Conquer Club

It's believed that maternal immune response to successive pregnancies of males cause mothers to develop antibodies to H-Y antigen produced by a gene on the Y chromosome. This antigen influences prenatal sexual differentiation of the brain.
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Gay/Text.html
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/153/1/27
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Djedz-qAaLwJ:facultyfp.salisbury.edu/iewhite/Homosexual%2520male.doc+each+older+brother+increases+chances+of+homosexuality+by+1/3&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

"Successive pregnancies of males"???


Honibaz

Simon Viavant wrote:It's believed that maternal immune response to successive pregnancies of males cause mothers to develop antibodies to H-Y antigen produced by a gene on the Y chromosome. This antigen influences prenatal sexual differentiation of the brain.

want to repeat that to my older brothers? and being the youngest and female does that mean I am more girl?

although New Scientist had an interesting article on how eventually there will be no males seems the female chromosomes will be more successful and the weaker male chromosomes will fade away

Do you have a Y chromosome?

I always found this to be weird.

Snorri1234 wrote:I always found this to be weird.

I don't think you have any idea yet...

Most recently, Blanchard et al. (15) collated several data sets and found another surprise: older brothers increase the probability of a boy becoming gay only if that boy is right-handed. Among left-handed men, there’s no difference in the incidence of homosexuality no matter how many brothers they have. What’s curious about this finding is that, by itself, left-handedness makes males and females slightly more likely to be gay (16). So left-handedness makes males slightly more likely to be gay but also negates the effects of older brothers on orientation.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10531.full

And we all thought left was the sinister hand...

Are the chances increased additionally, or multiplicatively? So, if you have 3 older brothers, do you have a 100% chance of being gay? Or is it a 26/27 chance of being gay? And if you have infinite older brothers, do you have a 99.999...% chance of being gay, or 100%?

Ut oh, more scientific proof that homosexuality may be caused biologically and not because the individual is possessed by Satan

I can see the bible quoting folk scattering now.

Neoteny wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:I always found this to be weird.

I don't think you have any idea yet...

Most recently, Blanchard et al. (15) collated several data sets and found another surprise: older brothers increase the probability of a boy becoming gay only if that boy is right-handed. Among left-handed men, there’s no difference in the incidence of homosexuality no matter how many brothers they have. What’s curious about this finding is that, by itself, left-handedness makes males and females slightly more likely to be gay (16). So left-handedness makes males slightly more likely to be gay but also negates the effects of older brothers on orientation.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10531.full

And we all thought left was the sinister hand...

but there are more right handed guys so the stats will be swayed

my youngest brother is left handed so by this logic therefore straight - he will be relieved to know that he should be gay because we have older brothers BUT because he is left handed the effect is negated what a load of ****

e_i_pi wrote:Are the chances increased additionally, or multiplicatively? So, if you have 3 older brothers, do you have a 100% chance of being gay? Or is it a 26/27 chance of being gay? And if you have infinite older brothers, do you have a 99.999...% chance of being gay, or 100%?

No it increases the original chance of you being gay. So say there is a 10% chance that you are gay, 1 older brother means a 13,3% chacne of being gay, 2 older brothers mean about 18% chance of being gay and so on.

Captain_Scarlet wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:I always found this to be weird.

I don't think you have any idea yet...

Most recently, Blanchard et al. (15) collated several data sets and found another surprise: older brothers increase the probability of a boy becoming gay only if that boy is right-handed. Among left-handed men, there’s no difference in the incidence of homosexuality no matter how many brothers they have. What’s curious about this finding is that, by itself, left-handedness makes males and females slightly more likely to be gay (16). So left-handedness makes males slightly more likely to be gay but also negates the effects of older brothers on orientation.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10531.full

And we all thought left was the sinister hand...

but there are more right handed guys so the stats will be swayed

my youngest brother is left handed so by this logic therefore straight - he will be relieved to know that he should be gay because we have older brothers BUT because he is left handed the effect is negated what a load of ****

I'm not going to have a statistics lesson with you.

Neoteny wrote:
I'm not going to have a statistics lesson with you.

why are you backing "several" as a reasonable statistical sample?

No, but I'd imagine the possibility of your brother "backing" another dude is something you might not be able to discuss reasonably.

If these are objective scientific reports why do they cite political information which has nothing to do with the alleged studies?

There is a political agenda to manipulate and even fabricate information regarding homosexuality in order to make it appear as though homosexuality is an inherited trait.

