Why younger brothers are more likely to be gay.

[Talo Segura]

Anthony Bogaert at Brock University, Canada, and his team think that some women who are pregnant with boys develop antibodies that target a protein made by the Y chromosome. Our immune systems make antibodies to recognise foreign molecules, which have the potential to be from dangerous bacteria. But pregnant women sometimes also produce antibodies against fetal molecules – for example, if their fetus has a different blood group. Bogaert’s team wondered if maternal antibodies might play a role in shaping sexual orientation.

The team collected blood from 142 women, and screened it for antibodies to a particular brain protein that is only made in males. They thought this would be a good candidate, because it plays an important role in how neurons communicate with each other, and because it is produced on the surface of brain cells, making it relatively easy for antibodies to find and detect it.

They found that the mothers of gay sons with older brothers had the highest levels of antibodies against this protein, followed by the mothers of gay sons with no older brothers. Women who had straight sons had less of these antibodies, while women with no sons had the least.

The team suggests these antibodies build up in some women’s bodies with every male baby they have. At higher concentrations, it is possible that the effect of these antibodies on the protein they target leads to changes in brain development that can have an influence on sexual orientation.

“I wouldn’t say we’ve solved the fraternal birth order effect puzzle, but we are getting close to finding a mechanism,” says Bogaert.

 

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2156010-we-may-know-why-younger-brothers-are-more-likely-to-be-gay/#ixzz615y6gXM7

[Ron]

What accounts for lesbians, another antibody? But, seriously, why even bother to discover a cause, even if a cause can be found? Could that be because even though a large cohort of the worlds population believes God doesn’t make mistakes, they’re still looking to cure homosexuality?

In any event, there are far and enough first born children (me being just one of them) who are off the hetero-spectrum. That study sounds like a reach.

[Former Member]

1 hour ago, Ron said:

What accounts for lesbians, another antibody? But, seriously, why even bother to discover a cause, even if a cause can be found? Could that be because even though a large cohort of the worlds population believes God doesn’t make mistakes, they’re still looking to cure homosexuality?

In any event, there are far and enough first born children (me being just one of them) who are off the hetero-spectrum. That study sounds like a reach.

There seem to be several factors that each tilt an individual slightly towards same-sex attractions. Some are genetic, some are hormonal, and some are environmental. Studies of identical twins, who would probably share all three considerations, have found that the pairs do not always match in orientation.

One of my best friends is the youngest sibling with three or four older brothers. Another best friend has three straight older brothers (including a fraternal twin) and a straight younger brother (fraternal twin of their only sister). I have a older and a younger brother who are both straight.

None of the studies I’ve ever seen has ever suggested that they’ve discovered an absolute cause of homosexuality in humans.
 

Personally, I believe that sexual orientation in men is similar to handedness. I think it’s a J-curve with most men being straight, a much smaller percentage being Gay, and an even smaller percentage being bisexual. But the studies of bisexuals sometimes indicates a majority of men, and sometimes indicates a tiny minority. I think it relates to the questions asked. Are they counting behavior or identity. There are men who identify as Gay, but have had sex with a woman. There are many men who have had sex with other men, but identify as straight – epidemiologists coined the term MSM to encompass all men who have sex with other men regardless of how they identify (Gay4Pay is just one variety).

This topic is very complex and understanding it might shed light on other topics. Clearly it is controversial even within the LGBTQ+ community. Should there be topics we ignore just because they make us uncomfortable?

[JamesSavik]

From my readings, it looks to be more complex rather than one specific cause.

It is most probably a combination of several factors that contribute to the probability.

The probability model may be more of a matrix or a mesh than a linear function which makes it much harder to understand because it doesn't fit on a simple curve.

 

Example 1- a simple probability matrix

This simple 2 dimensional matrices determines a probability based on two factors: Probability and consequence. Now consider how much more complicated it gets when we add dimensions like birth order, gene groups, prenatal hormones, etc. In the case of determinancy of sexual orientation, the factors could pile up very high and create a very complex matrix of up to a dozen dimensions.

 

Example 2- A mesh probability model

Yes- it gets weirder and more complex. The probability is computed based on calculations as the mesh is transited. There is some logic (If then, and, or) that guides movement through the mesh, the possibility of some recursion and some bloody awful algorithmic stuff you don't want to know about but- this is a very powerful probability model.

