Fascinating new study points to the biological basis of homosexuality

[kogase]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
If you want it to be bandied about by laypeople on a discussion board, you might get by with this layperson's definition of "theory". If you wanted to discuss it in a scientific context, you would have to refer to it as a hypothesis.

Why would I do that? How do you assume that my theory was presented in anything close to a scientific fashion?

Edit: Also, why is somebody discussing a theory in a non-scientific fashion and anyone who discusses it with him a layperson in your view?

 

[Tom]

"Sounds like BS - explain Bisexuals?"


Mother chewed Doublmint gum during pregnancy.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
If you want it to be bandied about by laypeople on a discussion board, you might get by with this layperson's definition of "theory". If you wanted to discuss it in a scientific context, you would have to refer to it as a hypothesis.

Why would I do that? How do you assume that my theory was presented in anything close to a scientific fashion?

Edit: Also, why is somebody discussing a theory in a non-scientific fashion and anyone who discusses it with him a layperson in your view?

You misunderstood my post. If you want to discuss your idea with laypeople, you can get away with calling it a theory. If you want to discuss it in a scientific context, you can't. The word "theory" is not a synonym for "hypothesis" in a scientific context. It is more appropriate to call it a hypothesis, since every sense of that word is correct; it is hard to mistake. Your random thought is certainly no scientific theory.

 

[thebigdude]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
Remember you can use statistics to prove anything, 34% of people know that...

That's a great line.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You misunderstood my post. If you want to discuss your idea with laypeople, you can get away with calling it a theory. If you want to discuss it in a scientific context, you can't. The word "theory" is not a synonym for "hypothesis" in a scientific context. It is more appropriate to call it a hypothesis, since every sense of that word is correct; it is hard to mistake. Your random thought is certainly no scientific theory.

I didn't misunderstand. I knew what you meant, and I know the difference between a theory (a word that existed before the concept of "science" existed) and a scientific theory. I'm saying I wasn't nor do I intend to present my theory in a scientific context. Not sure why you'd think I would either, as this isn't a science board and I made no attempt to back up my theory with rigorously obtained scientific evidence.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You misunderstood my post. If you want to discuss your idea with laypeople, you can get away with calling it a theory. If you want to discuss it in a scientific context, you can't. The word "theory" is not a synonym for "hypothesis" in a scientific context. It is more appropriate to call it a hypothesis, since every sense of that word is correct; it is hard to mistake. Your random thought is certainly no scientific theory.

I didn't misunderstand. I knew what you meant, and I know the difference between a theory (a word that existed before the concept of "science" existed) and a scientific theory. I'm saying I wasn't nor do I intend to present my theory in a scientific context. Not sure why you'd think I would either, as this isn't a science board and I made no attempt to back up my theory with rigorously obtained scientific evidence.

I will repeat again what I said, which is absolutely correct (which you have not disputed):

If you want it to be bandied about by laypeople on a discussion board, you might get by with this layperson's definition of "theory". If you wanted to discuss it in a scientific context, you would have to refer to it as a hypothesis.

Where's your beef with that? You make yourself look stupid with this argument. In addition, the word "theory" was not a good choice in a thread full of discussions of scientific studies, etc.

You will continue to repeatedly pwn yourself by replying.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You misunderstood my post. If you want to discuss your idea with laypeople, you can get away with calling it a theory. If you want to discuss it in a scientific context, you can't. The word "theory" is not a synonym for "hypothesis" in a scientific context. It is more appropriate to call it a hypothesis, since every sense of that word is correct; it is hard to mistake. Your random thought is certainly no scientific theory.

I didn't misunderstand. I knew what you meant, and I know the difference between a theory (a word that existed before the concept of "science" existed) and a scientific theory. I'm saying I wasn't nor do I intend to present my theory in a scientific context. Not sure why you'd think I would either, as this isn't a science board and I made no attempt to back up my theory with rigorously obtained scientific evidence.

