Talk:Pathogenic hypothesis of homosexuality

	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
LGBT studies This redirect is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Since this article conveniently links to Scientific_theory, it may be worthwhile to review Scientific_theory#Characteristics when considering this article. Speculation or conjecture are not scientific theories. I think the title is hopelessly POV because it incorporates two POV assumptions: (a) that homosexuality is a pathology, and (b) that this conjecture is a scientific theory. --Tabor 16:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm these are interesting points but I'm not sure. It seems to be a subset of the

fitness cost that isnt explained by other environmental factors is due to pathogens. It us undoubtly true that homosexuality has a high fitness cost as gay and lesbian people have what appears to be only 1/5 the number of children compared to heterosexual couples, meaning a fitness cost of 80% - a fitness cost of anything more than 1% is rarely found in a population due to genetics. --ShaunMacPherson

17:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] But this discounts the value of uncles and aunts in survival of offspring. The so-called "fitness cost" to non-breeders doesn't stop wolves or ants or various birds. Read something (can't remember where) about the selective advantage of homosexuality in humans, cast in precisely these terms. Guettarda 17:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Were you able to input it in, this is an excellent point. I added the evidence of homosexuality being found in many species observation also, meaning that this pathogen (if it exists) would have to be wide spread and thus mroe easily found, and if it is in many species it would be everywhere and thus would likely affect more than 1-5%(10%?) percent of species' populations. --ShaunMacPherson 17:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "The assertion that 'evolution would have bred out homosexuality genes' ignores the existence of kin selection;" seems a bit tendentious. Certainly, this assertion discounts the relevance of kin selection, but you are assuming that kin selection is indeed relevant. Are there are any other examples of kin selection causing behaviors that are so obviously disastrous in terms of directly passing on your own genes? - Nat Krause 06:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update 2, I also incorporated counter points such as the ones you've raised right from the article from Out Magazine we've discussed. The idea is out there, let us document it fully, let it be NPOV and raise the issues and problems of this theory. --ShaunMacPherson 17:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Classifying as pseudoscience, based on criteria given at Pseudoscience#Classifying_pseudoscience --Tabor 23:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I took that out. It's blatantly prejudicial, which can hardly be justified by reference to some other Wikipedia page. - Nat Krause 06:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced it - as of now, there's nothing to distinguish this "theory" from cold fusion, creation science or any other pseudoscience. --

FCYTravis

20:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe the psudoscience category should be removed, cold fusion has been discredited' as a theory since it could not be replicated. So far this theory has not been discredited, it is currently based on widely held and credited principles of biology, (it is the principles in aggregate and the conclusion that the proponents say that is what causes the controversy). --ShaunMacPherson 00:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well said. - Nat Krause 05:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article or the hypothesis describes homosexuality as a pathology. It says that it is caused by a pathogen—is it possible that it might be associated with some other pathology? in any event, the article appears to defend against charges that homosexuality is a

The pathogen aspect is from the hypothizied microorganism, not that homosexual behaviour is a pathogen. If there are wording issues to make sure that this comes across let's make them. It is also true that this is all about reproduction and does not go into psychology, it is very core biology in that respect, we need an articlea bout fitness level as a percentage too.

What I meant was, does the theory claim that homosexuality is a pathology? If something is caused by a pathogen, is it necessarily a pathology? Maybe it's just a semantic problem. We could say Microorganism theory of homosexuality. - Nat Krause 05:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes that sounds much much better. Doing so neatly seperates the idea that a microorganism (pathogen) maybe the cause from labeling homosexual behaviour as pathogenic. If you would like to move it using the move ability I would be in agreement. --ShaunMacPherson 13:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removing the merge proposal, as I count it, and I could be wrong, the vote was: 7 Merge, 5 Keep, 2 Delete. As far as I know, and again I could be wrong :o), a super majority of 2/3 is needed. Talk ->

The idea is to develop consensus, and since there was no consensus to merge the article then I believe the status quo should be preserved. As well, the VfD message falsely labeled this as one person's theory which appears to be false. Other people are proponents of the idea such as Paul W. Ewald, a biology professor at Amherst College in Massachusetts.

Please leave your comments here, there was not much discussion on VfD despite me making the above apparent as to why people wanted a merger despite it being a theory that is scientifically sound with more than one proponent. --ShaunMacPherson 22:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have added a {{

^talk

05:20, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Scientifically sound? Can you point me towards some evidence of this? Guettarda 05:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)'

If you've evidence that it is not feel free to share it, esp. those that which the article deleted.

So far as I understand the theory to be it is based on the general fitness theorm of biology / evolution: A gene that has a high fitness cost (a factor reducing ability to reproduce) is rarely found in a given population above 1% as individuals within the population would out complete those who possess the given gene. Therefore if there is a high fitness cost condition found in a population it is likely caused by the environment - likely an insult via a microorganism. All this 'microorganism theory of homosexuality' does is apply this chain of reasoning to the case of the high fitness cost (80% since it appears only 1 in 5 gay individuals have children) found in the gay human & animal population.

