Wednesday, December 27, 2006
I wonder how much this has spread in the media, but I found it funny. I’m a habitual reader of World Net Daily (yes, it’s a bad habit, but again “know your enemy” :-)). There I found the following article: “Soy is making kids ‘gay’”
“There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular.”
The culprit? Soy formula and tofu, of course. But how does this “““health food””” threaten out culture?
“Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.”
Ah, it makes us “““““gay”””””.
Where to start :-)? Does he know what “deviant” means?
But it gets better, another article, (here). This one addresses:
“’If soy is so harmful as to potentially alter sexual physiology and behavior, why haven't the Chinese and Japanese all died off or become homosexual centuries ago?’”
It’s full of nonfunctioning links, and generally boring. Notice though how he often writes about “homosexuals” as though no women are included in the category (he could just as easily, with as much evidence claim it’s decimating the lesbian population), and uses “female” and “feminine” as near insults :-).
Next, in what I’m sure will be a series is here. This gay causing substance causes other horrors it seems:
“Here this cause of gays is linked to “childhood leukemia [3-6], the failure to prevent heart disease [7-8], infertility [9-10], or thyroid damage, with its symptoms of weight gain, fatigue and depression [11-13].”
It’s useful to link your opponent to ugliness, and childhood leukemia is pretty ugly.
Note “the failure to prevent” there.
Oh, and this gem:
“My larger concern is that the increasing number of less robust 15-year-olds who are already "struggling with their sexual identity" will be shoved over that thin line into homosexuality. No, they won’t wake up some morning with floppy wrists and a nasal lisp, but they may begin to gravitate toward social circles where they feel more comfortable — and less expected to be rowdy or brag about a string of sexual conquests. And once a teen is ensconced in a homosexual milieu, breaking free from it could mean abandoning his best friends. ”
The thin line, huh? :-) Brag about sexual exploits? Homosexual milieu? Best friends? This is all news to me.
Oh, I see, this guy understands little about being gay, and knows a lot about being “gay”.
Finally take a look at his references. I see none that support the original title: “Soy is making kids ‘gay’”.
But okay, I’m sure the estrogen like compounds can have an effect, and maybe I’ve been too dismissive, but surely this man’s style and hostility deserves a similar response.
Nevertheless, one more in my list of supposed “nurture” causes (again, with the inevitable nature basis) to homosexuality that I don’t have in my past. I had the natural stuff as a babe and never had tofu or soy milk until well into my adulthood and soy milk makes my throat itchy. I'm allergic to a cause of gaiety :-).
Saturday, December 23, 2006
1. Frantically finishing up one of my gifts to R, a home improvement project involving electricity and water. (Call the authorities if I don’t post again by the New Year.)
2. Helping Santa display his gifts to get maximum eye width out of our children on Christmas morning.
3. Up at 4 in the Christmas morning with a video camera in hand, and making loud, child-waking noises.
4. Playing with my kid’s toys.
So, being impossibly busy, obviously, I thought I’d just post some of the cute Christmas-y items today that have come up out of the mouths of our babes, like:
--“Papa, how do you spell Porsche?” Shocked as to why, I had to ask. Turns out B was writing daddy’s Christmas letter to Santa. Daddy’s a clever advisory that way ;-).
--My little A, in a bold announcement (at 4 years of age) “I don’t think Santa is real.”
I asked who told him that, but he said no one. All I could get out of him was a couple “I just think that”s. But a little bit before he was asking us why the Santas we’d seen all looked and sounded different, and maybe he didn’t buy dad’s answer (I’ve a tough time lying in this arena and so let R do it :-)). So, could he have reasoned that? Of course. That’s my boy! :-)
--In all sincerity, B asked: “Are you Santa, papa?” I responded with a laugh, “No, why would you think that? Is my belly fat?” (I weigh about 160 :-)) “No,” he said, “sometimes you talk like Santa.” (My voice is not near that low, so what’s that about? :-))
--While out trying to make a snowman of too dry snow, A exclaimed “Papa, look, that snow is yellow.” And thus an invaluable lesson was imparted to the next generation.
--The prize for the cutest present I bought goes to the little red ball that Whaley (B’s little whale he takes everywhere) asked for. And yes Whaley was to be my present from B (here), but he and daddy got me another and, with permission, B took Whaley back. I couldn’t really keep the creature; apparently, or so I’m told, the whale has superpowers and I dare not defy or disappoint him on Christmas.
I best stop; some have a low tolerance for cuteness :-). But…
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE (who’s celebrating Christmas)!
I hope you all have a wonderful holiday.
(FYI that image up top is of a poinsettia, though very close; I do try to make them somehow relevant. :-))
Friday, December 22, 2006
But I think a solution has been found.
That said, I’m taking over this blog. Everybody down, don’t panic, be cool, and no one will get hurt.
In short, this will become, within a month or two of transition, a more personal space, and the stuff like research, and history and, to a great extent, my activist tendencies (and whining ;-)) will be segregated into a new site, a collaborative and more thorough space. And never the two worlds shall meet again, and thus the issue is forever settled, and it will certainly not cause any problems like the last site I had ;-).
That is all; you can all get up now.
I just wanted it out there as to why I’ll not be posting as much here on the stuff that will be on the new site. I’m, for example, saving a review on some of the genetic papers. I also felt I should explain the change in frequency in my postings here and in comments. I’ll split my free time with contributing to the site, and until it’s up I may be occupied pinning down the layout and look (warming it up ;-)).
Thursday, December 21, 2006
ac·tiv·ist [ak-tuh-vist] –noun 1. an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause.
I do certainly have my causes, political and otherwise. But am I “especially” active? Gosh, I suppose I am.
You see, some people (one of their names starts with an L, for a hint), have called me an activist, and a couple times. Now, I absolutely know it’s meant as a compliment, and clearly it’s used accurately, but something is wrong with me with regards to this word. Each time I’m called an activist, I’m partially hit with something like “Hey, I’m not an activist! How could you insult me with such an epithet?”
Have I heard the word uttered too many times by Rush Limbaugh, in that certain way, that it’s become a subconscious insult to me? Do I associate it with the gay activists with whom I once butted heads in my early gay life? Maybe it’s the idea of a particular sort of activist, so myopically focused on their one issue that they’ll trample over the rights of others? I hope I have and I hope to keep from being such an “activist”, but they are out there on both sides. Could that be it?
Actually, I think a bit of all of those are the problem.
I certainly wasn’t an activist by any definition 6 years ago. Heck, while we lived in California I barely realized we were gay :-). If and when I was any bit “involved” it was in online venues, or in giving advice to the gay kids of family and acquaintances. Then we came here, and the hostile legislation started popping up. Our kids came to be, and they certainly changed me. I became a defender of my home in a way rooted deep in my psychology, and consequently I started to feel that need to do something more.
It was actually my father who brought that first something to light and encouraged us into it. We did one thing, and it was to be a quiet thing, and yet it wasn’t so quiet and it snowballed. Now, yeah, we go to many events, even rallies; we are inarguably in “the community”. We speak up, we lobby, and not only online as I used to :-). I guess I am an activist, and [gulp] I’m okay with that…
I just wish I could get over the nasty aftertaste I find in the word.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
I was in the same place I was this morning, exiting the freeway. It had snowed heavily the night before, and it was very cold.
As I was exiting I saw in front of me a SUV, upside down, tires spinning, in the snow covered dirt of the off ramp. It must have happened no more than a minuet before. I pulled over, joining two other cars that’d got there just before me.
As I hurried up to the vehicle, I could see a person kneeling on the ceiling of the car, obviously panicked though I couldn’t hear her. Oddly, though it seems improbably in a rollover now, as I remember, the windows were cracked but intact. Anyway, one of my fellow passersby was trying to open her door and she was frantically trying to do the same. But there were two other men trying to open up the rear driver’s side door.
There was no need for me on the driver’s side and so I went to the passenger’s side. As I looked in it was clear why there were two men working on the rear door. In the back there were two children, little girls, probably about 3 and 5.
But the oddest thing was how those little girls reacted to such a situation; they were completely still, emotionless. They were strapped there in their car seats, upside-down with their hair dangling to the roof, barely moving, no tears, no screaming. I’ll never forget the image. They didn’t have half the panic of their mother. I couldn’t read any panic at all on them really; it was as though their emotions were on pause and they simply watched us like they were watching fish in an aquarium.
I immediately went between wild tugging on the door and looking in to assure the girls. My adrenaline was going; my heart thumping. Though older than mine at the time, they brought to mind my kids. I was in total fix-it mode. But each time I’d pause from working on the door to look in to assure them, I’d see the same serenity. It was apparent they didn’t care for my assurance. After a minute or so it was clear my door was going nowhere without the Jaws of Life. It was bent and dug too deep into the ground.
Fortunately the back door on the other side was movable, and the men on the other side forced it open, unlatched the girls, and helped them out. The mother followed. Feeling completely unnecessary :-), I walked back to my car and that was the end of one of the oddest things I’ve seen.
I’d still like to know why that happened, how it happened, not the accident, but the children’s response. It was striking, counterintuitive; I hope my kids would be as calm at such a time but have a hard time imagining it.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Eventually, we made friends with a couple of the trainers. They were straight men, but the stories they told about the gay goings on there…
Turns out there were certain hours of the night in which no reasonable man would dare enter the steam room, as it was a meeting place for closeted gay men, men with families. Our friends had walked in on some shocking and, if you could detach from the tragedy, amusing situations.
