Agree with you there, Sean Lamb. There is a risk that "epigenetic" will become a synonym for "the research doesn't suggest it's genetic, but it must have something to do with genes..."

Unfortuately, the early release of incompletely-defined scientific discoveries, let loose into the mass-communication world, has the potential to seed into all sorts of pseudo-scientific quackery.

I think we perhaps here may underestimate the quality and detail of the work that is going into studying epigenetics:

It is detailed and fascinating.

Modern gene probe technology allows scientists to see which genes have structurally changed, and the roles these genes play in metabolism, immunity, endocrinology etc is known....

These articles/papers are not to do with sexuality, but rather the role of a simple VFA in signaling the 'switching on' and 'switching off' of genes (In these studies sodium butyrate is used to study the role of butyric acid ... changes perhaps occur via histone binding) :

Genetic networks responsive to sodium butyrate in colonic epithelial cells Tabuchi etal FEBS Letters 580 (2006) 3035–3041

Butyrate-Induced Transcriptional Changes in Human Colonic Mucosa Vanhoutvin etal PLoS Aug 2009

Butyrate Enhances Disease Resistance of Chickens by Inducing Antimicrobial Host Defense Peptide Gene Expression Lakshmi etal

Links to pdfs papers mentioned in my post above - re gene expression and epigenetics:

Butyrate Enhances Disease Resistance of Chickens by
Inducing Antimicrobial Host Defense Peptide Gene Expression Lakshmi etal November 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 11 | e27225

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/51786755_Butyrate_enhances_disease_resistance_of_chickens_by_inducing_antimicrobial_host_defense_peptide_gene_expression

Genetic networks responsive to sodium butyrate in colonic epithelial cells Tabuchi etal FEBS Letters 580 (2006) 3035–3041

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7103208_Genetic_networks_responsive_to_sodium_butyrate_in_colonic_epithelial_cells

Butyrate-Induced Transcriptional Changes in Human Colonic Mucosa Vanhoutvin etal PLoS Aug 2009 | Volume 4 | Issue 8 | e6759

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006759

Markx - APPLAUSE.

Opinions and analysis are welcome and valued. Opinions with references so I can check and come to my own conclusions as well as taking in your analysis - they're pearls beyond price.

Thank you.

Markx, the papers you link to aren't epigenetics, 2 of the 3 of them look standard gene expression microarrays, the last one looks from the abstract that they are measuing the peptides directly.

Epigenetics studies at a genome wide level would be looking at things like Chromatin Immunoprecipitation - ChIP on a Chip, or methylation chips or beads.
The issue is not whether epigenetics is useful or valid, rather to what extent is the newest shiny thing that is being over-interpreted to provide answers to questions that it can not legimately do.

Sean Lamb said:

"...Markx, the papers you link to aren't epigenetics..."

I think you are correct, Sean, they perhaps fail on the point of heritability: (point 3 below)

"Definition Of 'Epigenetics' Clarified

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090401181447.htm

" ... Apr. 1, 2009 — Ali Shilatifard, Ph.D., Investigator, has joined with a team of colleagues to propose an operational definition of “Epigenetics” — a rapidly growing research field that investigates heritable alterations in gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in DNA sequence.
[...]

The mechanisms underlying epigenetic memory are of great importance to human development and disease, but they are poorly understood.

The proposed definition reads: “an epigenetic trait is a stably inherited phenotype resulting from changes in a chromosome without alterations in the DNA sequence.” Shilatifard and colleagues have also proposed three categories of signals that operate in the establishment of a stably heritable epigenetic state.

1. The first is a signal from the environment,
2. the second is a responding signal in the cell that specifies the affected chromosomal location,
3. and the third is a sustaining signal that perpetuates the chromatin change in subsequent generations...."

Having noted that, it seems to me to be something that should be able to be researched and measured using these techniques.

Peter, I think the whole point here is once again to remind ourselves that "the social" and "the evolutionary" are the same dynamic.

Indeed, I would argue that THE main reason for the embarrassing shambles of contemporary social science scholarship has been the rejection - and thus ignorance - of the natural and life sciences by social scientists since the 1970s. A younger generation of scholars, including folks like Rob here, don't give a fig for the bugaboo of biology - especially genetics - which paralyzed social science insights of the WWII and baby-boomer generation for decades. Hopefully, we can catch up very quickly.

References:

Prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol(DES) in males and gender-related disorders:results from a 5-year study Scott Kerlin. Proc. International Behavioral Development Symposium July 2005

Sexual differentiation of human behavior: Effects of prenatal and pubertal organizational hormones Sheri A. Berenbaum, Adriene M. Beltz Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 32 (2011) 183–200

Clinical Implications of the Organizational and Activational Effects of Hormones M.Diamond Hormones and Behavior 55 (2009) 621–632

Prenatal exposure to testosterone and functional cerebral lateralization: a study in same-sex and opposite-sex twin girls. Cohen-Bendahan et al, Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2004 Aug;29(7):911-6.

Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35
Abstract:
The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

That's interesting stuff - especially the Thalidomide. Tragic.

One question: If in utero hormonal exposure/fluctuation is causal, do you have a reason why the one uterus would be producing a string of sexually confused or misoriented offspring? Doesn't seem to be the case by the stats.

Or is the level of testorone variable between pregnancies?

OK that's two questions. Whoops.

@Peter

Regarding the question about differing testosterone levels in pregnancies - there's been a number of studies which show a higher rate of homosexuality in sons with older male siblings (ie. a birth order effect).

The theory seems to be that the mother's body develops some form of immune response against the testosterone produced by the growing male fetus. With each subsequent male pregnancy the testosterone produced by the developing fetus is challenged by more antibodies to testosterone produced by the mother, resulting in a lower level of testosterone* acting on the fetal brain and thus lower level of sexual differentiation of the brain.

I'd heard this theory - or something to the same effect - raised a number of times, although I'm not sure it's ever really been tested. All we can say is that there does seem to be a birth order effect, but how this happens is debatable.

* minor point - testosterone is actually converted to estrogen in the male fetal brain, and it's the estrogen that results in the classical sexual dimorphism of the brain....an interesting evolutionary twist, but kind of beside the point.

Right...
An immune response to testosterone....? I am assuming that is impossible, but in the interests of an open mind.... OK surely we would see this in, for example, the offspring of East German and Chinese female swimmers. All this seems to be predicated on a very feeble construction of gay identity being some how a feminisation/masculinisation (all twinks and no bears - thank you Mr Slipper). It strikes me as a magical kind of thinking that having failed to find the slightest evidence of hormone disturbance in the adult, we are going to assume it in the safely untestable, the foetus.
As for genetic linkages, ORs of 1.1 are at the very verge of what is considered publishable, in any case statistical theory will predict false positives. And since it is in practice impossible to totally eliminate any biases in selecting your control population, you should expect to see more false positives than statistical theory would predict. There is a long history in areas which we consider important to try and replicate, such as heart disease, that genetic loci picked up in association studies have a very low success rate in being replicated in other populations.

But more fundamentally, this seems all driven in the end by a political wish for gay people to be able to say: "I was born this way". Frankly, that is so last millennium, it belongs out of some 80s tear-jerker on AIDS victims as the tragic lead actor begins singing along to his favorite Puccini aria. We know the brain rewires itself, a piano player will have a different cortical homunculus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus than a ditch digger. Emotional and sexual drives are powerful forces, the satisfying of which is going to be made manifest in the brain.

The very idea of an exclusive orientation as a defining identity is only a 100 years old anyway. Who cares what you want to do with your bodies, provided you don't undermine the traditional institutions of Church, Family and Marriage, institutions which have protected and nurtured so many for so many centuries.

@Sean Lamb

How Many Gay Men Owe Their Sexual Orientation to Fraternal Birth Order? Cantor et al Archives of Sexual Behavior
February 2002, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 63-71
"The results showed that roughly 1 gay man in 7 owes his sexual orientation to the fraternal birth order effect. They also showed that the effect of fraternal birth order would exceed all other causes of homosexuality in groups of gay men with 3 or more older brothers and would precisely equal all other causes in a theoretical group with 2.5 older brothers."

