highlyeccentric | (no subject)

(no subject)

This is whacked.

aside from the generally unpleasant wording, as if it's tracing the occurance of some kind of disease, i find the idea that a mother's body treats a male child as invasive a bit weird... and this theory only traces 'causes' of male homosexuality- do they think lesbianism isn't really homosexuality or something? what kind of study on homosexuality only looks at males?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

i find the idea that a mother's body treats a male child as invasive a bit weird

I've heard that theory before, and I think it kind of makes sense - the presence of so many Y-chromosome cells means the foetus is more likely to be recognised as a foreign body. Female foetuses can slip under the radar more easily because they are more similar to the mother's tissues, so the immune system doesn't react so strongly. This has also been suggested as a theory for why male foetuses are miscarried more often.

As for whether it causes homosexuality, I don't know, but I find it an interesting theory - although, as you say, it doesn't really tell us anything about lesbians.

*tilts head* hmm... the link to miscarriage makes me curious, now you mention it. the women in my family have a bizzare genetic disorder, which does nothing much to us except give us patchy pigment in our skin. apparently it has the potential to do all kinds of weird shit, but we seem to have an inactive strain.
point is any male child with the disorder will miscarry at three months. for two live children, one male and one female, mum went through six pregancies, (i think).

hmmm... interesting stuff.

I am the eldest child... I wonder whether I could have had an army of gay brothers if Mum hadn't stopped at two.

I know what you are saying but I choose to read this as you having two brothers. So when are you going to introduce me to them?

now just think what the world is missing out on... just think of all the fun you could've had with your nice conservative church... *giggles*

David's the eldest, too, isn't he? And James so far as i can tell is boringly hetero. just out to prove the statistics wrong, aren't they?

I'm less worried about the fact that they didn't look at the female side of the story, more about the fact that they didn't actually research the "mechanism at play". The whole thing is just a theory - no actual research was done AT ALL!!

Please understand I don't not care about the females, I just don't care for pseudoscience.

Although, I do have an older brother, but only one, so maybe that explains why I sit on the fence XP

I swear this is ripped off from a New Scientist article from about three years ago - there may have been reference to original research there, I don't remember. I know the New Scientist article did quote some study which showed that homosexuality correlated with the number of older brothers, even if the brothers weren't raised together.

I have heard the "mother's body treats a... child as invasive" bit before (though not specifically the male child part) -- and while I'm out of my depth on the specifics, I do remember that there's something where nutrients/energy/something is passed back and forth across a wall, 'cause if the mother's bloodstream came in contact with her child's, her white blood cells would treat this as an invasion. Though perhaps this is more related to different blood types.

There is something in there that isn't just a product of my imagination... honest!

*pats you* of course dear.

i've heard the concept before, but only from feminists declaring that 'feotuses are parasites and so we can abort them as we please'.
that line of logic really annoys me...

A total of 944 Canadian men were interviewed for the study

That line alone should give the hint as to how seriously to take this study. Less than a thousand men? In one country?? And no doubt a population that small would be skewed demographically too. Never mind the not researching the actual mechanism part! Argh! That's not research, it's CONJECTURE!

Ridiculous. And insulting. I mean, what is this anyway: the modern day version of family succession? The oldest son inherits, the second goes to the army, the third into the clergy and the fourth...is gay?? WTF?

Sorry to go off so - I'm afraid this sort of thing presses ALL the wrong buttons for me. I wish people would stop pathologising homosexuality and just bloody well accept it as being a natural phenomenon on the incredibly broad and varied spectrum of human sexuality.

Ok, rant over *slinks away*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only