This notion was nothing new to me; I had been made aware of it early on in coming out in a dramatic way. It’s a sad fact of a segment of gay LDS life in Utah.
One of such men there, we came to learn, was actually somewhat high in the LDS church; trying not to give too much away, his face was out there as a member of the LDS faith. He was married with kids and had a long time boyfriend, who was also married and in the church. This was no closely guarded secret, though. They were amazingly open with their affection, and when the topic came up the man simply explained that his wife was “understanding”. I’d come to learn how “understanding” when I’d see the men together with their wives right there, and other odd interactions you’d simply not anticipate.
I’ll be out with it; this upset me. No, it upsets me.
Why? Am I a hopeless prude looking to be outraged :-)? Maybe, and, though a similar weapon is aimed at me daily, I’ve a hard time not wielding it here.
At first glance, it’s the sense of instability for the family, and a sense of lies and hypocrisy that sets me off. They can’t be telling the truth to their religious leaders, right? Being a member of the LDS church with your face out there as a member, isn’t this blatant duplicity? I mean, with their marriage vows, they knowingly promised to not do exactly what they’re doing in their marriage, right?
Or maybe it’s also my sour grapes, in part, and I’m just upset that I put such a high value on my home and fidelity and resent such a situation being more respected by my surrounding culture. I’ll not pretend to be above that :-).
In the end, I can sympathize with the predicament of these men and their wives, if not fully understand it, but I do think this is at least a dangerous way to handle it, no?
On the other hand, I admittedly do have to pause and wonder: don’t they all believe, for their faith, they’ve found a way, a sort of loophole that’s relatively stable, the best of the worst (to them)? To them, by how they expect the world to work, this is a better life than the one where they just keep with their wives or keep with each other in an open gay relationship. Something is at least precariously in balance, as I know this has been going on for years.
They have their temple marriage, and their innate attraction met, and all four of them, husbands and wives, believe they just have to wait it out, and it’ll soon be fixed. Sure, in the LDS model, there may be some extra torment for all of them, but they’ve all met the minimum requirements for the highest heaven, right? They won’t be trapped with Hitler and me in the Terrestrial :-). By LDS theology, they can all, eventually, become gods, right? (Not rhetorical :-). I’m really wondering, not wanting to rely on my memory LDS theology)
Eh, but this would be nothing new, really, and nothing particular to homosexuality or the LDS faith. The least moral man in any one's idea of heaven rarely seems to be more moral than the most moral man in its Hell, and I doubt that will change anytime soon. It’s just a bother, another bother :-).
Sunday, December 17, 2006
1. Sexual molestation: It’s not easy to find good numbers on child sexual abuse, as secrecy can be a huge problem, but, when asked as adults, it seems “20% of adult females and 5 to 10% of adult males recall a childhood sexual assault or sexual abuse incident” (1). I’ve seen numbers reported as high as 38%, but couldn’t find a traceable reference. Let’s just say that’s 10% of the population and ignore the likely substantial underreporting problem.
2. Early consensual homosexual experience. Of course consensual would indicate the orientation was already there, but… The best I could find here was a study of which I’m already dubious for reasons I hope to get to eventually, mainly for the conclusions drawn regarding adult sexual orientation using people as young as 12. But they did ask about the same-sex behavior in this group of 12 to 18 year old kids. About 1.5% report same sex intimacy (which is to be taken with a grain of salt as, at such an age for example, I wouldn’t have reported such but one of my straight friends would have :-)) (2). But there’d likely be significant underreporting by the closeted. Let’s just say 1.5%.
3.The demonization or glorification of sex. Boy, I’ve no idea how one would get numbers on that. Let’s just say 0% of the non-gay population experiences either and generously leave it out.
4. Weak or effeminate males (and I suppose strong and tomboyish girls). Again, how to find the percentage of the general public who fall into this category? Let’s just say 5% of the population are noticeably outside their assigned gender roles when they’re young. Seems more than fair, doesn’t it?
5.Having an older sibling of the same sex on which to fixate. It seems the average male has 0.6 older brothers. How to translate that into the odds that any male would have at least one older brother? Thinking back 7 years to Statistics... Oh my, where’s my text? Let’s just say the average person has a 50% of having an older sibling, and then a 50% chance they’re of the same sex. That’d be 25% and because I fudged it let’s error against my argument and say 15%.
6. Domineering mother and distant father, or vice versa. As I can’t find numbers on it let’s just give it to the other side and say everyone but gays have perfect parents in the minds of conversion therapists. Sad as this is supposedly a big one for them, but they win by forfeit here :-). 0% then.
7. By the age of 15, about 40% of the US population born into a union has experienced that union’s split (3). About 17% of us are born outside of a union, married or cohabitation, and 50% in total will have experienced living outside a home with a parental union by the age of 15. So, to be generous again, let’s just say 40% odds of not having an intact home by age 15.
8. Fitting in with peers of own sex. Again, how to find numbers on this one? I’d say only about 10% of kids go through their teens never feeling substantially left out, the popular elite :-). But lets, for caution’s sake, reverse that and say only 10% feel left out of their peer group, alienated or “different” (Isn’t that how most describe being a teenager? :-) I am a generous man in my statistics.).
In the end we have 10%, 1.5%, 0%, 5%, 15%, 0%, 40%, and 10%. Let’s see… subtract from one… multiply… carry the teen angst… Okay: 61%.
Even with all those concessions I gave, which are substantial :-), the average person, who over 90% of the time ends up straight, would have over a 61% chance of having at least one of these characteristics in their “nurture.” (Note that this has some weak assumptions about the independence of some of these but I did error on the side of caution.)
So, simply, if you’re gay and you’re dad left home at a young age or you didn’t get along well with your peers or you were molested as a child, I’d hesitate before assuming such event as a cause in who you are today. Even assuming some of these events do influence a person’s orientation, gays do exist without such in their past, and so certainly gay men who are gay for reasons having nothing to do with these events may still have them in their past, as most straight people do.
I’d fear if such a man were to go into conversion therapy, the therapist may reflexively seek out, say, the fact that a he was from divorced parents. I’d fear that a therapist in such a business would reflexively (not necessarily out of homophobia mind you) build upon such facts a false, though well-honed psychological narrative that could possibly be convincing to the gay man without any part in reality.
On the other side, for this same reason, you can’t yet claim or know that, for example, having a gay older brother means you're gay by nature. Many people have gay older brothers; just as many spent their youth without their dad in the home. Even for the fraternal birth order effect, it’s calculated by the theory’s major proponents that only 24% of gays with one older brother can attribute their homosexuality to such an effect (4). Thank goodness there’s no cure being sold for the nature side of the fraternal birth order effect, yet :-).
Lastly, instead of making another post of this, I’d like to point out, as many have, how the causality in such nurture arguments may easily be muddled. Choosing homosexual experiences in a young age is said to lead to homosexuality, but to me such behavior, of course, suggests homosexuality in the first place. We’ve already gone over the older brother effect (here and here) and nurture in that one has been significantly undermined. As far as being effeminate goes for men, well, of course. Homosexuality, for men is having a typically female trait in a male mind. It’d be no surprise that whatever mechanism feminizes men or masculinizes women in one way, may also do it in a range of other ways, on other aspects of their personalities. Then, of course, those made with such a noticeable difference from the rest of their peers, don’t fit in as well, and may feel like an outsider, particularly when the strong emotions of attraction tell them they should be much closer to even same-sex peers who do not treat them as different.
Anyway, what a complicated mess, huh? :-)
1. Finkelhor, D. 1994. Current Information on the Scope and Nature of Child Sexual Abuse. The Future of Children, 4(2):31-53. Center for the Future of Children, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
2. Bearman, P. and H. Bruckner (2002). "Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction." American Journal of Sociology 107: 1179-1205.
3. Andersson, G. (2002). "Children's Experience of Family Disruption and Family Formation: Evidence From 16 FFS Countries." Demographic Research 7: 344-364.
4. Blanchard, R. (2004). "Quantitative and theoretical analyses of the relation between older brothers and homosexuality in men." Journal of Theoretical Biology 230: 173-187.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
When I came out, though, and looked at those telling me I could change my orientation, I was immediately brought to the conclusion that they were all a bunch of charlatans. None of what they were telling me about my gayness or causes thereof was true, and yet they’d be insistent. I’m sure they lose many gays that way, telling them they must be wrong, as though they don’t know their own life :-).
Down the list:
1. I was never molested. I had in fact never heard of such happening until I heard some really obnoxious classmate associate it with gays in a high school class.
2. I had no homosexual experience (other than maybe dreams I can’t remember) until after I realized I was attracted only to men in that way and found imagining the same attraction to women felt aberrant and wrong. In fact I’d only kissed a couple girls, and only ever went to second base after I’d realized my true attraction, in hopes it would change me. Sorry again girls :-).
So, it was not sexual experience, even imagined, creating my attraction (unless it made me less gay than I’d otherwise be :-)). Funny, I was so unclear on what sex was that I couldn’t really imagine it, let alone gay sex. I don’t know how to put this politely, but I never even figured out how to M*beep*bate until well into my 16th year. As I’ve said, I was naive and sheltered and, when you think about it, doing that for fun really isn’t obvious from a dynamics standpoint. Ah, the surprise of discovery :).
3. Despite my freakish innocence, sex was never demonized (nor was it glorified) in my youth. It was simply nothing that had come to mind until after I was marinated in pubescent hormones.
