What's is this spectrum?

submitted by pacmanla from self.LGBDropTheT

I gave my thoughts & corrected someone who nonchalantly said that no one is 100% gay or straight, but fits on a "spectrum". I keep hearing this spouted, but I mentioned that this isn't true, & the person just kept insisting it is. I just said my pleasantries & went on my way, but this spectrum is something that keeps getting repeated & I find it weird to tell others that they're not their sexuality, but are on a spectrum.

all 48 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MyLongestJourney 38 insightful - 8 fun38 insightful - 7 fun39 insightful - 8 fun -  (23 children)

It is part of queerdom's rapey coercion tactics,the same old "how do you know it if you did not try it"?. Ever heard of the Kinsey scale? It does contain monosexual people (heterosexual and homosexual) and in between various degrees of bisexual depending on how much the bisexual is attracted to his own vs the other sex.This is the only legitimate spectrum.

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

Lol, the kinsey scale is inaccurate and wack as hell, it's not legitimate. Lots of people (myself included) "fail" that test or can't accurately be measured, because there's more to sexuality than "how gay or straight you are."

[–]MyLongestJourney 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

"how gay or straight you are."

What?Kinsey scale does not measure how gay or straight you are,it mentions homosexuals,heterosexuals and bisexuals with various degrees of sexual attraction to the two sexes. It is rather accurate and the fact that there is a tiny fragment of people with mixed secondary sexual characteristics,does not invalidate it. And yes,there are "intersex" people (people with disorders of the sexual development) but most of them externally present as one of the two sexes.

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

Then again, it's a pretty piss poor scale if 95% of that scale is supposedly a black and white label. If people believe that "pure straight" "pure gay" and "bisexual" are the only 3 choices, then there's no need for a "scale." If they believe in other choices, then the scale should reflect that. It's conradictory.

Also, I'm intersex, don't pull this shit on me. I am not a third sex. This is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that some of us don't fit into neat boxes of "100% gay" or "100% straight" or bisexual. Some of us fail the kinsey scale (not even kidding, it gave me a ?) and some of us also are "technically gay" or whatever but also have entirely different experiences to your average gay/straight/bi person. I failed the kinsey scale not because I'm not gay, but because it doesn't factor in people who don't experience much in the way of real, directed attraction towards a real person. It cannot distinguish between "Penises arouse me" and "I have actually been sexually attracted to specific men in my life", but there is a big difference.

[–]reluctant_commenter 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Some of us fail the kinsey scale (not even kidding, it gave me a ?)

Are you talking about an online test? The original Kinsey scale was just a one-item rating on a 0 to 6 scale. There is no "question mark" result for the Kinsey scale, although I have seen online tests give those. About the scale: https://kinseyinstitute.org/research/publications/kinsey-scale.php

That said, it is not considered a great tool for research anymore because it is just one question.

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If I recall it gave either a number, an X (for "asexual") or a question mark for people like me who "did it wrong", and it was multiple question. This must be partially true because there's a lot of "asexual" fuckwits bragging about being a "kinsey X" and how it makes them special.

[–]reluctant_commenter 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, that sounds like an online questionnaire, not the actual Kinsey scale.

This must be partially true because there's a lot of "asexual" fuckwits bragging about being a "kinsey X" and how it makes them special.

Lol, that's funny.

[–]Destresse🇨🇵 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I also did that questionnaire years ago. I got an X 😂 I'm not asexual at all.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Like I said elsewhere in this post, the exception does not make the rule.

I recognize your intersexuality, and I'm not going to grill you on that. That would be rude beyond what you want to offer.

I understand not having a concrete locus to come from vis-a-vis Kinsey. Or any other instrument, for that matter. I know of no instrument that can capture intersex relations vs non-intersex.

That does not mean that the Kinsey model is bonkers because you break the mold; because you're the exception.

If you can propose a model that captures and categorizes the entire delineated phenomena of human sexuality, including intersex, you've got my undivided attention.

[–]MyLongestJourney 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Then again, it's a pretty piss poor scale if 95% of that scale is supposedly a black and white label. If people believe that "pure straight" "pure gay" and "bisexual" are the only 3 choices, then there's no need for a "scale." If they believe in other choices, then the scale should reflect that. It's conradictory.

