Are gay men bearing a... gay dna?

Peter4572

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Posts
539
Media
6
Likes
2,747
Points
288
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Not long ago, I've read that DNA of gay men, is responsible for our..."unnatural" sexual behavior !!!
Well, at least we now have, the naughty cause to blame it on! Therefore it isn't our fault. I don't know,
if that makes me "happy" or not, cause a lot of questions will arise, first of which is: What about biological heredity to next generation? -That's something the article has not gone into.- At any rate, What's your opinion Gents? Peter.
 

winesthel945

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Posts
559
Media
13
Likes
1,896
Points
313
Location
San Francisco (California, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
The "gay gene" theory has had its ups and downs, scientifically speaking. Some of the early research was shown to be severely flawed, but other subsequent research suggests there may be a genetic component... which is probably technically true regardless, given that genes have an impact on almost everything.

One of the more interesting areas of research is in the impact of epigenetics on homosexuality. Dr James O'Keefe did an interesting TED talk summarizing one theory that's gaining some credibility. Epigenetics basically states that similar genes can express themselves in different ways based on external circumstances. For example, epigenetic studies of ants have shown that if the colony is hungry, the queen will give birth to more worker ants, but if the colony is under attack, she’ll give birth to more warrior ants. In both cases, ants’ genetic makeup are exactly the same, the only difference is how they get expressed. Warrior ants will be bigger and more aggressive whereas worker ants will be smaller and better at finding food. O'Keefe points to two studies that suggest that if a mother gives birth to a high number of male offspring or experiences severe prenatal stress, the likelihood of her giving birth to a gay son increases, possibly due to epigenetic switches that are triggered by the stress. The theory would suggest homosexuality is nature’s way of ensuring that the family won’t have an unmanageable number of mouths to feed or a son who might fight with his brothers over female mates, two problems that can reduce a family’s overall health and cohesion. Put another way, gay kids help reduce resource competition among family members. When taken with the "Guncle" theory -- which suggests that homosexuality helps create "helpers" to care for the physical and emotional well-being of the family unit -- it could make sense that the stresses that require "guncles" could trigger the epigenetic changes.

It's a fascinating idea.
 

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,945
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I have always felt that same sex attraction was genetically determined. @winesthel1945 puts up an interesting theory. In my own family I am aware of several gay relatives, cousins and an aunt going back several decades, all of whom have / had straight siblings. All of them were raised with decidedly different parenting influences as well as some geographical / societal differences. It appears to be meandering in the newer generations, I hear relatives describing people as. "Oh, he acts like Uncle Keen at that age," or "She's just like Aunt B. when she was in school." Over the years the people they are speaking of have usually come out as gay / lesbian. It is an interesting phenomenon.

I am unaware of any specific studies going on about this, but I'm sure there are, but no one seems ready to agree on findings.
 
1

1222288

Guest
Not long ago, I've read that DNA of gay men, is responsible for our..."unnatural" sexual behavior !!!
Well, at least we now have, the naughty cause to blame it on! Therefore it isn't our fault. I don't know,
if that makes me "happy" or not, cause a lot of questions will arise, first of which is: What about biological heredity to next generation? -That's something the article has not gone into.- At any rate, What's your opinion Gents? Peter.
It's not unnatural. Biologists have observed homosexuality in almost every species on the planet. We
are not unique, and it's not wrong.
 

Peter4572

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Posts
539
Media
6
Likes
2,747
Points
288
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
As
It's not unnatural. Biologists have observed homosexuality in almost every species on the planet. We
are not unique, and it's not wrong.

As you can see, I've put " unnatural " in quotation marks. Meaning that I don't agree with that term.
 

Peter4572

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Posts
539
Media
6
Likes
2,747
Points
288
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
The "gay gene" theory has had its ups and downs, scientifically speaking. Some of the early research was shown to be severely flawed, but other subsequent research suggests there may be a genetic component... which is probably technically true regardless, given that genes have an impact on almost everything.

