Homosexaulism: genes and environment

[JohnSSM]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Lol. Still absolutely unrelated to my actual point.

Oh right, since love isnt one thing to anyone, it doesnt matter if you specify what type of love.  Do me a favor and put nuts on that?  What kind of nuts?  Thats unrelated to using nuts.  I love you man.  You show me so many different levels of human decision making when humans are trying to prove themselves, instead of a point.  Bless your heart!

55 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

No problem, I'm just sad to know that I couldn't contribute to this debate on psychology and homosexuality, it seems to be very interesting.

IM sorry Luiz, did you ask iNow to stop hijacking your thread?  It worked with mw, until he continued to display the disorder of his thoughts.   I wont respond to him again on this thread!

Edited March 25, 2021 by JohnSSM

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Luiz Henning said:

In conclusion, the genetic cause seems to vary between men and women, the genetic cause is not insignificant, but for both sexes, the environment is a major watershed when it comes to this issue.

This is not an accurate reading of the data on the subject, ESPECIALLY since you refer specifically to child abuse and food as dominant environmental factors. When considering environmental factors of homosexuality, nearly all of it comes from time in the womb. You’re welcome to your opinion, but your conclusion seems flawed. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies

Multiple genes have been found to play a role in sexual orientation. Scientists caution that many people misconstrue the meanings of genetic and environmental.^[4] Environmental influence does not automatically imply that the social environment influences or contributes to the development of sexual orientation. Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation are weak, especially for males.^[4] There is, however, a vast non-social environment that is non-genetic yet still biological, such as prenatal development, that likely helps shape sexual orientation.^[4]:76

4 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

I wont respond to him again on this thread!

Promise?

[Luiz Henning]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is not an accurate reading of the data on the subject, ESPECIALLY since you refer specifically to child abuse and food as dominant environmental factors. When considering environmental factors of homosexuality, nearly all of it comes from time in the womb. You’re welcome to your opinion, but your conclusion seems flawed. 

Frankly, I try to be respectful of people, but you make it impossible and undesirable. However, I will try to be respectful here. First, what time did I say that these two factors are decisive? Lol, I just said, that it could give at least two environmental factors that are closely related in large part to homosexuality 

Quote

"I cannot speak of all environmental causes with 100% clarity, but I can point out some, two to be more precise, which seem to be much more connected to this."

And another, I do not deny that the uterine environment actually influences, I talk about it in the food hypothesis. Lol, and alias, this part of the wikipedia is very wrong, especially in this part: 

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation are weak, especially for males.

This is not what the data I pointed out really mentions (The ones you probably haven't read, won't read, and are angry with those who read it)

17 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

IM sorry Luiz, did you ask iNow to stop hijacking your thread?  It worked with mw, until he continued to display the disorder of his thoughts.   I wont respond to him again on this thread!

No man, you can continue debating the will here, I'm even happy about it, it just changes that in the psychology part I won't be able to support you, since my knowledge is very limited in this area

But this debate can continue at will. I don't see any problem, and in fact, it only enriches this topic even more.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Luiz Henning

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

Frankly, I try to be respectful of people, but you make it impossible and undesirable.

You aren’t giving yourself enough credit. I’m sure you’re capable of being respectful. I showed why your point appears flawed. Try not to take it personally. 

21 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

This is not what the data I pointed out really mentions

Which is why I highlighted other data for you. 

21 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

this part of the wikipedia is very wrong, especially in this part: 

How so? Please be specific.

 

Here’s the reference and relevant bit to make meaningful and relevant response as easy as humanly possible for you:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1529100616637616

Quote

No causal theory of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support. The most scientifically plausible causal hypotheses are difficult to test. However, there is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial causes of sexual orientation than social causes. This evidence includes the cross-culturally robust finding that adult homosexuality is strongly related to childhood gender nonconformity; moderate genetic influences demonstrated in well-sampled twin studies; the cross-culturally robust fraternal-birth-order effect on male sexual orientation; and the finding that when infant boys are surgically and socially “changed” into girls, their eventual sexual orientation is unchanged (i.e., they remain sexually attracted to females). In contrast, evidence for the most commonly hypothesized social causes of homosexuality—sexual recruitment by homosexual adults, patterns of disordered parenting, or the influence of homosexual parents—is generally weak in magnitude and distorted by numerous confounding factors.

Edited March 25, 2021 by iNow

[Luiz Henning]

Just now, iNow said:

You aren’t giving yourself enough credit. I’m sure you’re capable of being respectful. I showed why your point appears flawed. Try not to take it personally. 