The H-Y antigen was detected long ago

Fraternal Birth Order and the Maternal Immune Hypothesis of Male Homosexuality Blanchard - Hormones and Behavior
Volume 40, Issue 2, September 2001, Pages 105–114
"In men, sexual orientation correlates with an individual's number of older brothers, each additional older brother increasing the odds of homosexuality by approximately 33%. It has been hypothesized that this fraternal birth order effect reflects the progressive immunization of some mothers to Y-linked minor histocompatibility antigens (H-Y antigens) by each succeeding male fetus and the concomitantly increasing effects of such maternal immunization on the future sexual orientation of each succeeding male fetus. According to this hypothesis, anti-H-Y antibodies produced by the mother pass through the placental barrier to the fetus and affect aspects of sexual differentiation in the fetal brain. This explanation is consistent with a variety of evidence, including the apparent irrelevance of older sisters to the sexual orientation of later born males, the probable involvement of H-Y antigen in the development of sex-typical traits, and the detrimental effects of immunization of female mice to H-Y antigen on the reproductive performance of subsequent male offspring. The maternal immune hypothesis might also explain the recent finding that heterosexual males with older brothers weigh less at birth than heterosexual males with older sisters and homosexual males with older brothers weigh even less than heterosexual males with older brothers."

Regarding brain re-wiring - while certain parts of the brain are plastic, the areas we're looking at don't appear to be. There's no evidence they are (after puberty) and considerable evidence they are not.

Post-natal hormones do have an effect on gross size of structures, but not on proportion or distribution of cell types.

Changing your sex changes your brain: influences of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure by Pol et al, Europ Jnl Endocrinology, Vol 155, suppl_1, S107-S114 2006
"Compared with controls, anti-androgen + estrogen treatment decreased brain volumes of male-to-female subjects towards female proportions, while androgen treatment in female-to-male subjects increased total brain and hypothalamus volumes towards male proportions."

The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A DTI study Rametti et al Journal of Psychiatric Research, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 30 December 2010
"MtF transsexuals differed from both male and female controls bilaterally in the superior longitudinal fasciculus, the right anterior cingulum, the right forceps minor, and the right corticospinal tract."

Neuroimaging Differences in Spatial Cognition between Men and Male-to-Female Transsexuals Before and During Hormone Therapy by Scoening et al J Sex Med. 2009 Sep 14.
"The present study indicates that there are a priori differences between men and transsexual patients caused by different neurobiological processes or task-solving strategies and that these differences remain stable over the course of hormonal treatment."

These are papers regarding Gender Identity rather than Sexual Orientation, but similar ones exist for the latter. The reason Gender Identity is better studied here is that Transsexuals get cross-sexing hormone treatment, so we can measure "before and after". Gays and Straights do not - unless treated for prostate or testicular cancer. This is a smaller group, so less well studied, but it appears that cross-sexing in the areas we're looking at doesn't happen due to post-natal hormones.

We know from autopsies of miscarried foetusses that some of the sexual dimorphism of the brain is visible at 26 weeks.

Your point about non-exclusive gynephillia or androphillia is well-made, but you're now straying well outside my area of knowledge.

Regarding the desirability and good track record of traditional mores, I'll let that pass through to the keeper.

"Regarding brain re-wiring - while certain parts of the brain are plastic, the areas we're looking at don't appear to be. There's no evidence they are (after puberty) and considerable evidence they are not."
It's a shame that Dr Pavlov wasn't aware of this as it would have saved him and his hounds a considerable deal of bother. I think you over-estimate our ability to study the brain in much detail.

You also, I think, are accepting too uncritically the very small number of publications that support want you clearly wish to believe. You would be well advised to bear in mind what my late honors supervisor, Barry Milborrow told me: always bear in mind 4 out of 5 papers are wrong. It is very easy to propose a mechanism that looks excellent on paper, but it is pointless unless you can find evidence to back it up. A case in point is the "immunological" explanation of why Hepatitis B infection might result in more male babies - looks brilliant, no evidence and the effect it seeks to explain is suspect or at best marginal.
In the same way the fraternal birth order affect simply doesn't appear in some large samples, is quite marginal in others, in others it has been suggested it is an artifact of some parents trying to get at least one child of each gender. And even if it were robust, societal explanations might be more powerful. Do we need antibodies attacking foeti for explaining why predominantly younger sons went to the colonies or entered the armed forces or the clergy? Equally there are supposed to be some character associations with birth order, associations that are likely stronger that the weak correlation with sexuality and hence possibly underlying it - do we really thinking antibodies attacking foeti is the best explanation?

Here is one review that takes a strongly sceptical stance
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17316469

Rather than "a small number", the bibliography of Dr Sid Ecker's 2009 presentation runs to 5 pages IIRC.

It's at http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Zoe.Brain/BGI%20REF%203.pdf

For a critique of the Whitehead paper you mentioned, see

Sexual orientation, fraternal birth order, and the maternal immune hypothesis: a review.
Bogaert AF, Skorska M. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2011 Apr;32(2):247-54

Evidence not taken into account by Whitehead is described in

Prenatal maternal mnemonic effects on the human neuro-psychic sex: a new proposition from fetus-maternal tolerance-rejection Valenzuela CY. .Rev Med Chil. 2008 Dec;136(12):1552-8
(Original in Spanish alas)

This is the only conjecture that provides a mechanism for the observed differences in laterality too- non right handedness - associated with cross-sexed sexual orientation and gender identity.The former more left-handed, the latter more ambidextrous by several SDs.

There are a number of (minor) flaws in the Whitehead paper. The statement that the brains of male and female brains are "practically indistinguishable" is a value judgment I disagree with. They're very obvious in autopsies - though not in PET or MRI scans.

Unfortunately we can't rule out selection bias here - perhaps the fact that these children were stillborn or die shortly after birth makes them atypical in some unknown way.

Regarding your assertion "In the same way the fraternal birth order affect simply doesn't appear in some large samples," - citation please? You obviously know something I don't, and I really need to learn it.

Thanks, based purely on my read of the abstracts so far

RE: Does Thalidomide Cause Second Generation Birth Defects?

I get the impression that rather than this being empirical research it's theoretical commentary and interestingly, it's located on the Canadian Thalidomide Victims website. I take it that Thalidomide victims don't need the added burden of thinking they've passed on this issue to the next in line, like some cruel family curse. So in the absence of evidence, the author appears to be arguing evidence of absence. It's less cruel to the victims per se and basically is jargon for "we don't really know, but it's probably not the case (and there is truth to that), so don't worry about it cos we're not"

RE: NIH Link

Not seeing a control group, which is a problem, because we don't know if what they're looking at is a normal rate of what they're looking at or what they mean by single cases or malformations.

Perhaps this is what you're referring to with effect size, as the sample is small, although sixty four should be enough for limited correlational type data.

Should there be empirical data (mutagenic or tetragenic) correlation is a shitty method anyway. But I wouldn't be surprised if people would be unwilling to supply the necessary biological samples to test it, given what they've already been through. On the other hand, I'd also assume they'd be itching to find out and this would be a way to actually rule in or out what the previous paper was mentioning.

I'm sitting with science putting this issue into the too hard basket so no one has actually really bothered yet. Unless there are better quality research out there.....of course, I'd expect a Thalidomide victims society to be all over that.

G'day Ms Z,

Speaking of this dreadful thalidomide business, I don't know if you noticed the documents lodged by Slater and Gordon is the current compensation case: internal company records detailing the way in which its executives and medical staff worked to create noise and confusion in the emerging evidence - during the 1960's!!!!

What punishment makes any sense?

Global child abuse - for money. From doctors.

I've had a bad taste in my mouth for two days now.

Seems so, Vicki ... but only the sinful animals apparently.

Actually other than the usual rants from St Paul and a few spatterings in Leviticus and the rest of the Old Testament Jewish law sections (most of which, like stoning the neighbours and sheep slaughtering we've decided God didn't really mean) there's precious little in the bible about homosexuality.

