Step by step, researcher looks for sexuality clues
 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/26...ity/index.html

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Can you tell whether someone's gay just by the way he or she walks?

David Sylva wants to know. He straps bright red lights to people's bodies and videotapes them walking in the dark. He then shows the videotape to observers (who won't be biased by clothing or hairstyles since the walker is in the dark) and asks them to guess the walker's sexual orientation.

Sylva's observations focus on the physical characteristics of the individual's stride, such as the closeness of the knees.

Why does Sylva, a graduate student at Northwestern University, care so much about how gay people walk? Because he's one of a growing number of researchers who think sexual orientation may be as basic as how you walk, something inborn that you don't choose.

His premise reflects a growing belief among Americans, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. For the first time a majority of respondents -- about 56 percent -- said they don't believe a person can change his or her sexual orientation. In a similar poll in 2001, 45 percent said orientation couldn't change. In 1998, 36 percent held that belief. The sampling error for Wednesday's results is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

A growing number of psychologists and geneticists are working on the "nature versus nurture" question -- a question that's set off a highly charged political debate about whether people choose to be gay, or whether gayness is determined by their DNA.

Take Richard Lippa, a professor of psychology at California State University at Fullerton. His studies show that gay people are twice as likely to be left-handed. He also collects photos of hair whorls -- those circular swirls you see atop a man's head. He says about 10 percent of the general population have whorls that rotate counter-clockwise, but about 20 percent of gay men have counter-clockwise whorls.

Lippa acknowledges that studying hair patterns sounds strange. "It sounds a little like the 'Twilight Zone' or voodoo science," he says. But to Lippa, a link between sexual orientation and something that's clearly inborn (like handedness or the way hair grows) speaks volumes. His theory: You can't choose your whorl, and you can't choose your sexuality, either.

"You're born with either a clockwise or a counter-clockwise hair whorl. It's fixed, it's biologically determined. No one's going to argue that your hair whorl is influenced by learning or culture," he says.

Lippa says his next step is see whether there are specific genes that control sexual orientation.

Douglas Abbott thinks Lippa won't find a thing.

"There is no evidence of a 'gay gene,' " says Abbott, professor of child and family studies at the University of Nebraska.

Abbott points to studies that look at the sexual orientation of the offspring of gay people. "If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction," he says. "But they aren't more likely, so therefore it can't be genetic."

For Abbott, the answer to the nature-vs.-nurture question is very clear. "I think the primary causes of same-sex behavior are environmental and personal choice and free agency," he says. "Can someone change their orientation? The definitive answer to that is, "yes.' "

That makes Gerulf Rieger laugh. "Ask a bunch of straight guys [if they could switch to being gay] and they would tell you, 'Are you kidding me?' " says Rieger, a lecturer in psychology at Northwestern University. "So the other way around doesn't work either."

In his research, Rieger shows videotapes of men and women talking about the weather. Observers have been able to predict with great accuracy whether the person talking is gay or straight. "Even within seconds, people are pretty good at figuring out who's gay and who's not," he says.

Like Sylva with his illuminated walkers, Rieger thinks his research points to genetics, and not choice, as the source of sexual orientation.

"It doesn't seem to be the social environment, it doesn't seem to be the parents or peers that make you gay," he says. "It seems to be something that comes from within."

sounds like a total ****tard to me. :shrug:

You mean that this guy is finally trying to prove the the "establishment" that this is the way people are born? I don't think there has ever been another study of this magnitude done by anyone quite as respectable.
Where you see an enemy, I see someone trying to scientifically prove to religious hegemonics tht this is indeed biological.

I should have clarified. I think that his aim and goal are awesome, but his supporting documentation and theories make him sound stupid...at least to me.

walks like a duck, talks like a duck, must be a duck.

if I ever hear someone say that to me ever again, I will not be held responsible for what I may do.

I think it will be used both ways. I applaud the noble goal of establishing the congential nature of sexuality. On the other hand, I think religious crazies will use it persecute gay people based on these traits, which will, ironically, include none gay people who happen to have some of the traits.