 

Will either create a definitive answer? Probably not. It will only create statistical inferences like if A, B and C are true, condition A will happen 80% of the time, B will happen 15% of the time and C will happen 5% of the time.

It is chewing up these numbers that allows scientists to get a handle on trends. There is no muddier place to look for trends than biology.

Edited October 5, 2019 by jamessavik

[Dodger]

On 10/1/2019 at 2:06 PM, jamessavik said:

 

Wow, I don't understand it, but it looks like a dog!

[Jeff1]

Of course it could mean that the Mother really wanted a little girl this time and she decided to put some effort in to sex for a change............. but still not enough effort for a full conversion in to making a girl.......... damn I lost count of the cracks on the ceiling again, oh and I forgot to add cornflakes to the shopping list. 

Then we have a man who loves men whats the problem with that?  it sounds perfectly natural to me.

 

 

But this could be the start of a slippery slope , if it is possible to determine this what steps would be taken to stop this from happening in the future ?  slip a serum in to an innocent inoculation to alter this........ and then what other change's will be made to a fetus ?

I know lets find the antibodies that make mad scientists.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Jeff1

[Former Member]

17 minutes ago, Jeff1 said:

Of course it could mean that the Mother really wanted a little girl this time and she decided to put some effort in to sex for a change............. but still not enough effort for a full conversion in to making a girl..........

So we’re back to blaming the mother again?
;–)

[Jeff1]

Just had a thought, yeah I know...dangerous.

what if they are trying to find what makes people "gay" then to put in to birth control  so it reduces the worlds population?

OMG.... all those pastel colours everywhere lol

Edited October 6, 2019 by Jeff1

[Former Member]

57 minutes ago, Jeff1 said:

OMG.... all those pastel colours everywhere lol

Pastels? I’m seeing brilliant bursts of psychedelic Gay flashes! So much joy, it’s almost overwhelming!
;–)

[Talo Segura]

12 hours ago, Jeff1 said:

what steps would be taken to stop this from happening in the future ? 

You got it all the wrong way round @Jeff1, they wouldn't be taking steps to stop people being gay. No, it's the perfect antidote to over population, so they would be engineering more gay babies 😂😂😂

[Former Member]

38 minutes ago, Talo Segura said:

You got it all the wrong way round @Jeff1, they wouldn't be taking steps to stop people being gay. No, it's the perfect antidote to over population, so they would be engineering more gay babies 😂😂😂

That’s the logical response to China’s One Child effort that ended up with a massive surplus of eligible young men with an extreme shortage of eligible young women! Of course, China being China, opposes same-sex coupling. Eligible young women are being lured or kidnapped from nearby Southeast Asian countries to satisfy the demand.

The historic situation where only female infants were allowed to be adopted to foreigners didn’t help either.
 

But what would it take to encourage rabidly heterosexual young men to couple up sexually, short of imprisoning them all? Mandatory homosex education classes with homework and in-class testing (several of my friends would pay to be instructors/test monitors)? Tax breaks and other financial incentives? A government lottery to assign sex partners? An app?
;–)

[Talo Segura]

@droughtquake, the idea is that with the medical discovery of what factors promote having a gay child, putting this into practice would produce gay children. No need to convert anybody from hetrosexuality, they would be born gay... And of course nurtured, If that plays a part 🤗 ( You do know that I am not being serious ).

[Former Member]

9 minutes ago, Talo Segura said:

You do know that I am not being serious

As am I, but some of my friends would be interested in teaching young Chinese men the pleasures of manloving!
;–)

I, on the other hand, believe as Romanovsky & Phillips sang:

From the Emotional Rollercoaster album by Romanovsky and Phillips

Give Me A Homosexual
(For all the straight men who think that every gay man is out to seduce them, and for those gay men who indeed are.)

