4 ms·

How is this any more offensive or unlikely than stuff like digit ratio research? The idea that sexual orientation correlates with other features is very old, an

How is this any more offensive or unlikely than stuff like digit ratio research? The idea that sexual orientation correlates with other features is very old, and this paper would seem to prove it. We've known for awhile that identical twins were much more likely than chance to share sexual orientations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation >Nowadays we know that sexual orientation is something that is neither set in stone, nor absolute I don't think that's really correct. Sure there are exceptions, but most people stick to one sexual orientation, or at least somewhere in between on a spectrum. Attempts at converting gay people to become straight were unsuccessful. In fact this was one of the biggest arguments for gay rights, that it isn't a choice and can't be changed. >What morally justifiable practical purpose could there possibly be? This proves a biological origin for sexuality. Which is both scientifically interesting, and a strong argument for gay rights in places where it is still seen as some kind of sin or mental illness. Anyone hypothetically using this tool to discriminate against homosexuals would have to admit the tool works of course. And that would mean homosexuality is biological, which would contradict their own beliefs. Lastly do you have any actual argument against the papers methodology? Or the phrenology paper you link for that matter. Your comment is basically "I don't like the conclusions so I won't accept them". That's not terribly scientific.

nostromo123 9y ago
> Your comment is basically "I don't like the conclusions so I won't accept them". That's not terribly scientific. The whole "gender is a social construct" movement is based on rejecting actual scientific evidence, so don't be surprised...
- yorwba 9y ago
  The distinction between sex as biological and gender as social seems useful to me. It makes "gender is a social construct" a tautology, but doesn't in itself reject scientific evidence. It's just that inasmuch you have evidence that some behavior is biologically determined, the behavior is less amenable to analysis in terms of only gender.
foldr 9y ago
>How is this any more offensive or unlikely than stuff like digit ratio research? Because it's based on the idea that gay men aren't real men. You have to be a little suspicious when scientific research comes out with findings that happen to exactly match the prejudices of the experimenters and/or the broader society. There used to be lots of "scientific" evidence for racist ideas too (see e.g. http://lrc.ohio.edu/lrcmedia/Streaming/lingCALL/ling270/myth13.pdf http://lrc.ohio.edu/lrcmedia/Streaming/lingCALL/ling270/myth...). >Which is both scientifically interesting, and a strong argument for gay rights in places where it is still seen as some kind of sin or mental illness. It's only an argument for gay rights if you presuppose that "fixing" gay people would be the right thing to do if it were possible. If you don't presuppose that, then it makes no difference whether or not people are "born gay".
- yorwba 9y ago
  > Because it's based on the idea that gay men aren't real men. If a study found that male, violent criminals had wider jaws than average men, would you think that the study was based on the idea that average men aren't real men, unlike criminals? I think it's quite likely that both sexual orientation and jaw size are influenced by the same hormones (e.g. testosterone), since both features are involved in sexual dimorphism. Essentially, if a person is similar to average members of the opposite sex in one dimension, they are likely to be similar in other dimensions as well. That doesn't make anyone inferior or less "real", it just means that the averages of two groups are slightly different on a certain axis that roughly corresponds to the feminine-masculine distinction. On that axis, you will have (most feminine woman) (average straight woman) (average gay woman) (most feminine man) (most masculine woman) (average gay man) (average straight man) (most masculine man) That axis is very different from the inferiority-superiority axis, where you have (nobody) (everyone else)
  - foldr 9y ago
    >I think it's quite likely that both sexual orientation and jaw size are influenced by the same hormones Ok. I think it's also quite likely that they're not. >(most feminine woman) (average straight woman) (average gay woman) (most feminine man) (most masculine woman) (average gay man) (average straight man) (most masculine man) Are you serious about this? Gay men are just men who are sexually attracted to men. You'd think that the idea that gay men are sexually attracted to men because they are more feminine than other men would have died in the face of all the obvious counterexamples, now that fewer people are hiding their sexuality, but it seems surprisingly persistent. The problem with this kind of thing is that despite representations to the contrary, no-one is really interested in the group means for their own sake. They are interested because they want to pedal the tired old theory that gayness is a defect resulting from a lack of masculinity. People are often too polite (or afraid?) to say that now, but gay people are capable of reading between the lines.
fauigerzigerk 9y ago
>Lastly do you have any actual argument against the papers methodology? Or the phrenology paper you link for that matter. The latter paper's approach is harshly criticised here: http://callingbullshit.org/case_studies/case_study_criminal_machine_learning.html http://callingbullshit.org/case_studies/case_study_criminal_...
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> How is this any more offensive or unlikely than stuff like digit ratio research? It is offensive in the sense that it seems to assume that gay men are less masculine than straight men. Why would that be the case? Not to mention that, in practice, the vast majority of gay men are not effeminate. >> This proves a biological origin for sexuality. A claim in a paper never "proves" anything. In this case we're talking about a paper on sociology that presents a machine learning model so it's even less likely to prove anything about biology. >> Lastly do you have any actual argument against the papers methodology? There should be a law about requesting "arguments" and name-dropping "methodology" on the internet. Something like Godwin's law. Along the lines of: "When an online discussion reaches the point where someone mentions the word 'argument' it's time for everyone to go home".