No, you didn't show anything, you just took specific parts of my topic to say that you were disregarding other factors, which in fact you weren't. And I’m not even taking it personally, I’m just answering anyone who doesn’t read it and has no interest in it.

 

Just now, iNow said:

Which is why I highlighted other data for you. 

What other data? Bailey? Ganna? For the rest, I only saw a scientific babble, already answered in the topic above.

[iNow]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation
 

Quote

Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation are weak, especially for males.^[6] There is no substantial evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences influence sexual orientation,^[7][8] 

 

Quote

The hypothesis that sexual abuse, molestation or early sexual experience, causes homosexuality has been a subject of speculation but does not have scientific support.^[6][37]:20 I

 

Quote

Cross-cultural evidence also speaks against the notion that a first sex encounter influences a person’s ultimate sexual orientation. Among the Sambia of New Guinea, beginning between age 7 and 10, all boys are required to engage in ritual sexual contacts with older male youths for several years before they have any access to females, yet the vast majority of these boys become heterosexual men,^[37]:20 while only a small number of males have homosexual orientations, at a similar level as found in Western cultures.^{[33]:130–131} Additionally, long term studies of students who attended single-sex boarding schools, where homosexual behavior occurs at elevated rates, found that such students were no more likely to be gay than students who did not attend such schools.^[37]:20

The hypothesis for females is that sexual abuse would make them averse to males, causing them to seek comfort with women, but that it would somehow make males attracted to the same sex, which has been described as contradictory.^[40] 

 

Quote

The American Psychiatric Association states: "...no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse".^[48] Scientists in sexual orientation research favour biological theories, for which evidence has been building after a long-term failure to demonstrate the influence of the postnatal social environment on sexual orientation, and this is especially so for males.^[6]

Shall I go on, or will you acknowledge that maybe there’s merit in my criticism of your point?

Edited March 25, 2021 by iNow

[Luiz Henning]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

You are not giving yourself enough credit. I'm sure you are able to be respectful. I showed you why your point looks wrong. Try not to take it personally.

That's why I highlighted other data for you.

As well? Please be specific.

Here is the reference and the relevant part to make a meaningful and relevant answer as easy as humanly possible for you:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1529100616637616

 

What absurd reduction are you making to my topic? I didn't spend days looking for these studies to put this text together just to ignore it, and put something that just matches your thinking is right and ready. I have already come across this, and I can point out a series of mistakes made there, but then I would have to write another topic just about that, the information and sources that you added in my text, already contain empirical evidence, that, in fact, homosexuality is largely influenced by environmental factors.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Luiz Henning

[iNow]

Also, I’d like the admins to do an IP check of you and that other reading comprehension problem guy who keeps responding. I’d be willing to bet you’re just sock puppets. 

1 minute ago, Luiz Henning said:

I have already come across this, and I can point out a series of mistakes made there,

Then do so 

[Luiz Henning]

Dear Inow. you fit perfectly in one sentence:

Quote

"Everything is environmental to the left, except for gays, where it is totally genetic; and everything is genetic to the right, except for gays"

I recognize that both genetics and the environment play important roles in human outcomes. However, what you are doing is creating a narrative that simply has no substance. You are ignoring my points raised above, and looking only at yours, to the point of creating a scarecrow to attack my text (as you demonstrated when talking about environmental factors) So, until I contrast my points raised above, and disregard this, I simply will not answer. When you consider the points raised in the topic, then yes, we can start a debate, on the contrary, I will simply ignore you.

And no, I'm not the guy above. Lol

Quote

So do it

"but then I would have to write another topic just about that"..........I have life off the internet.

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

However, what you are doing is creating a narrative that simply has no substance.

But I’ve narrated nothing. All I’ve done is highlight flaws in your thinking and references to how it’s contradicted by modern science. 

12 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

So, until I contrast my points raised above, and disregard this, I simply will not answer.

Okay. Whatever. Good on ya. 

13 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

I will simply ignore you.

I accept your concession that you won’t/can’t actually “pointout a series of mistakes made there” in the numerous references and quotes I shared. 

[Luiz Henning]

One more thing, to complement my text, the data by Tomeo et al, points to a strong relationship between child abuse and homosexuality

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010243318426 

Quote

In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered.

 

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

the data by Tomeo et al, points to a strong relationship between child abuse and homosexuality

I agree, and that over 20 year old paper has since been refuted. Did you have a point?