I really fail to see your logic here.

Also, I'm intersex, don't pull this shit on me. I am not a third sex. This is not what I'm saying.

Opressed_Reptilian,I am a Biologist. The third sex bullshit irk me to no end. You wouldn't catch me dead spewing this crap.

I'm saying that some of us don't fit into neat boxes of "100% gay" or "100% straight" or bisexual.

There are only two sexes therefore I fail to see the logic behind that.

re "technically gay" or whatever but also have entirely different experiences to your average gay/straight/bi person.

Many people experimented for various reasons. But in the end you are either heterosexual,bisexual,or homosexual.

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I really fail to see your logic here.

The logic is this.

  1. The majority of the users on this sub think there's only 3, sometimes 4, sexualities. Gay, straight, bisexual, and sometimes asexual. They don't believe in variations and apparently any other variation is "TQ nonsense." They oppose the idea that sexuality is a "spectrum."

  2. Enter the Kinsey scale, which is a "spectrum", and even has points like "incidentally heterosexual", which is something this sub has got it's collective underwear in a twist in the past.

  3. People like you saying that the Kinsey scale is not a scale, but just a demonstration of "gay, bisexual, and straight." If only the far ends are gay/straight and ALL the other numbers are simply "bisexual", what is the point of it being a scale? Why bother believing in a scale if you just think that anyone who's ever been anything other than a "gold star" gay/lesbian or a 100% heterosexual is automatically bisexual, and a bisexual person is bisexual and all the same regardless of their experience and personal attraction? What purpose does it serve?

There are only two sexes therefore I fail to see the logic behind that.

Right, but not everyone is entirely attracted to one, both,or neither of those sexes. Those sexes can also have physical variations in appearance and hormones.

I'm only turned on by penises, but I'm far from "being attracted to men" considering I have not met a single real man I have honestly been attracted to. Not to mention, being intersex and looking androgynous makes attraction fucky anyway. There are people who sincerely believe I'm "like a girl" or am an entirely new sex and thus can't be straight/gay. Which is ridiculous, but on the other hand, it kinda is different to be attracted to an androgynous person if you're not into "typical" males/females, right?

Opressed_Reptilian,I am a Biologist. The third sex bullshit irk me to no end. You wouldn't catch me dead spewing this crap.

I wasn't aware of this; and a lot of people claiming to be biologists perpetuate the "third sex" myth anyway, so, that's not really relevant...?

Many people experimented for various reasons. But in the end you are either heterosexual,bisexual,or homosexual.

Okay, so, if I told you that I was "theoretically gay", but was never attracted to a real male, only penises but couldn't stand the thought of being with any man I've ever seen, either real life or photos, and that I desire to be with women NOT because I am sexually attracted to them, but because a female partner is what I believe would be the ONLY partner I'd be emotionally comfortable and safe with, then what? What do you call that?

Because it sure as hell isn't "just homosexual" because I can't relate to 99% of gay men, and like I said, have never been into a real man ever. But I'm also not heterosexual because I've never been sexually attracted to a female.

Sexuality has variations. There are outliers. It is a biological process and biology is often flawed. Just as sometimes someone's development can go wrong and you get some kind of weird androgynous looking person like me instead of a normal masculine male, people's sexualities can also be all over the place for a variety of reasons, reasons people don't fully understand because of scientific limitations AND culture making it taboo and "homophobic" to research the cause.

Sexuality isn't an innate magical thing like people seem to think "gender identity" is. It's not perfect, nor will it ever be. Outliers exist and I see no reason we should have to capitulate to extremely simplified boxes for the sake of woke activism, nor should we have to lie and say "why yes, I am a 100% gay homosexual who is totally into all the men!" if we are not. There's nothing wrong with variations, and admitting that there are variations does not mean that you support gender identity, "queer theory" or any of that nonsense.

[–]Ladis_Wascheharuum 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Lots of people (myself included) "fail" that test or can't accurately be measured

How the hell do you "fail" the Kinsey scale? That's like "failing" a height measurement.

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Don't ask me! I answered the questions in a way I don't think was that confusing, and still got a "question mark" result. I can't remember exactly but it said "Either you did this test wrong or you're a very strange person".

