trogs wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

trogs wrote:What's interesting is that homophobia is almost certainly significantly more genetic than male homosexuality:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2292426/

Which actually makes excellent evolutionary sense.

Why does homophobia make evolutionary sense? I imagine I might just have too limited imagination to come up with scenarios where homophobes on average get more offspring than non-homophobes. I would love to hear what mechanism would account for this!

Well, when we see heredity and selection, the only thing that we can know for certain is that it's genetic, but not why. It's all guesswork. All we know for sure is that twins separated at birth tend to have similar minds, we're not a blank slate. But, why is always guesswork.

But, it's not hard to imagine how homophobia might be advantageous in Sapiens. In a social ecosystem like that of the bonobo, homophobia probably would reduce reproductive success. But in a human ecosystem, with a higher/more dangerous STD load, and higher odds of homosexual behavior leading to aggression from men and/or shunning by women, homophobia might mean more kids.

trogs wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

trogs wrote:What's interesting is that homophobia is almost certainly significantly more genetic than male homosexuality:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2292426/

Which actually makes excellent evolutionary sense.

Why does homophobia make evolutionary sense? I imagine I might just have too limited imagination to come up with scenarios where homophobes on average get more offspring than non-homophobes. I would love to hear what mechanism would account for this!

Well, when we see heredity and selection, the only thing that we can know for certain is that it's genetic, but not why. It's all guesswork. All we know for sure is that twins separated at birth tend to have similar minds, we're not a blank slate. But, why is always guesswork.

But, it's not hard to imagine how homophobia might be advantageous in Sapiens. In a social ecosystem like that of the bonobo, homophobia probably would reduce reproductive success. But in a human ecosystem, with a higher/more dangerous STD load, and higher odds of homosexual behavior leading to aggression from men and/or shunning by women, homophobia might mean more kids.

Zwaarddijk wrote:Why is homophobia a better strategy than, say, "ahomosexuality"?

Zwaarddijk wrote:Also, re: STDs and gay people, I would be pretty surprised if this was the case back before the invention of condoms - it'd seem syphilis did a lot of heterosexuals in, and there doesn't seem to be anything to indicate gay people were hit more often.

trogs wrote: and that in observed environments, MSM's generally have higher STD transmission.

Sendraks wrote:

trogs wrote: and that in observed environments, MSM's generally have higher STD transmission.

The important word you're missing here is "because" and then this is followed by an "explanation."

Otherwise you're just making an assertion and implying something (that MSMs have higher STD transmission just by dint of being MSMs) which is not born out by the evidence.

trogs wrote:
I don't agree. I don't know why MSM's have higher STD transmission. Do you?

the_5th_ape wrote:

An American study has found new evidence that male homosexuality is influenced by genes – but environmental and social factors also play a role.

In the study, which was presented at a Science of Sex and Attraction event in Chicago, scientists tested the DNA of more 400 sets of gay brothers and their heterosexual relatives, to find out if some men are predisposed to being gay.

Genetic factors account for between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of what decides whether a man is gay or straight, according to the research.

Scientists found that a region of the X chromosome Xq28 had an impact on male sexuality, as did a stretch of DNA on chromosome 8.

Dr Michael Bailey, of Northwestern University, Illinois, who col-led the study said: “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.

“But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved.”

The work has not yet been published, but it builds on a previous study carried out in 1993 by Dr Dean Hamer from the US National Cancer Institute, who also found that gay men shared genetic signatures on the X chromosome.

However, the findings of the study raise the prospect of a genetic test that could be used to determine a bay’s sexual orientation in the womb.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 27683.html

Spearthrower wrote:
Note the word 'new' - this is far from the first evidence. Also, note that there are hundreds of species observed engaging in homosexual encounters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... l_behavior

In 2000 Bailey, Dunne and Martin studied a larger sample of 4,901 Australian twins but reported less than half the level of concordance.[5] They found 20% concordance in the male identical or MZ twins and 24% concordance for the female identical or MZ twins. Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt. A meta-study by Hershberger (2001)[6] compares the results of eight different twin studies: among those, all but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_an ... in_studies

Zwaarddijk wrote:
Why is homophobia a better strategy than, say, "ahomosexuality"?

trogs wrote:
A conjecture of my own is that, since killers are observed to get more female attention and sire more offspring in traditional societies we've studied, it might be that homophobia is a way of singling out effeminate, weak, and marginalised victims for "easy" murder. But such conjecture (based on the general observation that homophobia seems common among murderous, and rarer among gregarious primates) is difficult to test, without studies quantifying number of offspring.

scott1328 wrote:

trogs wrote:
A conjecture of my own is that, since killers are observed to get more female attention and sire more offspring in traditional societies we've studied, it might be that homophobia is a way of singling out effeminate, weak, and marginalised victims for "easy" murder. But such conjecture (based on the general observation that homophobia seems common among murderous, and rarer among gregarious primates) is difficult to test, without studies quantifying number of offspring.

