Morgan wrote:Aineo,
Source on "molecular scientists debunk 'gay gene'," please? Can't remember who did the twin study I'm thinking of, but it looked pretty clear. Something like 30% correspondence between identical twins, v. 10% fraternal? Definitely indicating a genetic influence, at least, regardless of whether or not we can <I>find</I> the gene(s) in question.
Bailey, who is a human geneticist. These are two different disciplines.
Episcopalian,
There are more possibilities than "intersexed" and "normal." At least I would assume so, just from the existence of all the myriad shades of genderqueer. And I can't imagine it's a coincidence, that so many gay men are somewhat feminine, and so many gay women are somewhat masculine. Not all, though -- just as quite a few transsexuals end up being gay, too. (Speaking of which, have you even heard of transsexualism? Or is it just that "intersex" the only sex-related birth defect you think is real?) So, yes, it seems clear to me that whatever's going on is interrelated, and complex -- much more complex than "bad hormones = physically intersexed."
You know as well as I do that some of these behaviors are affected, not inborn.
But I'd be interested in hearing your theory of homosexuality, if you think you've got one with better science than "gay science." Because I've yet to see your side come up with much more than case studies -- which are, of course, essentially anecdotal.
You appeal to Bailey's study on twins, which is essentially anecdotal. So what is it anecdotal studies that support you are okay and those that don't are not?