Poll: Is sexual orientation a recent invention?

[Darken12]

as if aggressiveness was a male biological trait and not part of the social gender construct.

Several species demonstrate sexual dimorphism regarding aggression. Some with males being more aggressive, others with females. So it could be the case that aggressiveness is a male (h. sapiens) trait, however it would need to be demonstrated first.

There is good evidence that males of almost all species are more competitive for reproductive attention than females, even being noted by Darwin in the decent of man. Males of different species exhibiting a greater tendancy to pursue sexual partners than the females (interesting exceptions include sea horses.) Some people may suggest that this would naturally indicate that males would be more aggressive, I don't think this is a valid connection to draw despite how it may seem intuitive.

Sooooo... you... don't disagree? Because that's basically what I said. Aggression isn't a male biological trait. It's a very complex aspect of nature (as is behaviour itself) and therefore it's excessively reductionistic to oversimplify such a complex issue in such a ridiculous (and not to mention, deterministic) way.

Reading over this thread, I can't help but realize that LGBT should be less interested in finding more categories and adding more letters, but rather fight to reinforce the fact that sexuality is a scale and that labels don't help much. Maybe they're already doing that, I don't know. I just imagine that it would be liberating for everyone to come to terms with the idea that they have at least a minimum level of attraction to many types of people and that "roles" are bullshit forms of living delusion. I can dream, I guess. I apologize to any offended LGBT, and I'm practically a part of it.

Quite often, my wife and I will be watching a movie and I'll say "that's an attractive guy right there". Her immediate response is that she won't be surprised when I come out and tell her that I'm gay (I'm not). I explain that I don't have to be gay to recognize attractiveness in males and that I've liberated myself from the straight-gay dichotomy and draw the line at sexual behavior, to no avail. One battle at a time, I guess.

Most of us support the Kinsey scale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale]. The problem is that (as I explained in another thread) labels are not an inherently negative thing, as people have the right to self-identify as whatever they prefer, and we should support their right to do so. There are also a couple of terms that have been going for quite a long time that have already broken out of the straight/gay dichotomy. The oldest is "bisexual" while the newer one is "bicurious" (which roughly correlates to the 1 or the 2 (or both) on the Kinsey scale).

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

Most of us support the Kinsey scale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale]. The problem is that (as I explained in another thread) labels are not an inherently negative thing, as people have the right to self-identify as whatever they prefer, and we should support their right to do so. There are also a couple of terms that have been going for quite a long time that have already broken out of the straight/gay dichotomy. The oldest is "bisexual" while the newer one is "bicurious" (which roughly correlates to the 1 or the 2 (or both) on the Kinsey scale).

Oh I totally understand what you're saying, and the pragmatic side of my views is based largely on my reading of Kinsey and the institute's wonderful work into the insight of human sexuality. I just tend to have idealistic thoughts that would never be practical in reality, like what I said above. It is in fact empowering to have short answers and easily understood groups at the ready when someone asks "so who/what are you? How do you identify yourself?" The key, I suppose, is not to have one of those identifiers overcome and define your personality. To contradict myself, I'm pretty much a rambling pseudo-intellectual who probably shouldn't have attempted to keep pace with this thread, but I appreciate your understanding and willingness to educate.

 

[Darken12]

Oh I totally understand what you're saying, and the pragmatic side of my views is based largely on my reading of Kinsey and the institute's wonderful work into the insight of human sexuality. I just tend to have idealistic thoughts that would never be practical in reality, like what I said above. It is in fact empowering to have short answers and easily understood groups at the ready when someone asks "so who/what are you? How do you identify yourself?" The key, I suppose, is not to have one of those identifiers overcome and define your personality. To contradict myself, I'm pretty much a rambling pseudo-intellectual who probably shouldn't have attempted to keep pace with this thread, but I appreciate your understanding and willingness to educate.

Pffft, if we're talking idealistic thoughts that would never be practical in reality, I've often imagined a sci-fi-esque future where gender identity and sexual orientation are condensed into a short string of letters and numbers. All the benefits of labels, with tons more accuracy! But I digress.

No problem, I try to educate whenever I can. But hey, feel free to speculate in pseudo-intellectual ways. After all, that's how this thread started.

 

[chikusho]

Actually, not only is there no truth to that, low testosterone might actually make folks more aggressive.

Actually, there is truth to that. Science has defined a definitive correlation.

Nope.

The fact that they are controlling aggression by "fair bargaining" it troublesome to me.

Nope [http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/267/1448/1089.short].

Oestrogen regulating aggression does not mean testosterone does not increase it.

Nope [http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/content/168/2/217.short].

"When the supplementation was started at 7 days after birth, the defect was not restored."
The lack of a hormone during development naturally causes behavioral changes.
Nothing exclusionary about that.

Nope [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2826.2006.01440.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false].

"Berthold's classic study of domesticated roosters in 1849 demonstrated that testicular secretions are necessary for the normal expression of aggressive behaviour. Although this conclusion is undoubtedly correct..."