I mean I know I have a below average IQ and could easily be outsmarted by the average goldfish, but c'mon. It's not like it was a super hard mathematical exam or anything.

[–]Ladis_Wascheharuum 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sounds like whatever "test" you took was the problem. (Got a link?) There is no definitive test for the Kinsey scale, anyway. At least, not yet. The scale is just a description of your sexuality; are you exclusively attracted to your own sex (6), the opposite sex (0), or some degree of both (1-5). It's a limited tool but I don't agree that it's worthless.

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I took it many years ago. I tried to search for it, but found nothing close to what it was.

Anyway, even with that simplified version, I'm still a "?" score because I cannot really answer those questions. Am I attracted to the same sex? Well yes, but also no. Am I attracted to the opposite sex? No, but I also only consider the opposite sex as a potentially healthy partner for me.

Hence why a simple sliding scale is not enough for everyone. I'm weird, I'm aware, but I'm far from the only outlier.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Why is the Kinsey scale legitimate? Why wouldn't a more legitimate spectrum be asexual - monosexual - bisexual? That makes more logical sense.

[–]MyLongestJourney 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It is a scale of sexual attraction.So why count asexuals in?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's a spectrum of sexuality, not a scale (how's that different - because the kinsey scale is specifically a spectrum with varying amounts of gayness and biness and straightness?). This thread is specifically about the spectrum being ridiculous. It's 100% gay, everything else bi, 100% straight. That is ridiculous. 0-1-2 makes more sense than 1-2-(a different)1 as a spectrum.

[–]MyLongestJourney 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You know what ? I am tired of arguing semantics. Have a nice day.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I asked a question. You answered. I asked another question. Not sure how we're arguing semantics, but you have a good one, too.

[–]MyLongestJourney 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Whatever dude.

[–]LilianH 13 insightful - 4 fun13 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

It goes

Gay/lesbian > 1,000 different ways to say bisexual > Straight

[–]davids877Straight Male Man 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Kinsey did propose a 'spectrum', aka the Kinsey Scale, but still at each end is 'Heterosexual' and 'Homosexual', so yes everyone is on it, but that doesn't mean everyone is bisexual.

https://kinseyinstitute.org/research/publications/kinsey-scale.php

[–]reluctant_commenter 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol I shoulda scrolled down, I just linked that exact same link above before I saw your comment.

[–]slushpilot 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I do wonder if the Kinsey scale was designed to soften up homophobia & the perception of gay people at the time it was written. i.e. to present the idea that not all gay people are the stereotypical bears with leather, assless chaps, and hang out at the seedy gay bar...

Now, it seems like it's being used in a wrongheaded way (i.e. that it's a "preference").

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think the concept of "fluidity" is more of a threat to the acceptance of minority sexual orientations than a scale.

Hypothetical take:

If it's not at all permanent and you can just change it whenever you want, then maybe you should change it to fit in with the majority.

Or even worse:

If it's not at all permanent and it can change based on some unknown cause, then maybe we could find that cause and change you to fit in with the majority.

My main problem with the scale itself is the implication that strength of attraction to either sex necessarily decreases as it moves from side to side.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My main problem with the scale itself is the implication that strength of attraction to either sex necessarily decreases as it moves from side to side.

Yes! Been thinking this myself: the "sliding-scale" approach just doesn't really work.

Here's how I put it: the issue is that attraction to both sexes is measured along a single line. As though 1.] the only difference between the two is the degree of attraction one experiences; and 2.] that degree is necessarily fixed.

This seems like a pretty inadequate way of representing bisexuality. First, there may be (and often are) numerous differences in how one is attracted to each sex-- not only with respect to what constitutes your "type", but also how the very attraction itself feels, and the way it works... the "rules" governing it; the patterns and forms that it takes. Second, the degree of attraction can fluctuate-- one may feel more attracted to women at one time, more to men at another (and somewhere in-between at still others). For many bisexuals, this is a dynamic, even complex, thing.

Basically, then, my objection comes down to this model being based on MONOsexual assumptions-- the fact that it just isn't BISEXUAL enough. A single line makes sense from the gay or straight perspective; they have only one sex to measure attraction to. We don't. I think that bisexuals need a pair of scales. Separate, but perhaps intersecting at certain points. Or something like that. Otherwise... you just aren't really getting us.