You'll find a pretty decent discussion of the 20 biblical references regarding homosexuality here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

There might have been a few mentions in the 146 books of gospels that were culled down to four (the "unnecessary" 142 being codexed and burned) by the early Catholic leaders. Lot of folks don't know God's words got an very human edit.

Actually I'm not sure I'd describe queer animal behaviour as "relationships" ... seems quite promiscuous from what I remember. A shocking business all up. I am collecting stones as we speak.

To quote Joe Friday of Dragnet - Just the facts mam, nuttin' but the facts.

" Are their truly anyl mammals that actually have homosexua relationships"

Yes lots, including bonobos - who have homosexual sex all the time, and are one of our closest evolutionary relatives.

Depends on what and where God's words are.

In a book written by people, full of contradictions and mis-statements, edited to achieve acceptability by a bunch of mullahs and their equivalents to achieve their wordly ends telling others how to live according to a limited world view? Or in the world around us?

I know which I find more wondrous and more divine.

Vicki - may I suggest you read the works of St John Chrystostom, who makes an unimpeachable case in his Homily on Romans 1 that if the Bible is literally true, homosexuality is a sin worse than mere murder. Pretty much all Christian theology on the subject is based on his work.

He does go on to say that effeminate behaviour, such as men bathing or shaving beards is equally sinful.

His real piece de resistance though is his incontrovertible proof, closely reasoned and meticulously argued, that if the Bible is true, the Earth is Flat. It's only matched by St Augustine's proof that if the world is round, humans cannot exist in the Antipodes - places like Australia. Neither of these works have ever been contradicted by theological argument.

We've seen all this before, in arguments about the shape of the Earth,in how rain comes about - "the windows of heaven open, letting in the Waters Above", in the storehouses of hail and snow above the Firmament mentioned in Job, in the nature of lightning, and in recent times (the 19th century) resistance to the germ theory of disease - "just a theory".

There are two world views that are basically incompatible.

In one view, we already know the Truth from God's Holy Word, and so must disregard logic and fact which contradicts this. In the other, we can never know Truth, just get a closer and closer approximation to it through observation and reason, always prepared to abandon cherished beliefs when better evidence comes along.

Luther said it best, regarding the propensity of fact and logic to contradict Faith, and promiscuously correct erroneous opinions at the drop of a hat :

"Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."
Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but -- more frequently than not -- struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."

In this world view, God's Holy Word is the Truth: facts and logic that contradict this Truth must be suppressed.

A concrete example:
""People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
Martin Luther, "Works," Volume 22, c. 1543

Many hold this world view. But it cannot be argued with, as it denies the validity of argument and reason. "God says it. I believe it. That's it."

Facts such as the one below - natural sex change in humans - are impossible in this world view, so must be suppressed or ignored, or the people affected regarded as spawn of the Devil, fit to be destroyed in order to protect society and enforce God's ordained division between the sexes.

http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html

As long as I'm only doused with Holy Water to destroy my Earthly Form, I don't mind. (Only happened twice anyway). It's when they use petrol, as has happened overseas, that I have a problem with this belief.

One more quote, whose truth I can attest to, not from a Church Father or Christian Theologian, but from Dr Who:

“The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.”
"

The <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm">Religious Tolerance</a> URL is:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

Hi Vicki, no there are no animals capable of homosexual relationships, there is absolutely no evidence of this. Most explanations here confuse instinctual with social behaviour, like saying that a pair of breeding animals can enter into a marriage and have a relationship as husband and wife. The term 'homosexuality' was itself invented about 140 years ago, and was intended to label relationships based on sex between men.
As for the Bible and what it says about marriage and homosexuality, it is always best to get informed by those who actually know the answers, my suggestion is to take no note of the postings below, they are clearly condescending of your beliefs anyway. Rather, here is a link to a piece written by one of the best scholars in this field which explains all of the points raised by those others who responded to your posting here. The piece is valuable because it expertly addresses most of the typical homosexualist arguments regarding the teachings of the Bible on homosexuality in response to a professor making similar points to the ones made here in response to your comment:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexKnustCombinedResp.pdf

Worry not about tapdancing on eggshells - though playing hopscotch in a minefield might be a closer analogy.

i did state that the effects on humans of "freemartinism" (for want of a better term were more subtle.There are orders of magnitude differences in testosterone levels in cattle compared to humans during foetal development. But the effects exist, and are measurable in repeatable experiments.

<b>Prenatal exposure to testosterone and functional cerebral lateralization: a study in same-sex and opposite-sex twin girls.</b> Cohen-Bendahan et al, <i>Psychoneuroendocrinology</i>. 2004 Aug;29(7):911-6.

In animals it has been shown that exposure to sex hormones is influenced by intrauterine position. Thus fetuses located between two male fetuses are exposed to higher levels of testosterone (T) than fetuses situated between two female fetuses or one female and one male fetus. In a group of opposite-sex (OS) twin girls and same-sex (SS) twin girls a potential effect of prenatal exposure to testosterone (T) on functional cerebral lateralization was investigated. We hypothesized that prenatal exposure to T would result in a more masculine, i.e. a more lateralized pattern of cerebral lateralization in OS twin girls than in SS twin girls. An auditory-verbal dichotic listening task (DLT) was used as an indirect method to study hemispheric specialization. Firstly, we established a sex difference on the DLT. Compared with SS girls, OS twin boys showed a more lateralized pattern of processing verbal stimuli. Secondly, as predicted OS girls had a more masculine pattern of cerebral lateralization, than SS girls. These findings support the notion of an influence of prenatal T on early brain organization in girls.

India's and Pakistan's hijra communities raise similar conceptual conundrums.... not exactly transgender, but not simply gay. A separate caste under hinduism. Not really recognised or considered in Islam. Been around for a long time though - even score a few mentions in the Kama Sutra.

My neighbours in Bhopal a few years back were having a wedding in the house - no big show - 700 or so guests for five days. The hijras have contacts in the wedding industry and 50 or so turned up uninvited and start singing, dancing and celebrating in the street outside until someone gives them enough money to make them go away. But in other places, with other folks, having hijra around at a wedding or at the birth of a baby boy is considered auspicious and even necessary.

A very strange way to make a quid... wedding blackmailers. Tolerated, even necessary but despised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)

Interestingly hijara are now recognised as a third sex in Pakistan and India and Indian hijara can adopt an "E" on their passports (for eunuch, apparently).

Aren't we a weird bunch!

That 1.7% is a useful figure, 1 in 60. and does describe things pretty well.

There are more restrictive definitions - that of Sax for example - who require externally visible physical attributes of both sexes to be present, mere internal, chromosomal, orr endocrinal difference is not enough.

"Platonic Ideal" should be taken to mean "conforming to a societally idelalised stereotype".

Stereotypically, men have external genitalia, 2 testes in a scrotal sac rather than internally, a phallus well over 3cm in length when erect, 46XY chromosomes, and so on.

When testes are internal, or phallus is absent, or chromosomes are 47XXY, then by FS's definition, the person is Intersex. Not by Sax's though, unless batholins glands or other female structures are present.

The condition has to be present at birth too, even if (as in my case) visible symptoms are not. The only virtue of this arbitrary condition is that it was standard practice, and still is to some extent, to surgically modify Intersex babies to conform to societal expectations, sometimes without even obtaining parental consent.

A girl with an otherwise normal body, but a 10cm phallus,is likely to have a radical clitoridectomy performed on her when a few days old, with lifelong consequences regarding lack of sexual sensation, and often urinary tract problems too. But at least her appearance doesn't upset anyone else any more.

Boys with penile insufficency are likely to be castrated, and an approximation of female genitalia crafted, on pragmatic grounds. "It's easier to dig a hole than build a pole" as one paediatrc surgeon infamously said.

The object is not to give sexual sensation or fertility - both are often left, with the discarded parts, on the operating theatre floor.

The intent is to prevent an appearance society finds upsettng. If,in later life, the patient objects to what was done to them, and asserts a gender identity different from that assigned by the surgeons, they are deemed mentally ill, and treated as such. Especially if they haven't been told what was done to them, so are apparently Transsexual.

