Racist. Being gay is completely normal.

genes are a social constuct

I'm a mostly-gay med student myself (and in to neuroscience). The subject is fascinating.

There have been a couple of research papers which show that the endocrine status of the mother during pregnancy affects the physiological and behavioural aspects of the child. These aspects were also found to be different between homo- and heterosexual populations.
So, this makes us question whether the changes in aspects and orientation are caused by the same thing.
Fingers point to prenatal testosterone levels. (Which show an increase when the mother has an atypical endocrine profile).

But there is a ton of variance, and we cannot point to a certain causal link between hormones and orientation.
Just an increased level of prenatal testosterone does not account for all the shades of orientation we see in the Kinsey scale, for example.

And to be rather boring and politically correct, I think "variance" is a better word that "anomaly".

So basically, we just don't know. We have a couple of clues, but the empirical evidence is just not enough.

If you enjoy reading scientific literature, here's a nicely written review on hormones and orientation:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138231/

File 143138450912.jpg - (102.83KB , 1000x1000 , 1430216679675.jpg )

Nice introduction
but
TL;DR;

>>16103
ok np

>>16044
DNA doesn't lie.
Gay is not normal, although we should not discriminate because of that. It is just a disease just like Down Sindrome.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>16111
being gay is not a disability
...and you are being incredibly rude

>>16111
>DNA doesn't lie.
>Gay is not normal
Both of these statements are true but neither is tied to the other.

Every mammal on this planet has shown to be omnisexual at some point in time. Inter-gender, inter-species and even delving into the far fetishes such as necrophilic practices have been demonstrated by every species observed. You say gay is not normal, I agree, neither is being straight.

Everything 'wolfs everything given the chance and denying this instinct denies your own normalcy.

disregarding all the social implications and connotations behind the word "normal", being gay isn't "normal" as it relates to a minority population.
Same with being blond-haired, or left-handed.

Of course, when used in non-scientific language (such as drawing a parallel with Down "Sindrome"), it is easily read with all the negative connotations included.

Mods, a question: why was >>16111 banned?

>>16174

If you start adding gender into this argument, it's a whole 'nother clusterfuck.

Consider that a person is typically attracted to a person, and not just a set of genitals; usually they are also attracted to the gender which typically matches those genitals, and also sometimes social mores/standards attached to that gender. For example, most straight men are attracted to female feminine women. That is, cis-gender women that have a female sex and a feminine aspect (dresses/talks like most women do). Most straight men aren't going to be attracted to a female man (that is, a transman that was born female), even though this would still technically be a "heterosexual" couple.


Because of this, I've always disliked the terms hetero- and homosexual, because they are based on the attractor, not the attraction. It's stupid to say that a person's attraction to others changes if they change their own sex/gender. That's illogical; they've changed themselves, not the other person(s). Therefore, I prefer using the terms "androphile" and "gynephile". It avoids this because it doesn't matter what ways an androphile alters his/her sex or gender, he/she will still be attracted to men.


If you look at it this way, this all becomes really quite simple. When you change it from "hetero-/homo-" to "andro-/gyne-", it becomes less of a permanent state, and more of a temporary condition. Now the question of which you are or can be is based on two things:

1) Do you find a particular sex/gender physically attractive enough?

2) Is there nothing impeding you from allowing yourself to have sex with them?

Seeing how nearly everyone can experience a physical attraction (or, for the sexually insecure male: appreciation for) to either sex and gender, 1 is almost a universal yes. This is where the assumption that every person is bisexual comes from. Sure there are outliers, but most people can probably find at least a few examples of people of their non-preferred sex/gender attractive.

Therefore, the reason must be 2; and number 2 is almost entirely sociologically based. In essence, the question usually is: will your peers/family/friends/country accept you having sex with this person?

See, most people won't have sex with a member of their same gender because society won't allow them to. This gets hammered into their brain until they allow themselves to accept the nonsense that being "straight" or "gay" is a permanent state of being, decided before or shortly after birth, and which doesn't change but is only "discovered". Only gay people are allowed to have gay sex, and by the transitive property of sexuality, anyone having gay sex must thus be gay.

Once you realize that this is just silly, and that for thousands of years men have been keeping wives and fathering children, yet having sex with their male friends on the side, do you see my point. Am I saying everyone is bisexual? No. Of course not; that implies a state of being that I've already established does not exist. What I am saying is that, if you strip away all the modern sociological repressions against sex and sexuality, and the illogical desire to label and compartmentalize/categorize people, you realize that everyone most likely has varying degrees of androphilia and gynephilia. Instead of the Kinseyan model of a single sliding scale between homosexuality and heterosexuality; each person has two sliding scales (one each for androphilia and gynephilia) between "no attraction" and "lots of attraction"; this also accounts for some types of asexuality, as people who just have zeroes on both scales — no singular scale can do that.