I will repeat again what I said, which is absolutely correct (which you have not disputed):

If you want it to be bandied about by laypeople on a discussion board, you might get by with this layperson's definition of "theory". If you wanted to discuss it in a scientific context, you would have to refer to it as a hypothesis.

Where's your beef with that? You make yourself look stupid with this argument. In addition, the word "theory" was not a good choice in a thread full of discussions of scientific studies, etc.

You will continue to repeatedly pwn yourself by replying.

Haven't disputed?

Originally posted by: kogase
Edit: Also, why is somebody discussing a theory in a non-scientific fashion and anyone who discusses it with him a layperson in your view?

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You misunderstood my post. If you want to discuss your idea with laypeople, you can get away with calling it a theory. If you want to discuss it in a scientific context, you can't. The word "theory" is not a synonym for "hypothesis" in a scientific context. It is more appropriate to call it a hypothesis, since every sense of that word is correct; it is hard to mistake. Your random thought is certainly no scientific theory.

I didn't misunderstand. I knew what you meant, and I know the difference between a theory (a word that existed before the concept of "science" existed) and a scientific theory. I'm saying I wasn't nor do I intend to present my theory in a scientific context. Not sure why you'd think I would either, as this isn't a science board and I made no attempt to back up my theory with rigorously obtained scientific evidence.

I will repeat again what I said, which is absolutely correct (which you have not disputed):

If you want it to be bandied about by laypeople on a discussion board, you might get by with this layperson's definition of "theory". If you wanted to discuss it in a scientific context, you would have to refer to it as a hypothesis.

Where's your beef with that? You make yourself look stupid with this argument. In addition, the word "theory" was not a good choice in a thread full of discussions of scientific studies, etc.

You will continue to repeatedly pwn yourself by replying.

Haven't disputed?

Originally posted by: kogase
Edit: Also, why is somebody discussing a theory in a non-scientific fashion and anyone who discusses it with him a layperson in your view?

No, you haven't disputed what I said, because you didn't understand it (and/or have committed a terrible logic error). My answer to that stupid question is that you apparently assume that I have a view I don't have. Please play again.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Please play again.

I don't think I will. Your continued obnixousness (here and elsewhere) makes discussing anything with you feel pointless. Wasting my time like this isn't worth convincing you of anything.

 

[Legend]

If the prenatal theory is correct, I wonder what sort of implications of all this soy food will be. Scientific studies have shown that nonfermented soy is estrogenic, and that it can retard sexual development in boys that drink soy milk.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Please play again.

I don't think I will. Your continued obnixousness (here and elsewhere) makes discussing anything with you feel pointless. Wasting my time like this isn't worth convincing you of anything.

You're the one that was obnoxious. I made an innocuous post, actually agreeing with you, and you decided to attack me in the weakest, most indefensible way. You have a clear opening to explain how the hell you made the stunning leap to the conclusion that I decided that "somebody discussing a theory in a non-scientific fashion and anyone who discusses it with him [is] a layperson in [my] view", but you can't take it.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Legend
If the prenatal theory is correct, I wonder what sort of implications of all this soy food will be. Scientific studies have shown that nonfermented soy is estrogenic, and that it can retard sexual development in boys that drink soy milk.

That's pretty scary, as some popular baby formulas are soy-based.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Gibsons
You might be able to supplement hormones to the fetus to overcome the antibodies, or perhaps prevent antibodies from crossing the placenta (only IgG crosses the placenta).

that would be the height of stupidity. You'd end up with a society of football players and firemen. No scientists, no musicians, no designers, no artists, no poets.

So there's no such thing as a homosexual fireman or a heterosexual scientist.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Please play again.

I don't think I will. Your continued obnixousness (here and elsewhere) makes discussing anything with you feel pointless. Wasting my time like this isn't worth convincing you of anything.