Fitness cost is a core idea in biology and seems to be scientfically sound. If anyone does not think fitness cost is a credible concept in biology then include it here and in the article. --ShaunMacPherson 28 June 2005 03:42 (UTC)

As I said above, the "fitness cost" argument is meaningless (without experimental data). There's a wealth of work on kin selection, and iirc, there are studies showing an advantage conferred by bachelor uncles. The fitness cost argument is not a valid argument if it's so easy to refute. From a scientific point of view this is purely speculative, and in the absence of experimental evidence it is not science. If the fitness cost argument stood up to scrutiny you would have a nice "just so story", but still not science. Without it, it's just highly speculative, and betrays a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. It does not mean it's wrong or right. Without solid data, it's just speculation. Guettarda 28 June 2005 03:52 (UTC)

Is string theory#Problems meaningless because there is little, if any, empirical evidence to support it? I'd say unverified or unproven is a better term then 'meaningless' unless the arguement itself is logically flawed or based upon unsound scientific principles. The rest above seems to be variations on the theme of 'meaningless'ness and 'speculation' (repeated 3 times). --ShaunMacPherson 28 June 2005 03:59 (UTC)

1. fitness cost argument is meaningless because it is based on an incomplete knowledge of evolutionary biology - this applies to the "supportive evidence", not the underlying hypothesis

If meaningless flows from incompleteness then all of science would be meaningless as science is always incomplete. There could always be additional evidence presented to update any aspect of it. A complete (and perfect?) theory is impossible in science for this very reason so your crituqe seems to be an indictment of all of science. --ShaunMacPherson 29 June 2005 12:03 (UTC)

1. the pathogenic hypothesis is speculative because it isn't supported by either data or solid theory

It could be specutlative but if we cast our gaze to the beginning of this section it was about 'scientically sound'. It seems to be a theory can be spectulative and scientifically sound (String Thoery). As far as I know the speculative nature of this theory has already been introduced into the artile with the phrases such as 'hypothesized microorganism', if that is insufficient for you then by all means change it. --ShaunMacPherson 29 June 2005 12:03 (UTC)

1. the second "speculative" is just summation by means of reiteration.

String theory has theoretical support. Some scientists argue that it isn't science, because there is no way to test it. This isn't strong theory. As long as no one bothers to test it though, we are not dealing with science, just speculation. That's the whole point behind the scientific method. Guettarda 28 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)

This theory is linkd to and is a subset of the larger theory that Gregory Cochran was involved with - that microorganisms affect fitness cost i.e.

Peptic_ulcer can be caused by Helicobacter pylori instead of simply genes. There is scientific evidence that this condition is caused by a microorganism instead of the view from only a short time ago that the cause was stronlgy believed to be 'stress' or heredity. --ShaunMacPherson

29 June 2005 12:03 (UTC)

The merger discussion was hardly fair, given the way you distorted the sources you cited: claiming Caleb Crain as a Harvard professor; citing material as coming from a published book when it in fact comes from someone's personal web page. You repeatedly refer to Ewald as a "proponent" and "supporter" of the hypothesis, when in fact the only direct published statement from him on the matter is: In a carefully worded e-mail, Ewald, for his part, asserts only that "the argument about infectious causation of homosexuality is a feasible hypothesis and should be treated as such—-no more and no less." Aside from that mention, all of this is bald speculation by physicist Gregory Cochran. That is why many suggested this material belongs in an article in Gregory Cochran. (cf. Wikipedia's treatment of the fringe "theories" of Lyndon LaRouche, where they are presented in articles about him and his followers, rather than mixed in with accepted political and economic theory.) --Tabor 16:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The distortion I remember standing out is that you said that this was a one person theory, that of Cochran, when would appear to be more mainstream then that - but that is neither here nor there. If there is misconceptions, errors and hasty comments about this theory I'd suggest it was from having the article being put up for deletion a scant half an hour after its creation - i'm glad though the talk has moved towards merger instead of out right deletion (censorship?).

Since this theory follows core and mainstream biological ideas (the idea that environmental factors can affect behaviour and fitness cost) and is thus not a 'frindge theory'. What it does appear to be is a subset of the germ theory which means it has more than enough merit to stand on it's own. :It would be useful to have a list of other theories that are environmental in nature (bacteria causing ulcers, the theory of a microorganism causing schizophrenia, any others?). The

germ theory

maybe the place for many of these kinds ideas although it would be useful to have more feedback.

As for Lyndon LaRouche, he is a conspiracy theory nut whose ideas do not not appear to be mainstream. If you would like to point out anything in this theory that does not conform to core biological tennants (and makes it 'fringe' in your words) then please do so here. --ShaunMacPherson 01:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is going to be merged with anything, I think it should be

It seems to misrepresent Cochran's work to single out this example he used, which was only one example within his larger theory. This single example from his speculative theory doesn't seem to be notable enough to have its own article. It seems to be only Cochran and Ewald that have said anything about this example from the theory. In order to avoid misrepresenting Cochran's actual theory, this material should probably be merged into an article on his actual theory.--Nectarflowed ^T 10:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That statement is a little vague. Do you mean the larger theory of fitness cost stemming from microorganisms as I described above this post? That maybe an option. As we know, the microorganism theory of homosexuality is a subset of the larger theory of fitness cost with regards to the environment. Since high fitness cost genes are not found widly (usually under 1%) in a population then when behaviour or an event occurs that has a high fitness cost it would then fall on the environment as the cause. This has been shown fairly recently that it is the case with many stomach ulcers being caused by bacteria instead of the classical view of heredity or stress.

