So, yay I'm gay? haha I do have tiny hands.. and I would like to get my nails done and crap.. it's just too damn expensive
Erm.. I'm done
Ashleigh
"...A-and I'm gonna make it up to you. Starting right now."
(Starts to smile)"Right now?"
So, yay I'm gay? haha
"...A-and I'm gonna make it up to you. Starting right now."
(Starts to smile)"Right now?"
Quote:
Gay DNA Found
by Steph Smith 365Gay.com Chicago Bureau
Posted: January 28, 2005 12:01 am. ET
(Chicago, Illinois) In the first-ever study combing the entire human genome for genetic determinants of male sexual orientation, a University of Illinois at Chicago researcher has identified several areas that appear to influence whether a man is straight or gay.
UIC's Brian Mustanski, working with colleagues at the National Institutes of Health, found stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked to sexual orientation on three different chromosomes in the nucleus of cells of the human male.
"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski, a psychologist in the UIC department of psychiatry and lead author of the study. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."
"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."
His research will be published in the March issue of the biomedical journal Human Genetics.
The genomes of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers were analyzed.
While earlier studies had focused solely on the X chromosome, one of the two sex chromosomes, the present study examined all 22 pairs of non-sex chromosomes in addition to the X chromosome. The other sex chromosome, called Y, was not explored because it is not believed to contain many genes.
Identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8 and 10 -- were found to be shared in about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study, compared to about 50 percent expected by chance. The region on chromosome 10 correlated with sexual orientation only if it was inherited from the mother.
"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual," said Mustanski. "The next steps will be to see if these findings can be confirmed and to identify the particular genes within these newly discovered chromosomal sequences that are linked to sexual orientation."
The University of California at San Diego, Pennsylvania State University, and the University of California at Los Angeles were also involved in the study which was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
OutThe study is the largest of several small reports suggesting that the estimated 1.7 percent of men who identify themselves as bisexual show physical attraction patterns that differ substantially from their professed desires.
"I'm not denying that bisexual behavior exists," said Dr. Bailey, "but I am saying that in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation."
Several other researchers who have seen the study, scheduled to be published in the journal Psychological Science, said it would need to be repeated with larger numbers of bisexual men before clear conclusions could be drawn.
Bisexual desires are sometimes transient and they are still poorly understood. Men and women also appear to differ in the frequency of bisexual attractions. "The last thing you want," said Dr. Randall Sell, an assistant professor of clinical socio-medical sciences at Columbia University, "is for some therapists to see this study and start telling bisexual people that they're wrong, that they're really on their way to homosexuality."

Maybe you're a late bloomer, then, Len? That would probably be these researchers' conclusion. 

maudmac wrote:The biggest flaws in this study, as far as I can tell, are that they measured only physical responses and only to specific visual stimuli. Sexuality involves more than strictly physical responses. Sexual responses are not based solely on visual stimuli. And God only knows what the people in those films they showed looked like. Plus, too, that's a pretty small sample.
Phooey, I say. Bring on more research.
But it's the involuntary aspect---ala "Don't penalized me for something over which I had no choice, dammit!"---that gives us the best human rights case