4. I was never weak or effeminate; my early play activities were far from Barbies and dress up. I spent a good deal of my playtime, for example, on the back of a 3-wheeler with a homemade pvc bottle-rocket gun in hand. I’ve the scars to prove such stupidity ;-). Never have I seen the allure of women’s clothing; seems like a lot more work than what men are required to do :-).
5. Though I had older brothers, I was raised without them in the home, a perfect candidate to test the fraternal birth order effect. I was never left out by them or fixated on them as some suggest is the cause of the big brother effect (see more on it here and here). They were more like uncles as the youngest of them was 18 and out of the home by the day I was born.
6. I didn’t have a domineering mother or distant father, or vice versa (odd how I’ve seen opposites claimed to do the same thing). I had and have wonderful parents, and in very traditional male/female roles. Stop insulting them. :-)
7. In the same vein, my home was kept intact and it was far from unstable.
8. I’ve had more than my full measure of male friends and great male friendships throughout my life. I “fit in” far more than the average teen; my house was the house. R was the same. He was, in fact and as I like to brag, prom king :-).
In short, if there was something in my upbringing that made me gay, I'm at a loss as to what it might be, and it seems most conversion therapists are as well. So, yes, I reflexively look at how I experience it, at the natural causes (Which I’ve touched on and will do so some more), just as most straight folks would.
Still, today, I can’t say for sure not having my childhood might help make others gay. Maybe there are gays out there who are so because, along with a predisposition, something happened to them in their youth. [removed the too flippant] I suppose that could be the case, for them.
But one should always keep in mind that all of what we label as the nurture causes of any human characteristic are ultimately based on nature. As I was getting at here, there must be a switch in us to be flipped in the first place. It must be flappable :-), and the wiring that causes a result in the personality must be there and connected. Sometimes even a lock to keep the new state in place may be there and set after the rush of the hormones of puberty, hormones that give most all of us sexual orientation anyway, in a very natural way.
In short, I’d not say with certainty that nurture cause aren’t there for some gays, but I don’t think such causes are near necessary or sufficient for homosexuality in general, nor should one expect them to lead to a more malleable orientation. I bet you could have a childhood the opposite of mine, and still end up immovably straight :-).
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
I went through some gay western history (here, here, and here). This little bit comes in with the inquisition (the last post in that series). I also noted how the Sodom story was transformed into a gay story (here) and used to further the political and theological aims. But Sodom wasn’t enough for some.
Jesus was a problem. He was silent on the subject, strikingly to some of those wanting to act against gays. He also had all that “resist not evil” and “love your enemy” stuff, and backed up the inhospitality angle of Sodom. The best excuses for killing gays were in the Old Testament (along with laws most, even in the Church, were happy to ignore), and in the purported words of Paul, a non-perfect human, who advises against even heterosexual marriage. Something more was needed to justify the actions of the inquisition; Jesus needed to be tweeked.
That sort of extra something may be found in the Diccionario de los inquisidores (Translation from Compton’s Homosexuality and Civilization) (1494):
“The day of the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ was prefigured according to Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome by the fire of Sodom, since all the sodomite in the world were annihilated on that night. The light was so potent that it destroyed all those who had engaged in that vice. It was the work of Christ.”
So why didn’t Jesus say anything about gays? Simple, because He killed them all the day of His birth, and there were little to no gays on which to comment. And, of course, now the Church of the time was justified in His example.
Odd no historian mentioned the immolating end of all those gay Romans ;-); even more odd and terribly sad that the inspiring image of the savior Christ child would be used in such a way.
The author, of course, couldn’t rewrite the Bible at this point and so it’s attributed to two revered saints, second best at the time I suppose. But no modern scholarship has found such opinion in the writings of either saint. Yet, this story was used to further justify the killing and torture of gays and was used in theological treatise as late as 1860.
Ugly Christmas story, to be sure, and I apologize for the image, but I think it’s important to remember such past. It's illustrative of how people claiming the moral high ground can make the most vile of sins shine like morality by wrapping them in such imagery. It’s happened in our recent past, and it certainly will happen again.
Monday, December 11, 2006
[Err, decided I best leave this story out for some privacy :-), but:]
I didn’t learn my lesion though. We were out, and I was thinking we should do what most in our shoes can’t for legal or personal reasons, and keep speaking. I’d find a way to control it, right? :-) But there’s not been more than one or two media instances since that hasn’t either left me misquoted, or misattributed. Sure, they get a good deal right, but somehow the story is pushed out of reality and into a more sensational key.
Don’t get me wrong; I know and like some of the people in the press. I’d trust their accuracy. But in general they’re selling a product and, consciously or no, many in that business, in my experience, lean towards what sells. And I’ve had it go both ways: conservative press making me fanatically liberal and liberal press making me fanatically conservative.
In short, expect this if dealing with the media. Expect the most radical thing said to be phrased in the most radical way, in the most radical context (and then attributed to you :-)). That’s what you should be relieved to not see the next day, as that’s what’s significantly possible.
Anyway, if I didn’t type it, ask me about it before it’s attributed to me. More than once I’ve had to call friends and family to tell them the news wasn’t accurate. Heck, even some of what I do type I’d not claim ;-).
Friday, December 08, 2006
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Seems the typically prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster) is a paragon of puritan chastity. They find a mate and that’s it; they’re dedicated husbands and fathers.
Not like that slutty meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Seems the meadow vole sleeps around, uh huh. They’re generally neglectful of both the wife and kids. I bet they try to blame it on “selection pressure” due to the "vast" difference between prairie and meadow environments, or the way they were raised. Whatever, we all know they have vole free agency.
But it turns out prarie voles generally have longer microsatellites (“genetic stutters, usually just two or four bases long”) near the encoding region for a receptor for vasopressin, causing them to take in more of the hormone. Researchers have even been able to take the licentious meadow voles and, using a viral vector, alter their genes to increase the number of these receptors. The voles are thus converted into faithful mates.
It’s an injection for mortality ;-). Would you take it?
Studying humans is far more difficult, not to mention controversial; no one will be altering our genes in a double blind study to see if we abandon our illicit trysts. Furthermore, a possible mechanism in humans for such would likely be more complicated. But this same hormone has been found to play a role in autism, which is well known for it’s social limitations, and a similar microsatellite has been found to be far shorter in chimps than in humans, but near the same size for the more social and gregarious bonobos.
No, it’s not highly relevant to homosexuality, not near other studies I could (and have and will :-)) reference. But it’s one of my favorites, something about the cute vole I guess.
It is a striking effect on sexual and familial behavior, though, and it does make one wonder. If your justice involves punishing people for their “free will” choices, instead of controlling already constrained human will by presenting additional consequences, what happens if people are found to make all their choices for a reason?
Also, let me add to this long held post, I’m posting this today as it was brought to mind by the post on monogamy by Mark, here. Personally I feel monogamy is as right for me as homosexuality. I check my innate self and it reports back the same: I’m a gay prairie vole ;-). As I wrote there, I can’t really say monogamy is a righteous thing that I cling to in a noble act of self-sacrifice. It’s not; it’s what I want, something in which I find great value. I’ve no ethical problem with my meadow vole cousins—clearly there’s a pressure to keep both of us in the population. I’ve no problem with sex as long as it’s not used to hurt the other voles :-).
1. Lim, M. M., Z. Wang, et al. (2004). "Enhanced partner preference in a promiscuous species by manipulating the expression of a single gene." Nature 429: 754-757.
2. Hammock, E. A. D. and L. J. Young (2005). "Microsatellite Instability Generates Diversity in Brain and Sociobehavioral Traits." Science 2005(308): 1630-1634.
3. Pennisi, E. (2005). "In Voles, a Little Extra DNA Makes for Faithful Mates." Science 308: 1533.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Each time, though, I get this tinge of suspicion that just taking my family there may be disrespectful to the owners. Could I dare ask a sister missionary to snap our picture :-)? I get the same little voice of Ms. Manners in my head when were invited to, say, a Baptist wedding, and I’ve turned down an invitation to visit a mosque for a similar reason. Is that even slimly warranted? I supposed it depends on the owners.
As we approached the temple, A didn’t help.
He said, “Ooo, Papa, look at the castle; it’s very big. Can we go in the castle?”
I just laughed and told him, no, it's closed.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
5:30 AM – Wake up to the sound of door opening and little hands nudging my face.
5:45 AM – Stop imagining A is going to fall back asleep.
5:50 AM – Leave R to sleep and pour three bowls of cereal, two glasses of OJ, and one glass of milk.
6:30 AM – Start getting the kids ready for the day, waking up R who then takes over.
7:30 AM – Kiss and hug all goodbye.
8:00 AM – Arrive at work.
8:00 AM to 4:00 PM – Work, with blogging breaks :-). Beakers, magnetic stirrers, transducers, and so on… many carcinogenic chemicals that keep me alert.
4:30 PM – Arrive at home and take the kids and dog for a walk, or on errands in these winter months.
5:30 PM – Eat a delicious dinner, the sort one would find at the finest restaurant or from the most long-suffering Mormon matriarch.
6:00 PM – Light saber duel/ Monster hunt (playing the role of the monster)
7:00 PM – Read books with very simple vocabulary, wind down. Watch TV or go online.
8:00 PM – A twenty minuet going to bed ritual, involving the brushing of teeth, more reading, the finding of the correct stuffed animal (Note: changes nightly in a seemingly random pattern), and the specially choreographed scratching of the backs.
9:00 PM – back to bed.
Tuesday nights – Leave R and take A or B out alone, as R takes the other (switch each week). Dinner, ice cream. It’s our family-not-home evening :-).