Regarding "disorders". The term that has been decreed to be used henceforth is not "Intersex" - though that term is standard for all other mammals - but "DSD" - disorder of sexual development.

This has gone over like the proverbial lead balloon with Intersex people. They're not alone. Milton Diamond and other luminaries have also objected, using "Differences of Sexual Development" instead.

"Biology loves Diversity - Society hates it".

Whether an Intersex situation is a "difference" or a "disorder" is more of a philosophical than a medical issue. A woman with a 3cm clitoris is Intersex, but if she's happy witth her body, why do we call it "disordered"?

I regard my own situation as more of a disorder - ike diebetes - rather than a difference - like being ambidextrous. I do this on the grounds that unless I take a variety of hormones, my health suffers. Psoriasis, cortisol deficiency, and various other very unpleasant physiological effects, some life-threatening in the long term.

Sterility on its own can also justifiably be regarded as a disorder, at least, in my opinion. Others can reasonably differ there, arguing that we don't call vasectomised men "disordered".

Intersex advocacy groups recommend that, unless there's a good medical reason - to give urinary or faecal continence, to remedy an immediate cancer risk, to relieve pain etc - that surgery be banned without the patient's consent.

Firstly, that adults who are Intersex and undergo surgery for hernias, gall-bladder issues and the like, no longer have "anomalous tissues" removed without their knowledge or consent.

This happened to me at age 20 - though as the tissues were vestigial, non-functional, I would have readily consented due to long-term cancer risk. Back in the 70s though, it was thought absolutely vital, a medical emergency, to conceal this lest the patient suffer terrible psychological damage.

Historically - and that means "still being taught in most medical schools" it was asserted and believed that not only were children psychosexually neutral, a "tabula rasa" before age 2, but that better surgical outcomes resulted from earlier intervention. There was no evidence for the second belief, and evidence for the first turned out to be fraudulent, but it was believed anyway.

The fraudulent evidence was exposed by Milton Diamond back in the 90's - the famous John/Joan tragedy. The belief about surgical outcomes was only debunked about 5 years ago, when the first actual long-term follow-up studies on Intersex people were performed, with conclusions many paediatric surgeons found devastating. Early surgery resulted in slightly better cosmesis, but was radically worse in terms of sensation, sexual function, urinary continence, and rate of complications.

Currently though, early surgery is still the rule rather than the exception. Religious hospitals in particular usually have an advisory team of paediatricians, geneticists, and spiritual advisors who come up with reccomendations to parents, not about whether surgery should be performed or not, but whether the surgery should aim for a male or female appearance. it's taken as read that the surgery is a medical emergency, as is stated in many textbooks.

Intersex advocates - myself included - recommend that irreversible surgery be delayed until the child can give informed consent, and at least tell us what sex they are. That latter's usually before age 7. Legally, children cannot be "Gillick competent" before age 12, but I think enough consent can be obtained before age 10 under these circumstances.

Alternate policies result in Gender Dysphoria about 30% of the time, where the sex assigned is the wrong one.

G'day Dania,

Because there is no physical observable genetic - or epigenetic -differences in either the genotype or the phenotype, that is in the code or in how that code is expressed.

It's like looking for a genetic explanation of why some people like Abba while others like Nickelback.

See whether the explanation is genetic or hormonal exposure in utero, there is a physical difference which can be observed - wrong sort of brian structure for that sort of body, confused sex organs etc. Or we can identify the differences in a genomic analysis. But that is not the case.

It is more complicated than a simple genetic or even epigenetic explanation.

In my view it makes more sense to see same sex attraction as a choice - and it is a choice available to each and any of us.

In other words, homosexuals are not born so - they are not different at all. Rather we all have this capacity to show affection and bonding with others in the species, male or female.

Why some choose to do so while others do not is more about circumstances, attitudes and social regulation than anything to do with what your packing in the genes.

That's my take on it anyway.

Dania Ng
" I can only ask myself, why is homosexuality portrayed as being something different from all these other diseases and mutations.."

Because, like left-handedness (which also may have an epigenetic cause) , it's not a disease.

Though some people, often of a religious persuasion, think it is. Left-handedness, I mean. They see it as something sinister, disordered, even a mark of the Devil, or sign of possession by Evil spirits. Often, the voices in their heads tell them that, and as Scripture provides plenty of justification for what they believe, in the efficacy of magic ceremonies and the existence of invisible spirits, they even convince others of their ability as seers and prophets.

Nope. No evidence whatsoever that it is linked to survival, I searched. There is no such thing as homosexuality among animals. 'Homo', get it? There is evidence that a significant number of species engage in opportunistic same-sex coitus and mutual masturbation, but there is no evidence that animals take on an actual gender role. And it is the monkeys that engage in more same-sex, not the great apes; the latter do as well, but to a lesser extent. Here is a somewhat outdated paper which has some value for the literature review it provides on the topic, note that it states there is no actual evidence that homosexuality has 'evolved', only theories. http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html
Lastly, I don't recall having any great apes as cousins, unless you count my great uncle, Michael; he used to be a hairy chap, often labelled an 'ape' by my auntie ... in good humour, of course.

I think Dania you have either completely misunderstood the excellent reference you provided

http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html

or perhaps you fail to understand what a theory is in relation to science? Any theory in science must be based on evidence and provide explnatory and predictive power of observation. The theoretical possibilities offered in the link do both - and are based on evidence.

I suggest you re-read the link and try and understand it properly, including it's conclusion "Relatively recent is the scientific understanding that homosexuality is (a) present -- even widespread -- in the animal kingdom, (b) it has biological causes, and (c) it can be accounted for by evolutionary theory" - entirely consistent with the article by Rob Brooks above

"As you have frequently shown on these posts Dania Ng- you are factually incorrect".
"Facts are such pesky things, especially where prejudice and bigotry against those who differ from ourselves is apparent,-don't you think?"
Thanks for the usual comments, Mark. It gives me additional material for a new entry on my website where I detail your bullying. Bullying is best addressed by redressing power imbalances. You seem to feel safe within the confines of this website in vilifying not simply me but others on different threads, and on other fora - simply for disagreeing with your point of view. Meanwhile, I will continue to ignore you here.
Have a great Christmas.

@ Dania - you can play the victim by claiming to be bullied if you wish. It is a transparent misrepresentation in my opinion. However I do not think your claims here and on your site should remain unchallenged.

There are no power imbalances on this site between you and me. We are both free to post as we will - subject to the proper control of the Moderators.

I note it was the Moderators here who advised you

"Dear Dania,
Could you please avoid ad hominem attacks on THe Conversation website? I will consider blocking your account if you do not.
Best wishes,
Reema Rattan
Section Editor, Health and Medicine
The Conversation"

I also note the apparent hypocrisy in your approacch. Apparently when I vehemently disgaree with you here and claim your statements exhibit bigotry (a position I am far from alone in pointing out to you) - despite the fact we have equal power to post here - you claim to be "bullied"

On your own site you feel quite free to defame me personally where there is no such editorial control or a proper right of reply.

I don't quite see how you reconcile your professed position of "respect, have a high regard for, and value difference and the dignity of individuals, families and communities. I think that even when we differ on matters of importance, truthfulness, respect and tolerance are the way forward." with the statement "Since we would see it as normal to minimise the risks posed to society by schizophrenics, alcoholics, drug addicts and such, why have we come to treat homosexuality differently? "

But apparently - in your world, same sex attracted people don't count as being worthy of dignity and respect?

I freely admit I find that deeply offensive and an exhibition of bigotry - others can, and will, of course, form their own views.

Despite you rallegations of bullying on here (an insult and demeaing to those who really do suffer from bullying based on power imbalances) you seem quite happy on your site to smear me? Calling me a career bully and also stating

"I can guarantee you this will stay here for a long, long time - there is no The Conversation moderator you can run to when you get your bully ego hurt. The additional good news for you is that there will be even more to come. Enjoy the well-deserved publicity! "

I also point out that you claim on your site "I am happy to debate and discuss issues of common interest with anyone, but only under the condition that this is done in a civil and respectful manner." and "I particularly detest those who resort to manipulation, misrepresentation and smear in order to forward political and activist agendas intended to harm and restrict others"

Perhaps you might like to reflect over the Christmas break that some on the TC - and the moderators in particular - have removed some of your posts precisely because you don't adhere to that standard?