[Luiz Henning]

Just now, iNow said:

I agree, and this article over 20 years old has already been refuted. Do you have a point?

Quote

So do it

Lol

If you want, I have a thousand more collections here on how this is influenced by the environment.

 

As a matter of fact, since it measures the validity of a study by its date (most of the links in the wikipedia citations are already over 25 years old. Lol) There is a 2019 study, very recent, that reported the same thing.

https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cdev.13317

Quote

This study tested whether associations between childhood maltreatment and adolescent sexual orientation were accounted for by childhood gender nonconforming behavior (GNCB) in a prospective birth cohort (N = 5,007). Childhood parental maltreatment (physical and emotional) and GNCB were assessed on multiple occasions up to age 6 years, and sexual orientation at 15.5 years. Boys with a history of maltreatment were significantly more likely to be nonheterosexual. Using propensity score weighting, maltreatment was associated with a 3.5% (p = .03) increase in the prevalence of nonheterosexuality accounting for confounders not including GNCB, and by 2.9% (p = .06) when also accounting for GNCB. These findings suggest that maltreatment is associated with an increased prevalence of nonheterosexuality in boys but may be explained by confounding factors including GNCB.

 

But enough of that autism, it's looking more like a card game.

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

There is a 2019 study, very recent, that reported the same thing.

Actually, what they reported is that homosexual boys were more likely to be mistreated, not that mistreatment leads to more homosexual boys. Do you also believe carrying your umbrella makes it more likely to rain?

[Luiz Henning]

I was wrong, I presented the wrong study, and this one was already answered, if I'm not mistaken, by Bailey in the same year, the study I wanted to show was this one:  https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Gay-Men-and-Lesbian-Women-with-Molestation-History%3A-Steed-Templer/e14ce3d6640d92c00a1157dfd747880fda38ecbd

This study is actually from 2010, I believe that both can be related, both the fact that homosexuals are prone to sexual abuse, and sexual abuse turns them into gay. I was going to present this fact in correlation with this one, to prove my initial thesis in the text, but it was already too big, and I thought it had a good basis. (I believe that should have put this fact in the least curious) 

I believe that what is in fact, the most genetic in homosexuality, is mental illness.

Higher rates of mental illness among gays are likely due to genetics, not the environment, reveals a twin study showing significant genetic (but not environmental) correlations between neuroticism / psychoticism and homosexuality

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19588238/

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Luiz Henning

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

I was wrong

At least here we agree 

22 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

I believe that what is in fact, the most genetic in homosexuality, is mental illness.

But unfortunately here we, without either question or equivocation, do not.

Your bigotry sadly seems to be clouding your judgment and preventing an accurate reading of the evidence. 

Any mental illness you believe you detect is almost certainly a direct result of how so very many feeble minds like yours in our society rejects these individuals merely for being authentic to who they are and honest about who they love. 

Edited March 25, 2021 by iNow

[Luiz Henning]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Any mental illness you believe you detect is almost certainly a direct result of how so very many feeble minds like yours in our society rejects these individuals merely for being authentic to who they are and honest about who they love. 

The only one who appears to have a severe functional difficulty to interpret a minimal reading, is you. And the evidence contained in the link below (which you have not read, will not read and will have a deadly hatred for those who read) does not point to any environmental variant.

A His intellectual incapacity, mixed with his over-inflated ego, creates a mental and ridiculous atrophy comparable to that of an autistic child.

Consider the evidence raised in my topic, and then you refute something. Or simply accept that homosexuality is influenced primarily by the environment rather than the other way around. Otherwise, if you do not have the capacity to accept such a real-life blow to your fantasy and egalitarian boy. You simply do not have the ability to prove otherwise, and by the way, that but it seemed to me to cry than a scientific argument to the study mentioned, but really, from you, I do not expect anything "scientific".

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

The only one who appears to have a severe functional difficulty to interpret a minimal reading, is you.

Hmm... in what way specifically are you saying the data I provided is inaccurate? Seems you’re totally ignoring it. 

6 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

His intellectual incapacity, mixed with his over-inflated ego, creates a mental and ridiculous atrophy comparable to that of an autistic child.

To whom or what is this directed? The subject of your comment is unclear. Do you mean me? Do you mean homosexuals more broadly? Is it just a silly stupid personal attack?

7 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

Or simply accept that homosexuality is influenced primarily by the environment rather than the other way around.

I’d agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong. 

