New York Times confirms, "Not Born That Way" - More on The Bombshell Science Magazine Study

Every website since 8/29/19 should have had a home page that looked like this at some point

The most read column in the history of this website was about the bombshell Science Magazine study two weeks ago. This should be the story of our generation but, as predicted, this story is being ignored by everyone not named Lewis Ungit. The New York Times reported on it but did so right before the holiday weekend and wrote in a way that buried the essential and shocking finding of the study: genes cannot predict our sexuality. The result was that this has been ignored. Now, I understand why liberals would want to dismiss it. LGBT rights has been a cornerstone of their political platform for decades.  And being "born that way" has been the cornerstone of the LGBT movement. But why in the world are conservatives being silent? Why is this bombshell being allowed to slip from the mainstream? My only guess is that conservatives are scared. I have noticed that republicans in recent years are more and more willing to sign up to the LGBT agenda. Trump, after all, is the first republican president to be in favor of gay marriage and to run, at least in part, as a LGBT friendly candidate. So, by raising awareness to this groundbreaking study, I am not only doing so to reluctant democrats but reluctant conservatives.

My article is getting a lot of reads but liberals on Twitter are predictably claiming that I am misrepresenting the study. So, I thought it might be helpful for me to take myself out of it and simply quote the New York Times write up on the issue.

These are direct quotes from the article:

 "It’s ...important not to overstate the role of genes. The study found that genetically related people tend to be similar in their behavior, which tells us that sexuality has influences buried somewhere in the DNA. But when the researchers tried to add up the contributions of each DNA variant they examined, they could predict less than 1 percent of the variation among study participants."
  
"So researchers could never predict sexual behavior from DNA alone."

"[Biology acts] in tandem with our personal histories — with the idiosyncratic selves that unfold in a larger cultural and social context."

 "Even if you have a homosexual identical twin — someone who shares all of your DNA — you are still more likely to be straight than gay."

"[The] results make clear that there is no single biology of sexual behavior."

"In addition, people who only occasionally have same-sex partners tend to have genetic variants associated with having more sexual partners overall, and with personality traits like “openness to new experience.”

These statements make it clear: you are not "born that way." Clearly as the NY Times says, cultural influences, social influences, and personality types matter on whether someone becomes gay or not.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Science : "Oops sorry about the 40 years of social engineering, bro"

Why Google is the New AskJeeves

More thoughts on why IQ is Ridiculous