Thread by @lymanstoneky

So apropos my controversial thread of the past few days, many commenters have claimed that I'm being bigoted because I'm worried a schoolteacher mentioning homosexuality will turn my kid gay.

Obviously, this is not at all what I believe.

But I think there are some people who do worry about that scenario.... and there are also people on the other side who believe *so deeply* in the immutable nature of sexuality that they make similarly implausible arguments.

So first of all, it's important to just empirically demonstrate that sexual identity is not perfectly static. Here's a nice longitudinal study looking only at adults in the US between 1996 and 2006, so it isn't "young people discovering their sexuality." link.springer.com/article/10.100…

In this sample, about a quarter of homosexual/bisexual individuals in 1996 identified as heterosexual in 2006. A larger absolute number of heterosexuals switched to homosexual or bisexual, but a lower share (about 1.4%).

There are tons of other studies you can look up, but virtually every longitudinal study ever conducted on sexual minority populations finds considerable instability in identification, FAR more instability than is observed among heterosexuals.

Now, this doesn't mean "true sexual identity" actually changed. Maybe these are changes in presentation but "true identity" is the same! That's totally a possibility!

If that's true... then what *is* that true identity, if not self-reported identity?

Well, there are many theories, but the obvious one would be: it's genetics! Maybe there are certain genes which predict non-heterosexual identity.

And it turns out, there are! Here's a recent high quality genetic study of sexual identity and behavior: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

So that settles it, right? Sexuality is genetic and therefore "true" sexuality is more-or-less immutable, even if reports about it change.

Well.... not so fast! What *are* the genes this study found?

Well, there are two totally different sets of genes! Among self-identified straight people, having gay sex is predicted by one set of genes.

But identifying as non-heterosexual is predicted by a *totally different set of genes*.

This is really important, because it suggests that there are genes for "identifying as LGB" and different genes for "LGB sexual attraction."

People might have both, neither, just one, etc.

And it's not just that!

The specific genes identified are genes we actually know some stuff about. They're genes that also predict a bunch of other stuff: cannabis use, "openness" as a personality trait, risk-taking behavior, etc.

Others of these genes (or in some cases the same ones) regulate sex hormone production and olfactory senses. To the extent these genes alter sex hormones and sensory perception, that's a compelling argument for a genetic origin to "true sexuality."

But it also is hugely problematic for current sexuality discourse, since it suggests that sexuality differences arise from individuals having more "masculine" or "feminine" sex hormones; i.e. that the hard sex/gender distinction is dubious; maybe sex and gender *are* the same.

That is, if the same genes that predict homosexual identification do so by suppressing androgens like testosterone and thus producing less male-coded behavior and more female-coded personality displays across the board, it's a common genetic root for sex *and* gender.

And of course it gets thornier than that!

A lot of these genetic influences aren't about sex hormones at all! They're about highly malleable personality traits and displays of risk-taking behavior.

Consider cannabis use. We know that cannabis use has a genetic component.

But we also know that cannabis use can *only* occur in a society where cannabis *exists*. You can't consume cannabis if your society doesn't have cannabis. It's a socially contingent genetic relationship.

There are tons of these things. Mosquitoes like to bite some people more than others. This is genetic. But the experience of getting tons of mosquito bites only occurs if you live in a climate with mosquitoes in it, which is not all climates.

Likewise, we know that preferences for video games as recreation has a considerable genetic component, and yet, again, *obviously* video games don't exist in all societies, so this is genetics-contingent-on-social-conditions.

It turns out, this is actually how like 95% of genetics work. MOST "genetic" traits have important gene-environment interactions, and that's not even considering possible epigenetic influences.

So, returning to the thread:

Do genes related to homosexuality have important gene-environment interactions?

Well, we don't have evidence on that yet. But since they seem to operate via personality, attitudes, culture, that seems to suggest "probably yes."

So, can your kid's teacher saying the word "gay" turn your kid gay via some hypothetical gene-environment interaction?

That seems insanely implausible. Also, if it's true, it's irrelevant, since your kid will hear about homosexuality in society on the whole regardless.

But is it possible that the average kind of exposure a child has to sex and sexuality during their developmental period might in some way have an influence on their sexual development?

Well yes duh obviously, in fact we already know that to be true.

There is enormous evidence that childhood interventions alter adult sexual development in numerous ways. The most famous and well documented cases relate to childhood sexual abuse and adult sexual abuse. This obviously isn't the same channel working in LGB identification...