Friday and Saturday nights – Go out? No way. You ever try to wait an hour to get into a crowded restaurant with twin toddlers? Eat at home; in bed at 9.
Sunday – Breakfast out, Costco, family dinner with the grandparents.
Anyway, I just wanted to clear up how one lives the gay lifestyle.
I probably shouldn’t have because I hate it when straight people take on the gay lifestyle too. Don’t they call them metrosexuals or something? Sheesh, get your own lifestyle.
In some seriousness, it always strikes me as odd that the actions of a life may be the same as your neighbors, or 100% boring and more traditional than tradition every was in reality, but the fact of a person’s anatomy, not their actions, not the actual “style”, all the sudden makes it “thee gay lifestyle”. In actuality, gay men married to women are living a gay lifestyle; I’m living a gay lifestyle; the leather-clad lad on Castro is living a gay lifestyle. I’m also living a right-handed lifestyle, and a brunet lifestyle.
Too often “gay lifestyle” is used to paint us with a broad brush. It’s come to mean something--we all know what--but not what the words strictly mean. The words tell you nothing about what the gay person actually does; it’s as descriptive as “right-handed lifestyle”. Instead it often (not always), meant or not, carries a detailed insult, and descriptive pre-judgment of its focus’ imagined actions that can be conveniently denied if pressed. (If it's not meant, then please forgive me if it sets me off)
This brings to mind a public debate I was once in and my opponent kept calling my life “the gay lifestyle”, and I only wish the antipathy with which those words were colored could be conveyed in a font. But she knew nothing about my lifestyle, only our sex. I did know though, as she was quite a public figure, that she had some familial failings in her history, which I must assume is “the straight lifestyle,” right? :-)
Monday, December 04, 2006
As I’ve written, just before coming out I was in quite an awful state. Panicked, nervous, confused, you name it. Sad is an understatement. I’ll not go over that again, but, for the purposes of this post, all I need recall is that it did make me physically ill, and all that was washed away the moment I came out to my parents.
A while after that, my parents approached me wanting to know if I might want to talk to a psychologist. My first thought was they’d changed their mind regarding their acceptance, just as I had begun to give it myself. But, to my great relief, they were simply worried I wasn’t gay enough :-). They were worried I wasn’t seeking out others like me, didn’t talk about being gay, that I may still be feeling some lingering desire to not be gay, and that I was hurt by some of my family and didn’t feel comfortable talking bad about them with my parents.
At that point, my mood was fine; it was great in fact. You should see my journal entries; they still make me smile, but my parents were right in part. I was being very slow and cautious and still needed time to think about being gay, and I was upset at some family. So I went.
I vented my frustrations and sadness at our first meeting regarding some kin, and went though my thinking on homosexuality at our second. But, at our third meeting, we ran out of things to talk about, started to repeat, and awkwardly watched the clock towards the end. The intense internal debate was concluded weeks before. A new and stable mode of living with being a gay man had taken shape, and she could see that. At our fourth and final meeting, we both agreed we were done.
Still, odd how helpful those first 2 meetings were. I must add, though I can’t remember her name, how much I respect her looking back; instead off stating the obvious she could of got a check for at least a couple more months ;-), while we tried to create things to chat about. But no, the therapist called my parents at my request and assured them I had my head on straight (so to speak), and that was that. My parents could relax along with me.
Since then, the only other experience with psychologists I’ve had was in being evaluated before becoming a parent, a necessity for everyone becoming parents in such a way (and maybe not a bad idea for the whole of humanity ;-)). We, of course, passed with flying colors :-).
Now, about 7 years ago, I was in the midst of my Master’s degree and suffered an injury that forced me to take a semester off of near all work. After about a month had ticked by, I began getting sick. It felt like I had a chest cold that wouldn’t go away; it was sometimes difficult to breath and I felt kind of dizzy most the day.
I went into the doctor’s a couple times. Finally, on my third visit, the doctor said something like “Look, we’ve tested everything; I think you need to consider that you might be depressed.” What a Quack, I thought (Maybe I don’t get along well with doctors ;-)). I did not feel sad, or hopeless, or anything like I did when coming out. I didn’t feel what I thought “depressed” felt like at all. I had physical symptoms, right?
I went home, incredulous. When R got home I expected him to back me up, but he instead thought I should consider it too. A doctor’s opinion is one thing, but a husband’s is quite another :-) and so I started to wonder if he could be right. Sure, I’d been worried that my injury would get in the way of my career and the days with nothing fruitful to do were tedious. Recovery feels wasteful, even if it isn’t.
The next day I woke up decidedly against any negative mood and I got myself into a new hobby to take up the hours, as a test, and that was the end of that. All the symptoms were gone, and a couple months later I was physically healed as well and back at work. Was it a coincidence or was it depression? I still don’t really know for sure, but lean towards thinking the doctor was right, to some extent.
And that’s it for anything significant, anything that could be called depression. The last time I remember any sizeable sadness (minus certain Wednesdays in November :-)), was when we had a failed attempt at becoming parents, about 5 years ago. While that hurt more than I let on, it’s a pain most adults will know and we relied on each other and got past it.
But that’s the problem. Mood has been relatively easy for me. Emotional difficulties have been there, but they’ve disappeared with obvious solutions. When I've felt down, or worried, I've almost always known what to do to change that and all I need is the want to do so. I fear though such experiences have made being helpful difficult in the face of other’s depression, entrenched depression.
(Eh, I was going to split this into two posts but I want to get this out at once now)
Today I’ve come to know people who absolutely need psychological help, people who suffer from serious depression. Six years ago, I fear I may have wondered why they didn’t just decide themselves out of it. I did; why don’t they? But six years ago I was a bigger fool than I am today :-). I know depression is often not triggered by explainable events like an injury and even when it is I know enough now to know not all pits of the mind are of the same dimensions. Sometime people can’t just pull themselves up; they physiologically, mentally can’t, and need help, chemical and/or talk therapy.
But help is where I’m still at a loss. I imagine what a colorblind person thinks of my sense of, say, red is kind of how I relate to other’s sense of such depression. I know it’s there, in their mind, but I can’t really understand it. You know: what do you mean you don't want to get out of bed? I could imagine that it’s like an inflated, more intractable form of what it was like just before I came out, just as I could tell a colorblind person red is like a warmer, deeper yellow. But neither can ever convey the qualia accurately, and I just can’t see it.
So, when faced with it, what am I supposed to do? Probably not tell those stories above. You know: Buck up; take control; pull yourself up by your bootstraps; confront your problems :-). Some people just don’t have bootstraps where others have them. Some people are depressed without a problem to confront. I can also imagine that, if, for example, something happened to my family, I may not really care to pull myself back up. So what to do for such folks?
I can't say I understand, but I’ll be with them and take care of them if they want me there. I’ll check up on them if they want to be alone. I’ll call professionals if it seems in the slightest they’d harm themselves. I’d tell them to seek professional help regardless. But I is there more?
That’s what I want to know. Is there a best way to act one-on-one, things to say? Should you be forceful, take them out of their home? Nurturing, but how far? To the point of compliance? It just seems like such an important topic on which to be feeling in the dark.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
-A teddy bear that’s brown and tan.
“And that’s enough,” he says.
-A red pair of binoculars
-A silver and blue digital camera (must have lcd screen)
-A black guitar
-An X-Box 360
-The new Star Wars Lego game.
-A microscope (we have one but he’s only allowed to use mine with my attention :-))
-The Cars game
-Star Wars action figures
-A light saber that’s “real”
-A red cell phone (For those who reflexively wonder about our parenting abilities, no worries: he’s near more likely to get a real light saber than a cell phone :-))
(Why must near everything have a color? It makes it so difficult to shop.)
Now, who’s going to be the happiest on Christmas morning? :-)
Ah, aspiration, what a fickle friend you can be.
But I certainly don’t mean put my little B out as some sort of greedy kid here; he’s far from that. He’ll be happy, but he’s very imaginative when it comes to what he wants, while A is more practical (more like his pop :-)).
In fact the only present under the tree for me right now is an emptied cottage cheese tub with B’s favorite toy whale inside, topped by a book (Yes, I peaked, so sue me; I had to know and when I saw how important to him it was, well, all you fathers know what that does to a man). He had asked me to write my name on a piece of paper and put some tape on it; when I went to see what he was up to I found it affixed to my gift.
They really do give the best gifts.
One can only hope to not disappoint (in the very long run, of course, as there’s no real light saber under our tree :-)).
Friday, December 01, 2006
Question 1: Do you flip the switch?
Scenario 2: Same trolley as above but no switch, no second track. You are on a bridge above the track. There is a huge man watching in horror with you and it’s clear to your mind and truthful: if you push him off the bridge into the path of the trolley it will stop it in time to save the 5 men. (No you’re not big enough, yes the physics seem odd, and there’s no arguing with the hypothetical :-))
Question 2: Do you push the man?
Answered both yet?
Are you a normal human :-)?
It seems, in surveys, most all people choose to throw the switch (kill 1 man and save 5), but they will not push 1 man to his death and save 5. Why? Why does it seem right to so many to kill a man by moving one mass buy not by moving another? Five lives are saved in both actions, and you 100% know you’re murdering one man in both.
An interesting radio program on this question and possible reasons for why we take different paths on such moral quandaries is found streaming in mp3 here (the whole program), or here (just the trolley bit). From this radiolab program (I'd recommend the whole program).
Eh, it seemed relevant to some of these topics, but interesting nonetheless.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
What hubris and pride. When my dad was a boy, they knew how to treat southies. Teachers would bind or smack the hand of those practicing such abnormal behaviors (true, actually). These deviants should be grateful today we leave them live.