You might like to consider this too? http://www.lawstuff.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/14884/Defamation-fact-sheet.pdf
Merry Christmas
BTW - I apologise to others for diverting this thread to this issue - I appreciate the mostly respectful discussion and would support Rob Brook's assessment

Okay, you deserve a few words here, Harigan, only so others can see what you're doing is not having the effect you might've intended.
"...you can play the victim by claiming to be bullied if you wish". I have been your target, I am not a victim - I am fighting back, remember? Every time you call me a bigot, a homophobe or anything derogatory; any time you make racist, or christophobic remarks, I'll call you a bully and more. Any time you attempt to ridicule me, I will ridicule you back. The power imbalance is not between you and I, please read what I said properly; don't flatter yourself, you can never have any personal power over me, Harrigan - it is this website, which allows you and others to call me a homophobe and a bigot, and moderates comments in a way that allows you the freedom to do this, whilst deleting my comments when I call you a bully in return. That's the reason why I took the matter to my website, so that this imbalance may be redressed. I don't fear you and your threats, Harrigan, and I will keep posting the truth on my site about your bullying. There is one simple and easy way for you to stop me from doing this. You can stop ridiculing me for my views; I don't even need an apology, you simply need to undertake to be civil to me to the same extent that I am to you. I don't ask you to do anything else, Harrigan, you can have a civil disagreement with someone even if you think the worse of them, their ideas and arguments.
Please read the legal aid pamphlet you have linked to carefully. I would be more than happy to take this to a court, Harrigan, you don't scare me. I have said nothing on my website which can be construed as defamatory in light of your labours on these here threads, Just about everything that is on my site about you is taken from here, and is verifiable. What you'd need to do, if by some miracle it ends up in a court, Harrigan, is to explain how you have arrived at the conclusion that I am a homophobe, bigot and all the other things you have called me. And you will need to explain how it is that you have special rights to stalk and ridicule me on these fora, whilst claiming that you are protected not to be exposed for doing this.
However, the most important thing you need to understand is the actual statute that is relevant here. See this website: http://www.law.uts.edu.au/comslaw/factsheets/defamation.html
Please note this paragraph:
"Justification: It is a complete defence to an action for defamation to prove that the defamatory statement is substantially true.Substantial truth means that provided the justification meets the substance of the imputation, minor inaccuracy will not exclude the defence. The publisher’s motive is irrelevant, if the publisher can show that the imputation is true then it does not matter that he/she was motivated by malice"
Can you show (on the balance of probabilities, which is the burden of proof required in a civil court) that what I am saying on my site is not justified, and that I have lied, Harrigan? Now, wouldn't it be better to be more careful what you label people on the internet?
Meanwhile, I'll post a more extended comment on my site to outline my opinion about this latest chapter in our exchange - it will be up in a couple of days, or so.
Marry Christmas.

Since you're up and reading these threads, Mark, I will provide a brief response.
First, I want to thank you for the more civil tone in your last post. I can converse with someone who employs discussion points, rather than labels, as indeed we did on a few rare occasions.
Secondly, you are incorrect when you say that "It also may be distinction lost on you - but I have called your behaviour (via your posts) homophobic and some of your comments bigoted - not you as a person". Here's something from your penultimate post: "But apparently - in your world, same sex attracted people don't count as being worthy of dignity and respect?" Here are some more quotes just from this thread: "It would appear, yet again, that Ms Ng has no idea what she is talking about" "...a confusion commonly made by the ignorant" "...it stems from your apparent desire to condemn homosexuality in all its forms" "...especially where prejudice and bigotry against those who differ from ourselves is apparent" I am not going to argue the finer details of whether these refer to my behaviour or comments, or me as a person. I am comfortable to let others determine what or whom you have targeted with these comments. Of course, contextual evidence also includes many, many other comments aimed at me by you elsewhere on this website, the fact that I have said on a number of occasions that I do not appreciate being called a bigot and the other labels you have employed, that I asked you to desist from doing this, that I have largely restrained from responding to your barbs on the past couple of threads where you posted in an attempt to discourage you from attacking me, and so on.
Thirdly, you are continuing to be condescending to, and stereotype me. For instance, without actually knowing who I am, you stated just then that "As for your legal post - I suggest you have no idea what you are talking about". This is a persistent angle you take when you respond to me, that I don't know, that I am uninformed, that I have no idea, and so on and so forth. You obviously don't actually know me, you have no idea of what I know, my training, my education, yet you persist in simply assuming that I am less knowledgeable, less capable of reasoning, or acting morally. I am assuming that you are unaware of doing this. Let me explain with reference to an analogy: Imagine that you are Asian. Now imagine that you're doing your weekly shopping. When you get to the counter, the checkout person, a young Caucasian, who spoke in a normal tone to the shopper before you, then raises their voice when serving you. S/he smiles and is civil to you in other respects. But they still speak in a raised voice, presumably because you're Asian and this denotes slowness, or deafness, or what? Now, where is it that I said I don't respect and support the civil rights of homosexual (or any other) persons? Can you quote me on this? Or do you suppose that because I oppose what homosexualism stand for, that I personally find homosexual behaviours disgusting, that I found 'gays' to be aggressive and so I avoid them, that I oppose changing the meaning of marriage - all this then demonstrates that I oppose anyone having the same civil rights as I enjoy? And because I ask how is it that homosexuality is not treated in the same way as other regular outcomes of epigenesis which fall outside the predominant outcomes, this makes me a homophobe who argues against the civil rights of individuals? Good luck with making the link in an evidence driven context, especially as I have clearly stated that I do not oppose civil rights for anyone. And since you don't know me, you should not assume that I have not done so.
Fourthly, please read my argument again - it is precisely because this is a homosexualist platform that I have so many individuals vilifying me. It is not a balanced forum. You are quite right when you say that others have called me the same things you have. Why, even the author of the article here has pronounced what I have to say [barely concealed] bigotry and homophobia (but note that he has not addressed one single point in my commentary). Perhaps you may like to remember how you were treated when you posted on that climate-warming deniers website. Or maybe you might like to have a quick look at what happened with Zoe when she took on the Catholics on their own forums (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=448680).
Lastly, in respect to me knowing what bullying is, you seem to ignore a post of mine in a different thread, which you must be aware of because you selectively quoted from here a couple of days ago. In this post I described a very nasty bullying experience I experienced in my workplace. So I think it is crass of you to tell me that I don't know what bullying is, when to this day I still suffer from PTSD, and when I have seen the lives of others destroyed by it.
Thank you for the seasonal wishes. It is sad to see that even in conveying these you have managed to construct a negative image of who I am.

Peter, there are a few holes in what you say. For example, the correct translation should be drawn from Latin, meaning 'man', which is thus used in the life sciences, and since we are on a topic related to biology this is the sense in which I am using it. After all, according to your own view, homosexuality is a genderised mode of being, and since genders only exist in human society (they are social constructs), it is a term only applicable to humans. Otherwise we would expect to see Adolphus, the gay gorilla wearing lipstick or a tutu. It is important to distinguish between same-sex sex and gender constructs, otherwise you'd be shooting your own theory down as it becomes more and more nonsensical.
There is no positive association between social complexity and increase in homosexuality, I see no evidence of this. There is instead increased visibility for fringe and deviant groups as society becomes more tolerant of sub-cultures and extremist views and lifestyles.
Anyway, I have written a commentary in response to this article on my website, here: http://www.truth2be.net/2/post/2012/12/epigenetics-homosexuality-and-scientistic-explanations.html

Ah, I forgot to respond to this:
'That great apes remain in the closet or do "it" less than monkeys is neither here nor the. It is the fact that "it" occurs at all that is significant'
And so, by the same sort of reasoning, would it be similarly significant for us that a number of animals eat their own young? It would follow, by your reasoning, that we should accept this practice which a few (thankfully only a very few!) among us would like to adhere because it is evidenced as 'natural' from our observations on other species?