You're the one that was obnoxious. I made an innocuous post, actually agreeing with you, and you decided to attack me in the weakest, most indefensible way. You have a clear opening to explain how the hell you made the stunning leap to the conclusion that I decided that "somebody discussing a theory in a non-scientific fashion and anyone who discusses it with him [is] a layperson in [my] view", but you can't take it.

After reading through your posts again it looks like you weren't trying to offend me, and it looks like I have rashly jumped to conclusions about your intentions, and for that I apologize. I've had a habit of doing that a lot lately on these forums, due in no small part to frequenting Off Topic more than P&N.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Gibsons
You might be able to supplement hormones to the fetus to overcome the antibodies, or perhaps prevent antibodies from crossing the placenta (only IgG crosses the placenta).

that would be the height of stupidity. You'd end up with a society of football players and firemen. No scientists, no musicians, no designers, no artists, no poets.

So there's no such thing as a homosexual fireman or a heterosexual scientist.

The OP is a sexual elitist.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Anybody that grew up with more than 2 gay people knows that NATURE plays a huge and likely primary role in sexual orientation. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that science will stem the tide of intolerance . . . considering many of the intolerant don't really care for science.

I am digging Daryl Bem's stuff on gays.

"What is exotic is erotic"

Bem's study here

And no he is not a crack pot

Bem isn't totally off the reservation but he's reaching . . .
The take home is that genes are often probabilistic NOT deterministic but Bem doesn't appear to distinguish sexual orientation from sexual behavior.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Termagant

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Gibsons
You might be able to supplement hormones to the fetus to overcome the antibodies, or perhaps prevent antibodies from crossing the placenta (only IgG crosses the placenta).

that would be the height of stupidity. You'd end up with a society of football players and firemen. No scientists, no musicians, no designers, no artists, no poets.

So there's no such thing as a homosexual fireman or a heterosexual scientist.

The OP is a sexual elitist.

And if so would you be willing to concede that gays via a lifetime of ridicule and scorn from homophobic fools might not develop a tendency to over compensate a bit?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Anybody that grew up with more than 2 gay people knows that NATURE plays a huge and likely primary role in sexual orientation. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that science will stem the tide of intolerance . . . considering many of the intolerant don't really care for science.

I am digging Daryl Bem's stuff on gays.

"What is exotic is erotic"

Bem's study here

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbar...://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Bem</a>">And no he is not a crack pot</a>

Bem isn't totally off the reservation but he's reaching . . .
The take home is that genes are often probabilistic NOT deterministic but Bem doesn't appear to distinguish sexual orientation from sexual behavior.

Can't open that second link. I find no intuitive recognition in this theory. I can't identify with this notion of the exotic nor do I see how it might apply to animals. Sounds like BS to me.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
And while we await this great awakening among all mankind, bigotry will continue to kill every day.

Unfortunately, I see no evidence that mankind is moving toward any sort of awakening. Humankind continues to find innovative ways to express hatred, to desperately divide groups into "us" and "them", to follow like sheep leaders who promise safety from the big, bad wolf.

The big, bad wolf is a Jew, an interned Japanese American, a black, a gay person, the secret terrorist, and the NY Times (for daring to reveal the super-secret violations of our liberties).

As long as humans fear death and place their trust in demagogs, bigotry will find an easy home.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
In a nutshell, boys who have a biological (genetically related) older brother are more likely to be gay. This occurs even if the brothers are raised apart or don't spend time together - indicating that the effect is probably biological as opposed to a socialising or environmental effect due to the presence of the older brother. Also, boys raised with adopted older brothers are not more likely to be gay.

Gay Biology
by The Canadian Press

June 26, 2006 - 11:00 am ET

(Toronto, Ontario) A new study suggests a male's sexual orientation is not the product of his environment but rather is influenced by biological factors present before birth.

Researchers at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ont., have found evidence that ``a prenatal mechanism(s) . . . affect men's sexual orientation development.''

