[Jimbee (OP)]

Just wanted to share this, because it is at least one theory. Plus you know it is still relevant. Because although they no longer use DES per se, the findings are statistical. And would still apply therefor, am I wrong?

Please read:

The Merck Manual, Sixteenth Edition, ©1992 “…The causes of homosexuality are not known and are probably as complex as the causes of heterosexuality. Constitutional factors involving hormonal programming of the brain during fetal life may be a factor. Some support for this hypothesis is to be found in the higher-than-expected prevalence of homosexual fantasies and behavior in women whose mothers received diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy…”

Yeah, but you know in conclusion, there is probably a social component to homosexuality, because it deals with the human, mind, it's unavoidable. That does not mean that it is a choice, or even not physiological at all. But it's a complicated thing though. I mean speaking of human psychological phenomenon in general, consider anorexia nervosa. Did you know that African American women almost never get it. And there's an interesting reason for that. The feedback they get from their partners is always so consistently positive. White men are always so critical of their partners. Isn't that terrible?

But you know anorexia nervosa is  hardly a choice either (and obviously homosexuality is not a disease—as I said, I am talking about human psychological phenomenon in general now). And it's a serious matter. Anorexia nervosa can potentially kill the sufferer. Which reinforces that no one would choice it then.

[Kryptid]

And there's an interesting reason for that. The feedback they get from their partners is always so consistently positive. White men are always so critical of their partners.

What is the evidence for this?

[Jimbee (OP)]

And there's an interesting reason for that. The feedback they get from their partners is always so consistently positive. White men are always so critical of their partners.

What is the evidence for this?

I don't know, it's common knowledge where I live. I am busy now though. So if someone wants to post a cite, I will do it shortly then. Someone else could do the same before then though. As I said, it's common knowledge.

[Kryptid]

I don't know, it's common knowledge where I live.

So no actual data, just anecdotes and stereotypes, huh?

[Jimbee (OP)]

I don't know, it's common knowledge where I live.

So no actual data, just anecdotes and stereotypes, huh?

I mean is everyone else here expected to do that? I'm serious .

[Kryptid]

I mean is everyone else here expected to do that? I'm serious  .

I would hope they would, yes.

You claimed that the reason that white women get anorexia is because their partners are critical of them. If that's the case, then surely you must have seen some kind of scientific study that demonstrated that to be true. Did you actually see such a thing, or did you just make assumptions? You stated it as if it was a fact and not speculation on your part.

[alancalverd]

Anorexia mostly affects young girls who have not had a partner to criticise them. 

[Origin]

I mean is everyone else here expected to do that? I'm serious  .

Yes, it's bad form to make claims that are not backed up with supporting data.

[Bored chemist]

I mean is everyone else here expected to do that?

Yes.
It's implicit in the rules you signed up to.

[Jimbee (OP)]

With regards to a cite, I really don't have one. I saw it on TV a while back. They definitely said that, but you only have my word for it, so I'll drop that part for now.

But my original point, what about DES? I find that fascinating. I really did too when I first read it. I know gays where I live keep saying they were born that way. But I thought that was just what they thought.

BTW, not to digress a little. But I really do like the Merck Manual too. Do any of you get it where you live? It's interesting. Because it's doctors talking to doctors. And you'd be surprised what they might say in that context.

[Kryptid]

I wouldn't be surprised if certain artificial chemicals do have a potential impact on sexual orientation if exposure happens during early development (especially hormone mimics). However, that can't be the only cause, as homosexuality existed before such chemical synthesis was invented.

[Yaniv]

In my theory homosexuality belongs to the realm of pheromones, membrane receptors on sensory neurons, in the olfactory and vomeronasal systems, which send pulses of action potentials and alter neuronal connections at the tip of the brain stem and limbic systems, below the outer cerebrum. And I predict male pheromones to feminise and female pheromones to androgenize individuals in many species of animals.

[Bored chemist]

In my theory

You refuse to use the word "theory" properly.
Should we assume you misuse the other words?

[tackem]

I am in a similar area to Yaniv in an earlier post.
I feel that the use of oral contraception since the 1960's has meant more female hormone metabolites have leaked into our drinking water and has affected developing fetuses.
More female metabolites results in male fetuses being less masculine, and female fetuses being more feminine.
Obviously, homosexuality has been around much longer than the 1960s but in smaller numbers (?)
Perhaps in days past water tables were more localised, so if an area had a larger male population the drinking water was naturally contaminated with more male hormones resulting in more manly men and more women with a (manly) need to reproduce (as per Yaniv's post).

If the area was more female populated the female hormones would naturally pollute the water table, with the opposite result.
This could also explain the cyclical nature of wars. Lots of manly men equals lots of war and lots of dead men meaning the local population is female dominated for a generation, followed by more men and more war.
Perhaps homosexuality is a natural cycle of population control?

[Yaniv]

Perhaps homosexuality is a natural cycle of population control?

In my theory homosexuality is a remnant of pheromonal sex determination from before the evolution of the SRY gene.

[Bored chemist]

Perhaps homosexuality is a natural cycle of population control?

In my theory homosexuality is a remnant of pheromonal sex determination from before the evolution of the SRY gene.

Because homosexuality is observed in birds, which do not use that pheromones or the SRY gene, we know that your idea is wrong.
Why do you insist on calling your ignorant ramblings "theories"?

[Yaniv]

Because homosexuality is observed in birds, which do not use that pheromones or the SRY gene, we know that your idea is wrong.

In my theory homosexuality in birds is a remnant of pheromonal sex determination from before the evolution of genetic sex determination by the DMRT1 gene.

[Bored chemist]

In my theory homosexuality

using that word.png (224.06 kB . 400x345 - viewed 558 times)