It would appear, yet again, that Ms Ng has no idea what she is talking about - especially in relation to homosexuality

http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/homo.html

the homo in homo sapiens has nothing to do with the homo in homo sexuality.

It is a confusion commonly made by the ignorant

Dania Ng

"For example, the correct translation should be drawn from Latin, meaning 'man', which is thus used in the life sciences"

Nope.

Homos - Same. Heteros - different. From Greek.

Hence, in the context of Life Sciences, a heterogenous ecology, a homogenous population.

Homo in Latin means Person. Vir means a Man, Femina a Woman.

Hence the English words Virile, Feminine.

It's a little more complicated than that - The usual rule given in Latin is that homo means “man” as opposed to animal or god, whereas vir means “man” as opposed to woman or child.

Puer means boy, Puella, girl. "Puer et Vir" - man and boy.

Nowadays we could say that vir means “man” whereas homo means “person” or “human” (though it is still always masculine in Latin, as it is in English ).

In practice this distinction is complicated by rhetoric. Since homo was essentially a neutral word, whereas vir was positive, Romans would generally use vir in compliments and homo in insults: vir audax “a brave man” vs. homo audax “a man who doesn’t know what’s good for him.” .

For women the term mulier is used in a negative or neutral context, and femina in a positive context.

Note however that when we are directly contrasting men and women it is normal to use vir and mulier without any moral judgement: Nomina virorum et mulierum “Names of men and women.”

This topic is covered in more thorough detail in The Rhetoric of Gender Terms by F. Santoro L’hoir.

Truly, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Dania Ng

It's like saying that "Yellow" and "Five" are the same thing, just because the names Wu and Huang are both transliterated as Ng in Cantonese, and Hokkien(and Teochow IIRC) repectively.

Dania comes from the Hebrew LYND (Daniel) rather than from the Latin name (Diana) of the Greek Goddess Artemis.

My knowledge of Hokkien etc is scant. But I had the dubious benefits of a Classical education in both Greek and Latin in a boarding school in the UK, and there were plenty of children there from Hong Kong. I picked up a little more in southern chinese dielects while working in Thailand, and Hebrew when managing a mixed German/Australian/Israeli team.

Zoe, "Truly, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
I couldn't agree more. I would also add that a lot of knowledge without wisdom is a vastly more dangerous thing.
You seem to misinterpret me, and I am not sure why you're doing this, though I am starting to have some suspicions. I said that I used the word 'homo' in it's correct scientific meaning which, zoologically, describes the genus to which humans belong. I didn't use it in the sense in which you refer to, and no amount of linguistic contortions on your part can actually change this.
You and the others here are wrong when describing the use of the term 'homosexuality' as being a biological term. It does not derive from biological science, it has been coined by a talented Hungarian writer and journalist in the latter part of the 1800s, Karl-Maria Kertbeny also known as Károly Mária Kertbeny. The term was always intended to refer to humans, to men having sex with men, so it is unfortunate that it has become common parlance in biological-speak - not least because it is imprecise.
The article I cited ought to be read carefully, not superficially - especially if it is to be thrown back into my face. I suggest reflecting a bit on the following sentence, within the first paragraph: "Homosexuality is sexual activity between two individuals of the same gender". Since I have trained in sociology, I can tell you with some authority that gender is a social construct; so, by definition, the term refers to a normative construct. Such constructs are necessary to regulate complex communities and social life (since it is only humans who create and maintain very complex shared meanings, norms and social institutions); the term becomes nonsensical when applied to other animals. I specifically said that the paper I quoted is a bit outdated and that I cited it for the literature review it contains; I should have added that the author has demonstrably little sociological or anthropological understanding of normative human life, and this is typical of many scientists in the physical disciplines. Though he does come close to acknowledging the misuse of the term, for instance: 'As Denniston points out (1980), animal "homosexuality" is a misnomer, and really refers to bisexuality or "ambisexuality," or the behavior of mounting with animals of both sexes. Only in a few isolated species are any animals even occasionally preferentially homosexual (as in some primates, including Japanese macaques; see Small, 1993, p. 145; West, 1977, p. 116)'.
But even so, the selective use of terms demonstrates political intent, not a desire for scientific understanding. For instance, the use of the term 'normal' (as in purporting that same-sex coitus is normal amongst animals), is not correct in a scientific sense. Even though I specialise in qualitative research, I do know a smattering of statistics As a statistical concept, normal distribution means something different from what is implied by the use of the term 'normal' here. Also, in a qualitative sense, much of the garbage passed on as science on this topic neglects to contextualise figures and statements of fact. For instance, there are particular sexual behaviours which can be explained by reference to instinctive patterns which serve specific purposes. Male dogs and wolves, will mount other males in order to establish dominance within groups. Bonobos rub each others genitals as a means to defuse aggressive behaviour and conflict. A good scientist would note the obvious, rather than circumvent it, regardless of who their are in their personal lives:
"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity" (LeVay, S.,1996, Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality, MIT Press: Cambridge [Simon LeVay is a homosexual - but you may already know him because of his much criticised work with M. Bailey on transgenderism?]*)
The reality is that animals engaging in s-s coitus is not something one 'normally' encounters. I don't know how many times I have taken children to the zoo over the past few decades, but I do know that I have never, ever seen s-s coitus happening amongst the hundreds of animals we've seen there; however, I have witnessed lots of opposite sex encounters, most of which I had to explain to wide-eyed kids concerned about animals 'hurting' each other. The issue is not that s-s coitus does not happen amongst animals, I have not said this - I have instead linked to a source which clearly evidences this fact. The issue is that this is disingenuously being explained as 'normal'. The reality is that, just as with humans, same-sex copulations are not generally the norm, it is a deviance from the norm. Words convey meanings, and homosexualism, like any ideology has become adept in employing particular discursive strategies. It's particularly sad to observe individuals identifying themselves as scientists becoming subjectified by this discourse.
It is also mystifying to see the routine employment of false analogies to arrive at nonsensical statements. One cannot compare left-handedness with homosexuality in order to demonstrate that the latter is not a disease. I am not saying that homosexuality is a disease, because I don't know that it is. However, it does strike me as being a rather more significant deviance from the normal, one which has real, observable and measurable effects and outcomes.
The rest of your attacks on my views and the veracity of my knowledge, the parading of your linguistic and semantic gymnastics, and the offensive explanation of what my name happens to translate as, all these I will ignore because in themselves they demean you sufficiently.

Dania Ng

" Since I have trained in sociology, I can tell you with some authority that gender is a social construct;"

Argument from Authority. Counterexamples:

Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth by Reiner and Gearhart, N Engl J Med. 2004 January 22; 350(4): 333–341.

RESULTS Eight of the 14 subjects assigned to female sex declared themselves male during the course of this study, whereas the 2 raised as males remained male. Subjects could be grouped according to their stated sexual identity. Five subjects were living as females; three were living with unclear sexual identity, although two of the three had declared themselves male; and eight were living as males, six of whom had reassigned themselves to male sex. All 16 subjects had moderate-to-marked interests and attitudes that were considered typical of males. Follow-up ranged from 34 to 98 months.
CONCLUSIONS Routine neonatal assignment of genetic males to female sex because of severe phallic inadequacy can result in unpredictable sexual identification. Clinical interventions in such children should be reexamined in the light of these findings.

“Prenatal hormones versus postnatal socialization by parents as determinants of male-typical toy play in girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia” Pasterski VL, Geffner ME, Brain C, Hindmarsh P, Brook C, Hines M Child Dev 76(1):264-78 2005

Data show that increased male-typical toy play by girls with CAH cannot be explained by parental encouragement of male-typical toy play. Although parents encourage sex-appropriate behavior, their encouragement appears to be insufficient to override the interest of girls with CAH in cross-sexed toys.

Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35

Boys and girls behave in different ways and one of the stereotypical behavioral differences between them, that has often been said to be forced upon them by upbringing and social environment, is their behavior in play. Boys prefer to play with cars and balls, whereas girls prefer dolls. This sex difference in toy preference is present very early in life (3–8 months of age) [1]. The idea that it is not society that forces these choices upon children but a sex difference in the early development of their brains and behavior is also supported by monkey behavioral studies. Alexander and Hines [2], who offered dolls, toy cars and balls to green Vervet monkeys found the female monkeys consistently chose the dolls and examined these ano-genitally, whereas the male monkeys were more interested in playing with the toy cars and with the ball....

I agree with the self-evident proposition that Gender is mostly a social construct, but some of what we call "gendered behaviour" has a biological basis.

Meanwhile, regarding the unfortunate tone of your language to me - I'll ignore it, and this sentence is the only acknowledgement I'll make of it. No biggie. I hope you don't find my ignoring it too disrespectful of you.

I preferred it when you gave citations, that we could all check together to determine the truth.

Zoe, I said that gender is a social construct. I didn't say that society or biology alone determines whether we act feminine or masculine, or whatever. I don't need to cite anything because you have already provided ample evidence in support of my point in the sources and discussion paragraphs you have listed. For the purpose of focusing on the point I made, it matters not how individuals identify themselves despite their biological sex and/or other physiological drivers. What matters is that, for example, a male feeling 'natural' inhabiting a feminine role means that they identify themselves within a gender role that has been constructed by the society they live in. They adapt to that role, not the other way around. Hence the problematics present in some of the specific samples in the studies you quote from. Human beings are the result of both nature and (social) nurture, the variances you describe are interesting and would certainly be relevant to somewhat different topical discussions. Sociologists do not, on the main, argue that biological sex doesn't influence behaviour. But what they say is that societies construct gender roles within which females and males socialise into and are expected to function as social actors. In any given culture, gender roles are transmitted from one generation to another, and may change in tune with cultural changes. By contrast, animals do not do this, they certainly do not have their sexual behaviours guided by gender roles.
For now, I am glad you agree that gender is a social construct to at least a significant degree.

Well Peter, thanks for the URL. The first thing that I learned on it is that I can navigate to "Gaybook" where I can "Meet Free Local Guys For Fun". I begin to understand where you're coming from ... and where you get derived your education.
How about trying a bit of what I refer to as education, just for a laugh? Here is a different website where you can learn the actual meaning of the word as I used it: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homo
Do you see where it says:
"Definition of HOMO: any of a genus (Homo) of hominids that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species (as H. erectus and H. habilis)
Origin of HOMO: New Latin Homin-, Homo, from Latin, human being First Known Use: 1591" ?
I don't insult Brooks, I critique his little article for what it is. And I would rather prefer for you not to be 'pampering' my opinions with a discussion, thanks for offering not to do so - you've provided ample nonsensical discussion points here to last me for a while. In any event, the writings on my website are intended for genuine individuals, not for ideologues. As for the rest of your vituperative remarks, who really cares?
Have a nice Christmas

Mr Ormonde, you seem like a well informed sort of chap.
This Latin-Greek portmanteau word, why is it that there isn't a Greek word and/or a Latin word for this? I mean what happened back in the Roman empire if you saw two male seagulls hard at it (a very common occurrence in the natural world so I now understand) what did they actually say to each other?
"I say Lucius, those two seagulls look like a couple of [what]?"

Actually, John, it is pronounced something like "ee-v-ee-oh" (ίδιο). Check it out for yourself here: http://translate.google.com.au/#en/el/same
At the risk of repeating myself for the hundredth time, 'homosexual' is a term invented by a non-biologist, who argued that there is a third gender (as opposite to sex), thus 'feminine', 'masculine' and 'homosexual' (hemophilia). So it is a misnomer when used in biology, because the term does not refer to biological sex but to gender. Sex and gender are different, the former is determined biologically, the latter is a social construct. Only humans have constructed gender, hence it only exists in human subjectivity, not in the animal 'kingdom'. Animals are not capable of subjective thinking to the extraordinary extent that humans are or need to be to maintain extremely complex societies. Hence my use of the Latin term, which refers to zoological genus, not to gender. We are arguing that same-sex coitus happens in the animal kingdom, we're not saying that gender exists in both animal and human worlds. The reason I dwell on this to such an extent is precisely to counter the way discourse operates through individuals and publications such as these; I am resisting the effects of power here, expressed (without you actually understanding what's happening), through your conduct. This is why I am focusing on how and why terms are used. So again: in the simplest possible terms, only humans are capable to, and do construct genders, other animals do not. Walt Disney studios has license to create Lady and the Tramp, science does not. To accord this capacity to animals is unscientific, imprecise and nonsensical. You can certainly see animals mounting same sex partners, but you don't see them acting feminine or masculine, let alone 'homosexual'. If you think my argument amounts to 'poofter-bashing', then please explain how this is so.

As you have frequently shown on these posts Dania Ng- you are factually incorrect.

First about the greek vs latin definition of the term homosexuality and its meaning (where homo refers to same rather than man - an error I not you have not had the courage to acknowledge).

Now you are in error about the first use of the term.

The inventor maade no argument about a third gender

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Maria_Kertbeny

In fact "Kertbeny also put forward the view that homosexuality was inborn and unchangeable, an argument which would later be called the "medical model" of homosexuality. This contradicted the dominant view up to that time, that men committed "sodomy" out of mere wickedness. Homosexual men, he said, were not by nature effeminate, and he pointed out that many of the great heroes of history were homosexual. With Heinrich Hössli and Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, he was among the first writers to put these now-familiar arguments before the public."

Prescient it seems.

Later on a certain Anna Rüling, one of the first women to publicly defend gay rights, considered gay people a third gender, different from both men and women. A position that has little support in science in evidence. Oops? Didn't read your reference properly but jumped on a factoid that you thought supported your argument??

Why you continue to conflate and confuse gender (which most recognise as comprising almost entirely male and female with a much smaller though neverthless recognizable intersex and transgender grouping) with sexual orientation - the degree to which a person or animal is attracted to and acts on that attraction to members of the same or opposite sex - both confuses and amuses me.

Perhaps it stems from your apparent desire to condemn homosexuality in all its forms?

Who knows. As Peter Ormonde (and others) have consistently pointed out to you - and for which the evidence is abundantly clear - the vast majority of male homosexuals (gays) and female homosexuals (lesbians) are indistinguishable in their gender (male or female) from their heterosexual brothers and sisters. As are, of course, the bisexually oriented.

The fact that some transgender and intersex people exist - and who add to the rich tapestry of human diversity (at least i think so) is a separate matter. It may surprise you to learn that transgender and intersex people have just as rich and diverse sexual orientation as their cisgender siblings.

Facts are such pesky things, especially where prejudice and bigotry against those who differ from ourselves is apparent,-don't you think?

Better late than never - Thank you, Kind Sir.

Unlikely, I think, as a seagull looks nothing like a cardinal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cardinal.jpg and the ecclesiastical office only dates back to the 9th century.
But I think you see my point, it is foolish to look for reductionist biological causes for an identity which is just over 100 years old.
As a favor, Mr Ormonde, would you be able to keep replies in the same sub-thread? It is not difficult, all you do is go the first level post and then click "reply" your response will then appear in sequence below that which you are responding to. Much easier to follow.

Oh I thought you were talking about describing the behaviour rather than the appearance. Nothing else looks like a cardinal - perhaps male peacocks.

That'd be just a touch over 1,000 years then Sean, that we have been blessed with the presence of cardinals. I was actually thinking of Mr Pell, who reminds me very much of a scavenging brainless bird.

I am trying - desperately to come to grips with this altered reality of the Conversation's rather taciturn new set-up ... sadly I am missing any "reply" buttons once anyone else replies or somesuch ... this is what happens when you let grungy grunting computer nerds design something for normal folks to communicate on. They don't know why anyone would actually want to reply.

It's all about smartphones apparently ... trimming the chatting down to a nice screen size. Thank heavens they didn't decide to make it twitter friendly and cut all contributions down to 146 characters... or whatever it is.

Doesn't actually seem too difficult to me but this new system lacks both sense and transparency.

Lol, where would they 'conceal' their pistols, Peter? Obviously you haven't seen the pics on my website?

I thought I'd come out of the 'closet' and say that I haven't seen the pictures on your website. Mind linking me it? I've been following your posts on The Conversation for a while but haven't managed to see your website on any of them.

Hi Nolan, my site is at truth2be.net

Peter, thank you for taking the time to comment on my activities on these threads, and also to outline your thoughts on who I am. I won't go too much into the amazing diatribe you have directed at me, because it is self explanatory to those who have even a minimal capacity to work things our for themselves. I am comfortable with people making up their own minds on whether I am a homophobe and bigot because I question some of the misrepresentations peddled here. I only want to list one example of what I mean, and I will use a bit of your post to do this. You state,
'... your moral "it is okay to believe in magic, even when you know darn well that it isn’t real" resonates with your own apparent motives and ideologic biases, which appear to me steeped in the most ubiquitous (and, I would argue, harmful) magical beliefs of all. Or perhaps this is some layered irony inaccessible to the scientistic among us?'.
No layered irony, it is very simple if you cared to complete the point I was making in that paragraph rather than selectively use the bits that suited your apparent aim to vilify me. I think you forgot it is all still there, for all to see. I also said:
'And the reason it is okay to do this is because we are human beings; we need to have stories of magic which survive the test of time and logic, because at their very core they embody fundamental norms which underpin a healthy society. It is doubtful whether researchers practicing scientism understand this'.
In view of how you have misrepresented what I said, and the general condescending nature of your post, I respectfully do so stand by what I said in that last sentence.
Anyway, I think I now know what the topic of my next piece is: 'Homophobia - what it is, and its uses for political ends'. Thanks for contributing to the pool of material I will be drawing on to exemplify how labeling is a strategy of vilification and marginalisation of opposing views within any debates surrounding the ideology of homosexualism.

Dania Ng

"And the reason it is okay to do this is because we are human beings; we need to have stories of magic which survive the test of time and logic, because at their very core they embody fundamental norms which underpin a healthy society. It is doubtful whether researchers practicing scientism understand this'. "

We do understand it though. We've heard it all before.

One of the most influential literary works of the 20th century, "My Struggle" is based upon this exact idea. It's a work very much concerned with the fundamental norms that underpin a healthy society, and its theoretical basis is that of specific magical beliefs that have persisted for many centuries.

It's no exaggeration to say that this book changed the world. The author later went on to become a powerful and influential world leader, and many follow his ideas even today.

He too was very much against both "scientism" and homosexuality, and in favour of strengthening the societal norms of "Kitchen, Church, and Children" for women.

Due to his direct influence, for a brief period the state motto of France was changed from " Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" to "Travail, Famille, Patrie" - Work, Family, Motherland.

As I've said, we've seen it all before, we've seen its works, and are very much opposed to the notion.

Have you read Mein Kampf, Mr Brain?
I had no idea it contained an in-depth discussion of sexual orientation, particularly as some have suggested the Corporal was more than a little confused on such matters himself.
I was just reading an account of Leo Amery's reaction to Mein Kampf in 1934. Leo Amery was an interesting figure, an establishment Tory MP, famous for repeating Oliver Cromwell's words to Chamberlain (You have sat here too long...) since then done to death by every conservative including Chrissy Pyne. He was Secretary for India during the war. It has recently been discovered by William Rubinstein that his mother was Jewish, something he appears to have concealed during his life, significant because he helped draft the Balfour Declaration and also encourage the Revisionist Jabotinsky in forming a Jewish Legion in the British army. What further makes it interesting is his son John Amery was a famous traitor who made very strident broadcasts for the Nazis in their strikingly ineffective English propaganda campaign. I immediately wondered could he have been a spy? But how could that be if he was hung after the war? Anyway by looking at the wikipedia page for John Amery it appears that someone in the BBC has made a television drama of a thinly disguised John Amery based on that very scenario. Make of that what you will!
Anyway, I digress. Here is Leo Amery's reaction to Mein Kampf:
"In 1934 Amery had read Mein Kampf and found it 'very interesting and stimulating,' as he wrote in his diary. Hitler's 'intense sincerity and clear thinking on some points, as well as really careful study of propaganda methods, attracted me very much." On the other hand, the author was clearly 'quite insane about Jews and Socialists.'"
Just by contrast here is the epitaph he wrote for his son:
At end of wayward days he found a cause
“Twas not his Country’s” – Only time can tell
If that defiance of our ancient laws
Was treason or foreknowledge. He sleeps well.

Just to go one step further down this diversion.
There is a fascinating Daily Mail article (for a trashy paper they do sometimes have some very long and detailed history articles)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-527332/Why-son-Churchill-cabinet-minister-mouthpiece-Hitler.html
"He was eventually sent to a school for English boys in Switzerland but returned having contracted syphilis, which was to plague him for years. He told his tutor that he had caught it by prostituting himself to men....Just like Sebastian Flyte in Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, John would carry his childhood teddy bear with him, sitting it beside him in cafes where he would buy it drinks and comics to read...Una reported that he was still earning money as a male prostitute and also liked to indulge in masochistic sex with female prostitutes....A report filed by MI6 agents at the time, however, said that Amery was no threat to British interests because he was drinking "a whole litre of gin in a single night" and was "so dissipated, both physically and morally".

Now whether John Amery the male prostitute was the wild bisexual depicted or whether treachery was simply the social construct of homosexuality at the time and in reality he was a model husband - who knows? Either way I wouldn't look to epigenetics for an answer.

Zoe, I have had enough of your misrepresentations of what I say. I was speaking about the 'magic of Christmas', not of puerile ideological sheise as embodied in the nazi manifesto. Why are you trying so hard to portray me and my ideas as evil? What have I done to you?
Are you really implying that the spirit of Christmas (the magic which I was really referring to) which embodies the norms of sharing, tolerance, human love and caring for each other is on the same level as nazi ideology? Because I was talking about the effect which Christmas (i.e., all the popular lore it involves) has on me in reminding me of my humanity. It is like when one goes to the movies and watches Lord of the Rings, Zoe - you need to suspend reality, and believe a little in the magic if you are to enjoy not only the wonderment and spectacle, but also have humanistic messages about persistence, justice, friendship, reaffirmed through our experience of the magic which the theater offers us. What do you think World of Warcraft and Rift are making billions, and why DnD is so popular, and why people believe in talismans, is it not because people believe in a little magic. Are we all insane for thus believing in a bit of magic, and you the sane one?
This time you have insulted me on one too many occasions, and I finally understand why you are so belittled by so many on the internet.
I have no more time for you here.

Sean, I wish I could be as articulate. Thanks for the great posts - I may not agree with everything you say, but I need to say that I appreciate your honesty in seeing issues as they really are, and speaking your mind about them with courage and reasoned argument, yet still maintaining your dry humour. I am not buttering you up, I am simply speaking my mind.

Sean Lamb

"Have you read Mein Kampf, Mr Brain?"

Ms, actually. Though I am being treated for "severe androgenisation of a non-pregnant woman".

Most women have body issues - entirely without rational basis. I have a lifetime subscription, and even more unfortunately, with some cause.

I console myself with the thought that worse things happen at sea, even if it does hurt.

Dania Ng

" I finally understand why you are so belittled by so many on the internet.
I have no more time for you here."

Promise? Thank you!

Ms Brain, My apologies, I didn't pay enough attention to your story - although I was aware there was one Zoe ought to have been a give-away.

Mr Lamb

No worries. At one time, it would have been hurtful, if deliberate. But now, even if deliberate, it doesn't worry me.

When it's not deliberate, as here, it's an occasion for a wry chuckle and a little amusement at Life's little ironies. Apology accepted (of course) and please don't worry about it!

Who indeed? But because it is almost the end of the world you shall have your answer. Wifi works, climate models don't.

Really? And here I was thinking you was a Christian sympathiser. Now, please don't report me for insulting you thus!

It's perfectly possible to be a decent, kind human being despite being christian. Why, some of my best friends are not just christian, one's an Anglican Bishop.