But no; this tiny militant minority has to push it. They demand my “tolerance” and “respect”, and yet won’t tolerate my views. Hypocrites. In the left wing media they’re all over. I’m constantly bombarded by attempts to convert my family towards their miserable choices. They’d have us believe we could all live lives just like Ned Flanders in some joy-filled left-handed lifestyle. Like it’s okay, not a choice, normal. What a lie.
Twin studies show it’s a chosen lifestyle, as some twins are left-handed and others aren’t (1). Did you also know left-handed people are more likely to be schizophrenic (2,3)? They also more often develop immune diseases and migraines (4); they’re miserable people. Compared to normal people, their intellect suffers as well (4-7). Left-handed people, no doubt by their “parenting” behaviors, are also more likely to produce children with mental retardation, and, of course, teach their children their same perversion (8). It’s no surprise that many left handed people, and their children have been known to be murderers and thieves.
It’s a moral weakness, and we let left-handed and bi-handed people be authority figures to our children in our public schools, let alone become parents and marry?! Sure a few may, by some fluke, raise a passable child in their “families”, but we know scientifically, these kids are worse off, on average, mentally diminished with their schizophrenic “parents”. It’s simply not the ideal family makeup, to be sure, and we should promote the ideal. I’m not saying we should harm these innocent children in any way, of course, but treat them with pity, the poor victims, invalids, raised without right morals, by people selfish enough to raise them.
America has to start thinking of the children! (Not the left-handed children, though.) We should be outraged and stop worrying about hurting feelings; the world is becoming another Sodom. The southies are even more likely to be gay (9,10) (so I guess they ain’t all that bad).
And, no, you pervert, my aversion to left-handedness does NOT mean I’m secretly left handed!!! THE MERE IDEA OF IT MAKES ME SICK.
Now, to all you so afflicted by this moral weakness in my audience, let me say, actually, some of my very best friends are left-handed (or do you people prefer to be called Right Hand Restricted, RHR?). Like my friend Mary Stevens, do you know her? She went to a movie with me once and is left-handed; I thought you might know her... She told me all about how you live in your “community”, all about the left-handed lifestyle. But at least she knows she’s cursed with a detestable addiction.
Such good folks don’t flaunt it in our faces in public displays of “writing”. To watch them soldier on, regardless, on the tennis courts, or scribbling on their right-handed ledgers, they humble me in their courage. They have a noble life of self-denial, sacrifice for their eternity of pleasure, unlike those lazy, debouched southies who mindlessly take left-handedness as a part of who they are and wallow in its many animal pleasures.
Sure, being left-handed in itself isn’t really a sin; it’s just a part of a person that tempts them with evil, and we’re all tempted. This addiction isn’t evil or part of anyone, really, but CHOOSING to act on it is the very definition of sin. Abstention from using your hands altogether is a far more noble and preferable option. It doesn’t matter what harm comes or does not come from it, when you move your body in a certain way, in a certain geometry, do what I do with my right hand... Well, I’m telling you it’s against God’s law. I mean, please, you think God would be left handed, after separating us from the bi-handed beasts of this world, into His image, into right-handedness? Still, I know the suffering you must feel at that (personally, I’m tempted to stay home from church some Sundays; I do feel your pain), but it’s the inarguable TRUTHtm.
While I love and respect all southpaws, I can’t condone that sin, and that puts my compassionate soul in a really difficult position. It’s tough love. I cannot sit idly by if anyone tries to normalize that perversion in my culture. There’s no debating it, but I hope you all can understand. I must do what’s right, and, if I didn’t love southpaws and know it’s for their own good, I wouldn’t hurt them or my possible left-handed children (which I’ll not have as I raise children with morals).
I certainly would support anyone, though, when they decide to leave that deviant lifestyle. Keep that in mind, my left-handed readers. I know the life of those so addicted is filled with sadness and desolation--I’ll make sure of that--but THERE IS ANOTHER WAY! You can change! Studies show that upwards of 93% of southpaws, if they honestly want it and have enough faith and love of the Savior, can gain a normal right-handed orientation (11).
In the meantime struggle on and don’t become one of those militant southpaws, out there threatening the very sanctity of baseball. Their so-called “community” is nothing more than a bunch of one-dimensional creatures brought together by only their sick obsession with using their left hand, and the manipulations of Satan himself, whispering in their ears. They and their invisible demons only want to keep you from realizing your potential, and force their agenda into every American’s home, destroying the very fabric of society (somehow, but it will happen). Militant southies just hate society, and children, and America, and puppies.
Finally, don’t be taken in, my audience. Sure, the militant southies claim they want to be treated with legal parity, but they don’t really care about so-called “rights”. All they’re after is our endorsement of their twisted proclivities, to trick us into calling Evil “good” and Good “evil”. Don’t be blinded by talk of justice and equity--never let such marketing tools blind you--they’re after the corruption and approval of righteous people like us.
And who wouldn’t want that?
:-) Okay, I couldn’t resist after thinking back on handedness and my old site, old foes. Gosh that feels decadent; I see why they do it. You know, I just need to emphasize how much I can’t stand the sins of the southpaws. Try to talk me out of it; I dare you ;-).
1. Sicotte, N., R. Woods, et al. (1999). "Handedness in Twins: A Meta-analysis." Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain, and Cognition 4(3): 265-286.
2. M.F., G., P. Satz, et al. (1989). "Is there atypical handedness in schizophrenia?" Journal of Abnormal Psychology 98(1): 57-61.
3. Mary Cannona, Majella Byrnea, et al. (1995). "Prevalence and correlates of mixed-handedness in schizophrenia." Psychiatry Research 59: 119-125.
4. Geschwind, N. and P. Behan (1982). "Left-Handedness: Association with Immune Disease, Migraine, and Developmental Learning Disorder." Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Science 79(16): 5097-5100.
5. Coren, S. and D. Halpern (1991). "Left-handedness: a marker for decreased survival fitness." Psychological Bullitins 109(1): 90-106.
6. Soper, H., P. Satz, et al. (1987). "Handedness distribution in a residential population with severe or profound mental retardation." American journal of mental deficiency 92(1): 94-102.
7. Grouios, G., N. Sakadami, et al. (1999). "Excess of non-right handedness among individuals with intellectual disability: experimental evidence and possible explanations." Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 43(4): 306.
8. Bradshaw-McAnulty, G., R. Hicks, et al. (1984). "Pathological left-handedness and familial sinistrality in relation to degree of mental retardation." Brain Cognition 3(4): 349-356.
9. McCormick CM, Witelson SF, et al. (1990). "Left-handedness in homosexual men and women: neuroendocrine implications." Psychoneuroendocrinology 15(1): 69-76.
10. Holtzen, D. (1994). "Handedness and sexual orientation." Journal of Clinical Experimental Neuropsychology 16(5): 702-712.
11. Some guy’s web site that I read once and believe wholeheartedly. Dude, just trust me.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
I don’t know, it just seemed like a sequel was in order… Like “The Son of the Murderous Coyote” or “Coyote II, This Time It’s Instinctual”…
Gee, I hope I’m not now fixated on them :-), but the kids still worry about it, bring it up, and that puts me on guards I guess.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
I admittedly still keep track of some of them every once in a while (not near as much as I once did). It’s too late there, I’ve already become so used to them that I almost find them cute, in a kitschy way :-). The vitriol I mainly hope to avoid and no longer go looking to combat is the “I want you dead” sort.
On the lighter side and for example, take one of my favorites, Jack Chick. You may have had his work handed too you on a street corner. He can’t stand the gays (the Mormons, the Masons, or the Catholics either).
I can’t help but find some ironic humor in his tracts, particularly those regarding gays. I suppose there’s no more hilarious an effigy than the one purporting to be made of yourself, one that reveals just how absurdly far into an illusion those burning it have bought. Take for example The Birds and the Bees:
Yes, yes, Mr Chick, if I and my “wife” (and the invisible demons making out while perched on our heads) get our way, we’d put you in prison. Boogaty boogaty boogaty! And the old Gay Sodom yarn… Classy.
My “favorite”: the panel with the quote “But some people are evil and intolerant,” (my emphasis certainly not added or needed). Maybe I should take that shocked gay guy on the left as my avatar ;-).
But, if you think that’s bad, you should see how he treats the LDS, in the ominously entitled The Visitors:
Bet you LDS folks didn’t know your religion was so easily debunked, or that you were modern-day worshipers of Baal ;-).
Ah, classic Chick: the angry non-believer missionary, the missionary about to see the light after such an overwhelming intellectual assault ;-), the literal light that old Aunt Fran gains when she sees the error of her ways. Why, you can see the villainy and morality right on their faces (But not as well as Ms. Henn in the gay tract; she appears ready to throw a kid into her gingerbread oven and take off on a broom).
Anyway, see what I mean? How does one remain respectful and measured in the face of such? It’s so difficult… Must… maintain… respect… for his… humanity. :-)
I think though one of the main lesions learned from my last site was that I can’t take out my frustration with people like Chick on those who share his faith. In fact, one of the best online friends I ever made from that site is a Baptist minister. Simply and of course, not all of them want to harm my family; neither do they all think the LDS worship a Babylonian God :-). To treat them, from the start, as though they are Chick clones is to use just as unfair an effigy as those made in the tracts above.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Still, that goodbye makes me hesitate:
Firstly, I can see why my emoticon use has grown (I don’t think my self-amusement translates too well :-)… ;-)). But there you have it, as prophesized; after a couple years I’m thinking on going back to it.