How 'bout an official poll of hair whorls among the gay male Ledgies (i.e., all of the guys on here :lol: ) Are you clockwise or counterclockwise? I can't tell my own direction since it's shaved off. :shrug: So what about all of the other idiosyncratic behaviors exhibited by gay men? A predilection for Barbra Streisand, Madonna, Stevie Nicks, Joan Crawford and Liza Minnelli? A tendency to enjoy shopping and attend cultural events? A tendency to speak with a certain cadence and walk with a certain stride? A tendency to have exquisite taste?

I personally think this kind of research is rather dangerous. So let's say, theoretically, that somebody somewhere has found the X-factor that determines gay sexuality. Inevitably this will lead to all kinds of research (funded by the Christian right) to eventually diagnose and eradicate this X-factor. Who's to say whether amniotic fluid will be tested and babies will be aborted if the X-factor is detected? Of course they will condone, even encourage aborting a baby that would grow up to be gay. Don't get me wrong; I think it's great that genetic research is being conducted to determine risk factors and to treat life-threatening genetic diseases. But hunting for the gay gene is just unnecessary when there are so many nobler pursuits.

^^^
true.

and my question is: who the **** cares? if you're gay, you're gay. why try to find the "cause"? I get that maybe he's in the right place, but, like you say, it's dangerous for many reasons. Gallactica (is that the right movie with Ethan Hawke) anyone? if we were to find that 95% of gays have those whirls or whatever, you'd have a lot of people either trying to shave their head so no one would know and the 5% with whirls who aren't gay would suffer the prejudice.

Margaret, if you do not pick up this phone is 5 seconds...you a gay.

Gattaca :laugh:

****. :lol: Jazzy

Dees book...is called....Ass Master.

Anyway, back to topic. I watched the four videos on CNN of the people wearing the red blinking lights. I did pretty well...I got three out of four right. the genetics peice of this debate is way too frightening. People are people and that's it. Why would you want to mess with nature anyway?:shrug:

^^^
I'm not trying to threadjack, but I have to tell you that it is so ironic because I couldn't get "I'm here to warrrrrsh yur vagina" out of my head this morning. I even had to say it outloud a couple times.

I love that you said it out loud. I love Gwen, and her vagina washing skillz.

yeah. I can only imagine what the cars on the freeway were thinking. :cool:

There is now wa the Fundies are going to abort a fetus for any reason. Hell, as it is now, they want a woman to deliver a fetus even if it could kill her. Also it would be political suicide for them. If anything, they would figure out who has the "gay chromosome" and send them to some kind of whack "How Not To Be Gay" church like I saw on Anderson Cooper this evening.
Any doctor who tried to extract amniotic fluid from a child I was carrying would receive a swift kick to the groin. I believe the majority of pregnant women might feel the same way.

Yeah, my impression is that the studies are good, and interesting, but should be totally unnecessary, because IMO, the thing he is trying to prove with his research is obvious, and has been for a very, very long time.

However - Unfortunately, things aren't so obvious to some people. Some people need this kind of "scientific validation". Which is my answer to "Who the f*ck cares". Well, you better care, b/c there are some super a-holes out there that aren't enlightened. At all. They might beat you up and kill you if you are gay.

So while I think these studies shouldn't be very necessary (although they may be scientifically interesting none the less), I've noticed that there are enough f*cktards left in the world who think things about gay people that are totally lame, and that this research is another small tool towards changing these lamos' minds.
I mean, these people are really stupid. There will have to be a huge stupid aresenal of scientific "evidence" published for years to come to make these Efftards change their mind and realize some obvious things, if they haven't yet.
And so, to that end, carry on with your totally redundant scientific studies. I'm not an f-tard, but many, many people are, and those people should see the studies. There should be studies published in everything these ftards might read, or see, if they do read. Studies should be in effing Highlights magazines in their doctors' offices. Studies should be in Star, or People, and on stupid TV programs - wherever these ftards gain their information is where these studies should be. "God" help us.

I'm not sure how much the threat of "fundies hunting for the gay gene" is really a substantial worry at this point (with all due respect to Hejira). I see the point, but I think it is an aspect that is small in comparison to what studies can accomplish in a positive way. Because no real studies will every support the current fundie platform about gay people.
Plus, WTF? They don't want people to abort, they don't want stem cells used...they don't want gay people...those two things are mutually exclusive.

Iown't care what kind of stupid studies have to be done, as long as the right idea is spread wide and far. Iown't care what it takes to make people know that being gay is genetic, and it's fine.
Oh, and that Abbott guy is a loser/wanker.