The study's author, Prof. Anthony F. Bogaert, explored the causes behind what is known as the fraternal birth order, research that shows a correlation between the number of biological older brothers a man has and his sexual orientation.

But that concept leaves unclear whether older brothers have a socializing effect on sexuality, or if biological factors are at play.

Bogaert's study, which will be published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, argues for the so-called nature, instead of nurture, explanation of homosexuality.

``These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men and indicate that the fraternal birth-order effect is probably the result of a maternal `memory' for male gestations or births,'' Bogaert writes.

Bogaert, who teaches in both the community health science and psychology departments at Brock, studied more than 900 heterosexual and homosexual men in Canada who had either biological or non-biological brothers.

Dividing his sample into four groups, Bogaert examined the impact of all types of older brothers, including step and adopted siblings, and the amount of time brothers spent together while growing up.

His research found that only the number of biological brothers had an impact on sexuality, regardless of whether the boys were raised together.

``The number of biological older brothers, including those not reared with the participant . . . increases the probability of homosexuality in men,'' the study reads.

Bogaert also found that the amount of time being raised with older brothers did not influence a younger sibling's likelihood of being gay.

Writing a commentary piece accompanying Bogaert's study, professors from Michigan State University noted that his research puts to lie the notion that one's social environment can affect sexuality.

``It is the number of older biological brothers the mother carried, not the presence of older brothers while growing up, that makes some boys grow up to be gay,'' write David Puts, Cynthia Jordan and Marc Breedlove.

Bogaert's study, entitled Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men's sexual orientation, was published Monday in an online version of the PNAS journal.

©365Gay.com 2006

hahahaaaaa...no bias in there reporting...rofl.....America`s most read gay newpaper!
here we go again...lol..

THe article sounds like it was written by a gay scientist doing research to find ways to prove his gayness is OK.. ..

Don't get your feelings hurt and then call people names.. geesh..

I think that's a queer theory But I concur with you, if it is truly 100% genetic then yes it does change everything.

-- the only problem with the whole article is well how can i say-- its a gay scientist writing for a gay magazine...hmm

it's called the fraternal birth effect: the more brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be gay.

-- this is not mainstream terminology in fact it is totallyunsubstantiated
by heterosexual scientist!

yes, that's right. my lttwl fweeelings are hurt. it has nothing to do with disappointment, at your stupidity. If you're not capable of taking part in a discussion like this, if you are not capable of grasping even the most basic concepts in statistics, why do you even post in this thread?

again those statistics are also unsubstatiated...except by scientists who also happen to be gay.......hmmm

Research like this highlights the inhumanity of the position of the church, republicans, conservatives, etc. They are condemning individuals because of the way they were born.

-- I am sorry but there is NO proof they were born gay!

Bobdelt--Remember you can use statistics to prove anything, 34% of people know that...

It does honestly sound like the study had a bias from the start. The fact that it says a study suggests probably means that the study did not have a high level of significance or they would have worded it more strongly.

Don't forget about the gays that are only children or have no brothers. And to the guy who thinks it was built into the system, do you think a more efficient method would be to produce woman instead? Dont you think the gay gene would have died out through evolution? .

-- I agree totally!

jimkyser Senior Member --- There is no gay gene. You can`t even conclude using this article as a basis for proof.

Bottom line I have nothing against my homosexual friends but I personally do not believe they were born that way.
I also donot believe there is any scientific proof to back up the genetics issue!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Please play again.

I don't think I will. Your continued obnixousness (here and elsewhere) makes discussing anything with you feel pointless. Wasting my time like this isn't worth convincing you of anything.

You're the one that was obnoxious. I made an innocuous post, actually agreeing with you, and you decided to attack me in the weakest, most indefensible way. You have a clear opening to explain how the hell you made the stunning leap to the conclusion that I decided that "somebody discussing a theory in a non-scientific fashion and anyone who discusses it with him [is] a layperson in [my] view", but you can't take it.