Furthermore, is there really anything else to say on this site? I mean, just how many intricate and winding side roads do I have to go down before I get it?… I tried to blame it on entertainment, but that doesn't cut it; this isn't fun anymore; it's distressing and becoming absurd….So, in the end, I still have my damsels in distress, axes to grind, hills and underbellies to defend, wicked plots to subvert, frauds to expose, and so on, but I can't help but think that going on here would be going about it the wrong way.
And life is so much better than this. Bitter-sweet, sure, but why kick against the pricks?
So, I'll be peeling off my spandex costume, throwing my cape under the bed, and corking my antlers. I know... A year or so ago, I tried to quit but failed, and so maybe I will again...
Do I want to get into that again? (Haven’t I already with this blog :-)?)
BUT it’d not be the same thing… I hope. I hope I’ve learned a lot in those years; I’m near sure I have. I’ve changed enough to make the above contract null and void, right? :-)
I know this has changed (another excerpt of that goodbye):
I know the sentiment by heart [the sentiment of the violently anti-gay], save for a couple novel notes. Why did I do this to myself [become so familiar with those who want me dead]? I think, all these years I was hoping to become desensitized to the rhetoric by seeking out the people who'd do me and those I love harm. I wanted to hear them say it over and over again, as though each time such sentiment would hurt them more and more and me less and less. Now though, I don't know that I really want to be desensitized; maybe it should be shocking and maybe it should hurt.That was an unhealthy effort, and I no longer hope to “seek them out”; I want to talk this though with far more reasonable people :-). I certainly no longer think being unaffected by other’s vitriol is a strength I want. I also know now people can be cruel and feel it as love, oddly enough. I don’t care either if it eats at them more or less than it does me. It eats at us both and, these days, I clearly don’t have the right to attempt to stoically take damage to those parts of myself; others own them. It’s those others though who make speaking up so important.
That’s, in fact, the crux here, the balance I need to make: an appropriate, measured, and respectful defense, but one that doesn’t trip into angry retribution. If I can trust some of my gracious fellow bloggers :-), I’ve maybe learned some of that in the years past (also, the kids are great inadvertent teachers). Maybe getting back on that horse would be the right thing to do.
Simply, I guess I’m saying, if I do it, I’ll leave the horns corked, (try to) keep the emotions on the blog and away from anger and aggravation, and only take the cape out every once in a while :-).
Sunday, November 26, 2006
(In the following an alteration needs to be made; I'd hope to know if it’s clear before you get to the end :-))
I first want point out how difficult it is to understand who we’re talking about in these studies. Are they people who identify as homosexual or choose homosexual actions? As Perelle et al. point out in their review, An International Study of Sexual Orientation: The Data (1):
“there is no agreement among researchers as to who can be considered a homosexual person, what is the etiology of homosexuality, or what the proportion of homosexuality is in the world's population”
By defining people by the actions they choose, we do find that just under 10% of the US population is homosexual (2). With such a high occurrence of homosexual behavior, one should expect a genetic role in the associated orientation. This fact has been readily accepted and without controversy, for many decades. As Rief explains way back in 1939 (my emphasis) (3):
“WHILE the occurrence of hetero- and homo-sexuality does not appear to conform to any simple Mendelian formula [a simple genetic mode of inheritance], the familial incidence of homosexuality rather definitely indicates a genetic basis.”
More recently, in a review by Orlebeke, 1996, we see this observation repeated with much supporting data (4). Simply, homosexuality clearly runs in families, and no serious researcher disputes that.
But finding the extent and mechanism of the involved gene or genes has been a bit of a problem. To do this and better separate nature from nurture, twin studies have typically been used.
Firstly, similar to what we saw in my past posts (here and here), gay twins also show a birth weight effect, as reported by Orlebeke et al. in a study of 1,700 twin pairs (4). They report “very low” birth weight correlated with homosexuality, and theorized that the “possibility that exposure to prenatal…hormones” made these children gay. These finding were repeated by James et al. in 2002 (5). It should also be noted that same-sex twins were more often gay than opposite sex twins (6).
But back to the genes in twin studies.
On the general topic, Sicotte et al., in 1999, did an excellent job of reviewing and compiling 28 studies, which represented almost 10,000 twin pairs (!), in “the largest meta-analysis of twins and singletons conducted to date” (I, of course, see no need to go into each study separately :-)) (7). They found, in part, for dizygotic twins (fraternal, not sharing the exact same genes) that if one twin were gay the other had a 9.4% chance of being gay themselves (choosing gay activities). This is about the same as the background, thus suggesting no upbringing effect, as the twins were raised together.
But, for monozygotic twins (twins who do share the same genetic code), the other twin had a 14.9% chance of being gay. So clearly they found a genetic effect. When a child shares the same genes as his brother, he’s about 1.6 times more likely to be gay himself.
Also clearly, with only a 15% concordance, genes are not the whole story. It’s clear this is where effects such as hormone exposure, immune response, and prenatal experience come in. Regardless, the authors conclude (my emphasis):
“Although the frequent occurrence of monozygotic twins who are discordant for sexual orientation is clearly inconsistent with genetic models that would define hetero and homosexuality as dominant or recessive traits, discordance among monozygotic twins does not automatically preclude straightforward inheritance of one or more genes that strongly influence sexual orientation.”
Sure, there are many discordant identical twins who do not share their brother or sister’s orientation, and there are some interesting findings regarding the non-gay sibling (8). Still, discordance, gratefully, causes no one to rule out a strong genetic effect or claim homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle.
But the genetic cause must be complicated, and a handful of studies bring to question the results of Sicotte, questioning the existence of any significant genetic cause. For example Derom, was unable to find any significant difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins using 808 twin pairs (9), and a similar finding was reported by Ross in 1999 with over 2,000 twin pairs (10). Simply these two studies were unable to find any statistically significant difference between the appearance of homosexuality in fraternal and identical twins.
This apparent inconsistency in the data, coupled with the low concordance found even in studies purporting it, has lead prominent researchers in the field to refer to twin studies as the Achilles heal of the hypothesis of there being a genetic cause of homosexuality (11). Fortunately it really doesn’t matter much, not to homosexuals, not to the general public, not to politicians. While, in my dad’s day, they’d be persecuted for their behaviors, even by public school teachers in front of the whole class, no kid questions or tries to alter his orientation these days. It’s really only of interest to biologists and psychologist who care to study such things. And among them, even those questioning the genetic involvement know there is a biological reason involved and it would take willful ignorance and a denial of one’s own experience with sexuality to think homosexuality is a matter of choice.
Okay, enough. I must confess I stole this idea from a book I read a long while ago (but I put a lot more work into it :-)). In short, the above in this post only is false, and I hope you can see the reason I did it this way. None of those studies refer to what I say they do. To make it true, though, is quite easy: replace all references to sexual orientation with handedness, and those to homosexuality with left-handedness.
There, now this post true; look at the references if you don’t trust me ;-). But read it again and see how it sounds, all true, but now minus the political, social, and religious baggage we all, both sides, carry into the topic of homosexuality and issues of “born that way”.
As we’ll see in a future post, for a genetic role in being gay a shocking amount of the above applies (for example, the birth weight findings again), and where it deviates from handedness it deviates into the direction of homosexuality being more a matter of genes than handedness (perhaps surprising with the apparent difference in effect the two have with regards to reproduction). Both the biological parallels and differences are surprising to me, not to mention the political and social differences (which I just mentioned ;-)).
1. Perelle, I. and L. Ehrman (1993). "An international study of human handedness: The data." Behavior Genetics 24(3): 217-227.
2. Estevez-Gonzalez, A., C. Garcia-Sanchez, et al. (1996). "Neuropsychology of left-handedness: current knowledge." Revista de neurologia 24: 515-522.
3. Rife, D. (1939). "HANDEDNESS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TWINS." Genetics 25: 178-186.
4. Orlebeke, J., D. Knol, et al. (1996). "Left-handedness in twins: genes or environment?" Cortex 32(3): 479-490.
5. James, W. and J. Orlebeke (2002). "Determinants of handedness in twins." Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain, and Cognition 7(4): 301-307.
6. Carter-Saltzman, L., S. Scarr-Salapatek, et al. (1976). "Left-handedness in twins: Incidence and patterns of performance in an adolescent sample." Behavior Genetics 6(2): 189-208.
7. Sicotte, N., R. Woods, et al. (1999). "Handedness in Twins: A Meta-analysis." Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain, and Cognition 4(3): 265-286.
8. Gurd, J., J. Schulz, et al. (2006). "HAND PREFERENCE AND PERFORMANCE IN 20 PAIRS OF MONOZYGOTIC TWINS WITH DISCORDANT HANDEDNESS." Cortex 42(6): 785-970.
9. Derom, C., E. Thiery, et al. (1996). "Handedness in twins according to zygosity and chorion type: A preliminary report." Behavior Genetics 26(4): 407-408.
10. Ross, D. C., J. Jaffe, et al. (1999). "Handedness in the NAS/NRC Twin Study." Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain, and Cognition 4(3): 257-264.
11. Corballis, M. (1997). "The genetics and evolution of handedness." Psychological Reviews 104(4): 714-727.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
2. Allowed children to swim in icy salt water, as if we could have stopped them.
4. Watched a mammal over a ton in weight jump a couple stories into the air. Walked under a floating and vicious shiver.
6. Kept children from harassing more legless mammals.
7. Thanksgiving dinner with the grand parents.
8. Visited our old home. Answered question as to where B was before he was born, when R and I lived in said old home.
10. Rode a dragon five times; towered menacingly over a tiny village; photographed son battling a sith made of a million little pieces.