One of the more interesting areas of research is in the impact of epigenetics on homosexuality. Dr James O'Keefe did an interesting TED talk summarizing one theory that's gaining some credibility. Epigenetics basically states that similar genes can express themselves in different ways based on external circumstances. For example, epigenetic studies of ants have shown that if the colony is hungry, the queen will give birth to more worker ants, but if the colony is under attack, she’ll give birth to more warrior ants. In both cases, ants’ genetic makeup are exactly the same, the only difference is how they get expressed. Warrior ants will be bigger and more aggressive whereas worker ants will be smaller and better at finding food. O'Keefe points to two studies that suggest that if a mother gives birth to a high number of male offspring or experiences severe prenatal stress, the likelihood of her giving birth to a gay son increases, possibly due to epigenetic switches that are triggered by the stress. The theory would suggest homosexuality is nature’s way of ensuring that the family won’t have an unmanageable number of mouths to feed or a son who might fight with his brothers over female mates, two problems that can reduce a family’s overall health and cohesion. Put another way, gay kids help reduce resource competition among family members. When taken with the "Guncle" theory -- which suggests that homosexuality helps create "helpers" to care for the physical and emotional well-being of the family unit -- it could make sense that the stresses that require "guncles" could trigger the epigenetic changes.

It's a fascinating idea.

Thanks for your augmenting to my position, as well as your video to that point.
 

muskokan

Admired Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Posts
426
Media
5
Likes
890
Points
238
Location
Canada
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
not sure about the epigenetic argument but there has been a gay relative every generation for as long back as i can remember. There is an equal number of male as female on the side with the gay person; If they did not identify as gay they were referred to as quirky or special!
 

Brodie888

Worshipped Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Posts
3,058
Media
0
Likes
12,706
Points
233
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The singular gay gene theory is dumb considering sexuality is a spectrum not a binary yes/no thing. They've mapped the human genome. If it was as simple as finding a particular gene/s, they'd have lined up several hundred thousand gays and found a common gene by now.
 
3

328982

Guest
The "gay gene" theory has had its ups and downs, scientifically speaking. Some of the early research was shown to be severely flawed, but other subsequent research suggests there may be a genetic component... which is probably technically true regardless, given that genes have an impact on almost everything.

One of the more interesting areas of research is in the impact of epigenetics on homosexuality. Dr James O'Keefe did an interesting TED talk summarizing one theory that's gaining some credibility. Epigenetics basically states that similar genes can express themselves in different ways based on external circumstances. For example, epigenetic studies of ants have shown that if the colony is hungry, the queen will give birth to more worker ants, but if the colony is under attack, she’ll give birth to more warrior ants. In both cases, ants’ genetic makeup are exactly the same, the only difference is how they get expressed. Warrior ants will be bigger and more aggressive whereas worker ants will be smaller and better at finding food. O'Keefe points to two studies that suggest that if a mother gives birth to a high number of male offspring or experiences severe prenatal stress, the likelihood of her giving birth to a gay son increases, possibly due to epigenetic switches that are triggered by the stress. The theory would suggest homosexuality is nature’s way of ensuring that the family won’t have an unmanageable number of mouths to feed or a son who might fight with his brothers over female mates, two problems that can reduce a family’s overall health and cohesion. Put another way, gay kids help reduce resource competition among family members. When taken with the "Guncle" theory -- which suggests that homosexuality helps create "helpers" to care for the physical and emotional well-being of the family unit -- it could make sense that the stresses that require "guncles" could trigger the epigenetic changes.

