don't".

As for in-utero treatment of infertility:  Perhaps that fetus is infertile for a reason, and correcting the symptom might not correct the underlying cause.  So until the potential unintended consequences were understood to within a statistical margin of error, yeah:  I'd be opposed to willy-nilly treatment of fetuses for infertility.

Ragnar, your premise ("An organism that by its very nature cannot or will not reproduce is a negatively damaged organism.") is correct in any species that is asocial.  However, in social species, there is demonstrable benefit to the species in having reproductively-barren individuals as part of the "herd"; having elder individuals past procreation age around to care for young and so forth can free up younger individuals for other activities, like gathering, which increase the chances of the success of the genetic line.   So the presence of a non-breeder in a social species enclave is not intrinsic evidence of "damage".

[taurusowner]

True you may encounter lions that can't breed but can still hunt or apes that can't mate but can still pick fleas off others' backs.  But they are still aberrations that live and die.  And concerning elders, that isn't quite the same thing.  They have already bred and continued their line.  The sterile animals cannot and will not.  And we're not talking about social constructs.  We're talking about an alleged gene that apparently acts to kill off its own genetic existence.  Those kind of things do occur in nature.  They're called mutations and they are not something that is celebrated.  Sterile apes or other social animals are often ostracized due to their lack of breeding ability.  Now with humans we don't necessarily operate in such simplistic terms.  But the genes don't know that.  The fact that homosexuals have learned to make the best of their situation socially is not really pertinent biologically.  At the bottom of the discussion we still have singular organisms whose own genes are essentially wired to kill themselves off.  Ok, we've socially adapted to make the life of those organisms agreeable.  But it doesn't change the fact that if homosexuality is genetic, it is far outside of what could be considered "proper" human genetic coding.  We already know of plenty of genetic diseases.  They affect varying parts of the human body and its systems.  For some, we've advanced far enough socially and technologically where some people with genetic disorders can live mostly normal and comfortable lives.  But that doesn't mean we look at those genes and say "it's totally fine for people to have this disorder and we should even quash any attempt to fix it".  I don't see homosexuality, if it is genetic, as being any different.  It would be a genetic sequence that warps the organisms behavior to something outside of what a human being "should be".  The organism can socially adapt to lead a comfortable life, but that doesn't mean that it's how things "should be".

[MicroBalrog]

Where does this article mention homosexuality? I see a lot of talk about 'genital hyperplasty', whatever that is.

Ragnar: Who cares what evolution thinks? I certainly don't let evolution determine my goals in life. Evolution is merely an unteleological process of trial and error. It's not a source of moral inspiration.

[Perd Hapley]

Ragnar: Who cares what evolution thinks? I certainly don't let evolution determine my goals in life. Evolution is merely an unteleological process of trial and error. It's not a source of moral inspiration.

I can't answer for Ragnar, but a genetic cause for homosexuality is commonly cited as a moral justification for it.  "They're born that way, so how can it be wrong?"  Ragnar's arguments contribute to the larger refutation of genetics as a moral justification. Not that it really needed any help.  

[roo_ster]

Where does this article mention homosexuality?

In the texty part of the article.

[MicroBalrog]

What are 'feminine behavioral traits' and why would I be interested in limiting them?

[Firethorn]

Kind of like the deaf people opposed to cochlear implants?

Good point; you know, I think I remember bringing them up here before?  Maybe even over at THR.

Sickle cell is genetic and by its very nature can be passed on.  Homosexuality in its very nature prevents reproduction, therefore its alleged benefits cannot be traits meant to appear in subsequent offspring , which by the nature of the condition, cannot exist.

Hmm...  Note that I mentioned sickle cell in a specific context:  ONE copy = Malaria Resistance, TWO copies = Virtual immunity to malaria, but potentially severe or even fatal(if untreated) conditions in certain circumstances.  Sickle cell hasn't been bred out of the African population, indeed, it's been encouraged due to the resistance it provides to malaria.

Homosexuality would be the equivalent of having both genes, but I'm certainly not going to say that it's anything so simple as a single gene.  I'm also not going to say that I have any clue as to what the positives might be.  It probably is environmental and in the womb - homosexual men tend to NOT be the first son, and each subsequent son is likelier to be homosexual.

Its essentially like claiming being born without reproductive organs is meant to help the species. Something that by its very nature hinders continuation of the genetic line cannot really be considered biologically positive.

That's an odd thing to say.  Consider Ants, Bees, and other 'hive' insects.  Non-reproductive females are substantially in the majority.  If having a gay son helps the family as a whole reproduce, it can be an evolutionary positive.  If the attributes granted by the complex of genese increases the odds of reproduction for other children more than the occasional gay child does, then it's a positive, evolutionary speaking.

