2D:4D Finger Ratio

[Totenkindly]

I've heard the biochemical developmental argument about sexuality determinism before. My thoughts on this go something like this:-

- I do wonder following Magic Porefin (spelling) mentioning it on another thread but corresponding to consideration of psychology and development that the discussion had moved toward sociobiological determinism vs. memetics determinism. I think this could be important in the consideration of the determinants of sexuality as much as determinants of other psychology or behaviour. Personally as a cultural theorist I think it has more to do with it than hard sociobiological determinism.

- I suspect that considering the determinants of sexuality will be more controversial than perhaps considering the determinants of criminality or deviance. Its a highly politicised topic now and totally a subject of kultur kampf. The mixed feelings of fans of homosexuality about origins or determinants of sexuality, ie innateness at one time affirmed at another condemned, can generally not be acknowledged.

- The argument that sexuality, particularly male or female homosexuality, is determined by the biochemistry of the womb, when I have heard it deployed in Northern Ireland, has generally been done in a manner which on the one hand exhonorates males and fathers of any "blame" for conceiving a homosexual son or daughter, or possible closet orientation. There's an implication there I'm sure that no one friendly to homosexuality or wishing to promote it as a norm would appreciate, it's pretty much still considered abnormal and its something that people accept provided they dont feel responsible for it.

- This has meant that campaigners who once affirmed biochemical or sociobiological explanations of innateness or "inborn" homosexual orientations in confronting "naturalistic fallacies" are having second thoughts. Innateness or biological explanations failing to result in approval, acceptance and support, arguably the real goal of the homosexual identity groups, they arent as useful.

Let me clarify what seems to be the tone here:

There are multiple variables involved in the development of any straight or homosexual or gendered psychology.

This thread is an exploration of one such variable from a hormonal/physical standpoint... not a political one, nor a religious one. I don't think anyone here has so far given a darn about "justifying homosexuality." It's interesting to discuss some things that might contribute to it, but I'm not sure anyone has said androgen excesses in the woman is the definitive contribution. However, it might easily have some sort of effect upon it.

You could just deal with what is being discussed, and agree/refute from a scientific standpoint which was the original angle of this thread, rather than consistently dragging into conversation a religio-political angle as your primary basis.

 

[Lark]

BTW when I said was this real, it just smacks of palmistry and the like, I think those things are fun but hardly hard science.

 

[Lark]

Let me clarify what seems to be the tone here:

There are multiple variables involved in the development of any straight or homosexual or gendered psychology.

This thread is an exploration of one such variable from a hormonal/physical standpoint... not a political one, nor a religious one. I don't think anyone here has so far given a darn about "justifying homosexuality." It's interesting to discuss some things that might contribute to it, but I'm not sure anyone has said androgen excesses in the woman is the definitive contribution. However, it might easily have some sort of effect upon it.

You could just deal with what is being discussed, and agree/refute from a scientific standpoint which was the original angle of this thread, rather than consistently dragging into conversation a religio-political angle as your primary basis.

Alright.

I just gave my thoughts on the matter, imagined it was an open thread and wasnt aiming to track the conversation into justifying anything. Just sharing how information about the origins of sexual orientation are used.

I wasnt dragging the conversation into any religio-political angle but you've consistently mentioned that in relation to my contribution to these threads, I think that's about your filters Jennifer not mine, I'm not the Christian Right foe I think you have me framed as but anyway.

Grand. Homosexuality is determined in the womb. Its hormonal then. Well, suppose that's it then.

 

[Totenkindly]

BTW when I said was this real, it just smacks of palmistry and the like, I think those things are fun but hardly hard science.

Then discuss scientific studies that show that there is no correlation between finger length and androgen catalyzation of masculine physical and mental/behavioral traits.

What you think something "smacks of" is irrelevant to the type of discussion, which has involved scientific studies from Post #1. To prove your viewpoint has validity, use science to either show the opposite viewpoint from the OP, or use science to debunk the studies being used as reference.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Grand. Homosexuality is determined in the womb. Its hormonal then. Well, suppose that's it then.

Har, har, hardy, har-har.

 

[Lark]

Then discuss scientific studies that show that there is no correlation between finger length and androgen catalyzation of masculine physical and mental/behavioral traits.