With so many gay men and so little time
It never has been an obsession of mine
To try and pursue heterosexual men
The ones who are real or the ones who pretend
That kind of facade's not attractive to me
I like my lovers as queer as can be

Give me a homosexual
Who loves in a homoemotional way
I like a man of acceptance
Give me a guy who is glad to be gay

Now to some of my peers its the ultimate thrill
Seducing a straight man by bending his will
But I am a man who loves men who love men
And that is of course what I most recommend
While I'm sure there are men who just need some unstraightening
I haven't the patience to be educating

Give me a homosexual
One who's perfected his oral technique
I like a man who's had practice
Give me a guy who is fluent in Greek

And I don't understand all those classified ads
Filled with desires that I've never had
"Straight-looking Marine seeks straight cop to please..."
How straight do they look when they're down on their knees?
It's a taste that I've never been able to savor
This preoccupation with sexist behavior

And people will ask us "Which one's the girl?"
'Cause they limit themselves to those roles in their world
But we don't have any such models to clone
We're perfectly free to develop our own

Give me a homosexual
I don't want a husband and I don't want a wife
I like a man who's my equal
Someone who's made it the style of his life

Give me a homosexual
Who loves in a homoemotional way
I like a man of acceptance
Give me a guy who is glad to be gay

This song was written long before Same-Sex Marriage became a political consideration. I’m sure they’ve updated that section to reflect the changed legal status of SSM. But the rest of the song still rings true!
;–)

[Jeff1]

13 hours ago, Talo Segura said:

You got it all the wrong way round @Jeff1, they wouldn't be taking steps to stop people being gay. No, it's the perfect antidote to over population, so they would be engineering more gay babies 😂😂😂

@ Talo Segura, lol that was what I meant but think it got lost in translation  yeah lots of gay babies keep the population down by a billion or so. 

[Marty]

On 10/6/2019 at 10:33 AM, droughtquake said:

So we’re back to blaming the mother again?

I once saw the following written on a toilet wall:

My mother made me a homosexual.

If I got her the wool would she make me one, too?

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Marty
Tidying up

[Thorn Wilde]

On 10/1/2019 at 4:32 PM, Ron said:

What accounts for lesbians, another antibody? But, seriously, why even bother to discover a cause, even if a cause can be found? Could that be because even though a large cohort of the worlds population believes God doesn’t make mistakes, they’re still looking to cure homosexuality?

In any event, there are far and enough first born children (me being just one of them) who are off the hetero-spectrum. That study sounds like a reach.

Hard agree on this one! Aren't there more important medical mysteries out there? And, as you point out, these studies always focus on cisgender men. No one ever looks into why women are gay, or why people are bisexual. Come to think of it, it's the same with studies into transgenderism; they're all performed on people assigned male at birth. 

On 10/1/2019 at 6:19 PM, droughtquake said:

I think it’s a J-curve with most men being straight, a much smaller percentage being Gay, and an even smaller percentage being bisexual. But the studies of bisexuals sometimes indicates a majority of men, and sometimes indicates a tiny minority. I think it relates to the questions asked. Are they counting behavior or identity. There are men who identify as Gay, but have had sex with a woman. There are many men who have had sex with other men, but identify as straight – epidemiologists coined the term MSM to encompass all men who have sex with other men regardless of how they identify (Gay4Pay is just one variety).

As it turns out, as queerness is becoming more socially acceptable, more men who would previously have referred to themselves as straight are beginning to identify as bisexual. I think there are a lot more bisexual people than previously believed. It may in fact be the largest group in LGBTQ. Sexuality exists on a spectrum. There's a reason Kinsey made a scale and not just three categories. I think hard 0 and hard 6 are relatively rare.

[Former Member]

For some reason, when people find out that you are Gay (or, presumably, any flavor of LGBTQ+), they all want to tell you their secret adventures in sexuality. It might be as simple as the straight guy who has occasionally stumbled on pictures of naked men while searching for straight porn, as odd as the effeminate straight man who mentions having gone on an unsuccessful date with a man because all his friends were convinced that he was Gay, it might be the one time that they slept with someone of the same sex and really liked it (but never did it again), or it might be something that you didn’t want to know like the time a coworker had sex in the backroom with his girlfriend while she was at work and a customer couldn’t understand why there wasn’t anyone behind the counter to sell him the ice cream cone he wanted. Basically, most straight people think that being Gay is only about sex and that knowing your orientation gives them permission to brag about their sex life!
;–)

[Talo Segura]

Leaving aside the joking around, there are some serious observations here:

1. What about lesbians?  Women have like some other categories of humanity (coloured and indigenous peoples) been ignored as some kind of second class citizens not worth thinking about. This has meant relationships between two women have largely been ignore (never illegal) and that women get left out.

2. Queerness is becoming social acceptable. More than that it's a positive trendy chic appendage to be gay, bi, androgynous, or any other sexual definition you might label yourself, other than straight and hetro!