Similar studies made by psychologists where research indicated that homosexuality was indeed a psychological condition have been met with protest, hence people are unscientific when it comes to examining this issue.

Also worth noting is that the youngest child in a family is usually mothered to a greater extent than older children. Perhaps these circumstances (males being exposed to a disproportionate feminine influence) create the conditions in early childhood which causes men to develop homosexual tendencies in later life.

Sauce pl0x

Speaking from experience there is a distinct chance of older brothers having more money and running off with your girlfriends.
I can imagine that turning you gay, if only to spite your brother(s).
Roger this one if you like, bruv!

Or maybe just making you fancy ugly women.

Captain_Scarlet wrote:

Simon Viavant wrote:It's believed that maternal immune response to successive pregnancies of males cause mothers to develop antibodies to H-Y antigen produced by a gene on the Y chromosome. This antigen influences prenatal sexual differentiation of the brain.

want to repeat that to my older brothers? and being the youngest and female does that mean I am more girl?

although New Scientist had an interesting article on how eventually there will be no males seems the female chromosomes will be more successful and the weaker male chromosomes will fade away

I guess women will have to learn how to Asexually reproduce than.

I remember reading somewhere that birth rates for single women are skewed away from boys, but I was not able to find the source. The difference was apparently not great, but enough to be statistically significant.

lgoasklucyl wrote:Ut oh, more scientific proof that homosexuality may be caused biologically and not because the individual is possessed by Satan

I can see the bible quoting folk scattering now.

I know of a lot of propaganda from the gayboys and a few unreplicated experiments, but maybe you could enlighten me where they have scientifically "proved" that homosexuality is biologically based.

I got this a lot in college from 97 to 02, and the gayboys were as adamant then as you are now. The primary experiment cited was the "Gay Twins" experiment - drew a lot of hooplah but sadly, in spite of numerous attempts, could not be replicated. The "Gay Brain" experiment suffered a marked loss of popularity when the author was indicted for fraud. Did you know that any experiment has to be replicated under proper scientific methodology? Do you know what scientific methodology is? Do you actually have any fooking idea what you're talking about when you frivolously toss out terms like "scientific proof"?

Do i want a beautiful, smoothly dimpled, Pamela Anderson type of derrierre, or do i want a man's pimpled hairy ass? It's a fooking choice genius - i'll take door number 1, you make sure you close door number 2 behind you now.


Honibaz

It seems rather silly no matter what the explanation to assume its any one particular thing. Even if it does boil down to choice, id be willing to bet most people cant coherently plot out their frame of reference in a useful way to making heads or tails of the issue.

It isnt like someone checked a box that said homosexuality instead of any of the other boxes one could check.

Anyone who thinks that homosexuality is entirely a choice, needs to stop and think. Considering the way gays have been, and still are treated in most of the world, why the hell would anyone choose that?

Timminz wrote:Anyone who thinks that homosexuality is entirely a choice, needs to stop and think. Considering the way gays have been, and still are treated in most of the world, why the hell would anyone choose that?

To be fair, if you look at slice of the people who think it is a choice and dont approve of the choice, they also tend to call the individuals in questions sinners or mentally ill. I dont think they have any problem fashioning a reason for the choice from that framework.

The probability that a man has homosexual preference increases with the number of older brothers he has. Each older brother increases the odds by 1/3 – 1/2. This effect cannot have a genetic basis. Speculations for this effect focus on the mother progressively building antibodies against an unknown male protein, more so with each son

Say wha? The first post seems to indicate otherwise (and is a direct quote from the third source, no less!. That's not the only place these sources contradict each other. That, and blatant bias detract from your sources' credibility and, thereby, your argument.

It means homosexuality can't be passed genetically from father to son, which is in accordance with all three studies.
And where's the "blatant bias" you guys are all talking about.

Neoteny wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:I always found this to be weird.

I don't think you have any idea yet...

Most recently, Blanchard et al. (15) collated several data sets and found another surprise: older brothers increase the probability of a boy becoming gay only if that boy is right-handed. Among left-handed men, there’s no difference in the incidence of homosexuality no matter how many brothers they have. What’s curious about this finding is that, by itself, left-handedness makes males and females slightly more likely to be gay (16). So left-handedness makes males slightly more likely to be gay but also negates the effects of older brothers on orientation.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10531.full

And we all thought left was the sinister hand...

http://www.neoteny.org/neoteny/a/homosexuality.html
hehehe