It's a fascinating idea.
It is fascinating. Although the epigenetic theory doesn’t appeal much to me because it always places gays in an auxiliary or subordinate role. We exist to ‘reduce resource competition', to be carers/caterers for our straight relatives. Gays as ‘helpers' - that sounds like a cultural overlay, to rehabilitate us in a suitably useful/inferior place in the tribe. And does it ring true? I can't think of any families brought closer together or made more cohesive by having a gay family member. How many gay men actually help to look after their nephews and nieces? I don't think that role is filled by gay relatives any more than straight. I know it's a genetic argument but the results or payoff just don’t seem borne out in real life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bwhip1011

Infernal

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Posts
3,565
Media
7
Likes
5,139
Points
593
Age
54
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I've seen a lot of theories about it. Prenatal stress causing a flood of hormones in the mother that make some change to a developing fetus. Too many male children already and one ends up being gay to cut down on competition for breeding females. It's a genetic marker derived from the mother. Another I saw was that it comes from the father, but is tied to a female ancestor. That in and of itself doesn't make much sense, but I get a laugh out of it. On my fathers side, there are only two grandchildren. Myself and my cousin, twenty years apart. Our shared female ancestor is our grandmother and she was a nasty bitch to both of us for being gay. She hated us, but it was her fault :laughing:

However it happens, all I know is that being gay in a fundamental part of who I am. It's always been there. If that's genetics, then so be it.
 

Nudistpig

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Posts
1,596
Media
5
Likes
3,699
Points
258
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Not long ago, I've read that DNA of gay men, is responsible for our..."unnatural" sexual behavior !!!
Well, at least we now have, the naughty cause to blame it on! Therefore it isn't our fault. I don't know,
if that makes me "happy" or not, cause a lot of questions will arise, first of which is: What about biological heredity to next generation? -That's something the article has not gone into.- At any rate, What's your opinion Gents? Peter.

No, no, no. DNA is the building blocks of our genes, and the genes sequenced influence how we develop as beings. There is no conclusive evidence of a "gay gene". There are indications of such, but not all gay men carry the sequence nor does it control wide swaths of our behavior. Bi men don't carry it and straight men don't yet they have gay sex too. Gay men don't pass on their genetics for the obvious reason.

This sequence is passed on maternally, usually first daughter and then second. Men don't transmit it. It seems counterintuitive but it makes perfect sense for biology...any trait that results in no reproduction ends in a dead end. This trait expresses in all mammals (with differing gene sequences and not all understood). That strongly suggests that it's not an accident, or a defect, but a selected for trait that gives advantage and fitness (in humans) to the group.

The way genetics was started and is still taught is with straight sex and repro as the norm and all else deviating from it. This isn't a scientific fact it's religious dogma that ended up in science. We know that the issue is much more complex and nuanced and that those human beings not white blue eyes blond hair are not inferior or mistakes. Eugenics is still infecting how we view human evolution.

Gay men in particular have an advantage for the group. When we learned to speak the teaching of culture and the knowledge it needed to transmit went from something mom could do to a vocation. Mom and Dad are hunting gathering birthing building etc. They don't have 5 years to rear the child. Having ten men who don't hunt (because only men with families had to hunt the dangerous job went to the ones who had mouthes that didn't work) and who rather learn the stories and the science of the tribe as well as teach and mind the kids.

This role is expressed in many cultures institutions and histories. The theory is not proven but the evidence is strong and this explanation has an advantage over the old ones. It actually tries to explain gay men with the science at hand.
 

Nudistpig

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Posts
1,596
Media
5
Likes
3,699
Points
258
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It is fascinating. Although the epigenetic theory doesn’t appeal much to me because it always places gays in an auxiliary or subordinate role. We exist to ‘reduce resource competition', to be carers/caterers for our straight relatives. Gays as ‘helpers' - that sounds like a cultural overlay, to rehabilitate us in a suitably useful/inferior place in the tribe. And does it ring true? I can't think of any families brought closer together or made more cohesive by having a gay family member. How many gay men actually help to look after their nephews and nieces? I don't think that role is filled by gay relatives any more than straight. I know it's a genetic argument but the results or payoff just don’t seem borne out in real life.

