Fat Black Swan said:

---

Putting aside the political BS with "Don't Say Gay" bills, puppy play gimps, drag shows, and Screwdolph…

At what age are children developmentally capable of understanding the complexities of genetic predisposition, environmental, and en-utero developmental factors that affect human sexuality?

It has to be well past elementary school.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.2907

Quote:

---

The fraternal birth order effect (FBOE) is the finding that older brothers increase the probability of homosexuality in later-born males,1 and the female fecundity effect (FFE) is the finding that the mothers of homosexual males produce more offspring than the mothers of heterosexual males.2 There is a considerable amount of empirical evidence for the reproducibility of the FBOE [25] and the FFE [68]. Each effect relates to a specific biological theory of the aetiology of homosexuality in malesan immunological theory, in the case of the FBOE [9,10], and a genetic theory, in the case of the FFE [11].

The maternal immune hypothesis (MIH) is the hypothesis that the FBOE reflects the progressive immunization of some mothers to male-specific antigens and the consequent effects of anti-male antibodies on sexual differentiation in the brain in male fetuses. According to this hypothesis, cells (or cell fragments) from male fetuses enter the maternal circulation during childbirth or perhaps earlier in pregnancy. These cells include substances that occur primarily on the surfaces of male brain cells, for example, the Y-linked membrane proteins NLGN4Y and PCDH11Y. The mother's immune system recognizes these male-specific molecules as foreign and produces antibodies to them. In subsequent male pregnancies, her antibodies cross the placental barrier and enter the fetal brain. Once in the brain, these antibodies bind to male-specific molecules on the surface of neurons and prevent these neurons from 'wiring-up' in a fully male-typical pattern. In consequence, the individual will later be attracted to men rather than to women. There has only been one laboratory test of the MIH, but its results were consistent with the hypothesis. This test found higher concentrations of anti-NLGN4Y antibody in the sera of mothers of homosexual men, especially those with older brothers, compared with the concentrations for mothers of heterosexual control subjects [10].

The FFE is a prediction of the balancing selection hypothesis (BSH). The BSH is an attempt to reconcile the findings from behaviour genetics and molecular genetics that homosexuality in men is partially heritable with the finding that homosexual men produce far fewer offspring than do their heterosexual counterparts. If both these findings are trueand there is no particular reason to doubt eitherthen the number of people who carry genes predisposing to homosexuality should be declining and the prevalence of homosexuality in the male population should be decreasing. Such a decrease, however, is not evident. The BSH resolves this seeming conundrum by proposing that the same genes that predispose to homosexuality in some males also increase fecundity in their heterosexual relatives, especially female relatives; this is the predicted FFE. Because of the FFE, the family's total number of descendants and the number of individuals carrying 'gay genes' remain constant. The FFE compensates for the low fertility of homosexual men.

---

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693

Quote:

---

In the discovery samples (UK Biobank and 23andMe), five autosomal loci were significantly associated with same-sex sexual behavior. Follow-up of these loci suggested links to biological pathways that involve sex hormone regulation and olfaction. Three of the loci were significant in a meta-analysis of smaller, independent replication samples.

Although only a few loci passed the stringent statistical corrections for genome-wide multiple testing and were replicated in other samples, our analyses show that many loci underlie same-sex sexual behavior in both sexes. In aggregate, all tested genetic variants accounted for 8 to 25% of variation in male and female same-sex sexual behavior, and the genetic influences were positively but imperfectly correlated between the sexes [genetic correlation coefficient (rg) = 0.63; 95% confidence intervals, 0.48 to 0.78]. These aggregate genetic influences partly overlapped with those on a variety of other traits, including externalizing behaviors such as smoking, cannabis use, risk-taking, and the personality trait "openness to experience." Additional analyses suggested that sexual behavior, attraction, identity, and fantasies are influenced by a similar set of genetic variants (rg > 0.83); however, the genetic effects that differentiate heterosexual from same-sex sexual behavior are not the same as those that differ among nonheterosexuals with lower versus higher proportions of same-sex partners, which suggests that there is no single continuum from opposite-sex to same-sex preference.

---

---

That nonsense about reproductive rates of mothers with homosexual children is a straight up lie intentionally fabricated to refute the argument that homosexuality is unnatural, in that it cannot reproduce or survive in nature without outside supplementation.

Family size average has dropped substantially over the last 50 years. Gays are a higher percentage of population than ever.

I'm a third son in my 80s and this pretty much maxed out my bull**** detector.