"These mechanisms may have evolved to avoid the ?costs? of circulating testosterone in the nonbreeding season."

Nope [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031938471901673].

"The dominance observed in progesterone-treated females may be a direct effect of the hormone on female behaviour or an indirect effect on male behaviour due to changes in olfactory cues."

Nope [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347273800399].

"oestrogen injections decrease encounter frequency"

As this pops up more and more, oestrogen reducing aggressiveness would still make aggressiveness a male trait.

Nope [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X99915143].

"The data do not rule out a role for T in promoting female aggression"

Nope [http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/6/2/174.short].

From the study this link refers to:
"In general, this meta-analysis shows that men are more aggressive than women and that this sex difference is more pronounced for physical than psychological aggression. It also demonstrates that women and men think differently about aggression and suggests that these differing beliefs are important mediators of sex differences in aggressive behaviour."

However, this is a social psychology study, not a biological one.

Nope [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031938489901224].

"Female rats were individually housed with a single castrated male with a testosterone implant that maintained sexual and aggressive behavior."

"...is a hormone-dependent aggression which parallels testosterone-dependent social aggression of males housed with females."

Nope [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003193849290413V].

"At the first aggression test, females with estradiol and testosterone alone displayed significantly more aggression than females with these hormones plus progesterone."

Other hormones affecting aggressive behaviour doesn't mean testosterone has no effect on aggressive behavior.

Nope [http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/content/36/1/35.short].

"testosterone and oestrogen in hens caused a temporary (1?5 hr.) increase in defensive behaviour"

"Progesterone had a latency of 12?18 hr., suggesting an indirect effect."


While aggression is and can be caused by many different things, social conditioning is not enough to explain the staggering difference in violent behaviour and crime between genders.

Besides, all of these studies are trying to introduce testosterone at a later stage in life. Varied levels in early developments has been observed as a cause for aggressive behaviour in, for instance, male orangutans.

"Elevated testosterone is generally indicative of behavioral and physiological allocations to mating effort, including competition with other males [12], [13].
Encounters among flanged male orangutans are invariably aggressive and entail significant risk of injury or death [1], [16], [41]. Therefore, it is possible that testosterone variation influences the willingness of males to provoke an encounter with another male."
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0047282

 

[Dastardly]

In short, if pleasure is not an end, then it must have another reason to exist.

That's begging the question, then, isn't it? You say it has an essential reason. We ask what it is and why. You say because there must be an essential reason.

Earlobe attachment/detachment doesn't have an essential reason. Somebody born with 11 toes, or with 9 toes, doesn't have some higher purpose. Is there some intense significance to a person's eye color that we have yet to determine? These are traits that range from "genetic abnormality" to "just different." But not essential or integral.

It's bad thinking to simply assign it the vague placeholder, "It must have a reason," when there is no such evidence, in hopes that someday someone will come up with a reason to fill in that blank.

 

[Darken12]

Oh, dear. We have another biological determinist in our midst. This is going to get tiresome.

The fact that they are controlling aggression by "fair bargaining" it troublesome to me.

How? All sexual hormones have been generally found to be geared towards reproduction. It stands to reason that both testosterone and oestrogens would influence animals to perform in ways that lead them to successful reproduction. That aggression was seen as the most direct way of doing so is unrelated to the hormones themselves. What the study shows is that when fair bargaining is more beneficial than aggression when it comes to securing status (and therefore reproduction), testosterone will encourage that attitude.

Oestrogen regulating aggression does not mean testosterone does not increase it.

No, it means that it's not a male-exclusive trait or exclusively regulated by testosterone.

"When the supplementation was started at 7 days after birth, the defect was not restored."
The lack of a hormone during development naturally causes behavioral changes.
Nothing exclusionary about that.

Thanks for focusing on the most anecdotal and least important part of the article and ignoring the fact that oestrogen had as much influence on the male's aggression as testosterone. That does wonders to your stance.

"Berthold's classic study of domesticated roosters in 1849 demonstrated that testicular secretions are necessary for the normal expression of aggressive behaviour. Although this conclusion is undoubtedly correct..."

"These mechanisms may have evolved to avoid the ?costs? of circulating testosterone in the nonbreeding season."

Again, thanks for focusing on the irrelevant parts of the article and ignoring what I proved with that article, that testosterone is not the sole regulator of aggression.

"The dominance observed in progesterone-treated females may be a direct effect of the hormone on female behaviour or an indirect effect on male behaviour due to changes in olfactory cues."

That literally has nothing whatsoever to do with testosterone or aggression, and in fact it seems to me you just quoted a random part of the abstract as if it was some sort of self-evident rebuttal.

"oestrogen injections decrease encounter frequency"

As this pops up more and more, oestrogen reducing aggressiveness would still make aggressiveness a male trait.