... but nobody seriously disputes that childhood developmental exposures can alter sexual maturation. This extends to chemical exposures as well since we know environmental pollutants can alter age of puberty too, and that puberty age alters the pace of sexual experience, etc

In a world where none of this is controversial and the stakes are low, there would be studies conducted to see if different kinds of presentations of family, sex, and sexuality alter child sexual development. Alas, we do not live in such a world.

The one area where we do get a lot of these studies is on sex ed and STI awareness interventions. That literature seems to suggest that educational exposure to different forms of sexual education does have a modest impact on sexual behavior.

So is it plausible that different levels of discussion of, inclusion of, presentation of, or affirmation of diverse sexualities or sex and gender identities could on some margin have an impact on some kinds of child sexual development?

When put so extremely broadly, yes.

But this leaves us in a really uncomfortable bind.

There are some things that seem insanely implausible: "teacher saying two dads turns kid gay."

There are other things that seem almost certain: "childhood educational environments impact sexual development."

And we have basically no credible research on how things shake out between those two extremes. Seriously, go look for high quality studies on these topics. There aren't many and those that do exist stick to less controversial topics.

Now, is there any reason we should even care?

I would argue that the answer is absolutely YES, we should care, for many reasons.

First, children cannot consent. So if something we do is going to alter their life trajectory, we have an obligation to at least try to understand the effects of what we do. It may not alter our choice, but we have a duty to try to get information so that when they grow up...

... we can provide our children with reasonable justification and explanation for our actions on their behalf. So simply on the basic question of child rights, yes, it absolutely matters to know what effects educational choices have.

Second, sexual identity is inextricably linked to many other life projects. because sexual identity influences odds of e.g. childbearing, age at marriage, frequency of cohabitation before marriage, etc, and because those may matter to a child's life ambitions...

... it is not unreasonable to care about what effects may or may not exist here. Children do not develop their own sexualities; their sexualities are developed by the interaction of their genetic materials with their environments, and that environment is non-neutral.

Third, public schools are financed via the coercive power of the state. Voluntaristic associations arising from free and equal choice by individuals can be held to a lower standard of scrutiny than coercively financed institutions.

Coercion to finance schooling is in my mind PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED. I 100% support using state coercion to secure resources to guarantee that every child receives an education.

But the existence of coercion also creates higher standards.

And if we are not only coercing the revenue raising function but using it to selectively finance only a certain subset of schools which teach only a certain subset of ideas from within the ideas believed by the coerced persons... it's a REALLY high standard.

Fourth, almost all people prefer to be happy and healthy rather than unhappy and unhealthy. It remains a subject of enormous debate the exact mechanism by which sexuality, health, and happiness are linked.

Obviously, social stigmas and discriminatory structures cause sexual minorities to experiences excess misery. This seems fairly undisputable.

However, it is not clear if 100% of the happiness/health differential between cisgendered heterosexuals and other people is due to that.

In particular, since the genes related to LGB identity are also related to many other and unrelated behaviors known to have adverse effects on health and wellbeing, it seems likely that *some* of the gap is *not* due to discriminatory structures.

What is even more uncertain is if differential environmental contingency would alter any possibly genetically-rooted effects on these outcomes.

Which is to say: these are areas where there are some gigantic question marks and where it seems important to get better answers. We are embarking on an extraordinary social experiment with regards to gender and sexual identity and as a result should collect careful evidence.

Right now, it is difficult even to collect that evidence, since studies in this area have the almost immediate result of getting the researcher fired.

But in general, since we lack clear evidence or even vaguely suggestive evidence about what the optimal solution is here, and since narrow coercion imposes very high standards of evidence, I think we should defer to parental choice.

Which is to say, I don't think kids should be banned from getting education on this, provided that kids are not coerced into it either.

But, in a society where we in fact *are* coercing kids, by denying equal access to public funds for education, it seems reasonable...

... to me to expect that we will be embroiled in dueling gag orders and curriculum battles forever, and that those of us who prefer to have parent-led introduction to these issues will be locked in a permanent and irresolvable conflict with others who disagree.

This seems to me like a terrible outcome which is wasteful for everyone and damaging to kids. It would be much better to end discrimination in schooling and allow people of diverse views to have schools that validate their legitimate differences.

Now of course, this thread is going to be interpreted by idiots to be making a strong claim that TEACHERS TURN YOU GAY or something. It's not. I am pointing out that we are in an extremely novel area where there are tons of unknowns and really thorny issues.

But since "there's a lot of complicated gray areas here with difficult implications we don't fully understand" is an answer that literally nobody likes, well, my fate is to be treated as some kind of frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic. Alas.

admitting the world is complex is weaseling

https://twitter.com/SaddestRobots/status/1494359238327640064