Study is bogus on its face as commented in a later issue. You can do the same sloppy statistics, not science, and find a set of genes linked to voting Republican or anything else. Primary issue is they don't have known phenotypes as stated in this follow-up comment in Science. Then the author admits that they don't know if any of the subjects are actually gay or not. It is a junk article genetically. Author states this nonsense will "move the field forward."

Quote:

---

The phenotypic measures used by Ganna et al. (Research Articles, 30 August 2019, p. 882) lump together predominantly heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual individuals, including those who have experimented with a same-sex partner only once. This may have resulted in misleading associations to personality traits unrelated to understood categories of human sexuality. Scientific studies of human sexuality should use validated and reliable measures of sexual behaviors, attractions, and identities that capture the full spectrum of complexity.

---

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aba2941

To which the author responds

Quote:

---

Although we would much prefer even massive biobank-based samples to have deep phenotyping on our topic of interest (i.e., sexuality measures), data of this nature are not currently available. Generally, there is a practical trade-off between phenotypic detail and sample size. Our approach was to acknowledge the limitations but make reasoned use of the available data to move the field forward, recognizing that others may prefer to avoid examining such datasets altogether.

---

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba5693#bibliography

Kozmozag said:

---

Family size average has dropped substantially over the last 50 years. Gays are a higher percentage of population than ever.

---

Another variable...it's much easier to be "out" these days than in the past.

At what age should it be taught??? How about never.

We built skyscrapers, fly millions of people around the world a year, and landed on the moon - ALL without needing to be taught this garbage.

So it is conjecture playing with the data? Interesting it got published.

Fat Black Swan said:

---

The paper says that families with a predisposition for producing homosexual offspring have a predisposition for producing more offspring on average. This is due to the mothers having more babies and the siblings having more babies. Basically, they have a high libido.

---

Funny, most people I know with a high libido use birth control and abortion to have zero children.

It's the conservative religious families with a bunch of kids.

A bunch of screaming kids around the house are bad for libido.

flyrancher said:

---

I'm a third son in my 80s and this pretty much maxed out my bull**** detector.

---

Five gay guys I grew up with:

Two were the oldest child
Two were the second child, but first male
One was the second son

The same age we teach them to balance a checkbook, which in most schools is never, but 18 feels right.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

So it is conjecture playing with the data? Interesting it got published.

---

Collaborate with the Boston crowd effect. But the primary author ($) is

Quote:

---

Brendan P. Zietsch

Centre for Psychology and Evolution, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia.

---

Ernest Tucker said:

---

I know that, so what that means is

Let's say homosexuals make up 10% of the population

Family A has 1 kid. = 1/10 chance they will be parent with gay child

Family B has 4 kids = 4/10 chance

Family gay has 10 kids = 10/10 chance

I know I'm not a mathematician, but the gist is correct isn't it?

It know they are taking the, well high libido equals more gays, but isn't it really just playing a numbers game?

---

Small but realistic chance that out of ten kids, no kid would be born gay. Extremely tiny and probably implausible chance that all ten would be gay.

C@LAg said:

---

can someone please post citation proving the existence of this "gay gene".

---

It's part of the agenda to get us to buy in that some people are "just born that way".

FrankK said:

---

Why does all that climate data that was fudged massively, and sometimes even just completed fabricated, come to mind right now?

Or Wuhan numbers?

---

this

Fat Black Swan said:

---

Putting aside the political BS with "Don't Say Gay" bills, puppy play gimps, drag shows, and Screwdolph…

At what age are children developmentally capable of understanding the complexities of genetic predisposition, environmental, and en-utero developmental factors that affect human sexuality?

It has to be well past elementary school.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.2907

Quote:

---

The fraternal birth order effect (FBOE) is the finding that older brothers increase the probability of homosexuality in later-born males,1 and the female fecundity effect (FFE) is the finding that the mothers of homosexual males produce more offspring than the mothers of heterosexual males.2 There is a considerable amount of empirical evidence for the reproducibility of the FBOE [25] and the FFE [68]. Each effect relates to a specific biological theory of the aetiology of homosexuality in malesan immunological theory, in the case of the FBOE [9,10], and a genetic theory, in the case of the FFE [11].

The maternal immune hypothesis (MIH) is the hypothesis that the FBOE reflects the progressive immunization of some mothers to male-specific antigens and the consequent effects of anti-male antibodies on sexual differentiation in the brain in male fetuses. According to this hypothesis, cells (or cell fragments) from male fetuses enter the maternal circulation during childbirth or perhaps earlier in pregnancy. These cells include substances that occur primarily on the surfaces of male brain cells, for example, the Y-linked membrane proteins NLGN4Y and PCDH11Y. The mother's immune system recognizes these male-specific molecules as foreign and produces antibodies to them. In subsequent male pregnancies, her antibodies cross the placental barrier and enter the fetal brain. Once in the brain, these antibodies bind to male-specific molecules on the surface of neurons and prevent these neurons from 'wiring-up' in a fully male-typical pattern. In consequence, the individual will later be attracted to men rather than to women. There has only been one laboratory test of the MIH, but its results were consistent with the hypothesis. This test found higher concentrations of anti-NLGN4Y antibody in the sera of mothers of homosexual men, especially those with older brothers, compared with the concentrations for mothers of heterosexual control subjects [10].