Actually almost everything kogase posts comes accross as being very arogant.
I agree with you 6000SUX!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
And while we await this great awakening among all mankind, bigotry will continue to kill every day.

Unfortunately, I see no evidence that mankind is moving toward any sort of awakening. Humankind continues to find innovative ways to express hatred, to desperately divide groups into "us" and "them", to follow like sheep leaders who promise safety from the big, bad wolf.

The big, bad wolf is a Jew, an interned Japanese American, a black, a gay person, the secret terrorist, and the NY Times (for daring to reveal the super-secret violations of our liberties).

As long as humans fear death and place their trust in demagogs, bigotry will find an easy home.

Man is motivated to be the way he is. Humanity is asleep living in an upside down world. How can the sleeper awaken himself from his own sleep. How can the eye see itself. The fear of death is the fear of life ending without ever having lived, to know that ones whole life has transpired asleep. We have been forced by being put down to hate our true self. Because we can have no trust but only contempt for what we are we need demagogues to fill that void and we become them to fatten our egos, the substitute self we create. Our bigotry is our belief in the put downs we were subjected to projected out there. We cannot remember what happened without awakening tremendous pain so we sleep. We cannot believe this is our condition. But here and there sometimes people wiggle free. Who can imagine what such people can do. Only they, no?

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
hahahaaaaa...no bias in there reporting...rofl.....America`s most read gay newpaper!
here we go again...lol..

THe article sounds like it was written by a gay scientist doing research to find ways to prove his gayness is OK..

the only problem with the whole article is well how can i say-- its a gay scientist writing for a gay magazine...hmm

Bottom line I have nothing against my homosexual friends but I personally do not believe they were born that way.
I also donot believe there is any scientific proof to back up the genetics issue!

Let me make this simple for you (from the OP):

Bogaert's study, which will be published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science

You do know that pop newsrags DO publish pointers to highly respected research in scientific journals because most of their readers would otherwise miss such articles?

Gay365 is merely a newsrag reporting that the research will be published IN A HIGHLY RESPECTED AND AUDITED SCIENCE JOURNAL - with no ties to the gay community, gay research specialities, etc. It is a purely science journal, reporting on all aspects of natural science...Where it has been peer reviewed, checked for accuracy and reasonableness, and will be subject to even MORE review and debate by professional scientists of all sexual orientations when it is published.

Let me quote you the 5 most read articleson the PNAS online site for this month:

1. Robert G. Blazej, Palani Kumaresan, Richard A. Mathies
From the Cover: Microfabricated bioprocessor for integrated nanoliter-scale Sanger DNA sequencing
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA May 09, 2006; 103: 7240-7245.
(In "Applied Biological Sciences")

2. Cornelius S. Barry, James J. Giovannoni
From The Cover: Ripening in the tomato Green-ripe mutant is inhibited by ectopic expression of a protein that disrupts ethylene signaling
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA May 16, 2006; 103: 7923-7928.
(In "Plant Biology")

3. Amy M. Hicks, Gregory Riedlinger, Mark C. Willingham, Martha A. Alexander-Miller, C. Von Kap-Herr, Mark J. Pettenati, Anne M. Sanders, Holly M. Weir, Wei Du, Joseph Kim, Andrew J. G. Simpson, Lloyd J. Old, Zheng Cui
Transferable anticancer innate immunity in spontaneous regression/complete resistance mice
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA May 08, 2006; 0: 60238210.
(In "Immunology")

4. Michael B. Eisen, Paul T. Spellman, Patrick O. Brown, David Botstein
Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Dec 08, 1998; 95: 14863-14868.
(In "Genetics")

5. Richard Cordaux, Swalpa Udit, Mark A. Batzer, Cédric Feschotte
From the Cover: Birth of a chimeric primate gene by capture of the transposase gene from a mobile

Boy, what GAY ORIENTED TOPICS, huh? DNA sequencing machinery, tomato ripening in engineered tomatoe genes, cluster analysis of genome-wide expression pattersns!?!?! All that GAY RESEARCH, huh?

