3 ms·
The problem I have with your comment is likely the reason the scientists were worried about how best to communicate their results: "sexual orientation is not t
by myrion 6y ago
The problem I have with your comment is likely the reason the scientists were worried about how best to communicate their results:
"sexual orientation is not the expression of any one gene" is not the same as "people are not born gay".
It may be a complex genetic interaction or it may be some other effect at play, but whatever it is, it doesn't contradict that people don't choose their sexual orientation.
Since people have justified all sorts of atrocities based on the misconception that being queer is a choice for people that they could just not make, I can understand scientists who want to make sure their research doesn't fuel that again.
- notsureaboutpg 6y agoI don't wish to argue about the actual results of the paper since that was not the point. The point was that if you work with activist groups to inform the public of your findings you are going to make it hard for people to "trust the science" since they need to also trust the activists you've teamed up with. But the paper, on the surface, does contradict the idea that people's sexual orientation is innate because it rules out many of the most likely complex gene expressions that could have explained this behavior. I understand the sociopolitical dilemma involved with this unfortunate truth but that's exactly why "trust the science" is complicated and it's exactly why science ends up needing to be like a religion, either you believe it or you don't. Scientists cannot afford (and have chosen not to afford) for people to take the results and interpret the sociopolitical consequences of those results themselves.