What you think something "smacks of" is irrelevant to the type of discussion, which has involved scientific studies from Post #1. To prove your viewpoint has validity, use science to either show the opposite viewpoint from the OP, or use science to debunk the studies being used as reference.

Oh alright, I didnt read all this in any of the board standards about participation in the threads. That'll do. I'm glad to know my views are irrelevent and at this point I dont know what you're suggesting is scientific or not but its clear you've got the view that science is value neutral. That's alright. You probably dont want to talk about that either.

 

[Lark]

Har, har, hardy, har-har.

What? Am I missing the point?

 

[Totenkindly]

Oh alright, I didnt read all this in any of the board standards about participation in the threads. That'll do. I'm glad to know my views are irrelevent and at this point I dont know what you're suggesting is scientific or not but its clear you've got the view that science is value neutral. That's alright. You probably dont want to talk about that either.

So you have nothing scientific to back up your statements or engage in the conversation with. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[FalseHeartDothKnow]

This thread might be becoming kinda hurtful to people, I understand that this is a controversial topic for some people, but I'd really like to keep the peace here if at all possible, sorry to sound like a pain

 

[Salomé]

Really? How? What do you mean?

I tried to think of a way to state it more plainly but could not.

BTW when I said was this real, it just smacks of palmistry and the like, I think those things are fun but hardly hard science.

They're not, but a lot of "hard science" has been done in this field.
Just wiki it.

2D:4D digit ratio

The best, non-invasive, marker of prenatal hormone exposure is the digit ratio of the second and fourth finger lengths (2D:4D ratio), a known sexually dimorphic measure (males showing lower ratios than females). Patients with androgen over-exposure (such as in congenital adrenal hyperplasia) show lower 2D:4D ratios,[3][4] providing evidence linking prenatal androgen exposure as key to this feature. XY individuals with androgen insensitivity syndrome due to a dysfunctional gene for the androgen receptor present as women and have feminine digit ratios, as would be predicted if androgenic hormones affect digit ratios. This finding also demonstrates that the sex difference in digit ratio is unrelated to the Y chromosome per se.[5] Additionally, the 2D:4D ratio has been shown to be affected by variation in the androgen receptor gene in men.[6] The ratio of testosterone to estrogen in amniotic fluid has also been found to be negatively correlated with the 2D:4D ratio.[1]
Independent studies indicate that homosexual women have masculinized (lower) digit ratios,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and homosexual men show either hyper-masculinized or feminized ratios. These findings reinforce the prenatal androgen model - abnormal prenatal hormone exposure is related to the development of human homosexuality.[1]

 

[Lark]

So you have nothing scientific to back up your statements or engage in the conversation with. Thanks for clarifying that.

I'm not sure what this is, besides wanting to get the last word, you dont want to talk to me on this topic, its too much trouble, so you find a convenient way of closing it down or shutting me out. At the moment its science.

If I understood what exactly science is being used to justify, seeing as its supposedly value neutral and all, I could probably find scientific sources, at which point you'd probably say its pseudo-science, not science at all or reframe the debate again, so it wouldnt be science but something else I need to provide in order to participate or validate my points.

Jennifer I've debated with the best of them, yourself included, and I know the form. Its a roundabout way of saying "Yeah, who asked you", which is alright. Maybe there's no pont exchanging views or sharing views if no consensus or agreement can be reached, I dont see it that way but that's alright too.

 

[Seymour]

I've heard the biochemical developmental argument about sexuality determinism before. My thoughts on this go something like this:- [...]

Aww, Lark... who needs a big gay hug?

Seriously, though, I don't think the cause of homosexuality should effect the rightness or wrongness of it. Certainly belief in Christianity is non-genetic and not controlled by hormone levels in the womb, but I don't think we should be persecuting Christians and trying to convince them to become non-Christian. Anyway, we have many threads on the morality/ethics of homosexuality, so let's move the discussion there if you want to continue it.

Science shouldn't get involved in politics (and vice versa).

Really? So we shouldn't study policy scientifically to figure out the best outcomes for our money? For example, the best ways of fighting disease, or poverty or illiteracy? Or what gives the most bang for the buck when funding education?

It seems like empirical studies are exactly what's needed in many cases. While not every macro-scale policy is easy to test on a smaller level, plenty of policies are testable in randomized, small-scale ways. Seems like it's foolish we don't do more of that.

