Homosexuality in the Forgotten Realms

[Shemeska]

My point here? Don't believe everything you read ... even if it's coming from a very reputable source. Politics are everywhere.

Hold on now. You go to great lengths to try to cast doubt on each and every source I cited from various journals, yet based on a post of yours a few pages back when you were asked to cite your sources you seemed perfectly willing to place your trust in the absolute validity of books from 1966, education journals, an unpublished masters project, and similar sources. You're kidding right?

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

Hold on now. You go to great lengths to try to cast doubt on each and every source I cited from various journals, yet based on a post of yours a few pages back when you were asked to cite your sources you seemed perfectly willing to place your trust in the absolute validity of books from 1966, education journals, an unpublished masters project, and similar sources. You're kidding right?

Nope. Those should be looked at carefully, as well! Especially the one from those wacky crackpots, Masters & Johnson.

You're totally right, Shemeska. I'm not being sarcastic about this.

Here is why I reacted so strongly. The thing is, forging a connection between genetics and homosexuality is both an ethically and politically scary place to take us. We need to tread carefully here. I felt you were a little cavalier in a couple of your implications.

The first being that science says the percentages of gays out there are a lot lower. That's how a layman might likely interpret your statement anyway. I wanted to correct for that and maybe delve a bit deeper instead of just accepting your statement at face value. I'm glad I did. These biologists are just interviewing. That's all they can do right now.
The second implication is here:

...recent work is strongly suggestive of it being a physical thing, with persuasive evidence for an underlying biological influence on prenatal brain development being the root cause (hormonal influence in-utero is one possibility).
(bold mine)

Whoa. That's some loaded language! Strongly suggestive how? Persuasive to whom? A non-scientist reading this probably feels like Einstein is peer-pressuring him into saying "yes, you're right, just please don't notice how I feel stupid since I hated science in high school." You are strongly implying a connection between homosexuality and genetics. That shouldn't be done lightly.

Regarding the other studies you mentioned, I haven't had a chance to read them yet (crazy week at work). But really, conclusions can't be drawn from any of these studies until these fetuses grow into adults and start having some sex. Then they need to be interviewed. For statistically relevant data, lots and lots of subjects and controls are needed. We are talking a good 20 years until we can decide if this "strong" evidence is really "persuasive."

That's all. I know I probably seem a bit rabid, but as scientists, we need to be responsible about making claims like this in a public forum.

 

[Shemeska]

Nope. Those should be looked at carefully, as well! Especially the one from those wacky crackpots, Masters & Johnson.

Early work, but flawed. And based on what they studied, I wouldn't use them as a source for your original numerical claims any more than I would use Kinsey.

And out of curiousity, what's your background? Sociology?

 

[Erik Mona]

I fear the work it takes to get to the new ideas and information means Faiths and Pantheons is never likely to be as well regarded as its predecessors.

Yeah, I agree. I'm over it.

Mostly.

And you're right. Eric and I both thought the long deity stat blocks were a complete waste of time, but there was a sort of core/FR hoe-down going on at the time, and since Deities and Demigods was going to let you kill Thor, you had to be able to kill Torm, too.

What a waste of effort. Especially since the rules for gods changed after we handed in those stat blocks and some poor bastard had to re-do all of them anyway. As I recall, each of those stat blocks took at least an hour to do.

Ugh.

--Erik

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

And out of curiousity, what's your background? Sociology?

Can't you tell? My professional background is chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology, and computational biology (in roughly that order).

Howard Hughes labs.

I'm interested in a lot of other stuff (like D&D for instance), and occasionally take classes and do things outside of benchwork and staring at code.

How about you (your sub-field, I mean)?

 

[Shemeska]

You are strongly implying a connecting homosexuality and genetics.

I implied nothing of the sort, please don't put words into my mouth. Go back and read what I wrote. I said that the sources I cited were suggestive of a biological cause, but that a purely genetic cause seemed unlikely.

I think most of the evidence weighs massively against it being as simple as that. That said, recent work is strongly suggestive of it being a physical thing, with persuasive evidence for an underlying biological influence on prenatal brain development being the root cause (hormonal influence in-utero is one possibility).

Regardless of underlying cause, this didn't start out as debate on genetics or nature or nuture, and let's avoid it going there. This all started because you claimed some numbers and then when pushed you backed them up with sources that I felt were inappropriate evidence to support those claims. In response I gave several recent papers that gave other numbers that were quite different from your claims.

And since you asked, I'm a cell biologist with some crossover into immunology.

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

My principal point was that any evidence must be looked at carefully, including yours and mine (which included some old and some very recent articles ... it was a bibliography for an unpublished paper I wrote ... some of the sources are quite persuasive). As long as the research methods are sound, then any source should be considered "appropriate."

The Masters and Johnson work was indeed flawed but seminal, which is why it might appear in a term paper I'm sure you can imagine. Also, I think it foolhardy to discredit a paper simply because it was not published in the last few years or even decade. Many of the greatest papers ever written (featuring the most elegant of experimental designs) were published before we were born. If I had bothered to peruse this bibliography, I probably would have pulled out the reference to the unpublished master's thesis. That did happen to be have decent work in it, though, IIRC.

I implied nothing of the sort, please don't put words into my mouth. Go back and read what I wrote. I said that the sources I cited were suggestive of a biological cause, but that a purely genetic cause seemed unlikely.

When you described it as having a "biological cause" and before as a "physical thing," I interpreted that to mean that you must believe genetics to be directly involved. You know signalling pathways upregulate genes to modulate hormone levels. Genes encode and express every fiber of the human body, everything that is "physical." That is how I interpreted what you wrote. Maybe that was an unjustified assumption?

At any rate, I do believe that this dialogue is positive, and of interest to those who have a mind to read it. Thank you, Shemeska, for your insights! It's always nice to find a colleague who games.

 

[Piratecat]

The Master's and Johnson work was indeed flawed but seminal, which is why it might appear in a term paper I'm sure you can imagine.

Admin... twitching... must... not... post...

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

Admin... twitching... must... not... post...

ROTF!!!

 

[The Sage]

Ed's quote above (at least, assuming it actually came from him- source?)

Yes, it does come from Ed. I wouldn't have quoted him direct, if it hadn't. See the April 8, '04 reply in his Candlekeep 'Questions' scroll.