do you think---without knowing exactly WHAT kind of visual stimuli was provided---that you would respond, more or less equally, to m/f and m/m varieties?
Bisexuality Study: NYT Gives Prominence To Disgraced Researcher
by Michael in New York - 7/06/2005 11:38:00 AM
Everyone is probably familiar with this New York Times article about a study on bisexuality. It was one of the top five emailed stories on the NYT website and probably got picked up around the country. I ignored it at first because a casual glance at the study and its methodology led me to conclude it was shoddy and suspect. At best, it seemed like the typical mainstream press distortion of research: one little study makes one little observation and it gets trumpted around the country as a "fact," in this case the idea that men aren't bisexual, they're just either gay, straight, or lying.
You would think, you would hope that the New York Times would do a little research of its own before splashing the work of Dr. J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern and the study's lead author. But no. It took threader Kathleen to alert me to what the NYT should have known before presenting this study uncritically.
1. Dr. J. Michael Bailey had to step down from the chairmanship of the psychology dept. at Northwestern just last year because of ethics charges related to earlier research.
2. Bailey has been linked to a racist, neo-eugenics movement called the Human Biodiversity Institute by the Southern Poverty Law Center
3. Bailey's previous attention-getter was a book on transgenders that extrapolated from about nine transgenders he claimed to befriend into a study. Many of the people profiled claimed convincingly they had no idea they were part of a research study. (A violation of ethics.) One claimed Bailey slept with them. (Also a violation.) Though ostensibly science, it contained no footnotes. This book led to the investigation of Bailey that resulted in his stepping down as chair, though he remains a professor at Northwestern. The Chronicle of Higher Education profiled Bailey and the controversy, all but labeling him as a closet case.
4. Bailey claims to be gay-friendly but is so at odds with the GLBT community at Northwestern that campus groups urge people NOT to cooperate with his studies. Gee, think that might make any research he does there harder to accept as valid? (Bailey has reportedly found it difficult to recruit people for his research.) The Chicago Free Press paints a rather sad picture of Bailey trying to convince people he isn't anti-gay or biased by calling for a public meeting virtually no one attended, just weeks before the New York Times would treat his latest research as front-page of the Science section newsworthy.
5. Some of Bailey's more silly and offensive comments that should raise red flags for anyone wondering about his bias: most transexuals are "especially motivated" to shoplift and "especially suited to prostitution." Bailey says that if it became possible to genetically identify a fetus as "gay" and a parent chose to abort because they wanted a straight child, this would be "morally neutral." Yep, gay eugenics. Aborting gay fetuses wouldn't do anyone harm, he says. He's not anti-gay, just "pro-parental liberty."
I am furious that I had to find out all this stuff on my own by having a threader point me in the right direction. I'm not saying no one should ever report on anything Bailey ever does in the future, but is it too much to ask for context and a little background? Obviously, Bailey's history makes this study HIGHLY suspect: he has stepped down as a chair at Northwestern over allegations of misconduct; Bailey is seen with hostility by the GLBT community at Northwestern, making it difficult for him to find subjects to study; he is linked to a group the Southern Poverty Law Center says is filled with people linked to hate groups and is pro-eugenics; and he makes pro-eugenic statements and patently silly claims about transexuals.
At the very least, shouldn't the New York Times have known about this before trumpeting his study on the front page of the Science section? Obviously they didn't or they would have at least referenced it. More responsibly, it should have highly colored their coverage, leading to a far different article about a controversial researcher's attempts to come back from ignominy with yet another attention-getting study that is shoddily put together.
Please email the New York Times (letters@nytimes.com) and any other publication that gave this study unquestioning coverage. Tell them about Bailey's disgraced past, the claims of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the people who feel abused by his past research. Ask them why none of this vitally important information was in the original story. Tell them that the very least the NYT can do is a followup story that gives a full picture of Bailey, places his research in its proper context, speaks to people at Northwestern, talks with critical researchers about the validity of his study, looks into whether the team in Toronto that also worked on the study is also linked to hate groups and anything else you can think of.
This is a classic example of where bloggers can have an impact if we move quickly and present FACTS that dramatically change what people will remember about this story. Let us know about any responses you get.

Maybe you're a late bloomer, then, Len? That would probably be these researchers' conclusion.
Its all very confusing. Mr. Campbell said he had been strongly attracted to both sexes since he was sexually aware, although all his long-term relationships had been with women. "In my case I have been accused of being heterosexual, but I also feel a need for sex with men," he said.
, just accept people for who they are.Like, to develop some fetal-screening procedure to abort potentially gay kids, instead of using that research to educate people about acceptance.

New York University researcher Lynn S. Hall, who has studied traits determined in the womb, speculates that Patrick was somehow prenatally stressed, probably during the first trimester, when the brain is really developing, particularly the structures like the hypothalamus that influence sexual behavior. This stress might have been based on his position in the womb or the blood flow to him or any of a number of other factors not in his mother's control.
---where a researcher speculated on prenatal stress as the cause (in this case, the twins' mom had been in an accident, while pregnant, that left her hanging off a bridge!)]