11. Flew home, and boy are my… ug, never mind…
Ah, we just got back, from where R and I lived for a couple years before deciding to come back to Utah to start our family. I think I wrote that to remember my life before children was like remembering another’s life. Visiting our old home felt the same.
Having our kids back in our old stomping grounds was a lot of fun. I love the weather. I love the variety of people; the social acceptance. I love all the options one has in every day; the sort that only come with such a large city. I love the politically friendly environment.
But there’s a lot we don’t like, a lot we’d miss if we moved back, and a couple convincing reasons to not raise children there. In short, I return more sure in the knowledge Utah was the right choice than when we left, even for us :-).
You can never go home but you can go home, I guess… It just sucks to love something that doesn't feel as though it shares the sentiment. Someday, Utah, we’ll laugh about it; I’m sure :-).
(Curses! The title should have been "A Utah Man Am I", for today. There aren't any BUY fans out there are there? ;-))
Monday, November 20, 2006
To say there is much for which I’m thankful would be a scandalous understatement, as I’m sure anyone in similar shoes knows. I’ll not go into that; it would end up threatening my laptop with girly tears.
But each Thanksgiving, in our family, we go around the table and say what we’re all thankful for about each person (yes, that ends in tears too). So I thought I’d go around this table. If I miss you, I deeply apologize (that was a worry with such a post). I simply went on 1. who had a blog I read and 2. who I know posted or visited here recently (mainly by my gmail 1st page :-)).
Anyway, in order of who I like least to best ;-) (alphabetical order):
Beck – First, I love your music. Second, not too long ago, it seemed to me we posted on nearly the same thing on the same day, and it made me feel good someone was feeling similarly. Despite our differences in homes, I’m thankful for the love you show your family; it’s a sort of love many don’t know. I’m grateful for your kindness and willingness to listen and be open. I’ve enjoyed your blog for a while now and I’ve come to very much appreciate the man I see in your words, struggles and all.
Chris – Many have softened my opinions here but none as much as you and your ex-wife. I’m thankful for being shown that there is indeed a way to get from that point A to that point B with honor and ethics intact. Thank you also for your story. For a guy like me, who left the LDS church quite early, it’s an eye-opener, and I don’t think the importance of your perspective in this debate can be overstated. And you write it out with intelligence, passion, and compassion, a trait that is too rare. Finally, though I certainly understand the need to keep some distance recently, I have to thank you for being there in the comments at the times I’ve felt outnumber ;-), and I hope I’ve done the same for you.
Elbow – Understandably, I don’t think you’ve been out and about for a while, but I must say I’m grateful to have gotten to know what little I do of you. You are so kind. I’ve been repeatedly impressed that, each time I’ve tried to offer help, you’ve never failed to ask me how I’m doing, how’s my family. Your concern for others in the face of your own great heartache speaks volumes of your great worth. I’m very worried for you and think of you daily; I’m sure we all do. I’d be grateful if I could help, but I am still grateful and put at ease to know what I know of the sort of guy you are.
Fob — The poster boy :-). Even though you don’t represent me in the minds of many when you appear in the media, you do represent gay men, gay fathers, and you do it well, and I am thankful for that. I’m thankful someone smart, sympathetic, and eloquent has put his face out there. When I first found these blogs I was bracing for the worst sort of attacks on my sort of family, but, in that, I did you all a disservice. I’m just grateful it’s people like you on the not-so-other side, Ben (not to say others here might not do a passable job of it ;-)).
Foxx – First, you have quite a skill with words, and a way of building dramatic tension; you should be in the arts or something ;-). I’ve looked forward to your stories and posts. I’m thankful for your handling of yourself in a potentially difficult situation, with honor and care. I’m grateful for your example being out there, and know it can change lives for the better, of people you’ll never know. I look forward to following as to where life leads you and where you take it, and am glad to believe it will be a happy ending.
GayBYUstudent – We’ve really just been introduced, but you strike me as quite a nice guy, and I’m always grateful for that :-). But most importantly (and with all you young gays blogging out there, trying to come to terms with your faith and orientation), I’m grateful that you are trying. I’m grateful you care, that it’s important to you to figure this out and not just act blindly or hastily as so many other gay men have to their detriment. It shows an example of a great and valuable maturity that can save you and many others a lot of heartache. And, again, to discuss it in a public blog helps people who’ll never be bold enough to make themselves known. Simply, whatever path you end up on, I hope you’ll be happy, but am thankful you’re off to a good, careful start.
GayLDSActor – Now, you’re not on the gmail page but I do read your blog :-). My kids would say "rules are rules," but they ain’t here :-). Like Foxx, I am very thankful for your example to others who are where you were years ago. I can’t make a big enough deal of this; gay kids, particularly LDS kids, need help and your example is a big help. I’m also grateful for your love of family and the care with which you’re treating your situation. You are an intelligent, creative, and impressive guy and I’m glad to have gotten to know you through your blog.
Kengo – I’m grateful that you are so quick to offer help, and be of help to others. Even though we may disagree on what specifically someone should do, we see eye to eye more often than not and I’m appreciative for those times. I’m also thankful that you’re willing to meet in person some of these men in trouble; I’m sure you’ve helped many people reach a better place and we can both agree on that. You strike me as a compassionate and bright individual and I look forward to getting to know you better.
L – Smart, considerate, good humored, if not potty-mouthed :-), L, I’ve very much come to look forward to your posts, email, comments and chats. I always know they’ll make me think and/or put a smile on my face. I’m also thankful for your exhaustive list of links, that timesaving “latest links” section of your blog, and the fact that your name doesn’t strain my feeble spelling abilities. If I could complain, we just don’t disagree as much as we should; it’s something we can work on :-). In a simple world (and by your political actions :-[) you should be my foe; we should be battling it out. But it’s not a simple world, and you sure don’t feel like a foe; you feel like a friend, one anyone would be grateful to have.
Loyalist – Ah, my Heroes buddy, and an instance where it is actually in the name (minus the defect part :-)). I’m so sorry for the recent events of your life, but am grateful to have come to know you’re the sort who can weather the storms and help others. I’ve enjoyed your political perspectives and the fact that you’re so into the topic; it’s nice to know there’s someone out there who keeps up on all such things, someone I can count on for a knowledgeable take. Above all that, you strike me as a good, dedicated and able family man. You have my respect.
Santorio – It takes guts to speak up for rights when you’ve no need for them and it puts you at odds with your church. A minority can’t change a thing; it takes people like you to give a hand up. Though you’re gay, you’re in a place where you don’t need, for personal gain, to speak up and I’m very grateful you do. You are quick and to the point, not even time enough to touch the shift key ;-), but what you say is insightful, clever, and very much appreciated (smart guy, steal my thunder with the biology posts so early on! :-)). Have a good holiday with your fortunate family.
Silus Grok – I’ve only become familiar with you in the past couple weeks. I am very glad to have you reading here though. As we vote similarly, go to the same plays (or try to :-)), and have similar interests, I’m sure there’s much to be grateful for in getting to know each other better :-). Meeting yet another smart and friendly guy in the bloggosphere is always something to be grateful for. Finally, I am certainly grateful for your avatar; it makes me smile each time I see him staring back at me.
Again, if I missed you, I’m sorry (Now that I see the publish button, I’m second-guessing this post :-)). I kind of bunched a couple folks together, but each blog I read has something in it for which I’m grateful, and I can’t say I’ve met anyone hear I’d rather not have met, even when we’ve exchanged harsh words, :-).
Now, you pay some guys a compliment and then they feel all obligated to say something back. Too d*beep*n bad. The comments are off; you just have to take it. Ha!
Thank you, and Happy Thanksgiving.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Friday, November 17, 2006
I get them on podcasts, and those may be found here (seems their mp3 link isn’t working but it's on that page too if they get it up and running soon).
It’s quite an interesting reflection of many of the topics discussed by my fellow bloggers. Difficult stuff.
As I left off (here), having older brothers increases the chance that you will be gay (by about 33% per older brother). In fact, of those with an older brother, it’s calculated (by statistical magic ;-)) that 24% of them may attribute being gay to that fact (43% for those with two older brothers and so on) (1). Anyway, that effect is there but how does it work? (I’ll be greatly following the review in reference 1, but will deviate)
The theories here may be broken down into pre and postnatal causes.
To recap, evidence has accumulated to the extent that the hypothesis of a postnatal fraternal birth order effect is becoming relatively defunct (2). Early sexual experience (3,4,5) and any other effect of being raised with an older male child (6) has greatly and recently been ruled out. In fact, the older brother need not even be present in the home. Only a womb need be shared, strongly suggesting the womb is the place to look for a cause.
Another important indication that a prenatal cause is in play came surprisingly from measurements of birth weight (1). Blanchard and Ellis seem to have been the first to look at such a relationship in gays (7). They analyzed the birth weights of 2599 heterosexual females, 1111 heterosexual males, 125 homosexual females and 208 homosexual males some with the same biological mother. It was found that:
1. Men with older brothers weighed less at birth than men with older sisters.
2. Gay men with older brothers weighed less at birth than heterosexuals with older brothers.
3. Gay men with no older brothers weighed the same as heterosexuals with no brother.
With Zurcher, these findings were repeated (8), in part. The first finding was not found in one subsequent study, but, as the authors admit, this may be due to the fact that their controls were all suffering from clinical disorders and found from a psychiatric hospital. One has to be careful from where one picks their “average” human ;-). But that first finding was repeated by Cote (a bunch of crazy French accents on that) (9).