I don't think there is any reason why the "normal" state is for each person to be more attracted to their opposite sex/gender, either. After all, some primates will have sex with anything purely as social bonding. Humans aren't stupid; they likely have been intelligent enough to realize the connection between sex and reproduction for millions of years. So there is no evolutionary reason for humans to be of a majority attracted to their opposite gender/sex. Unlike lower animals who must have an "urge" or "drive" to mate with the opposite sex in order to perpetuate the species, humans can simply realize that it is something that must be done if they want children. Studies on feral foxes have shown that evolution can happen faster than most people think: in even just a few generations. Might modern humans have evolved beyond requiring such as base drive to mate with the opposite sex? That's just a theory; it's way outside my expertise.



Really, what I'm saying is that OP and a lot of other people are looking at this completely wrong. OP's argument is based on a completely outdated idea that the male sex and masculine gender and XY chromosomes and being attracted to women and having a primarily androgen-influenced brain are all EXACTLY THE SAME THING, and any deviance is "abnormal". Thus, the only way a biological male could be attracted to men is if he had a "female brain". It's laughably nearsighted.

>>16180
>Studies on feral foxes have shown that evolution can happen faster than most people think: in even just a few generations. Might modern humans have evolved beyond requiring such as base drive to mate with the opposite sex? That's just a theory; it's way outside my expertise.
I was on-board with what you were saying until you brought this strawberried nonsense up, although I'm hardly mad, you admit you know 'wolf about it.

With regard to the foxes, they were breeding traits that both of the pair had in common. You can't do the same thing with sexuality.

Two males cannot produce an offspring, neither can two females, you must always have an inter-gender sexual relationship for the creation of offspring unless you genetically engineer the 'wolfing thing. I suppose you could theoretically breed a straight women with a gay man to create a child more inclined for cock or a lesbian with a straight man if you want the child to be clit-happy but those are hardly natural circumstances and the gender of the offspring could throw a spanner in the works.

>>16181

Are you implying the homosexuality is hereditary?

Are you fucking stupid?

>>16183
>Are you implying the homosexuality is hereditary?
Are you implying sexual preference is devoid of a genetic component?

Isn't the implying game fun!

>>16113
From my little understanding of science (mostly curiosity), don't all mammals and other living beings that have an intelligence to some point, share a basic blueprint for their brains? Could this explain similarities in development and instincts/behavior? OR if the lower intelligence mammals (for example) and their lack of higher reasoning mean that these changes in sexual orientation are maybe an opressed instinct or behavior, or an anomaly in the lower functions in comparison to your brain changing due to the environment around you (society maybe, idk) and that is why we see it across a wide range of species?

>>16039
Your English is very good, much better than alot of people. I don't understand the the more sciency parts of those articles, but how do you explain bisexuality then?

>>16114
that is reasonable. this is science and thus (hopefuly) people can look past their definition of words and see that is just a science word.

>>16265
>don't all mammals and other living beings that have an intelligence to some point, share a basic blueprint for their brains?
Yes and no... Essentially, the structures that form in your brain before birth are the result of two things, your genetics, and your prenatal environment. For humans, this is your DNA and your time in the womb. That being said, if you have twins, there will still be some* slight** differences at birth, as every molecule was not in the exact same place for the twins, and due to the butterfly effects of biochemistry, there will be some small differences. If we extrapolate this idea to mammals as a whole, we can see why some species share so many instincts and traits, and why other "closely" related species seem to act so differently. Essentially, the closer 2 species are, the more likely* it is that they will share behaviors.

Now to answer some other questions, (hopefully including a few of OPs)...

As far as we can tell with neuroscience and brainscans, sexuality is determined by a very specific part of the brain. I believe it was at Rutgers University that a study was done on rams which had high rates of homosexuality that they were able to identify which region it is that they believe determines sexuality.

The region in question (ovine Sexuality Dimorphic Nucleus, or oSDN) seems to determine sexuality based on its size, and functions independent of the subject's gender. In other words, when the structure was larger, the subject was attracted to males. It did not matter if the structure was in the brain of a male or female, if it was larger, the subject liked males. Conversely, if it was smaller, they liked females (it may have been the other way around, actually).

Point being, that sexuality is determined by this brain structure, ONLY.