However, I think the search for knowledge WILL go on, like it or not: it's up to us LGBTs to ensure that this knowledge (however partial, or even incorrect) is not used for harm.
about the similarities/differences/overlap/ between being trans and being gay. The idea that the "feminized male brain" makes one a gay male.
If a finding is significant (and ultimately bandied about by the press), it means that LGBs differed from heterosexuals in some fashion. In essence, the research is searching for the difference of LGBs from heterosexuals. This acceptance alone is damaging because it references heterosexuals as the “norm” and LGBs as the “deviations”.
Well, among homo sapiens as a whole, blue eyes are "deviations" (from the brown-eyed "norm"). But I don't think that anyone is investigating the "cause" of the blue-colored iris (or maybe it's already known, genetically).
The value judgments placed upon "difference" is EVERYTHING (celebrated diversity, or eliminate-if-possible pathology).
Mother's Genes Could Produce Gay Sons
The arrangement of a mother's genes could affect the sexual orientation of her son, according to a new study.
The finding, detailed in the February issue of the journal Human Genetics, adds fuel to the decade-long debate about whether so-called "gay genes" might exist.
The researchers examined a phenomenon called "X chromosome inactivation" in 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers whose sons were not gay.
X and Y
Chromosomes are large thread-like molecules that contain an organism's genetic instructions. Humans have 23 chromosomes.
The X chromosome is one of two sex chromosomes in mammals; the other is the Y chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes and no Y's, while males have one X and one Y.
Even though women have two X chromosomes, only one is functional because the other is inactivated through a process called "methylation."
"It gets wrapped up in a ball and is not used with the exception of a few genes," explained study leader Sven Bocklandt of the University of California, Los Angeles.
If one of the females' X chromosomes is not turned off, then there is too much genetic material, which can lead to a harmful overabundance of proteins.
Down syndrome, for example, results from the presence of an extra copy of chromosome 21.
Big difference
Normally, X chromosome inactivation occurs at random: half of the cells in a woman's body will have one X chromosome inactivated, while the other half inactivate the other chromosome.
However, when the researchers in the current study examined cells from those women who had at least two gay sons — 42 mothers in total, or 23 percent of all participants — they found something different.
"Every single cell that we looked at in these women inactivated the same X chromosome," Bocklandt told LiveScience. "That's highly unusual."
In contrast, only 4 percent of mothers with no gay sons and 13 percent of those with just one gay son showed this type of extreme skewing.
Bocklandt thinks this suggests that the activation pattern of a mother's X chromosomes partly influences whether her son is gay or not.
"We think that there are one or more genes on the X chromosome that have an effect on the sexual orientation of the sons of these mothers, as well as an effect on the cells we were looking at," Bocklandt said.
Other chromosomes implicated
Bocklandt was also involved in an earlier study that looked at the entire human genome of men who had two or more gay brothers.
The researchers found identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes — 7, 8 and 10 — that were shared by about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study.
That study also found mothers to have an unusually large role in their son's sexual orientation: The region on chromosome 10 correlated with homosexuality only if it was inherited from the mother.
The results from these two studies suggest that there are multiple genetic factors involved in determining a person's sexual orientation and that it might vary depending on the person.
"We think that there are going to be some gay men who are X-chromosome gay men and some who are chromosome-7 gay men or chromosome-10 gay men or some combination," Brocklandt said in a telephone interview.
Most researchers now think that there is no single gay gene that controls whether a person is homosexual or not.
Rather, it's the influence of multiple genes, combined with environmental influences, which ultimately determine whether a person is gay.
A touchy subject
Research into the genetics of sexual orientation is controversial. Religious leaders who believe that sexual orientation is a choice argue that such research is an attempt to legitimize homosexuality; others worry that a detailed knowledge of the genetics underlying homosexuality will open the door to genetic engineering that prevents it.
But Bocklandt doesn't think these concerns should prevent scientists from asking the basic question of whether homosexuality has an underlying genetic component to it or not.
"I have no doubt that at some point we'll be able to manipulate all sorts of aspects of our personality and physical appearance," Bocklandt said. "I think if there's ever a time when we can make these changes for sexual orientation, then we will also be able to do it for intelligence or musical skills or certain physical characteristics — but whether or not these things are allowed to happen is something that society as a whole has to decide. It's not a scientific question."


Out
We need more parents like that.
one-gay-one-straight-twin-boys


Candleshoe wrote:I love it when I pick the wrong word and piss people off, it really makes my day
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests