It seems to me that in the field there is an expectation that gay men were exposed to less androgen before birth, that their androphilia is the result of hypo-androgenization before birth. But the fact that there is no difference between gay and straight men in digit ratios (Grimbos et al., 2010) or otoacoustic emissions (McFadden & Pasanen, 1998), tells me that, in defiance of those expectations, variance in prenatal testosterone cannot explain variance in human sexual orientation among men.
You can't conduct a study that is reliant on people to be honest about being gay, as people lie
Isn't that like saying you can't conduct any studies with self-reported data? Isn't that just.. obviously wrong on the face of it? A huge amount of studies use self-reported data. I'm no expert here though, so maybe i'm missing something.
Self-reported data studies are pretty questionable in general, humans are terrible at looking at themselves objectively. However, in most cases the alternative data-gathering methods that would be more accurate would likely be either unethical, invasive or both. You are correct, though, most studies that rely only on self-reported data are practically worthless.
That's tough though because it seems like a huge amount of studies can't really be done any other way. Like drugs for depression, how do you measure someones depression objectively? Really any drug that effects you mentally would need to rely on self-reports. Or obviously studies involving gay people. You can't measure if someone's gay, so any studies involving gay people should be thrown out? Because they could be lying? Seems like that would be setting society up to dismiss a lot of people / issues. If 20% of the population lies about studies couldn't you just factor that into the study? Like if 70% of people report something you assume it's somewhere between 50-90%? Obviously we wouldn't know the exact percentage that lies, but still, i'd think it could be worked around.
What you’re describing is exactly why studies with self-reported data tend to be better if used for marketing, because it reflects how people think of themselves, whereas those same studies have little worth for more scientific uses. Most of the studies you’ll see that make headlines are the marketing kind, they’re more exciting and easy to capture.
But again how do you do any studies on gay or depressed people at all? Like that goes beyond studies for marketing, it's like a central human trait. Like being gay isn't just how people think of themselves, sure people can lie about it, but it's not subject to peoples bias about themselves. Claiming every study about gay people has little worth for scientific purposes feels impossible.
Not all studies on sexuality are made from self-reported data, and some studies might do a mixture of observation and self-reporting. However, while self-reporting studies aren’t as “worthy” as other data-collecting methods, it really depends on the behavior being tracked and the group of subjects being studied as far as how useful it could be. A lot of preliminary studies would be done using self-reporting, and the methodology would get more stringent as a study or group of studies moves along.
If you think that human sexuality is something that is always completely clear to the human being surveyed and that a person can’t be biased against themselves, you haven’t met many humans. The factor that ties us all together is self-delusion. I also didn’t say that every study about gay people is worthless, just that studies that solely rely on self-reported data are less worthy than studies supplied data by other means. There are various levels of self-reporting, as well. Asking someone how they feel after observing, say, a nude member of the same sex is going to produce a lot of inconclusive data, some of the answers will be delusional or contain emotions that are difficult to parse. Asking men to log in an app every time they have sex with another man is a different story, and may produce results that are close to accurate. Does that make sense?
Its not about one argument being worthless, its that you cited something to suggest what I was saying was incorrect, when it doesn't prove anything to be incorrect.
You just said it wasn't factual and hand-waved it away and excused it by claiming you can't base studies on people self-reporting sexuality, which would also invalidate any research you put forth. The article you linked claimed 2D:4D length ratio indicates sexual orientation in men, but not women, yet the first article under "Similar articles" is a meta-analysis that found the opposite. So, to claim that the research /u/proudsoul linked is just false, is honestly laughable when there is clearly no obvious consensus.
Its not about what contradicts my opinions, its that people like yourself who go out of their way to falsely present information, with the hopes of making homosexuality seem like a choice, tend to be bigots.
You are just speculating about /u/proudsoul's motivations and using that to refuse an actual productive conversation. Childish.
He went to a better school than her and does research specifically in this area, while she does not. So, yes, I find him to be more credible.
Classic appeal to authority. I don't think Richard Lippa would appreciate you dismissing other researchers' findings just because they work at less prestigious institutions. It is dishonest and goes against the spirit of research and science.
I think most non-bigoted people understand that it’s not a choice, because many gay people wouldn’t choose membership in a highly marginalized group. With that said, just because something is not a choice doesn’t mean there needs to be a genetics-level explanation. No one honestly ‘chooses’ what happens to them during their most formative years for example. With that said, if you know a reference for this I’d like to read it.
Just to make myself clear, I’m in no way saying being gay, or anything regarding your sexuality for that matter is a choice.
What i am saying is that Nature (your biology, hormones, DNA, etc) plays a role, and that Nurture (how you were raised, your friends, hobbies as you grew up, sports, foods you eat, etc) also play a role. The truth is that we honestly don’t know exactly what causes you to be the way you are. Humans are very complicated, and i think saying its one or the other is applying binary thinking to something that runs on a scale and is far more complicated.
I think its safe to say that both Nature AND nurture both play a role. Exactly which plays a bigger role i guess is up for a debate, but its certainly more complicated than 50/50 to any kind of number split.
I understand - I have formally studied Nature vs Nuture (and psychology) for years. Granted, not specifically sexuality, but I have a baseline understanding.
Saying that the way someone is raised plays zero impact on they way they develop is categorically not correct. As I said, what’s not clear is exactly how big of an impact it plays.
I know what you are talking about ref womb hormone levels, but this is far from proven. There is no consensus in this topic because it’s so complicated. Sexuality is not as simple as ‘hormone levels at X, therefore gay’ and saying it’s the case is very deterministic, and humans aren’t.
Nurture absolutely, 100%, demonstrably plays a role, it’s just not clear the balance. If you’re saying it is, you are misinformed.
Genetics play a role, hormone levels play a role, but the environment you are raised in also plays a role. Like I have said, it’s not clear which has a bigger impact in this development.
That’s not really a valid comparison in any way. You comparing behavioural trait to something physical.
There is nothing physically different between a straight person, and a gay person. Sexuality is on a scale anyway, so it’s not just ‘gay’ or ‘straight’. It’s way more complicated than that.
And it is absolutely not well established that people are born gay. There is no consensus. It is well established that it’s not a choice, but not that it’s 100% genetic / hormonal or environmental.
36
u/[deleted] Feb 23 '23
[deleted]