A few implications
>Sexuality is "more or less" independent of the amount of testosterone and epinephrine a subject produces, meaning manly men can be gay (see elaboration below)
>Sexuality is also "more or less" independent of sexual identity. You CAN be a woman trapped in a man's body attracted to women.
>Because the structures in the brain are largely developed by birth time, homosexuality is indeed largely* genetic, though, as previously stated, there is a "nurture" element (also elaborated below)

Now, before I clarify the above two statements, let me clarify bisexuality first, as I caught it while scrolling down and there seem to be many questions regarding this. For starters, bisexuality is indeed real, and can again be tied to the oSDN. While an abnormally large oSDN indicates exclusive sexual appetite for females, and an abnormally small oSDN indicates a sexual appetite exclusively for males, there is obviously blurring on that gradient for any and all in-between sizes of the oSDN.

Now, to elaborate on "more or less". Remember the thing about the connectedness of species? It is the same idea. Technically speaking, there is NOTHING explicitly bonding sexuality and manliness or lackthereof. In other words, there is no law of nature that decrees all gay men (or any, for that matter) must also prance around and have a high pitched voice. HOWEVER, the size of the oSDN is not necessarily incidental. In other words, the same genetic and prenatal anomalies that cause one to be heterosexual or homosexual also probably affect behavior, and thus, there is probably a strong link between the behavior and the sexuality.

The same idea applies to gender identity vs sexuality. The genetic components that cause gender identification-identity mismatch (I just coined that, yw) may incline the subject in question to be more "heterosexual" (in quotes, because the idea can be confusing for transgender people). That is to say, they are heterosexual with respect to the gender they identify with.

Now, I mentioned the word "nurture" above. The reason this was in quotes was because "nurture" is not really the correct word here. In short, your genes are merely blueprints from which your cells build proteins. They can technically "ignore" portions of the blueprint (ignore was quoted to emphasize that cells dont have free will). In essence, if a gene is methylated*, there is an additional molecule attached to the DNA strand that essentially says "Don't read from me". This can happen from a number of ways, including but not limited to childhood trauma, but is MOST prevalent (in the case of sexuality) in the womb. In other words, no one from your family talked your brother into being gay. BUT since this is technically* an environmental factor, I am forced to use the word "nurture" since everything has to be of the form nature vs nurture nowadays.

Now, to tie everything together...

It is important to remember the importance of culture... while culture does not necessarily* "make" someone gay, or necessarily* "make" them "manly", it has a clear affect on the way we think and act. Consider the stigma surrounding homosexuality, not just within the United States, but especially* elsewhere. It would behoove anyone who is gay or bicurious to act extra "manly". Over time, these "pretend" traits rub off on us (see: Irving Goffman, and the dramaturgical self for more info on that). In other words, society and culture may have made your brother "manly".

Likewise, consider the psychology of sadomasochism. Masochism is typically tied to feelings of guilt, whereas sadism is tied to feelings of resentment. Guilt and resentment are not innately a part of the human brain, they are acquired. Likewise, if I masturbate repetitively to the same type of pornography, day-in, day-out, eventually I will get bored. I will start to deviate. Milfs no longer tickle my proverbial fancy, and now I need asians, or bbw, or etc. Technically speaking, someone who may not ever want to have sex with men, or who may never want a relationship with men, may indeed watch some gay porn. Technically speaking they aren't "bisexual" in a strict sense, and there is no permanence to them wanting gay porn (they can go back at any time). Whether you choose to stick with the biological definition of sexuality (this person would not be considered bisexual) or you decide that "if they watch porn for both sexualities, they are bi" is sort of a decision that you will personally have to make.

All that being said, it doesnt sound like your brother is "temporary gay".

Last but not least, culture affects -and is affected by -culture. Consider the following: Your parents ask you to take out the trash. Now consider two scenarios...
>You remember to take out the trash, and do so.
>You forget.
Which one do you think your parents will remember more? As sad as it may seem, the Architect in "The Matrix: Reloaded" has a point, human beings define their existence in terms of misery.

Consider another scenario after the previous.
>You remembered to take out the trash last time, you do it on your own as a surprise this time
>You forgot last time, your parents havent asked you since
There is a good bet that your parents will not notice the additional help this time, and if they do, they will forget in a day or two. Conversely, they probably still remember the time you forgot.

Thus, we have to ask ourselves, "Are gay men effeminate because they are effeminate, or are they effeminate because we notice and remember every single case of gay men being effeminate?"

The answer is probably some of both. "Stereotypes exist for a reason" is an incredibly true statement, if for no other reason than "someone is propagandizing a stereotype" (see: WWII & the Holocaust).