The FFE is a prediction of the balancing selection hypothesis (BSH). The BSH is an attempt to reconcile the findings from behaviour genetics and molecular genetics that homosexuality in men is partially heritable with the finding that homosexual men produce far fewer offspring than do their heterosexual counterparts. If both these findings are trueand there is no particular reason to doubt eitherthen the number of people who carry genes predisposing to homosexuality should be declining and the prevalence of homosexuality in the male population should be decreasing. Such a decrease, however, is not evident. The BSH resolves this seeming conundrum by proposing that the same genes that predispose to homosexuality in some males also increase fecundity in their heterosexual relatives, especially female relatives; this is the predicted FFE. Because of the FFE, the family's total number of descendants and the number of individuals carrying 'gay genes' remain constant. The FFE compensates for the low fertility of homosexual men.

---

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693

Quote:

---

In the discovery samples (UK Biobank and 23andMe), five autosomal loci were significantly associated with same-sex sexual behavior. Follow-up of these loci suggested links to biological pathways that involve sex hormone regulation and olfaction. Three of the loci were significant in a meta-analysis of smaller, independent replication samples.

Although only a few loci passed the stringent statistical corrections for genome-wide multiple testing and were replicated in other samples, our analyses show that many loci underlie same-sex sexual behavior in both sexes. In aggregate, all tested genetic variants accounted for 8 to 25% of variation in male and female same-sex sexual behavior, and the genetic influences were positively but imperfectly correlated between the sexes [genetic correlation coefficient (rg) = 0.63; 95% confidence intervals, 0.48 to 0.78]. These aggregate genetic influences partly overlapped with those on a variety of other traits, including externalizing behaviors such as smoking, cannabis use, risk-taking, and the personality trait "openness to experience." Additional analyses suggested that sexual behavior, attraction, identity, and fantasies are influenced by a similar set of genetic variants (rg > 0.83); however, the genetic effects that differentiate heterosexual from same-sex sexual behavior are not the same as those that differ among nonheterosexuals with lower versus higher proportions of same-sex partners, which suggests that there is no single continuum from opposite-sex to same-sex preference.

---

---

Some of the most prominent liberals in the country, including one SCOTUS justice, don't even know how to define a woman. The basics of gender is something the most brilliant liberal minds are still trying to figure out. So I don't think this type of stuff should even be discussed until maybe grad or post grad level. It's certainly way beyond the grasp of Jr High and High Schoolers and should be banned from discussion at those levels.

Fat Black Swan said:

---

Putting aside the political BS with "Don't Say Gay" bills, puppy play gimps, drag shows, and Screwdolph…

At what age are children developmentally capable of understanding the complexities of genetic predisposition, environmental, and en-utero developmental factors that affect human sexuality?

It has to be well past elementary school.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.2907

Quote:

---

The fraternal birth order effect (FBOE) is the finding that older brothers increase the probability of homosexuality in later-born males,1 and the female fecundity effect (FFE) is the finding that the mothers of homosexual males produce more offspring than the mothers of heterosexual males.2 There is a considerable amount of empirical evidence for the reproducibility of the FBOE [25] and the FFE [68]. Each effect relates to a specific biological theory of the aetiology of homosexuality in malesan immunological theory, in the case of the FBOE [9,10], and a genetic theory, in the case of the FFE [11].

The maternal immune hypothesis (MIH) is the hypothesis that the FBOE reflects the progressive immunization of some mothers to male-specific antigens and the consequent effects of anti-male antibodies on sexual differentiation in the brain in male fetuses. According to this hypothesis, cells (or cell fragments) from male fetuses enter the maternal circulation during childbirth or perhaps earlier in pregnancy. These cells include substances that occur primarily on the surfaces of male brain cells, for example, the Y-linked membrane proteins NLGN4Y and PCDH11Y. The mother's immune system recognizes these male-specific molecules as foreign and produces antibodies to them. In subsequent male pregnancies, her antibodies cross the placental barrier and enter the fetal brain. Once in the brain, these antibodies bind to male-specific molecules on the surface of neurons and prevent these neurons from 'wiring-up' in a fully male-typical pattern. In consequence, the individual will later be attracted to men rather than to women. There has only been one laboratory test of the MIH, but its results were consistent with the hypothesis. This test found higher concentrations of anti-NLGN4Y antibody in the sera of mothers of homosexual men, especially those with older brothers, compared with the concentrations for mothers of heterosexual control subjects [10].