Wow, I take my hat off to you, you are an undisputed master of ignoring what is right in front of your face in order to cling to what can be vaguely twisted into supporting your stance. I am genuinely impressed, considering that the entire point of the study was the very first sentence. This part, in particular:

"agonistic behaviour in relation to individual distance is controlled by luteinizing hormone (LH), rather than by testosterone"

"The data do not rule out a role for T in promoting female aggression"

Again: wow. You are just truckin' on, aren't you? That proves nothing, that is literally like every study that says "this does not rule out the existence of life in other planets." Saying "this does not rule out X" does not mean "X has been proven." Not disproven is not the same as proven.

From the study this link refers to:
"In general, this meta-analysis shows that men are more aggressive than women and that this sex difference is more pronounced for physical than psychological aggression. It also demonstrates that women and men think differently about aggression and suggests that these differing beliefs are important mediators of sex differences in aggressive behaviour."

However, this is a social psychology study, not a biological one.

Yes, and you again missed the important part:

"These results suggest that evaluations of aggression depend not only on the aggressive act but also on social norms about who may aggress against whom."

Aggression isn't as simple as who has a higher serum concentration of what meaningless peptide. The environment (primarily social norms, in this case) are far more important (particularly the more social the species in question is).

"Female rats were individually housed with a single castrated male with a testosterone implant that maintained sexual and aggressive behavior."

"...is a hormone-dependent aggression which parallels testosterone-dependent social aggression of males housed with females."

Thank you, once again, for fixating on whatever seems to support your theories instead of on the actual evidence. Sure love having my time wasted. In case you needed me to spell it out for you, the important part of the study is how a hormone other than testosterone caused aggression in females, proving that A) aggression is not a male-specific trait, and B) it is not exclusively controlled by testosterone.

"At the first aggression test, females with estradiol and testosterone alone displayed significantly more aggression than females with these hormones plus progesterone."

Other hormones affecting aggressive behaviour doesn't mean testosterone has no effect on aggressive behavior.

I never said that testosterone had no effect on aggressive behaviour. I said that aggressiveness was not a male-specific or male-preferential trait and I opposed your implication that aggressiveness was solely regulated by testosterone and therefore that's why it was a male-exclusive or male-preferential biological trait.

"testosterone and oestrogen in hens caused a temporary (1?5 hr.) increase in defensive behaviour"

"Progesterone had a latency of 12?18 hr., suggesting an indirect effect."

Yes, conveniently ignore the "oestrogen" part of the study to focus on the "testosterone" part and that progesterone had an effect (albeit an indirect one).

While aggression is and can be caused by many different things, social conditioning is not enough to explain the staggering difference in violent behaviour and crime between genders.

Yes, yes it can. We've had thousands of years of men oppressing women, and strict gender roles that encouraged aggressiveness in men and discouraged it in women. Dismissing the sheer weight of social conditioning for a biologically deterministic view is just as much as an unscientific justification for oppression as religion.

Besides, all of these studies are trying to introduce testosterone at a later stage in life. Varied levels in early developments has been observed as a cause for aggressive behaviour in, for instance, male orangutans.

"Elevated testosterone is generally indicative of behavioral and physiological allocations to mating effort, including competition with other males [12], [13].
Encounters among flanged male orangutans are invariably aggressive and entail significant risk of injury or death [1], [16], [41]. Therefore, it is possible that testosterone variation influences the willingness of males to provoke an encounter with another male."
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0047282

Congratulations, you've proven that testosterone has some effect on aggression, some of the time, under certain circumstances. That does not disprove the effects of other hormones (particularly oestrogens and/or progesterone, corticosteroids, ACTH, adrenaline and noradrenaline) and the environment (of which society makes up a significant part) on aggression.

It's bad thinking to simply assign it the vague placeholder, "It must have a reason," when there is no such evidence, in hopes that someday someone will come up with a reason to fill in that blank.

When there is no evidence one way or the other, saying "it must have a reason" is just as valid as saying "it is a meaningless random mutation" and I would actually argue in favour of the "meaningless random mutation" theory if someone was trying to use essentialism to justify oppression. Full disclosure: I really don't care one way or the other. If it suits me, I will use one argument to oppose religious oppression and then the exact opposite argument to oppose essentialist oppression.

 

[zinho73]

The study of the concept is relatively new, but all variables of sexual orientation are old as humanity itself.

Some manifestations of said sexuality will appear at different times in history (like cross-dressing - although not all cross-dressing is a manifestation of sexual orientation).

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I.

In all seriousness, I think it was probably around before the modern age, but a decrease in stigma and a willingness to talk about such issues have probably respectively lead to more people being open about how they are and categories being established. The reason I suspect this is that I don't think sexuality is a lifestyle choice purely and simply, but is informed by biological factors, and thus was probably always around in some capacity. And as for my proof? Ain't nobody got time for proof.

 

[Garrsus]

Sexual orientation, and which specific category you happen to fall into, is worried about much more these days.