It may also be important in finding this mechanism to note that gays seem to run along the maternal line more frequently (10). I’ve got’em on both sides. This could indicate there’s something passed in the genes from mother to male child, but it could also be evidence that the maternal line has characteristics that cause the mother’s biology to influence her child towards homosexuality.
Regarding these findings a “single-mechanism” hypothesis has been proposed. Here there is one cause from the mother for both the low birth weight and homosexuality. So, if this mechanism isn’t present (no older brothers) there’s no effect on gayness or weight (#3 in the above findings). A bit more of this mechanism and baby boys are slowed in their growth, and made more effeminate (#1 above, along with Reference 1). Finally, a high dose of this mechanism leads to homosexuality (#2 above).
The front-runner as to what this mechanism could be seems to be the maternal immune hypothesis (11,12). That’s not to say others are not possible. Neither is that to say there aren’t other prenatal effects, such as hormone exposure (to which I’ll eventually get but I’ll limit the focus in this post to the cause of the fraternal birth order effect only).
It is known that a variety of cell types from the fetus enter the mother during a typical pregnancy, and do more so during birth and throughout abnormal pregnancies (21-23). In the maternal immune hypothesis, such wondering male cells are more readily recognized by the mother as foreign, due to their sex. With each exposure, each pregnancy, she may develop a progressive immunization. The related antibodies may then cross the placental barrier in future pregnancies to attach to the same male markers in the first child’s younger brother, thus altering his development, attacking what would have made him fully male (thus no such effect in lesbians). Importantly, in this theory each older brother would increase the chance that the next will be gay, as we see in the data.
Now, this is the prevailing theory, no one has found a smoking gun in humans, and how to do so ethically, in a simple manner, may be problematic. But such a theory is not without it’s evidence. As early as the first days of a pregnancy, a H-Y immune response (an response to molecules expressed by male but not female cells) has been shown in mice and cattle (24-26). This, of course, also means this effect may be in play even if you have no older brother, and it may be even stronger than the current data suggests, which only uses live births. Also, immunization to paternal antigens have been known to affect birth weight in rats (13), and mice (14, 15). Unfortunately, such experiments on humans would be frowned upon by anti-science fanatics ;-).
In humans, though, it’s not a theory without a real, and well-understood example: hemolytic disease or HDN. A woman who is Rh-negative and carrying a Rh-positive child (due to a Rh-positive father) develops an immune response to the child’s blood, which enters her system primarily during birth. Subsequent Rh-positive children are affected more and more by this attack, as seems to happen for the fraternal birth order effect. The first child is fine, the second may be anemic, and the third may never make it to term, as the mother’s immune system destroys their blood (16). It’s also important to note, adding strength to the maternal immune hypothesis on gays, it’s been shown the immune response in HDN is more likely to occur in male children, indicating mothers recognize and attack male cells more often as foreign than female cells, as one might expect (17-19).
But HDN affects the blood, and we’re talking about the brain. Here too there is evidence of a mother’s immune system playing a role. Serum from women who’ve produced autistic or dyslexic children, when injected into pregnant mice, produce mice with mental deficits (27,28). Also, in humans, boys with cognitive disorders show the same fraternal order effect that we see in gays, but girls do not (29, 30).
As to the specifics of this theoretical immune response, a number of H-Y antigens have been discovered. Of those, we do know of some good candidates. Of the 27 known proteins and protein families encoded on the Y chromosome, 12 are expressed throughout the body, and three are known to be specific to the brain and two of those on cell surfaces (20). Both of those are instrumental in cell-cell adhesion and thus the structure of the male brain. But who knows? It could be a protein encoded on another chromosome and only regulated by the Y chromosome. Much is to be done.
Let’s end it there. Though there are a couple of other variants on this theme involving the placenta and some hormonal effects, that’s plenty for now. To sum up, we see this fraternal birth order effect as one of the more prominent predictors of homosexuality, and it seems we are closing in on its mechanism. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. For example, right now we have treatments for HDN, preventative injections. Maybe the question will someday be there for mothers with such antigens: Do you want to stop your infant from being gay?
I’ll take a break from the research for a while.
1. Blanchard, R. (2004). "Quantitative and theoretical analyses of the relation between older brothers and homosexuality in men." Journal of Theoretical Biology 230: 173-187.
2. Purcell, D., R. Blanchard, et al. (2000). "Birth Order in a Contemporary Sample of Gay Men." Archives of Sexual Behavior 29(4): 349-356.
3. Wellings, K., J. Field, et al. (1994). Sexual Behavior in Britain: the national survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles. London, Penguin Books.
4. Dawood, K., R. Pillard, et al. (2000). "Familial Aspects of Male Homosexuality." Archives of Sexual Behavior 29(2): 155-163.
5. Bogaert, A. F (2003). "Number of older brothers and sexual orientation: New tests and the attraction/behavior distinction in two national probability samples." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84(3): 644-652.
6. Bogaert, A. F. (2006). "Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation." Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Science 103(28): 10771-10774.
7. Blanchard, R. and L. Ellis (2001). "BIRTH WEIGHT, SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE SEX OF PRECEDING SIBLINGS." Journal of Biological Sciences 33: 451-467.
8.Blanchard, R., K. Zucher, et al. (2002). "Fraternal birth order and birth weight in probably prehomosexual feminine boys." Hormones and Behavior 41(3): 321-327.
9. Cote, K., R. Blanchard, et al. (2003). "THE INFLUENCE OF BIRTH ORDER ON BIRTH WEIGHT: DOES THE SEX OF PRECEDING SIBLINGS MATTER?" Journal of Biological Sciences 35: 455-462.
10. Camperio-Ciani, A., F. Corna, et al. (2004). "Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271: 2217-2221.
11. Blanchard, R. and A. F. Bogaert (1996). "Homosexuality in men and number of older brothers." American Journal of Psychiatry 153: 27-31.
12. Blanchard, R. and P. Klassen (1997). "H-Y Antigen and Homosexuality in Men." Journal of Theoretical Biology 185(3): 373-378.
13. Gentile T, Borel IM, et al. (1992). "Preferential synthesis of asymmetric antibodies in rats immunized with paternal particulate antigens. Effect on pregnancy." Journal of Reproductive Immunology 22(2): 173-183.
14. Lu, E. and W. Dawson (1986). "Paternal antigen and progesterone effects on conceptus size in laboratory mice." Biology of Reproduction 35(3): 524-530.
15. Saji, F., K. Nakamuro, et al. (1980). "Sensitized T-lymphocytes against paternal histocompatibility antigens cause intrauterine fetal death and growth retardation." Nippon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi 32: 1853-1858.
16. Adams, M., J. Marks, et al. (1981). "Rh hemolytic disease of the newborn: using incidence observations to evaluate the use of RH immune globulin." American Journal of Public Health 71(9): 1031-1035.
17. Renkonen, K.O., Sepp.al.a, M., 1962. The sex of the immunizing Rhpositive child. Ann. Med. Exp. Biol. Fenniae 40, 108–109.
18. Renkonen, K.O., Timonen, S., 1967. Factors in.uencing the immunization of Rh-negative mothers. J. Med. Genet. 4, 166–168.
19. Scott, J.R., Beer, A.E., 1973. Immunological factors in .rst-pregnancy Rh isoimmunisation. Lancet 1, 717–718.
20. Skaletsky, H., T. Kuroda-Kawaguchi, et al. (2003). "The male-specific region of the human Y chromosome is a mosaic of discrete sequence classes." Nature 423: 825-837.
21. Pertl, B., Bianchi, D.W., 2001. Fetal DNA in maternal plasma: emerging clinical applications. Obstet. Gynecol. 98, 483–490.
22. Bayrak-Toydemir, et al., 2004, Are fetal cells in maternal plasma really there? We think they are, Journal of Human Genetics, 48, 12,
23. Kolialexi, A., et al., 2004, Fetal cells in maternal plasma are found in a late state of apoptosis, Prenatal Diagnosis, 24, 9, 719-721.
24. Epstein, C.J., Smith, S., Travis, B., 1980. Expression of H-Y antigen on preimplantation mouse embryos. Tissue Antigens 15, 63–67.
25. Krco, C.J., Goldberg, E.H., 1976. H-Y (male) antigen: detection on eight-cell mouse embryos. Science 193, 1134–1135.
26. White, K.L., Anderson, G.B., BonDurant, R.H., 1987. Expression of a male-speci.c factor on various stages of preimplantation bovine embryos. Biol. Reprod. 37, 867–873.
27.Vincent, A., R. Deacon, et al. (2002). "Maternal antibody-mediated dyslexia? Evidence for a pathogenic serum factor in a mother of two dyslexic children shown by transfer to mice using behavioural studies and magnetic resonance spectroscopy." Journal of Neuroimmunology 130: 243-247.
28.Dalton, P., R. Deacon, et al. (2003). "Maternal neuronal antibodies associated with autism and a language disorder." Annals of Neurology 53(4): 533-537.
29. ACKERMAN, P., C. GOOLSBY, et al. (1988). "A test of the immunoreactive theory of selective male affliction." Journal of pediatric psychology 13(13): 49-53.
30. FLANNERY, K. and J. LIEDERMAN (1994). "A test of the immunoreactive theory of the origin of neurodevelopmental disorders: is there an antecedent brother effect?" Developmental Neuropsychology 10(4): 481-492.