The heterosexism and sexism is blatant in this conjecture. Note the completely prejudicial way you equate homosexuality and effeminate, weak, and victimhood.

I have a conjecture of my own: women pay more attention to killers so that the killers won't kill them.

trogs wrote:

scott1328 wrote:

trogs wrote:
A conjecture of my own is that, since killers are observed to get more female attention and sire more offspring in traditional societies we've studied, it might be that homophobia is a way of singling out effeminate, weak, and marginalised victims for "easy" murder. But such conjecture (based on the general observation that homophobia seems common among murderous, and rarer among gregarious primates) is difficult to test, without studies quantifying number of offspring.

The heterosexism and sexism is blatant in this conjecture. Note the completely prejudicial way you equate homosexuality and effeminate, weak, and victimhood.

You're saying it's "heterosexist" to say that MSM tend to be more vulnerable to violence than straight men?

Sendraks wrote:

trogs wrote: and that in observed environments, MSM's generally have higher STD transmission.

The important word you're missing here is "because" and then this is followed by an "explanation."

Otherwise you're just making an assertion and implying something (that MSMs have higher STD transmission just by dint of being MSMs) which is not born out by the evidence.

scott1328 wrote:

trogs wrote:

scott1328 wrote:

trogs wrote:
A conjecture of my own is that, since killers are observed to get more female attention and sire more offspring in traditional societies we've studied, it might be that homophobia is a way of singling out effeminate, weak, and marginalised victims for "easy" murder. But such conjecture (based on the general observation that homophobia seems common among murderous, and rarer among gregarious primates) is difficult to test, without studies quantifying number of offspring.

The heterosexism and sexism is blatant in this conjecture. Note the completely prejudicial way you equate homosexuality and effeminate, weak, and victimhood.

You're saying it's "heterosexist" to say that MSM tend to be more vulnerable to violence than straight men?

Way to miss a fucking point.

You implied that homsexual men are weak and effeminate and thus attract violence from those men inclined to kill.

scott1328 wrote:Way to miss a fucking point.

You implied that homsexual men are weak and effeminate and thus attract violence from those men inclined to kill.

scott1328 wrote:

trogs wrote:

scott1328 wrote:

trogs wrote:
A conjecture of my own is that, since killers are observed to get more female attention and sire more offspring in traditional societies we've studied, it might be that homophobia is a way of singling out effeminate, weak, and marginalised victims for "easy" murder. But such conjecture (based on the general observation that homophobia seems common among murderous, and rarer among gregarious primates) is difficult to test, without studies quantifying number of offspring.

The heterosexism and sexism is blatant in this conjecture. Note the completely prejudicial way you equate homosexuality and effeminate, weak, and victimhood.

You're saying it's "heterosexist" to say that MSM tend to be more vulnerable to violence than straight men?

Way to miss a fucking point.

You implied that homsexual men are weak and effeminate and thus attract violence from those men inclined to kill.

trogs wrote:

scott1328 wrote:Way to miss a fucking point.

You implied that homsexual men are weak and effeminate and thus attract violence from those men inclined to kill.

So you agree at least that they are victimised.

Well, if you claim that there aren't a high proportion of small or effeminate men who identify as gay, here's more data for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_an ... siological

Gay men report, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than non-gay men.

The startle response (eyeblink following a loud sound) is similarly masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women.

trogs wrote:

scott1328 wrote:Way to miss a fucking point.

You implied that homsexual men are weak and effeminate and thus attract violence from those men inclined to kill.

So you agree at least that they are victimised.

Well, if you claim that there aren't a high proportion of small or effeminate men who identify as gay, here's more data for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_an ... siological

Spearthrower wrote:

trogs wrote:

scott1328 wrote:Way to miss a fucking point.

You implied that homsexual men are weak and effeminate and thus attract violence from those men inclined to kill.

So you agree at least that they are victimised.

Well, if you claim that there aren't a high proportion of small or effeminate men who identify as gay, here's more data for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_an ... siological

Can I just get this out of the way once and for all?

Trogs, do you possess any negative stereotypes that other people might justly conceive of as prejudice against homosexuals?