Not really the question though :/
He asked whether the orientation itself was new, which it isn't but the titles are fairly new.
in Roman times if you took to being someone's apprentice then it was pretty much assured you would end up having sex with them at some point, mainly when you have finished the training.
it permeates the animal kingdom as well, while only us and dolphins do it for fun whenever the other species will only do it when its time but they still (seem) to enjoy it, and if they cant find a partner of the opposite gender for mating they mate with a same sex partner.

personally i agree wholly with the idea that humans are purely bi, and that its recent human intervention that has changed it, other than your one offs, who like only one or the other.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

In my psychology class we learned that everyone is innately bi-sexual to a degree, and we tend to become monosexual because of our environment or upbringing, we are also biologically attracted to the opposite sex by nature, but nurture (environment, upbringing etc...) can override this.

This may not be a popular view on here, but the truth is that people can choose their sexuality. Look at prison for example, the men enter entirely straight. However due to the environment they develop same sex attractions, there are also many cases of women who are abused by their boy friends and they turn lesbians. It's a similar scenario.

The mind is like a series of doors, we can open certain one's and close others.

You can read more about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_bisexuality

See i think this is correct to a degree but i dont think you can CHOOSE it persay.

Lets talk about sex like a biological drive like eating.

You dont CHOOSE to like peas or sprouts or whatever, but at the age when you are aware of what you want to eat you already have favorites. You cant decide to like the taste of anything nor can you stop liking what you do by choice. However just because it isnt a conscious choice doesnt mean its set in stone. For example my mother, despite LOVING sprouts as a younger child, was force fed MANY by her mother in her early teenage years. Now she hates them because of that. Probably from that negative experience. Like the abusive boyfriend its probably little to do with a choice to switch but the associated memory naturally invoking negative thoughts subconsciously in relation to that action. On the flipside you can start to like things you previously hated although your innate biology and the composition of the food have remained the same. Some people can go their entire life and love a food from start to finish. Ive always seen it like that. Prison men probably dont choose to be gay. Their primal urges probably bubble and eventually their brain makes whatever subconcious change is necessary to vent that frustration. They didnt choose to be gay. The environment they were in just altered their subconcious tastes.

My evidence for this is that i cannot be turned on by this phone i have in my hand. If people really could, on a concious level, choose their sexuality they could force themselves to be aroused at any moment by anything. No matter how abhorrent or disgusting. Since they cant i reject that notion. Attempt to get it off to a picture of an obese old woman and then get back to me. You cant choose to be attracted to that stuff. It just is. Like taste.

 

[Hagi]

Of course not.

Animals have been homosexual, bisexual, asexual etc. for I've no idea how long before us.

Bonobos are a prime example of bisexuals and also evolutionary extremely close to us. Any explanations based on cave-men society is therefore extremely likely to be wrong, there's plentiful evidence that women having sex with women was around long, long before anything you could call a society was around.

About 25% of all Black Swans form homosexual couples. In order to get offspring they form a threesome with a female and then chase her away when she lays eggs. Their offspring even has an average higher rate of survival! So homosexuality isn't even related to primates, it started long before that.

Dolphins for example enjoy group sex in their youth. No penetration, they just group up and start rubbing their stuff together. They really don't care much at all about the genders involved although there's usually a majority of males.

Male elephants, who form herds of their own, also form long-lasting homosexual relationships. Not just involving sex but also kissing, holding trunks and putting those in each other's mouths. Unlike heterosexual elephant relationships, which usually don't last long, these bonds can last for years. Hell, they can even involve multiple males. Female elephants also engage in lesbian sex and about 45% of all elephant matings are estimated to be same-sex pairings.

Hell, freaking dragonflies engage in homosexual sex. Turns out there's a specific kind of head injury these insects sustain by the male's pincers when having sex. And what do you know, half the males also had such injuries. And those things have been around since the dinosaurs. I wouldn't be the least surprised if they found a male T-Rex fossil mounting another male T-Rex fossil at some point.

Sexuality has nothing to do with human-specific developments. It's all over nature. Everyone and everything is having gay sex, why aren't you?

 

[chikusho]

How? All sexual hormones have been generally found to be geared towards reproduction. It stands to reason that both testosterone and oestrogens would influence animals to perform in ways that lead them to successful reproduction. That aggression was seen as the most direct way of doing so is unrelated to the hormones themselves. What the study shows is that when fair bargaining is more beneficial than aggression when it comes to securing status (and therefore reproduction), testosterone will encourage that attitude.

Also, males typically use more aggressive behaviour in order to secure such a status.

No, it means that it's not a male-exclusive trait or exclusively regulated by testosterone.

I've never claimed that aggression is a male-exclusive anything.

Thanks for focusing on the most anecdotal and least important part of the article and ignoring the fact that oestrogen had as much influence on the male's aggression as testosterone. That does wonders to your stance.

Something (oestrogen) inhibiting the effects of something else (testosterone) does not prove that that something (testosterone) has no effect.

Again, thanks for focusing on the irrelevant parts of the article and ignoring what I proved with that article, that testosterone is not the sole regulator of aggression.