The FFE is a prediction of the balancing selection hypothesis (BSH). The BSH is an attempt to reconcile the findings from behaviour genetics and molecular genetics that homosexuality in men is partially heritable with the finding that homosexual men produce far fewer offspring than do their heterosexual counterparts. If both these findings are trueand there is no particular reason to doubt eitherthen the number of people who carry genes predisposing to homosexuality should be declining and the prevalence of homosexuality in the male population should be decreasing. Such a decrease, however, is not evident. The BSH resolves this seeming conundrum by proposing that the same genes that predispose to homosexuality in some males also increase fecundity in their heterosexual relatives, especially female relatives; this is the predicted FFE. Because of the FFE, the family's total number of descendants and the number of individuals carrying 'gay genes' remain constant. The FFE compensates for the low fertility of homosexual men.

---

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693

Quote:

---

In the discovery samples (UK Biobank and 23andMe), five autosomal loci were significantly associated with same-sex sexual behavior. Follow-up of these loci suggested links to biological pathways that involve sex hormone regulation and olfaction. Three of the loci were significant in a meta-analysis of smaller, independent replication samples.

Although only a few loci passed the stringent statistical corrections for genome-wide multiple testing and were replicated in other samples, our analyses show that many loci underlie same-sex sexual behavior in both sexes. In aggregate, all tested genetic variants accounted for 8 to 25% of variation in male and female same-sex sexual behavior, and the genetic influences were positively but imperfectly correlated between the sexes [genetic correlation coefficient (rg) = 0.63; 95% confidence intervals, 0.48 to 0.78]. These aggregate genetic influences partly overlapped with those on a variety of other traits, including externalizing behaviors such as smoking, cannabis use, risk-taking, and the personality trait "openness to experience." Additional analyses suggested that sexual behavior, attraction, identity, and fantasies are influenced by a similar set of genetic variants (rg > 0.83); however, the genetic effects that differentiate heterosexual from same-sex sexual behavior are not the same as those that differ among nonheterosexuals with lower versus higher proportions of same-sex partners, which suggests that there is no single continuum from opposite-sex to same-sex preference.

---

---

Scientist do not even know the extent to which biology and environment affect sexual preference. Why would we teach kids any of it? Are we going to also teach them that homosexuals report childhood sexual molestation at rates up to 7X higher than heterosexuals. Those statistics are very solid evidence that environment plays a major role in shaping sexual orientation. It's really not something schools need to teach at all.

Kids right now don't even understand the difference between boys and girls. Maybe we should focus on basic biology before we venture into things scientists do not even fully understand.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I find more interesting the data indicating that it is possible that the reason genetic proclivity towards homosexuality in males isn't gradually eliminated from the population by the fact that they reproduce far less often may be because those same genes in their female siblings may make the females more fertile.

---

I'd like to know how they account for the use of contraceptives in measuring "fecundity". It is not obvious to me that a woman in this day and age with less children, is less fertile than a woman with lots of kids.

Why the refusal by the scientific community to explore the social contagion aspect?

bmks270 said:

---

Not that simple. Because the data around this shows differences in the rate of homosexuality depending on the order of birth. First born males are homosexual at the lowest rate. The more older brothers, the higher the rates of homosexuality. That is my understanding of it.

---

My high school son mentioned this the other day...maybe he was subtly suggesting to me that his younger brother is gay (lol). I also wonder if he read such a thing on social media or if his friends were talking about it.

We should follow the Europeans. Don't teach it in school, treat it as a mental health issue.

No one wants to hear this psycho babble. I do not care what/who you are as long as you keep it to yourself.
As for kids, tell them the truth AFTER they know the real differences between men and women is (are).

That's a good question. That would definitely have to be accounted for to have good data to work with.

Quote:

---

...and the female fecundity effect (FFE) is the finding that the mothers of homosexual males produce more offspring than the mothers of heterosexual males.

---

This looks like hard wiring in a species doing its utmost to survive and perpetuate.

I have wondered before if there are more or less homosexuals born based on resources available. Basically my thought is that our sexual preferences are somewhat evolutionary, and will have less people in a position to make babies as a form of natural population control when needed.

This can be a charged topic, so I don't mean any disrespect to anyone. However, it's an interesting idea to consider, especially if there is some kind of scientific backing to it.