It is true that this is a gay newsrag that is taking notice, but frankly there is nothing to suggest that Boegaert himself is homosexual given that it is being published in the PNAS, that the research was funded by gay causes, or anything else. If you want to make those claims, you would need to research him independantly that a gay paper happened to point out that his research was being published in a scientific journal...I bet the odds are good Boegart himself has never even read Gay365...but I bet you he is a lifetime subscriber to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science...

Your claims of bias and personal vendettas ring so hollow that I wonder what it is like inside your pink little closet...

Future Shock

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Eh, old news

It isn't old news at all. the *point* of the study was to determine if the effect (of older brothers influencing sexual orientation of males) was due to environmental versus 'biological'/ prenatal effects. the finding of this study is new. i.e., it has never been made before.

Are you illiterate, or did you just knee-jerk after I pointed out that a functionally identical study was published 3 months ago, with nearly identical findings?

The study you are refering to (the cut and paste abstract) was not "functionally identical" to this study.

The experimental designs are entirely different - they serve enturely different purposes.


The relationship between sexual orientation in males and # of older brothers could be
1) mediated biologically ("nature")
2) could be due to the environmental (as in, "nurture") effects of having an older brother in the family.

This study uses both ADOPTED OLDER BROTHERS and GENETICALLY RELATED older brothers.
It uses older brothers that were raised WITH and APART FROM the gay male.

This is the first study to do this in a systematic way.

Because of the unique experimental design, the study allows the researches to conclude that the effect of having older brothers on a male's sexual orientation is not a "nurture" effect - it is mediated biologically.

Thius hasn't been shown before. People have theorised or hypothesized that the effect was biological in nature - but the objection was always there that the effect could be due to the way an older brother changes the childhood environment of the younger brother. THIS study rules this objection out. FOR THE FIRST TIME. THIS IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS STUDY.

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Studies 'teasing out biological versus social contributions' to homosexuality have been done many, many times before (the earliest I can recall are over 10 years old now), but I'll pardon your ignorance.

This study looks at the known relationship between the number of older male brothers, and a male's sexual orientation. THIS IS THE FIRST STUDY THAT SEPARATES OUT NATURE AND NURTURE EFFECTS RE: THIS RELATIONSHIP. No researcher has done this before re: the relationship between the number of older brothers a male has, and a male's sexual orientation. Until thus study, it was possible to suggest that this relationship was a "nurture" effect - i.e., the presence of an older brother in the household changes the male's childhood environment ("nurture") which leads to changes in sexual orientation. THIS STUDY suggests that this reasoning is not correct - and that the effect is a "nature" or biologically mediated effect. The study is able to do this because it uses both GENETIC and ADOPTED older brothers. And older brothers who were raised with and apart from their younger brothers. A UNIQUE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN. THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE BEFORE.

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Again, anyone with a marginal education in the biological basis of behavior knows sexual orientation will have both a biological & environmental component. There are scores of researchers trying to figure out what, exactly, those components are, and the notion that birth order might play some role in determining orientation is not new.

You have completely missed the significance of this study.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Well as a former football player (and wrestler) and current physician scientist . . . I beg to differ.

my point is that prenatal hormones influence more than sexual orientation. I was responding to the suggestion that parents could expose their their baby in utero to higher levels of androgens, to prevent homosexuality. But prenatal androgens must have other effects on the adult personality of the baby than just sexual orientation. e.g., girls who are exposed to higher levels of testosterone in utero are not only more likely to be lesbian in adulthood, but are also more likely to be tomboys and have gender-atypical (i.e., stereotypically masculine) interests. Maybe a similar effect could occur with males. Do you want to live in a society of hyper-masculinized males (with all that that entails - the aggression, the incessant talking about football and cars, etc)? I'm just raising one possibility.