I have never claimed that testosterone is the sole regulator of aggression.

That literally has nothing whatsoever to do with testosterone or aggression, and in fact it seems to me you just quoted a
random part of the abstract as if it was some sort of self-evident rebuttal.

It's highly relevant. I assume you linked to that abstract because the female hamsters aggression seems to have been increased by progesterone instead of testosterone. Yet, they cannot conclusively say whether or not the effect is direct or indirect.

"agonistic behaviour in relation to individual distance is controlled by luteinizing hormone (LH), rather than by testosterone"

If the female gender hormone regulates aggression, and males possess less female gender hormone, that still implies agressiveness as a male trait in this species.

Again: wow. You are just truckin' on, aren't you? That proves nothing, that is literally like every study that says "this does not rule out the existence of life in other planets." Saying "this does not rule out X" does not mean "X has been proven." Not disproven is not the same as proven.

In a discussion about whether or not testosterone relates to aggressive behavior, linking to an abstract of a study that does not provide results related to the role of testosterone and aggressive behavior is kind of irrelevant.

"These results suggest that evaluations of aggression depend not only on the aggressive act but also on social norms about who may aggress against whom."

Aggression isn't as simple as who has a higher serum concentration of what meaningless peptide. The environment (primarily social norms, in this case) are far more important (particularly the more social the species in question is).

I have never claimed aggression is as simple as who has a higher serum concentration.
I do, however, say that biological factors increases certain behaviors. Also, that those biological factors are more prevalent in males, including but not limited to the effects of testosterone.

Thank you, once again, for fixating on whatever seems to support your theories instead of on the actual evidence. Sure love having my time wasted. In case you needed me to spell it out for you, the important part of the study is how a hormone other than testosterone caused aggression in females, proving that A) aggression is not a male-specific trait, and B) it is not exclusively controlled by testosterone.

Again, I have never claimed that testosterone is the one cause for aggression.

I never said that testosterone had no effect on aggressive behaviour. I said that aggressiveness was not a male-specific or male-preferential trait and I opposed your implication that aggressiveness was solely regulated by testosterone and therefore that's why it was a male-exclusive or male-preferential biological trait.

Wow, you actually read that part of my post, and yet decided to refute claims I've never made?

Yes, conveniently ignore the "oestrogen" part of the study to focus on the "testosterone" part and that progesterone had an effect (albeit an indirect one).

I just thought that a blend of hormones including oestrogen was less relevant in this case then "oestrogen increased nest-cooing". Defensive behaviour is not necessarily aggressive behaviour.

Yes, yes it can. We've had thousands of years of men oppressing women, and strict gender roles that encouraged aggressiveness in men and discouraged it in women. Dismissing the sheer weight of social conditioning for a biologically deterministic view is just as much as an unscientific justification for oppression as religion.

Being that we've been the same species of humans for the last 200 000 years, an increase in equality would also lead to an increase in aggressive behaviour in women. Yet men are still clearly overrepresented in physical violence in the most women-friendly countries in the world.
Unless you are trying to say that somehow the thousands of years of oppression has changed women on a biological level.

But sure, let's assume that biologically the capacity for aggression is completely equal and that it's only social factors and oppression that makes men more aggressive; that still makes men more aggressive. That is, aggression (no matter what causes it) is still a male trait.

 

[Dastardly]

When there is no evidence one way or the other, saying "it must have a reason" is just as valid as saying "it is a meaningless random mutation" and I would actually argue in favour of the "meaningless random mutation" theory if someone was trying to use essentialism to justify oppression. Full disclosure: I really don't care one way or the other. If it suits me, I will use one argument to oppose religious oppression and then the exact opposite argument to oppose essentialist oppression.

No, it's not "just as valid." Valid means that the conclusion follows from the premises. In this case, you have not provided a premise. You have asserted a conclusion, in the absence of premise. That's "laying claim to the consequent," or more commonly "begging the question."

Unfortunately, you follow that up by saying what amounts to, "I know, but I don't feel it matters as long as it suits my point." Ignoring reality in order to bend the rules to enforce your viewpoint is, at its core, where oppression comes from. Just keep that in mind.

 

[Darken12]

Also, males typically use more aggressive behaviour in order to secure such a status.

If that is a result of societal conditioning, it is not biological.

I've never claimed that aggression is a male-exclusive anything.

Then stop arguing with me.

Something (oestrogen) inhibiting the effects of something else (testosterone) does not prove that that something (testosterone) has no effect.

I never said it had no effect. I said it was not the sole regulator of aggression.

I have never claimed that testosterone is the sole regulator of aggression.

Then stop arguing with me.

It's highly relevant. I assume you linked to that abstract because the female hamsters aggression seems to have been increased by progesterone instead of testosterone. Yet, they cannot conclusively say whether or not the effect is direct or indirect.

It doesn't matter. Whether the effect is direct or indirect, progesterone has an effect on aggression, which means aggression is not solely regulated by testosterone and therefore is not a biological trait exclusive or preferential of males.