I have explained it above briefly. You are using urban society to try to figure out hunter gatherer society. Industrial, historical and literate. These were oral cultures and in oral cultures wise men and women are the single most important resource the community had.It was not uncommon and even into the 20th century for tribes who lost all their elders to commit suicide. It was that or starve slowly because all the knowledge of how to run the system was in those heads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bwhip1011

Nudistpig

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Posts
1,596
Media
5
Likes
3,699
Points
258
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I have always felt that same sex attraction was genetically determined. @winesthel1945 puts up an interesting theory. In my own family I am aware of several gay relatives, cousins and an aunt going back several decades, all of whom have / had straight siblings. All of them were raised with decidedly different parenting influences as well as some geographical / societal differences. It appears to be meandering in the newer generations, I hear relatives describing people as. "Oh, he acts like Uncle Keen at that age," or "She's just like Aunt B. when she was in school." Over the years the people they are speaking of have usually come out as gay / lesbian. It is an interesting phenomenon.

I am unaware of any specific studies going on about this, but I'm sure there are, but no one seems ready to agree on findings.

Anecdote isn't science. What about identical twins where one is gay and the other straight? When my relatives say "he acts like" that translates as "fa****t". They aren't making a genetic observation they are applying various cultural standards that are probably homophobic. Also, those only pick up the ones singled out. There are always more than the ones the family likes to carry on about. Frequently among those who carry on.

Culture cannot make you desire one sex or the other. It can only heavily repress some desires and ways of being. That repression of course goes up to genocide. Coming out is not a reliable measure of the closeted social dynamics nor is it in any way genetic evidence. As I mentioned, the genes (which only cover some queer kids) are passed through first and second daughters and the first son of a first daughter is the most likely to be gay if I don't have that wrong. If she is under 18, the percentage rises. The meandering is because the wife makes the gay baby but it will be her first daughter that makes the next one, and she marries first and is out of the house with a new name (in the past). Moreover, the second daughter is also not in the paternal line. Her offspring will bear her husbands name.

Any argument that tries to reduce a whole person to a sequence of genes is not much better in my view than the one that says they are evil because jeebus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bwhip1011

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,945
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Anecdote isn't science. What about identical twins where one is gay and the other straight? When my relatives say "he acts like" that translates as "fa****t". They aren't making a genetic observation they are applying various cultural standards that are probably homophobic. Also, those only pick up the ones singled out. There are always more than the ones the family likes to carry on about. Frequently among those who carry on.

Culture cannot make you desire one sex or the other. It can only heavily repress some desires and ways of being. That repression of course goes up to genocide. Coming out is not a reliable measure of the closeted social dynamics nor is it in any way genetic evidence. As I mentioned, the genes (which only cover some queer kids) are passed through first and second daughters and the first son of a first daughter is the most likely to be gay if I don't have that wrong. If she is under 18, the percentage rises. The meandering is because the wife makes the gay baby but it will be her first daughter that makes the next one, and she marries first and is out of the house with a new name (in the past). Moreover, the second daughter is also not in the paternal line. Her offspring will bear her husbands name.

Any argument that tries to reduce a whole person to a sequence of genes is not much better in my view than the one that says they are evil because jeebus.

I never claimed "anecdote is science." Take you meds, relax, the op asked for opinions, this is mine. Disagree? Be my guest. You seem more than a little "clenched."
 

Nudistpig

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Posts
1,596
Media
5
Likes
3,699
Points
258
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I never claimed "anecdote is science." Take you meds, relax, the op asked for opinions, this is mine. Disagree? Be my guest. You seem more than a little "clenched."

It's a reply to yours. It isn't a challenge, or a correction, you clearly state you don't know the answer and that seems to ask a question. I didn't claim that you said anecdote is science. I was pointing out that you used the fallacy as your argument. You can't take your family stories (as cool as they are) and extrapolate anything from them because this isn't the scientific method. Genetics is science, it's not a matter of speculation. I apologize if the line rubbed you the wrong way but understanding scientific method is fundamental and the post botches that. Since this is a field I have studied and care about, I felt that some gentle correction was in order. You can disagree I don't care about that and I am sorry you took it so personally it wasn't the intent.