3. Gay is only about sex? Well, yes, I think it is. It's a label defining your sexual orientation with an emphasis that goes with it saying it's okay, good, great, to have same SEX relations. It is all about sex, from the very start of the gay movement, acceptance of gay sex!

So what do you do about these established ideas. Women need to assert themselves and be supported (take their rightful and equal place), trendy sexuality labels can be ignored (who gives a **** if you even know what they mean), and being gay needs not to be defined by sex (So when it comes up as things do in casual conversation, like: Are you married? asked to a guy or girl, yes or no is the reply, but don't forget guys to mention your boyfriend, husband, girls, your girlfriend, wife, because it's normal if someone asks).

 

[Former Member]

On 10/8/2019 at 12:04 AM, Talo Segura said:

3. Gay is only about sex? Well, yes, I think it is. It's a label defining your sexual orientation with an emphasis that goes with it saying it's okay, good, great, to have same SEX relations. It is all about sex, from the very start of the gay movement, acceptance of gay sex!

I disagree. Being Gay (or other form of LGBTQ+) is about much more than just sex. It’s about looking at thing in a different way – it might not mean that you are particularly stylish, fashionable, or artistic, but we don’t see things exactly the same way boring old heterosexuals do. When you see lists of creative people (designers, musicians, artists, actors, scientists, mathematicians, etc), we are usually represented in larger numbers than mere statistics would suggest. Naturally, most of us don’t have that level of creativity, but we probably have something somewhere even if it’s our own little secret, hidden from the rest of the world.
;–)

Edited October 9, 2019 by Former Member

[Jeff1]

Think this is a topic that really has no end, statistics are made to try and give something credence,  there are to many people giving themselves labels just to try setting a "new" trend using a word no one has heard of or inventing a word.

 Why are people trying to pigeon hole themselves ?

We want acceptance as equals then make a category to put each other and our self's  in.

You are what you are and you like what you like........... as far as i am concerned I am ME, and its no one else's  business. 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Jeff1

[Former Member]

On 10/8/2019 at 6:10 AM, Jeff1 said:

Think this is a topic that really has no end, statistics are made to try and give something credence,  there are to many people giving themselves labels just to try setting a "new" trend using a word no one has heard of or inventing a word.

 Why are people trying to pigeon hole themselves ?

We want acceptance as equals then make a category to put each other and our self's  in.

You are what you are and you like what you like........... as far as i am concerned I am ME, and its no one else's  business. 

I think this is about people who realize they aren’t like what society thinks we should be. Then they try to figure out what that means. Labels are a way of defining what that is. They are a way of explains to ourselves and others what that not-what-society-thinks-we-should-be means.

As far as I’m concerned, not-pigeon-holed/unlabeled is a satisfactory category for those who wish to (not) define themselves that way, just as the various labels are for those who, like me, choose to define ourselves.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Former Member

[Thorn Wilde]

On 10/8/2019 at 9:04 AM, Talo Segura said:

3. Gay is only about sex? Well, yes, I think it is. It's a label defining your sexual orientation with an emphasis that goes with it saying it's okay, good, great, to have same SEX relations. It is all about sex, from the very start of the gay movement, acceptance of gay sex!

There are plenty of gay asexuals. People who are romantically attracted to people of the same gender but have no interest in sex at all. And what is sex? What is gender? Are we talking genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, or presentation? Some gay guys are happy to have sex and be in relationships with non-op trans guys, because they're men too. I don't think it's right to say that being gay is all about sex, in either definition of the word.

18 hours ago, droughtquake said:

I think this is about people who realize they aren’t like what society thinks we should be. Then they try to figure out what that means. Labels are a way of defining what that is. They are a way of explains to ourselves and others what that not-what-society-thinks-we-should-be means.

As far as I’m concerned, not-pigeon-holed/unlabeled is a satisfactory category for the who wish to (not) define themselves that way, just as the various labels are for those who, like me, choose to define ourselves.

This. For some of us, the right to self-identify helps us find community, friendships, relationships, love, or it helps us feel happy and comfortable with ourselves. For me, that last bit is paramount. The keyword is 'self'. Self-identification. We get to decide who and what we are and put labels on it. Other people don't. Someone else doesn't get to tell me what my gender or my sexuality is. Only I get to do that.