If the female gender hormone regulates aggression, and males possess less female gender hormone, that still implies agressiveness as a male trait in this species.

The luteinising hormone is a gender-neutral hormone. It is secreted by the pituitary gland and has an effect on both ovaries and testicles. If aggression is regulated by the LH instead of testosterone, it means it's not a male trait, as both genders have the exact same hormone.

In a discussion about whether or not testosterone relates to aggressive behavior, linking to an abstract of a study that does not provide results related to the role of testosterone and aggressive behavior is kind of irrelevant.

Nobody is discussing whether testosterone relates to aggressive behaviour. What is being disputed is the assertion that testosterone is the SOLE regulator of aggression or that aggression is a male biological trait.

I have never claimed aggression is as simple as who has a higher serum concentration.
I do, however, say that biological factors increases certain behaviors. Also, that those biological factors are more prevalent in males, including but not limited to the effects of testosterone.

That is absolutely meaningless (and unscientific) when you fail to take into consideration environmental (and especially societal) factors. Our behaviours are primarily moderated by culture and the environment. Biological factors play a very small role in behaviour and asserting otherwise is not only reductionistic, but also mechanistic. We have dropped mechanism a long, long time ago. It's Victorian thinking. Science no longer works that way.

Again, I have never claimed that testosterone is the one cause for aggression.

Then stop arguing with me.

Wow, you actually read that part of my post, and yet decided to refute claims I've never made?

If you're not refuting the idea that aggression is not a male-specific or male-preferential biological trait, we have nothing to discuss, as I have not made any other assertions.

I just thought that a blend of hormones including oestrogen was less relevant in this case then "oestrogen increased nest-cooing". Defensive behaviour is not necessarily aggressive behaviour.

Defensive behaviour IS aggressive behaviour. The only difference is the triggering cause (territorial intrusions, threats to the safety of self or offspring, etc). The behaviour is the same.

Being that we've been the same species of humans for the last 200 000 years, an increase in equality would also lead to an increase in aggressive behaviour in women. Yet men are still clearly overrepresented in physical violence in the most women-friendly countries in the world.
Unless you are trying to say that somehow the thousands of years of oppression has changed women on a biological level.

They could have. Phenotypic plasticity [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity], polymorphisms [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism] and genetic assimilation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_assimilation] are all events and processes where the environment directly influences biological aspects in extremely short periods of time. Any of which could be an explanation for any particular trait we see in the human race today.

But sure, let's assume that biologically the capacity for aggression is completely equal and that it's only social factors and oppression that makes men more aggressive; that still makes men more aggressive. That is, aggression (no matter what causes it) is still a male trait.

But then it's not a biological male trait (understanding "biological" as not only genetic, but also "very hard to change through the environment", as not all genetic traits are as malleable to the influence of the environment as othrs). I would never disagree that aggression is a cultural male trait. In fact, I said so myself in the post you originally quoted.

No, it's not "just as valid." Valid means that the conclusion follows from the premises. In this case, you have not provided a premise. You have asserted a conclusion, in the absence of premise. That's "laying claim to the consequent," or more commonly "begging the question."

Unfortunately, you follow that up by saying what amounts to, "I know, but I don't feel it matters as long as it suits my point." Ignoring reality in order to bend the rules to enforce your viewpoint is, at its core, where oppression comes from. Just keep that in mind.

I laugh at the idea that oppression has no grounding in reality. Right, because people who discriminate over the colour of someone's skin are not basing their oppression on real things (like skin colour).

Oppression isn't delusion. Oppression is a goal, an opinion, a strategy and an ideology, all rolled into one, and it's not held back by things like reality. If it suits it, it will use science to support its goals. If it doesn't, it will ignore it. Following rules that your opponent ignores does nothing but put yourself at a disadvantage. Fighting oppression with facts or logic is like fighting a tank with a butter knife.

 

[chikusho]

If that is a result of societal conditioning, it is not biological.

Unless it is biological.

Then stop arguing with me.

Or rather, stop responding to arguments you put in my mouth.

It's highly relevant. I assume you linked to that abstract because the female hamsters aggression seems to have been increased by progesterone instead of testosterone. Yet, they cannot conclusively say whether or not the effect is direct or indirect.

It doesn't matter. Whether the effect is direct or indirect, progesterone has an effect on aggression, which means aggression is not solely regulated by testosterone and therefore is not a biological trait exclusive or preferential of males.[/quote]

Again with disproving non-existant claims.
So what you are saying is that you don't think there's any difference between direct and indirect effects?
That very sentence I quoted states that it may not have changed behavior at all, but the males changed behavior due to olfactory cues. That is, female hamsters smelled differently after being injected, which caused a behavioral difference in males that left room for increased dominance. In this case, progesterone would have _no_ behavioral regulating effect.

Nobody is discussing whether testosterone relates to aggressive behaviour. What is being disputed is the assertion that testosterone is the SOLE regulator of aggression or that aggression is a male biological trait.

