4 ms·

> There's no "origin" to homosexuality Did I use the word "origin" incorrectly? Because evolution of a second sexual system in these birds results in white-str

by vorg 10y ago

> There's no "origin" to homosexuality Did I use the word "origin" incorrectly? Because evolution of a second sexual system in these birds results in white-striped birds and tan-striped ones mating only with the other almost all the time instead of always all the time, homosexuality is being built into the differentiation of a species into 2 sexes, I presume because DNA processing can never be error-free. I didn't imply it starts happening after the differentiation.

astrodust 10y ago
The term doesn't even apply here since the physical expression of gender is more complicated than the typical binary variant seen in mammals. white/male + white/female is not "homosexual" by any conventional definition. If anything it's "homomorphic". Birds, like any creature, don't do anything all the time. I think you're reading way too much into these observations.
- vorg 10y ago
  > white/male + white/female is not "homosexual" by any conventional definition. If anything it's "homomorphic" Did I use the term "homosexual" incorrectly? Perhaps "origins of homosexuality" would be more accurate. That's what I said in the first place. The article says "the researchers had come up with the concept that the birds were evolving a second set of sex chromosomes" and "the inversion on chromosome 2 doesn't include genes that determine sexual development — but it does contain some that affect the birds' reproductive behaviour". The tan-striped "swingers" are monogamous and fiercely protect their hatchlings from predators, whereas the white-striped "singers" are aggressive, promiscuous, and more cavalier about their offspring. The tan stripe birds almost always mate with the white stripes, but there are exceptions. We're seeing here firsthand (on a genetic time scale) the origins of homosexual behavior. I appreciate your comment because when I first got the 5+ downvotes without any comments, I thought it was homophobic attitudes from HN readers. But now I know they could also be anyone with an overly pedantic reaction to the use of certain words.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    > We're seeing here firsthand (on a genetic time scale) the origins of homosexual behavior. Again, nope. I think you're taking a lot of flack here for implying that homosexuality, or homosexual behaviour is somehow unnatural and needed to evolve. That it's an aberration of some sort. I'm asserting it has always been there, that it pre-dates the very concept of genders. There's an evolutionary bias in some species towards heterosexual relationships, but in others there's no such pressure. Aphids don't need to reproduce sexually, but they do if they feel it's a better deal. Snails possess both genders and breeding gets complicated. The only thing we're witnessing the start of here is the introduction of new arrangements of genes that behave in a sex-like way. If there was a species where a sex gene was being evolved away there would be just as much scientific interest.
    - vorg 10y ago
      > I think you're taking a lot of flack here for implying that homosexuality, or homosexual behaviour is somehow unnatural and needed to evolve First you dispute my use of "origin", then you dispute my use of "homosexual". Now are you saying my use of "origin of homosexuality" to explain the almost in "A almost always mates with B" implies I think homosexuality is "unnatural"? You have an overly pedantic reaction to my use of certain words if you're inferring the opinion words "unnatural" and "aberration" from my first one-line comment.
      - astrodust 10y ago
        I have no idea how that could be construed any other way. Whatever you're trying to say, you're saying it in the most confusing way possible. There's nothing even remotely "homosexual" about your "A mates with B" statement. Horses almost always mate with other horses. Sometimes they mate with donkeys. That does not make the act homosexual in the least. There's no origin, genesis, beginning, or start of anything homosexual with this addition of new sex genes. It just broadens the spectrum of what gender actually is.
        vorg 10y ago

by vorg 10y ago

astrodust 10y ago

The term doesn't even apply here since the physical expression of gender is more complicated than the typical binary variant seen in mammals. white/male + white/female is not "homosexual" by any conventional definition. If anything it's "homomorphic". Birds, like any creature, don't do anything all the time. I think you're reading way too much into these observations.

vorg 10y ago
> white/male + white/female is not "homosexual" by any conventional definition. If anything it's "homomorphic" Did I use the term "homosexual" incorrectly? Perhaps "origins of homosexuality" would be more accurate. That's what I said in the first place. The article says "the researchers had come up with the concept that the birds were evolving a second set of sex chromosomes" and "the inversion on chromosome 2 doesn't include genes that determine sexual development — but it does contain some that affect the birds' reproductive behaviour". The tan-striped "swingers" are monogamous and fiercely protect their hatchlings from predators, whereas the white-striped "singers" are aggressive, promiscuous, and more cavalier about their offspring. The tan stripe birds almost always mate with the white stripes, but there are exceptions. We're seeing here firsthand (on a genetic time scale) the origins of homosexual behavior. I appreciate your comment because when I first got the 5+ downvotes without any comments, I thought it was homophobic attitudes from HN readers. But now I know they could also be anyone with an overly pedantic reaction to the use of certain words.
- astrodust 10y ago
  > We're seeing here firsthand (on a genetic time scale) the origins of homosexual behavior. Again, nope. I think you're taking a lot of flack here for implying that homosexuality, or homosexual behaviour is somehow unnatural and needed to evolve. That it's an aberration of some sort. I'm asserting it has always been there, that it pre-dates the very concept of genders. There's an evolutionary bias in some species towards heterosexual relationships, but in others there's no such pressure. Aphids don't need to reproduce sexually, but they do if they feel it's a better deal. Snails possess both genders and breeding gets complicated. The only thing we're witnessing the start of here is the introduction of new arrangements of genes that behave in a sex-like way. If there was a species where a sex gene was being evolved away there would be just as much scientific interest.
  - vorg 10y ago
    > I think you're taking a lot of flack here for implying that homosexuality, or homosexual behaviour is somehow unnatural and needed to evolve First you dispute my use of "origin", then you dispute my use of "homosexual". Now are you saying my use of "origin of homosexuality" to explain the almost in "A almost always mates with B" implies I think homosexuality is "unnatural"? You have an overly pedantic reaction to my use of certain words if you're inferring the opinion words "unnatural" and "aberration" from my first one-line comment.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      I have no idea how that could be construed any other way. Whatever you're trying to say, you're saying it in the most confusing way possible. There's nothing even remotely "homosexual" about your "A mates with B" statement. Horses almost always mate with other horses. Sometimes they mate with donkeys. That does not make the act homosexual in the least. There's no origin, genesis, beginning, or start of anything homosexual with this addition of new sex genes. It just broadens the spectrum of what gender actually is.
      - vorg 10y ago