Kind of hopeful we can stop using genetics as a way of justifying queer peoples' existence. Whether it's conditioning, a choice, or genetics, shouldn't really be a factor in how you treat queer people.
That would be ideal, but some people need to be convinced that it is not a choice before they will consider treating gay people with respect. So long as they think it's just a behavioral decision, they can rationalize their bigotry.
What they found was 5 areas of the genome that had predictive potential for people being gay or straight. Combined, they were able to predict about 25% of what makes someone gay. The other 75% is environmental.
Note that some "environmental factors" may still be genetic in nature. For example there is strong evidence in animals that the prenatal environment has an impact on homosexual behavior. Which means that a mother's genetics can be correlated with her children's sexuality. Therefore a gene could impact homosexuality through changing the environment in the mother's womb. In that case the child having that gene would be correlated with the child being homosexual and the gene would show up in this study. But the differences between the child's genetics and the mother's would be an environmental factor.
I don't think it's making that strong a claim. They can't identify a specific gene. That's not quite "you are not born a homosexual." Plenty of studies over the years have shown statistically very significant genetic links. We just can't explain the exact mechanism yet.
Those people are going to be bigots regardless, towards all the other things that are behavioral, such as most mental illness, addictions, sports accidents, drug convictions, political persuasion, religion, etc. So many ways to be judgmental of people's behaviors.
If you want people to be treated equally, wouldn't you want their existence to be justified?
It's difficult to think of a PC analogy here, so maybe... super villain mind control device strapped to someone's head. Provably unjustified behaviors due to the mind control device implies the ethical thing to do is try to remove the device. Treating someone normally implies an implicit belief that they're normal. Sound biological evidence that being queer is just how some people are feels like the best way to reinforce that belief and remove requirements for heteronormativity.
I acknowledge this is the prerequisite a lot of people need to justify queer peoples' existence.
> wouldn't you want their existence to be justified
In my ideal world, I would want my existence to be justified even if I 100% chose to be bisexual, gay, trans, etc. So yes, I do want it to be justified, but I don't want genetics to be the justification.
Hmm, maybe this is a pointless semantic argument, but being justified by a choice sounds like its just passing the ball to justification for the choice. In a world where identity is proven to be 100% just a choice, that sounds like its not justified, and while not deserving of discrimination, to some extent committed to being non-normative.
This paper suggests genetics control at least 25% of variance in sexual orientation. We know hormone profiles control another decently large proportion. Are you saying you are upset that deterministic factors cause queer identities? or are you trying to say you wish a deterministic factor for queer identities wasn't necessary for equal treatment?
The first feels strange, the latter makes a lot of sense.
I do feel rather strongly that we should not persecute people suffering from pedophilia, especially as a lot of it seems to come from suffering from abuse as a kid. That doesn't make you an active child rapist. You may hate that about yourself. Well, at least I assume that to be the case. I can't say I'm familiar with it.
The predictability of something isn't the issue though. It's whether or not something is actually in your control. Being gay is not a choice.
If homosexuality were purely a choice then there would be great perceived harm in allowing gay individuals to influence other individuals to be gay. It's hard to construct examples of this because being gay is not a choice, and any hypotheticals here would come off as very bigoted. There's people in this very thread already jumping on the opportunity to suggest that if it's not all genetic that maybe we're culturally encouraging kids to be trans. Consider for a moment that opinions like this aren't out a desire to oppress people, but fear that kids are being manipulated into sex change operations. That's FALSE, but in an alternate universe where its just a choice... it's arguably true. The harm is dependent on the nature of it. Trans suicide rates are really high. In this INCORRECT alt world where we're 100% its just a choice, people being supportive of trans gender folks look like they're the ones at fault for leading people down a dark path.
> The reason we should be tolerant of homosexuality is because it's as healthy and harmless as heterosexuality,
I agree. But the reason we MUST be tolerant of it is because its an inherent natural part of human nature.
Trans cross dressing can make some people very uncomfortable. I think it should be protected nonetheless if not directly relevant to the needs of the business.
I'm also ok with furries, but I don't think they're so intrinsic that we need to protect fursuits and light animal roleplaying in the workplace.
apologies if something I said there was off color in terminolgoy