Which begs to question why you even chose to respond to me in the first place, as no such claim has been made.

I have never claimed aggression is as simple as who has a higher serum concentration.
I do, however, say that biological factors increases certain behaviors. Also, that those biological factors are more prevalent in males, including but not limited to the effects of testosterone.

That is absolutely meaningless (and unscientific) when you fail to take into consideration environmental (and especially societal) factors. Our behaviours are primarily moderated by culture and the environment. Biological factors play a very small role in behaviour and asserting otherwise is not only reductionistic, but also mechanistic. We have dropped mechanism a long, long time ago. It's Victorian thinking. Science no longer works that way.

Then stop arguing with me.

In that case, the next time you want to engage with a straw man, please dont use my name.

If you're not refuting the idea that aggression is not a male-specific or male-preferential biological trait, we have nothing to discuss, as I have not made any other assertions.

But it _is_ a male preferential biological trait.
Note _preferential_. You're the one assuming that someone is talking about something exclusionary.

They could have. Phenotypic plasticity [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity], polymorphisms [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism] and genetic assimilation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_assimilation] are all events and processes where the environment directly influences biological aspects in extremely short periods of time. Any of which could be an explanation for any particular trait we see in the human race today.

In which case there _is_ a biological difference.

 

[Darken12]

Unless it is biological.

Yet it is not. Or at least, not exclusively so, or even primarily so.

Again with disproving non-existant claims.
So what you are saying is that you don't think there's any difference between direct and indirect effects?
That very sentence I quoted states that it may not have changed behavior at all, but the males changed behavior due to olfactory cues. That is, female hamsters smelled differently after being injected, which caused a behavioral difference in males that left room for increased dominance. In this case, progesterone would have _no_ behavioral regulating effect.

You're confusing studies! The hamster studies pointed out that, in the hamster species, females are more aggressive than males (proving that testosterone is not the sole regulator of aggression and that aggression is not a male biological trait), while the progesterone study was about hens, and the point of THAT study was that oestrogen and progesterone were just as capable as causing aggression in both males and females as testosterone.

Which begs to question why you even chose to respond to me in the first place, as no such claim has been made.

You took my claim that aggression wasn't a male biological trait and attempted to justify the opposite by saying that testosterone was linked to aggression and that men made more testosterone than women. If aggression is tied to other factors (which aren't gender-dependent), then aggression cannot be a male-exclusive or male-preferential trait.

But it _is_ a male preferential biological trait.
Note _preferential_. You're the one assuming that someone is talking about something exclusionary.

It's not a male preferential trait either. That belief is a result of observer bias and a lack of evidence pointing in other directions (that is, confirmation bias).

In which case there _is_ a biological difference.

Of course there are biological differences between the genders. To say otherwise would be ludicrous. What I'm saying is that not everything is reduced to biology, and even most of the things that ARE reduced to biology can be easily changed by the environment (that is, society), so those who hold sexist, backwards notions to justify oppression can no longer do so in the oft-abused name of biology.

 

[chikusho]

Yet it is not. Or at least, not exclusively so, or even primarily so.

Unless it is.

You're confusing studies! The hamster studies pointed out that, in the hamster species, females are more aggressive than males (proving that testosterone is not the sole regulator of aggression and that aggression is not a male biological trait), while the progesterone study was about hens, and the point of THAT study was that oestrogen and progesterone were just as capable as causing aggression in both males and females as testosterone.

I'm not confusing anything. Hamster study pointed out that females given progesterone after being spayed does not conclusively have a direct effect on their aggression.

You took my claim that aggression wasn't a male biological trait and attempted to justify the opposite by saying that testosterone was linked to aggression and that men made more testosterone than women. If aggression is tied to other factors (which aren't gender-dependent), then aggression cannot be a male-exclusive or male-preferential trait.

Never said male-exclusive, and can _certainly_ be male-preferential. Testosterone was just the short-hand answer to one of the reasons it's preferential.

It's not a male preferential trait either. That belief is a result of observer bias and a lack of evidence pointing in other directions (that is, confirmation bias).

Of course there are biological differences between the genders. To say otherwise would be ludicrous. What I'm saying is that not everything is reduced to biology, and even most of the things that ARE reduced to biology can be easily changed by the environment (that is, society), so those who hold sexist, backwards notions to justify oppression can no longer do so in the oft-abused name of biology.

Alright, I clearly see that you agree to biological differences between genders. Supposing all differentiating hormones hold precisely equal potential for aggressive behaviour, there's still the very real biological difference of physical strength and ability between men and women. All hormones being equal, the (still biological) greater potential to be stronger and faster than women (and possibly culturally affected by this common occurrence) naturally makes men more inclined to use aggressive and threatening behaviour in order to ensure dominance.
Which, in turn, makes aggression a male trait, based on biological difference.

Also, who is trying to justify oppression? :S

 

[Darken12]

Unless it is.

I tire of arguing with a wall.