Clenched. Well, it's been a bad year for LGBTQ folks around the world. We're in concentration camps again. Murders and hate crimes through the roof. Policy after policy taking rights away from people I love. And that is just the start of it. My meds are taken, there is no pill for existential dread based in real world annihilation of your being, and the op didn't ask for an opinion, they asked a deeper question in the way most people who are concerned would. The post contains some inaccuracies but those aren't important to the answer. One might say that the solution to a layperson's concerns is to offer opinion that can neither corroborate nor refute the postulates but that is exactly useless in giving us any idea of what might be at play which is the foundation of the OP.

The bad science of eugenics which was used to erase us before is the handmaiden of homophobia. In every argument that tries to put queer people in the "bad result" pile there are the folk petty bigotries and then some junk science. The OP has been affected by this shit, so have I and sorry, no, I won't sit by and just let it be. Call me hysterical. Call me an asshole. But maybe its not me. Maybe it's that rather than take any of this seriously, you decided that the best response to concern was to make it about your right to an opinion which does not magically translate into "I am right".

Also, please, 100% gay get some new lingo to read me with, if you are going to throw shade remember that shade is not about saying the obvious but being sophisticated and incisive in a way that establishes your authority. There is a war on and you are one of the people in the sights too. I'm old and crazy just go with that and everything will be fine. :)
 

dreambridger

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Posts
781
Media
102
Likes
7,476
Points
663
Location
St. Louis, MO, USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Interesting thread, due to people's responses. There seems to be some that are uncomfortable with the reductionist aspect of genetic theory, and yet the alternative, that homosexuality is a pathology, has yet to really be brought up, and that's a concept that can also be offensive to some.

I like to investigate all the possibilities and keep an open mind and not take anything personally. My gut feeling tells me it's a blend of nature and nurture, that some dispositions might be more likely to develop a homosexual proclivity, but it still takes certain environmental triggers to occur in early childhood to fixate that proclivity. That may be concurrent with the epigenetics winesthel945 was bringing up, and I've come across the studies of prenatal triggers that he brings up and that's pretty fascinating stuff.

Ultimately though, we don't have a conclusion. Sex is the ultimate mystery that life has presented us with, daring us to explore its depths. I encourage both biological as well as pathological investigation, even if no answer is discovered, because it's far more interesting than saying "god did it" or something like that...
 
  • Like
Reactions: keenobserver

Nudistpig

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Posts
1,596
Media
5
Likes
3,699
Points
258
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Interesting thread, due to people's responses. There seems to be some that are uncomfortable with the reductionist aspect of genetic theory, and yet the alternative, that homosexuality is a pathology, has yet to really be brought up, and that's a concept that can also be offensive to some.

I like to investigate all the possibilities and keep an open mind and not take anything personally. My gut feeling tells me it's a blend of nature and nurture, that some dispositions might be more likely to develop a homosexual proclivity, but it still takes certain environmental triggers to occur in early childhood to fixate that proclivity. That may be concurrent with the epigenetics winesthel945 was bringing up, and I've come across the studies of prenatal triggers that he brings up and that's pretty fascinating stuff.

Ultimately though, we don't have a conclusion. Sex is the ultimate mystery that life has presented us with, daring us to explore its depths. I encourage both biological as well as pathological investigation, even if no answer is discovered, because it's far more interesting than saying "god did it" or something like that...

Dude. The idea that gay is a pathology is as old as writing. You couldn't find a more exhaustively researched and thoroughly refuted body of caca. Moreover, reductionist genetics is not opposed to pathology, I don't know how you get there but show your work. The reason the concept is offensive is that people with zero evidence and internalized bigotry disguised as well meaning inquiry attempt to make legitimate a hate as old as time by suggesting that the 100 year plus old categorization of human sexuality rejected for being unscientific and without evidence is "not researched".

But if you really need to go there, put up or shut up. Demonstrate using any credible science the evidence you are using to form this hypothesis and defend it. Your gut is not the source of credible information about genetics. It's full of shit. If you want to have . an open mind, fine, but contemplating nonsense and doing that terribly at that isn't intellectual growth it's meaningless avoidance of real inquiry.