Cuz we aren't merely what lies between the well-defined poles of gay and straight... we're our own thing.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well said. You elaborated it in a way I couldn't put into words. The single line scale is insufficient and misleading. I'm not gonna say attraction is fluid as that implies an overall transience and impermanence to one's sexual orientation which I don't think is true, but there is some ebb and flow over time around a basepoint.

Second, the degree of attraction can fluctuate-- one may feel more attracted to women at one time, more to men at another (and somewhere in-between at still others). For many bisexuals, this is a dynamic, even complex, thing.

Yeah, and said in that way, attraction can also be seen as a relative thing. The Kinsey single scale shows attraction for one sex decreasing as it goes up for the other. But does it really work that way? This is a very "zero sum" model. Like sand in an hourglass.

Basically, then, my objection comes down to this model being based on MONOsexual assumptions-- the fact that it just isn't BISEXUAL enough. A single line makes sense from the gay or straight perspective; they have only one sex to measure attraction to. We don't. I think that bisexuals need a pair of scales. Separate, but perhaps intersecting at certain points. Or something like that. Otherwise... you just aren't really getting us.

Yes, exactly. A pair of scales(Meters?). Female and Male attraction. And when one goes up or down in degree, the other may or may not necessarily move at all. But there is still relative movement as long as one changes. One attraction may become dominant over the other over time. And this would be unique to Bisexuals.

The Monosexual model can either be a same sex or opposite sex single attraction scale. The level/degree of which can fluctuate like a Bisexual's would, except the movement is not half as noticeable because there is no juxtaposition. In other words, A gay male, lesbian, or straight male/female will have natural ebbs and flows in attraction to a single sex, but these go relatively unnoticed because they don't have attractions to a second sex to compare it too.

Anyway, it's clearly a very rough idea for an alternate model but it's helpful in that it negates both the "Everyone's Bisexual" or "Sexuality is fluid and changeable" concepts which monosexuals have to deal with. The tldr of the model goes like this:

  1. Heterosexuals get a opposite sex attraction scale.
  2. Homosexuals get a same sex attraction scale.
  3. Bisexuals get same and opposite sex attraction scales.
  4. The level in each scale can change over time. Perhaps independent of each other when it comes to Bi?.

Now, this is currently overly simplistic and probably only really useful as a potential visualization exercise for bisexuals and those who want to understand the difference between sexual orientations. But I think it may become useful in a way that the Kinsey scale isn't.

Edit: Also, Aces. The Kinsey Scale does not account for Asexuals. But maybe this model with it's 'degrees of attraction' can.

[–]slushpilot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My point was that it means different things now than it did then.

Think back to Seinfeld's "not that there's anything wrong with that" bit. We're well past that now.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I get that; It's definitely being used in a way it wasn't originally meant to. And it's current use more misinforms then enlightens.

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's an awkward way of saying "not everyone's sexuality is clear-cut black and white". Which is true. But what it DOESN'T mean is "everyone is bi" or "you HAVE to be attracted to both types of genitals", which is how some people use it.

Human sexuality IS very diverse, it's not uncommon to get weirdos like me who have much more to how their sexuality functions than "how gay or straight someone is on a sliding scale." It's also pretty common for people's preferences, be it sex preferences or other preferences like body type or physical features, to change over time. However, that does not mean everyone is capable of being attracted to anything, nor is attraction a choice. Mine is very out-there, all over the place, and not at all simple to understand... but there's no way in hell I consciously chose it.

[–]Constantine 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just another example of these people being obsessed with words while at the same time not actually knowing what they mean. For something to be a spectrum, there by definition must be people at either end of it. Otherwise it's not a spectrum.

For example, political leanings. There are people at either end who are very left or right-wing. Then there's everybody in between. But if everyone were in between, there wouldn't be the need for the "spectrum" since everyone would just have varied opinions and there would be no hard lines. Just like with the autism spectrum: if there aren't any non-autistic people, why would we talk about an autism spectrum? That makes no sense.