Never said male-exclusive, and can _certainly_ be male-preferential. Testosterone was just the short-hand answer to one of the reasons it's preferential.

And I cited plenty of examples of aggression in females, or examples where aggression was not regulated by testosterone (or not by testosterone alone).

Alright, I clearly see that you agree to biological differences between genders. Supposing all differentiating hormones hold precisely equal potential for aggressive behaviour, there's still the very real biological difference of physical strength and ability between men and women. All hormones being equal, the (still biological) greater potential to be stronger and faster than women (and possibly culturally affected by this common occurrence) naturally makes men more inclined to use aggressive and threatening behaviour in order to ensure dominance.
Which, in turn, makes aggression a male trait, based on biological difference.

I have already discussed the whole issue with male strength at great length in another thread. I will not repeat myself here, particularly for a person who has been impervious to everything I've said thus far. Short answer: we don't know if men are naturally physically stronger than women or if our segregated child-rearing isn't atrophying women's muscle development (and thanks to phenotype plasticity, centuries of doing so might have led to lowered GH levels that would take centuries in the opposite direction to undo).

So no, I will not be convinced that aggression (or strength) are biological male traits. I will die sustaining they are cultural and therefore we can some day reach a future where men and women are exactly equal in everything but sex organs.

Also, who is trying to justify oppression? :S

Every person who upholds gender constructs, by whatever justification, is upholding oppression (as gender constructs are, by their very nature, tools of oppression).

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

**snip**

There is research that suggests that bisexuality was a survival trait. Early human tribes did not have equal numbers of males and females due to the frequency of tribal members dying (of disease or trauma). Thus, not every member of a tribe could always find a mate. A member that had no mate was more likely to leave the tribe and look for a partner elsewhere. That individual was likely to die away from the tribe.

Enter bisexuality. If mating pairs ended up with uneven numbers, the remaining individuals could pair with one another. Then, if later deaths unbalanced things in the other direction, those members previously in same-sex pairs could mate with other individuals no longer in relationships, thus keeping the tribe together.

Another documented occurrence involved polygamy. The strong Alpha male would take several wives. However, the more wives a Alpha male had, the less satisfied (sexually or romantically) each individual wife was likely to be. If the wives were bisexual, however, those not chosen on a given night could pair off with one another. Likewise, if the Alpha male had taken a large number of women, it was likely that a number of Beta Males were without mates. Thus, if bisexual, those Beta males could pair off with one another for companionship and sexual release.

As we moved out of tribes and into city states, larger populations would have (mostly) solved many of those number issues. However, as noted in your OP, that didn't end the human tendency towards bisexuality. Greece and Rome both leaned bisexual, as did a number of other cultures (ancient India, ancient China, etc). The Kama Sutra even states outright that it is the responsibility of wives not chosen (for a given evening) to satisfy one another.

Even Sapho, history's first known lesbian, expected her lovers to be bisexual by default. She was sad when she sent one lover after another off to get married (while she remained unwed) but she always expected it. She never expected any of her lovers to stay with her - they were there for an education and then off to get married.

Anyway, so yes, lots of science and historic evidence that bisexuality was the norm before Judeo-Christianty said it was a sin and banned it.

As to other sexual orientations - well, before the modern era, pan-sexuality and bisexuality would have been effectively identical. From a historic standpoint, there is no way to tell the difference.

Asexuality, on the other hand, is quite evident. There is a fair amount of precedent for the existence of asexuals. The main difference being they generally didn't have a choice about reproduction. Generally speaking, asexuals are uninterested in sex, but capable of having it. An asexual man or woman could have fulfilled his or her reproductive responsibilities and then just not bothered. Or, if one was very opposed, one could have joined a celibate religious order (most cultures had them even before Christianity).

So yes, it is quite clear that our modern sexual orientations all existed. However, most of them didn't have names until the Victorian era or later. The only reason that homosexuality got named in the Victorian era was because they wanted to label it as a disease. Kinsey named Bisexuality in the 1950s as a category for everything in the middle of his scale.

 

[chikusho]

And I cited plenty of examples of aggression in females, or examples where aggression was not regulated by testosterone (or not by testosterone alone).

And I continued to not argue that testosterone was the lone regulator of aggression.

Short answer: we don't know if men are naturally physically stronger than women or if our segregated child-rearing isn't atrophying women's muscle development

Except from when comparing records from the top athletes of the world with women coming in at a steady 10% lower performance across the board. This would assume that every single female who grew to become an athlete was raised in such a way that muscles couldn't properly develop. This, I find very unlikely.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/08/we-thought-female-athletes-were-catching-up-to-men-but-theyre-not/260927/

(and thanks to phenotype plasticity, centuries of doing so might have led to lowered GH levels that would take centuries in the opposite direction to undo).

In which case there exists a biological difference, plasticity or not.

Every person who upholds gender constructs, by whatever justification, is upholding oppression (as gender constructs are, by their very nature, tools of oppression).

Even by _correct_ justification?
You cannot work towards solving a problem without identifying the cause.