4 ms·

> white/male + white/female is not "homosexual" by any conventional definition. If anything it's "homomorphic" Did I use the term "homosexual" incorrectly? Per

by 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
      > 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 I think my clarifying comments above are clear enough, certainly not "the most confusing way possible". Your comments each argue against something I'm not saying or implying. If you have no idea how my original comment couldn't be construed as anything other than implying "homosexuality is somehow unnatural and an aberration", then I suggest perhaps you're bringing something from your personal situation into your reading process. I wrote the comment immediately after reading the entire article.
      - astrodust 10y ago
        You asked why you were being down-voted, so I explained how your comment was perceived. You can either put down the shovel or keep digging.

by vorg 10y ago

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
    > 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 I think my clarifying comments above are clear enough, certainly not "the most confusing way possible". Your comments each argue against something I'm not saying or implying. If you have no idea how my original comment couldn't be construed as anything other than implying "homosexuality is somehow unnatural and an aberration", then I suggest perhaps you're bringing something from your personal situation into your reading process. I wrote the comment immediately after reading the entire article.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      You asked why you were being down-voted, so I explained how your comment was perceived. You can either put down the shovel or keep digging.