8 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

Otherwise, if you do not have the capacity to accept such a real-life blow to your fantasy and egalitarian boy.

Huh?

8 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

by the way, that but it seemed to me to cry than a scientific argument to the study mentioned, but really, from you, I do not expect anything "scientific".

Lol. Okay... sockpuppet. 

Edited March 25, 2021 by iNow

[Luiz Henning]

Just now, iNow said:

Hmm... in what way specifically are you saying the data I provided is inaccurate? Seems you’re totally ignoring it. 

No, and here you demonstrate once again your deficiency in the incapacity of textual interpretation. What I said was that ignoring my data is irrelevant in this discussion, and if we continue like this, we will have a fruitless debate. I have already reviewed some of your data, and I can safely say that some have already been refuted by recent studies. Why do I speak of them openly on the topic that you probably will not read.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

To whom or what is this directed? The subject of your comment is unclear. Do you mean me? Do you mean homosexuals more broadly? Is it just a silly stupid personal attack?

Yourself, and it's not an "idiotic and silly" attack, I'm just reporting an axiom.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’d agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong. 

On the contrary, we would both be right or in agreement if you had the cognitive capacity to interpret or at least read, even if it is a mere two lines.

[iNow]

Just now, Luiz Henning said:

I have already reviewed some of your data, and I can safely say that some have already been refuted by recent studies.

Which parts?

1 minute ago, Luiz Henning said:

Yourself, and it's not an "idiotic and silly" attack, I'm just reporting an axiom.

So now you’re claiming that I “create a mental and ridiculous atrophy comparable to that of an autistic child,” is that correct? What makes you say this?

2 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

we would both be right or in agreement if you had the cognitive capacity to interpret or at least read, even if it is a mere two lines.

Lol. Uh huh. 

[Luiz Henning]

Just now, iNow said:

Which parts?

From what I've reviewed so far, I can already put bailey, Ganna, Kallman, Kirk, Bearman and Bruckner, kendler and so on.

Quote

So now you’re claiming that I “create a mental and ridiculous atrophy comparable to that of an autistic child,” is that correct? What makes you say this?

Particularly the debate with Comrade JohnSSM, and his admiration for the selective collection of information.

Quote

Lol. Uh huh. 

And here is demonstrated once again his inability to argue decently, to laugh is not an argument, not to scoff either. In the meantime, I am waiting for you to actually read my text and explain where and when my evidence is substantially wrong. And obviously, dealing with the evidence and points raised by me.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Luiz Henning said:

From what I've reviewed so far, I can already put bailey, Ganna, Kallman, Kirk, Bearman and Bruckner, kendler and so on.

Put them what?

1 minute ago, Luiz Henning said:

Particularly the debate with Comrade JohnSSM, and his admiration for the selective collection of information.

I see. Thank you for clarifying... comrade. 

2 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

am waiting for you to actually read my text and explain where and when my evidence is substantially wrong.

Already done. Perhaps you share the reading comprehension challenges your comrade JohnSSM so regularly displays?

[Luiz Henning]

Just now, iNow said:

Put them what?

didn't you want the parts? Those are the parts that are in your "evidences" (if we can call evidence wikpedia. LMAO) that are properly treated in my topic, which again speaking, you have not read, you have not read and you hate those who are going to read.

Quote

I see. Thank you for clarifying... comrade. 

I am not your "comrade" and much less a "friend". Anyway, it's good that you understood.

Quote

Already done.

Perfect, now I am waiting for the refutations and the evidence raised by me.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Luiz Henning said:

didn't you want the parts? Those are the parts that are in your "evidences" (if we can call evidence wikpedia. LMAO) that are properly treated in my topic, which again speaking, you have not read, you have not read and you hate those who are going to read.

Sure, but will you please answer my question? I asked which parts you have displayed as inaccurate and you said “put.” It doesn’t make sense. Maybe a translation problem?

4 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

I am not your "comrade" and much less a "friend".

I’m truly devastated reading this. Feelings all hurt and whatnot. 

6 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

now I am waiting for the refutations and the evidence raised by me.

Again? You still haven’t addressed that which was already shared. 

[Luiz Henning]

Just now, iNow said:

Sure, but will you please answer my question? I asked which parts you have displayed as inaccurate and you said “put.” It doesn’t make sense. Maybe a translation problem?

The parts that are in your "evidence" were dealt with in my topic, I just mentioned which ones were. 

Now, if you want to see an explanation of why but duly mistaken, due to the nature of your method, go back to the text.