On that topic, homosexuals, by and large, are fertile and many DO have children.  Many homosexuals married and had children before they 'came out of the closet'.  Obviously they can, on average, get it up enough to impregnate a woman.  Lesbians?  Hate to say it, they don't particularly need to enjoy the sexual encounter or 'love' the male 'partner/donor' to procreate.  In either case the urge to raise children is there.  Adoption is only one method - I've heard of gays/lesbians getting together and working out deals.  Lesbians have the easier time even without that, but even gays can hire a surrogete mother today.

In the texty part of the article.

The 'no quotes' thing irks me a bit.  I started to quote single sentences so many times when writing my message.

[Firethorn]

At the risk of being labeled a "nut":  I've always had some ethical questions about the whole "medically-enhanced fertility" thing.  Specifically, if a person is infertile, or a couple is infertile together, perhaps there's a reason for that (not necessarily an "intelligent design" reason, but quite possibly a "this person's or couple's children are likely to have problems severe enough that pregnancy makes no positive sense evolutionarily" reason).  

Just as with the natural miscarriage of a non-viable fetus, but earlier.

To use every bit of available science to work around that, to give a child to a couple that nature has been preventing from conceiving...I believe there are ethical issues there.

An anecdotal case from my own experience.  A friend of mine had been trying with his wife for...many moons...to conceive a child.  Umpty-thousand dollars in fertility treatments later, >poof< pregnancy.  Spina bifida.  Child paralyzed from the waist down.  Yes, yes, an anecdote does not a statistic make.  But it's certainly not a counter-argument.  Perhaps the infertility was Nature's way of saying "Don't".

I share the same concerns you have; I just figure we'll figure out genetic engineering before it becomes too big of an issue.  Heck, for that matter I support allowing abortions in the case of discovered severe defects; I consider it one of the more valid reasons.

As for in-utero treatment of infertility:  Perhaps that fetus is infertile for a reason, and correcting the symptom might not correct the underlying cause.  So until the potential unintended consequences were understood to within a statistical margin of error, yeah:  I'd be opposed to willy-nilly treatment of fetuses for infertility.

I'm sure the FDA would address that.

Meanwhile we already have some parents, diabetics, for example, using artificial insemination to make sure their kids DON'T have that issue.

Ragnar, your premise ("An organism that by its very nature cannot or will not reproduce is a negatively damaged organism.") is correct in any species that is asocial.  However, in social species, there is demonstrable benefit to the species in having reproductively-barren individuals as part of the "herd"; having elder individuals past procreation age around to care for young and so forth can free up younger individuals for other activities, like gathering, which increase the chances of the success of the genetic line.   So the presence of a non-breeder in a social species enclave is not intrinsic evidence of "damage".

Exactly.  My more extreme example was Bees and Ants.  Another would be Meerkats - it's not perfect, but you normally see a breeding pair; the rest of the group supports the breeding pair's offspring as part of an extended family.  Heck, with enough food even non-bred females will lactate.

[roo_ster]

I don't buy comparisons with insects and primitive mammals.  Yes, some animals are deliberately sterile.  Analogizing them to sterile/homosexual humans does not pass the "and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China" test.  Humans, insects, and rodents developed differently and positing similar utility for complex behavior is a stretch.

I am not convinced homosexuality is genetic.  Good luck showing causation with for any complex behavior given the number of genes and genetic combinations involved.  In the OP's article, the mechanism for increased likelihood of female homosexuality is excess testosterone in utero.  For the disease in question, the T is produced by the child.  I have read of occasions/disorders where it is the mother that produces the excess testosterone or estrogen. This would point to a non-genetic cause which can be triggered/exacerbated by genetic mutations.

Interesting stuff, though, and one has to wonder just how messed in the head one has to be to be against preventing such mutations and malformations as described in the OP's article. 

[MicroBalrog]

What is the problem?

Lesbians are not incapable of reproducing should they choose to do so.

"Women with male behaviors" are even 'less incapable' of reproducing.

They might not WANt to reproduce, but it's not anybody's duty to want it.

[Firethorn]

I don't buy comparisons with insects and primitive mammals.  Yes, some animals are deliberately sterile.  Analogizing them to sterile/homosexual humans does not pass the "and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China" test.  Humans, insects, and rodents developed differently and positing similar utility for complex behavior is a stretch.

Meerkats have some of the most advanced social groups in the animal kingdom.  They're in a rather hostile location of the world, they've evolved to the point that a single mating pair has virtually NO chance of successfully raising young.  The assistance of the extended family is a requirement.  Still, I was addressing Ragnar's post where he specified 'species', not 'advanced mammals'(whatever that means), when he argued that non-breeding individuals of a species are dead end wastes/aberrations.  You could argue that Meerkats are more evolutionarily advanced; they've had more generations of evolution, after all. 

Consider that human families worked the same way for a long time, a non-reproductive aunt or uncle could provide a great deal of assistance to a breeding pair of humans. 