All that being said, the short answer to a lot of the questions people ask about sexuality is: "Its complicated" because it is. To rapidfire answer some faqs, though:

>Is being gay genetic or learned
Almost entirely genetic, bisexuality can somewhat be "learned"
>Can you be a masculine gay man or an effeminate gay woman?
Absolutely
>Can you be a gay transexual?
100%
>Is being transexual genetic or learned
As with homosexuality, it is roughly 100% genetic
>Is there a scientific correlation between homosexuality and masculinity/effeminacy for a specific gender?
Not yet, but this probably has more to do with the impracticality of carrying out such a study. A study could be carried out that says "Yes, a strong correlation" which is entirely botched and less than scientific. The short answer is that we just don't know yet BUT it should be noted that in one study, groups of homosexuals and heterosexuals were dressed in the same clothes, had their pictures taken with a blank expression, and shown to a test group. The test group were able to determine if the person was gay about 80% of the time accurately. Not a grand statement, just food for thought.

Also, as had been noted, OP, your english is far better than most of my friends', and I appreciate the research you took the time to do on your own.

Hope this helped clear some things up for someone

In my second post:
>culture affects, and is affect by culture
was supposed to read
>culture affects, and is affected by perception

It was also greentexted there.

>>16275
You make some very good points. I do not have a great understanding of anatomy or biology as a whole, but I have always believed that the reasons behind a person's personality was genetic (to a point) or atleast heavily affected by it. As you said, society also plays a role in the perception or movement on these actions relating to personality. If you are conditioned by the people and ideals around you to be something else, then you most likely are going to become that. Also pertaining to the environment around someone, and how it effects them: if a gay man for instance was only in contact or even only knew of women (besides himself), then this man would have little idea that he was gay. Perhaps he would not feel whole, or a little voice in the back of his head wanting something different, but the idea of wanting someone different would be little existent. I ocassionaly see posts on other imageboards following the idea "the internet made me gay". Perhaps these people always considered themselves straight (as heterosexual is the norm) and never saw gay porn because the mentality " I'm straight not gay, I don't watch gay porn", and once being exposed, they realised these suppresed or blinded tendencies.

We do know that gayness has a strong genetic component. Most theorize on the X chromosome while links have been found on 4 and 10. Trans are a different issue. See gayness is just a variant, trans is a genetic DISEASE. Its when you have a Y chromosome and the SRY gene is turned off. This creates masculine women (lesbians) or the SRY gene could be variated and produce little testosteron (i.e gay men and trans) that is why many gay men are feminine because they are just trans but barely and actualy gay men (like your bro) are normal.

>>16111
>gets banned from 4chan for making a homophobic shitpost
>comes here and sees user banned for giving his opinion on a subject

7chan mods confirmed faggots, fuck you

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>16180
Totally in accord with you, genetics has a role smaller than op thinks.

There is evidence in rodents that there is more male homosexuality when the colony is stressed by crowding. I don't know if it was followed up to see if a similar correlation existed with other stressors (isn't that how u spell it? Stupid program). Anyway this is consistent with the idea that genes that lead to some adults practicing non reproductive sex, especially if they are more manifest in difficult circumstances lead to a higher adult/child ratio which leads to greater reproductive fitness through kinship selection. In essence an ESS like philandering or staying-at-home-and-helping-wifey-take-care-of-the-kids. The more common it is the less advantage in it. So you get an equilibrium. Queer uncles can be valuable. A lot of speculation in there but it is a serious speculation that's been out there for a while and taken seriously by some evolutionary biologists.

>>16577
i came here to get away from the niggers, but it seems that the mods themselves are fags

There is a scientific basis for the claim that homosexuality is a mental illness, despite the rhetoric gay right groups put out.

http://archive.is/yfjOu

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1486514

>>16274
it cant be 100% genetic if you get sets of identical twins where only one is gay.

For the longest time, people have been saying yes. Kids ignore them because their foster parents (school, country, media) claim otherwise. Only corrupt dreamers think otherwise.

>>16652
Who cares? Homophobes causes much more problems than the opposite.

>>16577
wow faggots

>>16039
There probably are many homosexuals whose preference could be attributed to divergent fetal development, but given how subjectively humans are able to perceive reality, it's just as likely many homosexuals are simply more interested in their own sex.

In the end, whether you consider it to be brain damage or the whims of the heart doesn't matter; we have not yet developed the technology to ensure the masculization process completes nor have we developed the science to fully account for the subjective differences in people's worldviews. The former we may achieve at some point, but the latter is inherently impossible.

Someday (rather soon), we're going to have Gattica-style designer babies, but we will never "cure" homosexuality.