Because conservatives think being gay is a choice. If it is proven that gay people are actually physiologically different, then it is pretty strong evidence that a person is born gay.
Well, if orientation is ingrained in facial features it could argue that it is an actual genetic/ ingrained thing instead of a learned behavior like certain idiots like to believe.
But . . . . sexual orientation isn't a dichotomous variable. It's a continuum. On the other hand, it would be interesting to explore if what is going on here is related to hormonal exposure in utero. If a female fetus is exposed to extra testosterone (either from her own adrenal glands, in a condition known as Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, which can range from mild to serious, or from an external source), then do her facial features develop a masculine "look" to them, the same way her brain develops along more masculine lines in terms of functionality, and might this be at all related to later development of sexual orientation along the continuum? If a male fetus isn't exposed to normal/typical amounts of testosterone in utero, does that mean that his facial features develop a feminine "look" to them, and his brain develops along more feminine lines in terms of functionality, and might this be related to later development of sexual orientation along the continuum? Interesting research, but raises more questions than it answers.
That was my thought as well. Not only is there a spectrum of sexuality, but the researchers could only use what the subjects reported as their sexual preference even if it was a lie. A biologically homosexual leaning person may easily live a heterosexual life and report as such. Then there are the asexual folks and the completely bisexuals who are apparently ignored by this study. What they have done is given a 50/50 question and received a 50% success rate which is not surprising in the least. I think your idea of of a study on in utero hormone exposure would be a much more scientific process but it would take a couple of decades to complete.
One thing I am curious about are the "misidentified" faces. I assume that the people labeled "gay" or "straight" are self-designated. Since sexuality is along a continuum rather than a simple yes or no choice, I wonder if the misidentified faces are more androgynous and therefore difficult to label one thing or another.
I'm sure genetics are a big part of why people are gay. But sometimes it is basically a choice. There many cases of genetically identical twins where only one is gay.
The rate of correct guesses is in the 50% to 60% range. That's not good accuracy since you have a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly whether gay or straight. What about bisexuality? Isn't voice a better indicator of gay?
And this is important because...
Because conservatives think being gay is a choice. If it is proven that gay people are actually physiologically different, then it is pretty strong evidence that a person is born gay.
Ohme & al - just go back to watching FOX News. You don't seem able to grasp the concept of science very well.
What useful purpose does this serve ?
Well, if orientation is ingrained in facial features it could argue that it is an actual genetic/ ingrained thing instead of a learned behavior like certain idiots like to believe.
Rats become gay too when overcrowded in their cages.
Overcrowding in rats and their turning "gay" makes sense. Cuts down on the overpopulation. Isn't Nature grand?
But . . . . sexual orientation isn't a dichotomous variable. It's a continuum. On the other hand, it would be interesting to explore if what is going on here is related to hormonal exposure in utero. If a female fetus is exposed to extra testosterone (either from her own adrenal glands, in a condition known as Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, which can range from mild to serious, or from an external source), then do her facial features develop a masculine "look" to them, the same way her brain develops along more masculine lines in terms of functionality, and might this be at all related to later development of sexual orientation along the continuum? If a male fetus isn't exposed to normal/typical amounts of testosterone in utero, does that mean that his facial features develop a feminine "look" to them, and his brain develops along more feminine lines in terms of functionality, and might this be related to later development of sexual orientation along the continuum? Interesting research, but raises more questions than it answers.
Kathy,
That was my thought as well. Not only is there a spectrum of sexuality, but the researchers could only use what the subjects reported as their sexual preference even if it was a lie. A biologically homosexual leaning person may easily live a heterosexual life and report as such. Then there are the asexual folks and the completely bisexuals who are apparently ignored by this study. What they have done is given a 50/50 question and received a 50% success rate which is not surprising in the least. I think your idea of of a study on in utero hormone exposure would be a much more scientific process but it would take a couple of decades to complete.
One thing I am curious about are the "misidentified" faces. I assume that the people labeled "gay" or "straight" are self-designated. Since sexuality is along a continuum rather than a simple yes or no choice, I wonder if the misidentified faces are more androgynous and therefore difficult to label one thing or another.
Fascinating study, though.
I'm sure genetics are a big part of why people are gay. But sometimes it is basically a choice. There many cases of genetically identical twins where only one is gay.
The rate of correct guesses is in the 50% to 60% range. That's not good accuracy since you have a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly whether gay or straight. What about bisexuality? Isn't voice a better indicator of gay?