Another point I'll try to say again is that it's entirely possible that the gene complexes that lead to the occasional gay person provide a greater benefit to the majority who DON'T tip 'gay'.  Consider my simplified case:  Sickle cell.  The sickle cell trait provides resistance to Malaria, which is virtually unrelated to the Sickle Cell disease from an evolutionary standpoint.  Still, in areas where Malaria is sufficienty present, even a gene mod that kills 1/4 of your offspring might be preferable to NOT having that immunity for 2/3rds your surviving children(assuming both parents have the trait).

Maybe they're more attractive; maybe they're smarter.  Maybe they're hornier and more likely to breed.  It doesn't really matter as long as it provides a benefit to their chances to have and raise offspring successfully.

I am not convinced homosexuality is genetic.  Good luck showing causation with for any complex behavior given the number of genes and genetic combinations involved.  In the OP's article, the mechanism for increased likelihood of female homosexuality is excess testosterone in utero.  For the disease in question, the T is produced by the child.  I have read of occasions/disorders where it is the mother that produces the excess testosterone or estrogen. This would point to a non-genetic cause which can be triggered/exacerbated by genetic mutations.

Pretty much, but hormonal control is ultimately genetic, triggered by environment on a scale that's sometimes 'butterfly's wings'.  Still, we've observed gay behavior from most species that form permanent relationships.  The gay penguins*, for example.  I'm willing to lump it with other 'marginally genetic conditions' like the spotting pattern on cats though.  Certainly any possible treatments, unless undertaken for more *SERIOUS* issues, are likely to cause more problems than they solve.

*They did eventually end up 'breaking up', one left for a new female though.

[roo_ster]

Meerkats have some of the most advanced social groups in the animal kingdom.

Reminds me of the English-accented narrators of history shows who talk about how "advanced" the Mayas, Incas, & other stone-aged civilizations were.  "Advanced" relative to 15 Neanderthals squatting in a cave hoping to recall how to make fire, yes, but still stone-aged savages who murdered fellow humans to placate their false gods and no where near the 16th century Spanish who taught them a thing or two.

Same thing with the revered meerkat.  Advanced relative to sharks in a feeding frenzy or your average vole, but not so much relative to humans and thus not really comparable.

WRT homosexual behavior, nearly all cultures look unfavorably upon it and suppresses it.  It only becomes common after a culture develops past the point where all capable males are not needed to produce food, defend the culture, and help produce kiddos.  IOW, it becomes common only well after the family-group stage of civilization.  Tens of thousands of years after.

[White Horseradish]

WRT homosexual behavior, nearly all cultures look unfavorably upon it and suppresses it. 

Really?

[roo_ster]

Really?

Really.

Down through history there are only a few exceptions and those exceptions still were conditional.  One of the few nearly universal characteristics of human cultures.

[Firethorn]

Same thing with the revered meerkat.  Advanced relative to sharks in a feeding frenzy or your average vole, but not so much relative to humans and thus not really comparable.

Watch COPS sometime, you'll get a different opinion.  

I certainly don't 'revere' the meerkat.  I just watched a season while working on the computer and noted how similar their lives are, socially, to ours.  In some ways better, in some ways worse, but they had many of the same issues.

Sure, their behavior can't be directly compared to humans, but studying them DOES give us a different viewpoint, and many of the same dynamics are present in humans, just more obfusticated.  

My snark about evolution was to point out that, technically speaking, we're not any more evolutionairy advanced than any other species, we've just taken a rather unique path.  Pretty much every facet of human capability is duplicated somewhere else in the animal kingdom.  It's only in the combination and span that we shine.

WRT homosexual behavior, nearly all cultures look unfavorably upon it and suppresses it.  It only becomes common after a culture develops past the point where all capable males are not needed to produce food, defend the culture, and help produce kiddos.  IOW, it becomes common only well after the family-group stage of civilization.  Tens of thousands of years after.

We see homosexual behavior in wild animals at times...  One of the cultures that actually looks favorably on it is still pretty much 'stone age', breeding for kids is considered a duty, not a pleasurable act.  Males and females actually normally live in different camps.

I do, however, figure there's a reason why the overwhelming majority of technological societies also had a prohibition on homosexual behavior; at least once it goes so far as to interfere with reproduction.

Then again, in many cases as long as you married and had kids, they didn't really care if you had a same sex relationship with a 'friend'.

[Antibubba]

Each year in the United States, perhaps a few dozen pregnant women learn they are carrying a fetus at risk for a rare disorder known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia. 

Out of how many million births?  Someone is overreacting.  I also think the researchers are using a flawed premise of causation--that increased masculinity leads to lesbianism.  While it might explain "butch" or "boi" behavior, it does nothing to explain "femme" women (very girly women who are attracted to other women).  I could see a case being made that an excess of sex hormones in utero  could influence orientation, but the sole cause?  Uh uh.