Jan 24, 2020, 8:57 PM
(for some reason jayman is countersigning and I haven’t figured out why yet)
Again: This is because as far as I know, homosexuality is an in utero developmental failure that was insufficient to produce either male brain or miscarriage. The two most common theories attribute this to immune system responses to internal (genetic) or external (viral) stimulus.
Meta-analysis: Homosexual men’s, but not homosexual women’s cognitive performance was closer to that of heterosexual individuals of the opposite sex. https://t.co/Ni34yPILMK pic.twitter.com/cqHXoAVF3B
— Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf) January 24, 2020
—“No that’s not what it is, nor does that make any sense whatsoever. That said male and female same-sex attraction likely do have different etiology”—JayMan @JayMan471
It makes perfect sense. AFAIK immune response, possibly to T. That doesn’t mean it’s true. If you have a better body of science to work from then I’d love to see it. But this is a subject I’ve followed for three decades, and the two theories are still out there working.
—“[See] Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs”—JayMan
@JayMan471
Agreed. That doesn’t nullify the (a) runs in families (b) second son, (c) testosterone and immune system theories. As for the viral is merely that I can’t falsify the hypothesis, so I’m not willing to take it off the shelf.
And BTW: Nothing in that set of articles or any other, undermines the hypothesis that (like cervical cancer by viral transmission) that there isn’t some other immune trigger either heritable or environmental that produces the defect in development.
BTW 2: So far in the two or three times you’ve disagreed with me it’s because you are rushing to judgment. I realize that the world is full of idiots you must defend your time and space against. But I’m not one of them. -hugs
This paper is accessible, from 2016, and summarizes the findings from across the decades. It’s rather obvious that “The fraternal-birth-order effect” is currently the most convincing cause, and its heritability, a most convincing vulnerability.’