There is nothing good in this man. It's a total mess. Sex is not a mystery dude. We understand it very well. Science doesn't do conclusions that is narrative. Science is a method. You don't get final answers in science. Nature and nurture together is only the model for all genetics outside of the extremists. Citations beyond your gut are easily found. No one is saying god did it in science. Genetics doesn't touch that.

Encourage a pathological investigation is "encourage human rights abuses" You don't have to because plenty still are.Gay is not a proclivity a lifestyle or a phase. Sorry. All gene expression is associated to environmental triggers, selection is natural and environmental so the process of life is the dance of genes against the environment. This post from a gay dude is just one step from Kanye's "Abolish the 13th" and "Slaves were weak for not revolting and it was good for them".
 

dreambridger

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Posts
781
Media
102
Likes
7,476
Points
663
Location
St. Louis, MO, USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
@Nudistpig If I were writing an empirical essay on the subject, and attempting to get my ideas across in a way that was convincing to other people, I would happily give up my entire afternoon gathering citations and 'showing my work' as it were. However, my participation in this thread is purely colloquial. You should notice that, unlike you apparently, I have no desire to dictate the way other people should think. I'm not trying to convince or persuade anyone. I don't understand why you're being so fiery and resistant when I'm just stating my casual, intuitive opinion without any intent to force others to share that opinion. The reason I said "my gut feeling" is so that others know that they don't have to take my opinion seriously. I was trying to be humble, you know, rather than say, "my thoroughly educated thesis that everybody must agree with is..." in which your hyper-resistant response may have made some sense.
 

Nudistpig

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Posts
1,596
Media
5
Likes
3,699
Points
258
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
So your argument is now that you didn't have time to write something that resembles accurate information because the ideas were more important? Your idea was to rehash garbage and hate as a gedanken experiment. It's a thoroughly terrible idea bolstered b your complete ignorance on the subject. That's not colloquial it's confection. There is no such thing as colloquial genetics.You can't make up stuff on this topic and call it thinking.

I'm firey because you are not simply offering an opinion. What you wrote is littered with the hallmarks of right wing anti-science propaganda. It's all there for the keyword searches, from open mind to gut feeling to the sciency sounding words that don't mean anything in the context. You riff through genetics, theology, philosophy and more not getting any of it right. It's a batter for the crap ideas you either have picked up by reading Brietbart or watching Fox.

There is nothing humble about "sex is a mystery" or "we need to consider pathology because no reason at all". That is arrogance. The amount of time it would take to research this to see what you wrote is ridiculous is about 50 seconds. You are indeed trying to persuade that is the purpose of opinion and rhetoric. Feel free to disagree with more standard definitions. You don't have a desire, right, which is why presenting gay as pathology was just a simple gesture of human kindness give me a break.

There is no thesis in my rebuttal. You really need to learn the meaning of the words you are using before you use them. A thesis is an argument that lays out the principle postulate of an essay and then the supporting claims. You may have been referring to a doctoral dissertation but this is also incorrect. I wrote the rebuttal off the top of my head in 10 minutes and it is already published work therefore cannot be a thesis which is much longer and original.

Resistant? To what? There is no resistance other than to your belief that somehow, factually void noodling that is injected with virulent homophobia is deserving of no critique because you are just trying to help answer a question by muddying the terms and introducing bigotry as a plausible avenue of research. That is arrogance, dear. I never claimed that everyone must agree with me. I am claiming no one should listen to you. And I offered facts and reason based in scientific literature. There is no dictation of how anyone should think in what I wrote. You seem to be confusing the lack of knowledge you have with the right of everyone else to be as poorly read.

You can't point to a mistake in the critique or the facts because you either don't know anything about it or you are choosing to paint me as the radical danger because that is what propagandists do instead of address reality. I have a duty to my community to those who are in concentration camps in Chechnya for being gay, the men murdered for being gay and as a gay man myself to challenge dangerously bad ideas that are at the root of the horrors I just mentioned. If that makes me a bad person then so be it. I'd rather be a bad person in your eyes than a good person who likes to ponder eugenics as a way to help the world heal.