Of course, people's personal agendas get mixed in, and that's why peer review and reproducibility is important. We're imperfect, biased creatures... but I don't think that means we should throw in the towel on trying to make policy effective. I do understand the point that the personal political views of scientists shouldn't directly be the basis of policy.


And, back on topic... I think studies have found the finger length effect to be real, but there's also a genetic component. So, once again, it's not as clear cut as it might be.

 

[Salomé]

Really? So we shouldn't study policy scientifically to figure out the best outcomes for our money? For example, the best ways of fighting disease, or poverty or illiteracy? Or what gives the most bang for the buck when funding education?

It seems like empirical studies are exactly what's needed in many cases. While not every macro-scale policy is easy to test on a smaller level, plenty of policies are testable in randomized, small-scale ways. Seems like it's foolish we don't do more of that.

Of course, people's personal agendas get mixed in, and that's why peer review and reproducibility is important. We're imperfect, biased creatures... but I don't think that means we should throw in the towel on trying to make policy effective. I do understand the point that the personal political views of scientists shouldn't directly be the basis of policy.

I'm not talking about political science. (doh!) I'm talking about basic research.
I think you know what I meant though.

If I understood what exactly science is being used to justify, seeing as its supposedly value neutral and all, I could probably find scientific sources, at which point you'd probably say its pseudo-science, not science at all or reframe the debate again, so it wouldnt be science but something else I need to provide in order to participate or validate my points.

Instead of guessing what she'd do, why don't you find some and get back to us?

 

[Seymour]

I'm not talking about political science. (doh!) I'm talking about basic research.
I think you know what I meant though.

I really wasn't sure exactly what you meant. I seems like research from sociology would be important shaping all kinds of government policy. Information on climatology and biology should effect things like pollution standards. Medical research should influence what kinds of treatments get recommended, etc, etc. Certainly politics has an effect on what kinds of research gets funded (but one hopes there's scientific and not just ideological input into that process as well).

I agree that politics shouldn't shape the results of scientific studies, though... is that what you meant? And science is not morality, in and of itself (although I think some would argue that it should be).

 

[Salomé]

Certainly politics has an effect on what kinds of research gets funded (but one hopes there's scientific and not just ideological input into that process as well).

I agree that politics shouldn't shape the results of scientific studies, though... is that what you meant? And science is not morality, in and of itself (although I think some would argue that it should be).

If politics shape the results it isn't science, it's propaganda. (Arguably, the funding either, depending on the integrity of the scientists involved).

Basic research should preoccupy itself with what is and why it is, not what should be or how people might react to what is.

That, inelegantly, is what I meant.

 

[Seymour]

If politics shape the results it isn't science, it's propaganda. (Arguably, the funding either, depending on the integrity of the scientists involved).

Basic research should preoccupy itself with what is and why it is, not what should be or how people might react to what is.

That, inelegantly, is what I meant.

Thanks... that clarifies things a lot.

 

[Shimmy]

The above article claims that birth order accounts for about 1/7th of the prevalence of homosexuality in men. (Of course, I'm a gay identical twin with two straight older brothers and a straight twin brother... still don't know why I turned out gay and my twin turned out straight.)

Epigenetics can explain a lot of questions we can't solve using genetics. There's little known about the subject yet though.

Also, is this for real?

It didnt occur to me until I'd contributed already but there are lots of folk myths about digital lengths and abnormality or even "evil", vampires and werewolves in some stories where detectable by the measurement of digits.

Isnt this likely to result in prejudice and bullying? I know in NI there where problems in the schools when the folk myths about the space between eyes could be used to tell which faith community people belonged to became resurgent (I shit you not).

There's always a chance of things like these escalating into stereotyping, we should look out for that. But realistically, if the link between 2D:4D and homosexuality is statistically significant how is it not worth looking into that? The subject itself is only bad if you put a negative value judgement on it.

Here are some other topics I find worth investigating by science for you to frown upon:
Race and intelligence
Eugenics

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Thanks... that clarifies things a lot.

Heh.

 

[Salomé]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
Here are some other topics I find worth investigating by science for you to frown upon:
Race and intelligence
Eugenics

No. Eugenics isn't science, it's social policy.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

No. Eugenics isn't science, it's social policy.

Finally, the chipmunk says something I agree with, mostly.

It is non-science/pseudo-science.

As for racial IQ, please.

Also, we are getting off-topic.