I think few parents would abort based upon a gay gene - there simply aren't that many pro-abortion, but anti-LGBT people out there.
On the other hand, I do think it's likely that if parents had the option of selecting their child's sexuality ala carte almost no one - no matter how progressive - would willingly pick a gay child. Perhaps…
I think few parents would abort based upon a gay gene - there simply aren't that many pro-abortion, but anti-LGBT people out there.
On the other hand, I do think it's likely that if parents had the option of selecting their child's sexuality ala carte almost no one - no matter how progressive - would willingly pick a gay child. Perhaps they'd pick bi/pan, but being gay severely cuts down on your dating options, and parents generally speaking want to maximize options for their progeny. Not to mention eventually wanting grandkids.
Yup. In my original formulation it would be genetic markers that predisposed a child to homosexuality in combination with something like low testosterone levels in the womb. The obvious fix is therapy to boost in utero testosterone levels. I agree with you that's far more likely.
This reminds me of a discussion I had online with a trans person where I noted in the future it would be likely that trans status as such wouldn't exist, as either "brain gender" or "biological gender" would be corrected before birth or at a very young age, meaning there would be no salience of identity due to being trans.
They found the idea quite horrifying - the equivalent of advocating genocide.
Whereas blind people don't react like that. For deaf people, I think it's because language = culture. They still refer to the german measles vaccine as "genocide" and get very upset at those choosing cochlear implants.
I think transgender people get upset because it is likewise a culture.
Individual rights versus the idea of "cultural rights" is one of the thorniest questions in political theory I think. In part because it also intersects with the rights of parents to raise their kids as they see fit, even though that could restrict the opportunities of their offspring.
A maximally-inclusive culture would paradoxically likely result in the slow death of most cultural minorities, as people drift away from these smaller groups to wherever strikes their fancy. Or, to put it more simply, if you could wave a wand and solve racism in the U.S., it would help millions of black Americans in the short run - and result in million more 1/4th black Americans who no longer self-identify as being black two generations down the line.
Yeah, I'm thinking of a bunch of narratives on this. Autistic people are really hostile to the idea that they would be wiped out in future generations. Then there's the "white genocide" narrative that you hear mostly from white racists - but I think that one reason that it is treated as racist is that there are still lots of children being born to two white parents, so it isn't seen as being particularly likely to happen.
Interesting twist - I find the idea that the rise in gender dysmorphia is a result of androgen disrupting chemicals in the environment very plausible. What would they say if it came out that XYC chemical used in the plastics industry is the cause. And congress was getting ready to pass a bill that would ban that substance?
" almost no one - no matter how progressive - would willingly pick a gay child. "
Exactly. And if you could test early enough for a "gay gene" and not have people know about it, I think a lot of parents would abort, even if they aren't anti-LGBT. The grandkids thing is huge. Who would deliberately opt to have their family line end?
I think few parents would abort based upon a gay gene - there simply aren't that many pro-abortion, but anti-LGBT people out there.
On the other hand, I do think it's likely that if parents had the option of selecting their child's sexuality ala carte almost no one - no matter how progressive - would willingly pick a gay child. Perhaps they'd pick bi/pan, but being gay severely cuts down on your dating options, and parents generally speaking want to maximize options for their progeny. Not to mention eventually wanting grandkids.
Yup. In my original formulation it would be genetic markers that predisposed a child to homosexuality in combination with something like low testosterone levels in the womb. The obvious fix is therapy to boost in utero testosterone levels. I agree with you that's far more likely.
This reminds me of a discussion I had online with a trans person where I noted in the future it would be likely that trans status as such wouldn't exist, as either "brain gender" or "biological gender" would be corrected before birth or at a very young age, meaning there would be no salience of identity due to being trans.
They found the idea quite horrifying - the equivalent of advocating genocide.
The deaf community has a similar reaction. Clearly there is something else going on here.
Whereas blind people don't react like that. For deaf people, I think it's because language = culture. They still refer to the german measles vaccine as "genocide" and get very upset at those choosing cochlear implants.
I think transgender people get upset because it is likewise a culture.
Individual rights versus the idea of "cultural rights" is one of the thorniest questions in political theory I think. In part because it also intersects with the rights of parents to raise their kids as they see fit, even though that could restrict the opportunities of their offspring.
A maximally-inclusive culture would paradoxically likely result in the slow death of most cultural minorities, as people drift away from these smaller groups to wherever strikes their fancy. Or, to put it more simply, if you could wave a wand and solve racism in the U.S., it would help millions of black Americans in the short run - and result in million more 1/4th black Americans who no longer self-identify as being black two generations down the line.
Yeah, I'm thinking of a bunch of narratives on this. Autistic people are really hostile to the idea that they would be wiped out in future generations. Then there's the "white genocide" narrative that you hear mostly from white racists - but I think that one reason that it is treated as racist is that there are still lots of children being born to two white parents, so it isn't seen as being particularly likely to happen.
Interesting twist - I find the idea that the rise in gender dysmorphia is a result of androgen disrupting chemicals in the environment very plausible. What would they say if it came out that XYC chemical used in the plastics industry is the cause. And congress was getting ready to pass a bill that would ban that substance?
" almost no one - no matter how progressive - would willingly pick a gay child. "
Exactly. And if you could test early enough for a "gay gene" and not have people know about it, I think a lot of parents would abort, even if they aren't anti-LGBT. The grandkids thing is huge. Who would deliberately opt to have their family line end?
Why would having a gay kid end the family line - I'll have to look at the numbers but most of the lesbian couples I know have kids.
Hum...looks like 22% of female-female couples have children present in the home vs. 41% of male-female coupes.
Given differential ages at death it seems pretty plausible that there are a lot more f-f couples who have adult children than m-f couples.
Yeah, but the biological imperative is to pass on genes, not a family name.