I'm willing to wager that there are far more bisexual people in the world than those who identify as such. But I'm also willing to bet that the vast majority of them identify instead as straight, at least until recent woke shenanigans. Think about it, if you were bi, why would you come out as gay or lesbian historically when you had the potential to be attracted to the opposite sex and not face persecution? The fact that gay men and lesbians have existed even in the darkest periods of history is proof enough for me that there are people who are exclusively same-sex attracted.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It’s simple, on the ends of the scale there is homosexual and heterosexual... the spectrum part is all the bisexuals in the middle. I think somone who is close to either end may identify as homosexual or heterosexual but really isn’t.. and instead we get new terms like heteroflexible.

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The exception does not make the rule. It's that simple. Most people are either exclusively straight or exclusively gay. Are there people who are mostly straight and mostly gay? Yeah, yeah there are. Bisexuals? Check.

Conceivably, you can put all these people on a spectrum from straight to gay, but that does not mean their sexuality is mutable; just because the spectrum exists.

[–]kwallio 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

For some reason trans politics is caught up in the idea that binaries (any binary) are oppressive. Everything is a spectrum, even things that actually are binary like sex determination. I'm not deep enough into woque theory to know why, but its something I've noticed. Simply saying something is a binary and not a "spectrum" is oppressive.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Postmodernism loves fuzzy definitions.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Physiologically a spectrum is actually more accurate because sexuality is likely determined through epigenetics.

That is, there are some number of genes which make a person feel attraction towards M or F. Effectively everyone has the same sexual attraction genes. We are supposed to have our opposite sex attraction genes turned on and the same sex attraction genes turned off otherwise reproduction wouldn't work and the species would die off.

Genes get turned on or off through complicated chain reactions and it's extremely unlikely that any particular gene can be hard set to the off position. It's just that one attraction ends up overwhelming the other and the person becomes effectively locked onto a single sex.

[–]MyLongestJourney 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

That is, there are some number of genes which make a person feel attraction towards M or F.

Which are those genes?

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What are you asking? As far as I'm aware we only know of 2 and both of those relate to gay males. One is on the X chromosome and a certain version of the gene is linked to both female "fertility" and male homosexuality. They called it fertility but that seems misleading. It's basically a gene that makes a person more horny for men which explains why women with that version have more children and men are more likely to be gay.

Whatever the other gene is idk, and whatever other number of sexuality genes exist idk and we might not ever find them if they serve multiple purposes.

[–]MyLongestJourney 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I though my question was clear. Hey let me clarify : Link me to the study/ies identifying those gay genes. Because I am a Biologist and I think that if there was a clear scientific consensus on the existence of "gay" genes,I would have heard of it.But maybe I missed it.So...link?

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/abs/genomewide-scan-demonstrates-significant-linkage-for-male-sexual-orientation/864518601436C95563EA670C5F380343

There are other studies which claim to refute the idea of a genetic link but for some reason i see them declaring "there is no SINGLE gene" that makes someone gay and act surprised that it doesn't line up for men and women but it's like... Yeah no shit...

[–]MyLongestJourney 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

To sum up no gay genes were identified.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Ok? I never said there was a "gay gene". That framing is entirely wrong. That's the same silly framing the counter studies use. Do you need me to rephrase my statement to say that the specific gene was not isolated or can you stop the pedantic hair splitting?

Results, especially in the context of past studies, support the existence of genes on pericentromeric chromosome 8 and chromosome Xq28 influencing development of male sexual orientation.

It specifically found 2 regions of interest. I know it isn't "scientific" to assume that sexuality is affected by more than the 2 but I'll do so anyway and that assumption is way more sound than trying to assume it would need to be a single gene like the other papers seem to do.

[–]MyLongestJourney 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

These are your own words :

That is, there are some number of genes which make a person feel attraction towards M or F. Effectively everyone has the same sexual attraction genes. We are supposed to have our opposite sex attraction genes turned on and the same sex attraction genes turned off

You claimed there is a number of genes controlling sexual attraction and that everyone has the same sexual attraction genes. In reality no genes controlling sexuality have been identified. Have a very nice day.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They literally point to the regions where the genes are located. Saying that the specific gene wasn't isolated is irrelevant and it obviously does not mean that the genes don't exist. That's like saying my house doesn't exist because i I've only revealed that I live somewhere in the US.

[–]MyLongestJourney 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Whatever dude.