GAYDAR
just before lunchtime on Saturday, the 11th of November 2006 by Chad
In experiments, Bailey has shown videos of men talking and walking, then asked people to rate whether the subjects are gay. The viewers were right about 70 percent of the time, he said.
OK, so let me get this straight. The same people protesting saying that being gay has a genetic basis, are also the ones saying you can’t tell the difference?!?
Some idjit on slashdot years ago was commenting on an article on the Atkins diet. Basically his point was that Asians are usually skinny, but eat rice all the time. So Atkins is crap of course, because Asians surely aren’t genetically different to maybe process starches differently. Well, if they weren’t genetically different at all, they wouldn’t be called Asians, or Negroid, or Caucasian. Because they would all look exactly alike. As it is, I don’t know of any research that says Asian people do digest rice better, however that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
But back to the subject at hand. If being gay is genetic, that means that there are usually multiple expressions of the genetic change. These expressions are most likely detectable some way by the general public, even if subconciously.
![[del.icio.us]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Sphere]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/sphere.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Email]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
December 23rd, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Your slashdot idjit was wrong in his details, but right in his conclusion. Different ethnicities definitely do have different genetic tendencies; for instance, most caucasians are unusual in their ability to digest lactose as adults, and many asians don’t produce enough acetaldehyde dehydrogenase to process alcohol quickly.
However, this would NOT apply to the Atkins diet. Atkins is dependent upon ketosis, which is the process of breaking down stored fats into fatty acids that can be used for energy. Ketosis only kicks in when glycogen (most commonly derived from consuming carbs) is unavailable. So Atkins is basically deliberately inducing and prolonging ketosis to work through stored fat.
This process is tremendously basic, and applies (with no significant differences) to all primates. For an ethnicity to have a different reaction to the Atkins diet would be as unusual and noteworthy as if everyone from Japan had gills, or Englishmen had four-chambered stomachs and chewed a cud.
The basic Atkins process definitely works for losing weight, although there are some valid questions about what other consequences it has. The objection the Slashdotter presumably had was the subsequent conclusion drawn by many adherents to the Atkins philosophy that carbs are evil, and consuming carbs will inevitably lead to being fat. This is, of course, crap. Taking in more energy than you put out leads to being fat. Barring particular metabolic disorders, the obesity solution is some combination of less intake and more output. Atkins works because it basically artificially induces a metabolic disorder, forcing the body to burn reserves since the high levels of intake don’t contain any readily usable simple energy.
December 23rd, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Oh, and the existence of gaydar doesn’t say anything significant about whether or not homosexuality has a genetic basis. There’s no way (short of some pretty damn inhumane experimentation) to tell which personality traits come from genetics and which come from socialized learning. Particular manifestations may also be second-order derivatives; being attracted to males is considered a feminine trait, so a male experiencing same-sex attraction may subconsciously attempt to emulate female mannerisms.
Or it might actually be genetic. Like I said, there’s no real way to tell unless we isolate some DNA sequences that have a dramatic (near 100%) correlation with any given individual’s orientation. I find it amusing that there are supporters and detractors of the genetic basis in both pro- and anti-homosexuality camps. Pro are split between those who say it’s not a choice they can make or change, and those who seem offended by the implication that their identity can be determined by simple genetics. Anti are split between those who want to characterize homosexuality as a moral failing, and those who want to classify it as a genetic disorder. I kind of wonder why it really matters either way.