nostromo123 9y ago

> Your comment is basically "I don't like the conclusions so I won't accept them". That's not terribly scientific. The whole "gender is a social construct" movement is based on rejecting actual scientific evidence, so don't be surprised...

yorwba 9y ago
The distinction between sex as biological and gender as social seems useful to me. It makes "gender is a social construct" a tautology, but doesn't in itself reject scientific evidence. It's just that inasmuch you have evidence that some behavior is biologically determined, the behavior is less amenable to analysis in terms of only gender.

foldr 9y ago

>How is this any more offensive or unlikely than stuff like digit ratio research? Because it's based on the idea that gay men aren't real men. You have to be a little suspicious when scientific research comes out with findings that happen to exactly match the prejudices of the experimenters and/or the broader society. There used to be lots of "scientific" evidence for racist ideas too (see e.g. http://lrc.ohio.edu/lrcmedia/Streaming/lingCALL/ling270/myth13.pdf http://lrc.ohio.edu/lrcmedia/Streaming/lingCALL/ling270/myth...). >Which is both scientifically interesting, and a strong argument for gay rights in places where it is still seen as some kind of sin or mental illness. It's only an argument for gay rights if you presuppose that "fixing" gay people would be the right thing to do if it were possible. If you don't presuppose that, then it makes no difference whether or not people are "born gay".

yorwba 9y ago
> Because it's based on the idea that gay men aren't real men. If a study found that male, violent criminals had wider jaws than average men, would you think that the study was based on the idea that average men aren't real men, unlike criminals? I think it's quite likely that both sexual orientation and jaw size are influenced by the same hormones (e.g. testosterone), since both features are involved in sexual dimorphism. Essentially, if a person is similar to average members of the opposite sex in one dimension, they are likely to be similar in other dimensions as well. That doesn't make anyone inferior or less "real", it just means that the averages of two groups are slightly different on a certain axis that roughly corresponds to the feminine-masculine distinction. On that axis, you will have (most feminine woman) (average straight woman) (average gay woman) (most feminine man) (most masculine woman) (average gay man) (average straight man) (most masculine man) That axis is very different from the inferiority-superiority axis, where you have (nobody) (everyone else)
- foldr 9y ago
  >I think it's quite likely that both sexual orientation and jaw size are influenced by the same hormones Ok. I think it's also quite likely that they're not. >(most feminine woman) (average straight woman) (average gay woman) (most feminine man) (most masculine woman) (average gay man) (average straight man) (most masculine man) Are you serious about this? Gay men are just men who are sexually attracted to men. You'd think that the idea that gay men are sexually attracted to men because they are more feminine than other men would have died in the face of all the obvious counterexamples, now that fewer people are hiding their sexuality, but it seems surprisingly persistent. The problem with this kind of thing is that despite representations to the contrary, no-one is really interested in the group means for their own sake. They are interested because they want to pedal the tired old theory that gayness is a defect resulting from a lack of masculinity. People are often too polite (or afraid?) to say that now, but gay people are capable of reading between the lines.

fauigerzigerk 9y ago

>Lastly do you have any actual argument against the papers methodology? Or the phrenology paper you link for that matter. The latter paper's approach is harshly criticised here: http://callingbullshit.org/case_studies/case_study_criminal_machine_learning.html http://callingbullshit.org/case_studies/case_study_criminal_...

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

>> How is this any more offensive or unlikely than stuff like digit ratio research? It is offensive in the sense that it seems to assume that gay men are less masculine than straight men. Why would that be the case? Not to mention that, in practice, the vast majority of gay men are not effeminate. >> This proves a biological origin for sexuality. A claim in a paper never "proves" anything. In this case we're talking about a paper on sociology that presents a machine learning model so it's even less likely to prove anything about biology. >> Lastly do you have any actual argument against the papers methodology? There should be a law about requesting "arguments" and name-dropping "methodology" on the internet. Something like Godwin's law. Along the lines of: "When an online discussion reaches the point where someone mentions the word 'argument' it's time for everyone to go home".