If someone can list sources of books or articles on this issue I am sure that will help this article out. --ShaunMacPherson 28 June 2005 03:53 (UTC)

Sickle cell anaemia has a fitness cost of >1% if considered alone. Why do you keep repeating such an obviously flawed argument? Guettarda 16:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Cochran, sickle cell is by far the most dramatic known case of such a mechanism, and it is linked to an obvious and strong benefit in dealing with one of humanity's most severe infectious diseases. If someone were to propose a similarly strong selection benefit linked to homosexuality, then that hypothesis would compete with Cochran's. However, the hypothetical possibility that someone could develop such an idea is not much of an argument against considering other possibilities. - Nat Krause 17:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This hypothesis is not, AFAIK, supported by any experimental evidence. The only thing in favour of it is the selection idea - and the selection idea is by no means solid. Kin selection, on the other hand, has a solid theoretical background - the selective advantage of non-breeding relatives has been demonstrated in bird, wolves and ants. You share 25% of your genes with your siblings children - improving their odds of survival gives you fitness. I saw a study (I can't recall where) that found a fitness advantage in having unmarried uncles, iirc. There's lots of well developed theory in evolutionary biology which could be used to counter this hypothesis. It does not mean that it is wrong, it simply means that the fitness cost idea is a flawed "proof". Guettarda 17:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you ended your paragraph with the term 'proof', it betrays a misunderstanding many people may have about science that I believe is core to why this issue is not being resolved. 'A proof' is impossible with empiricial observation; the best level of truth that any theory can achieve in science is 'not yet disproven' as at any time evidence (empirical observation) can overturn any aspect of any theory.

As for there few evidence for this theory - again that is mentioned in the article since it is only a 'hypothesised' microorganism that is suggested as being the cause. Although in the past other vectors were suggested and then found for similiar cases such

peptic ulcers that was refound in 1982 [1]. This connection only made 'strong'ly in 1994 [2]

between peptic ulcers and this bacteria. It would be interesting to mention why it took so long for the connection to be made despite H. pylori being originally discovered in 1875, that may shed light as to the issue as to this microorganism, if it exists, is hard to find, how one would go about finding it.

This theory also has an interesting explanation as to why some socities have low levels of homosexual behaviour while others have higher amounts, if it was gene based entirely one may suspect that homosexual behaviour would be fairly uniform around the world for human populations which seems not to be the case. Explaining that difference can be done a number of ways, one of which is via this theory. --ShaunMacPherson 02:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kin selection is an interesting idea on fitness cost, is it covered well in the article? The article isn't being corrected it seems, someone will have a task traslating our discussion into the article :).

• As well, I recall one theory of gay (male) behaviour is that males may form coalitions in order to better find females. Since males are usually in direct competition with eachother, genetically speaking, such a coalition must have a reinforcer in the form of a relationship. From that standpoint mating, even 1/5 of the time, is better than mating 0 times so gay behaviour maybe a backup strategy.

• Another interesting topic to be covered is that gay and lesbian individuals maybe 'social glue' to better intergrate socieity (i.e. Bonobo).

• As well, there seems to be a continum of gay/lesbian behaviour which may or may not be accounted for by this theory.

It would be useful to start finding documentation from journals on this issue so we can get some concerete sources, although sexual research is very much underfunded so finding useful sources maybe difficult. It is our job to present this idea NPOV, not really prove or disprove its merits. It seems that the idea is mainstream enough to justify having its own article (and if you disagree I asked anyone to offer their rational how this theory doesn't conform to core biological ideas or hos it is 'fringe') so now we need to quote what people are saying about the issue.--ShaunMacPherson 02:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some problem sections...

(well above the esimated 80% fitness level since it has been esimated that only gay and lesbian couples only have 1/5 as many children as heterosexual couples)

This does come from [3], but I don't think the author is a scientist, and this inference doesn't necessarily follow when you're talking about evolutionary pressures. Modern LBGT people have modern medicine to assist them in having children that share their genes. Our cave-dwelling ancestors didn't. It's also unclear to me that the "San Francisco study published in 1981" is actually referring to biological children. Clearly, whether or not homosexuals mate in the normal fashion is also dependent on social factors, which are hard to nail down. Plus, there are theories which suggest there may be some selective advantage to certain homosexuality-inducing genes, so the 80% figure could really be off in either direction. -- Beland 08:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea although I would not remove it entirely - we can say things such as 'determing the exact fitness cost among gay and lesbian individuals from not havign as many children is hard to determine but estimates range from x to 80% (then quote the source for 80%). I'd guess the number is quite close to 80% even when factoring in kin selection. Siblings only have 50% the genes so even if they were to help one child survive 100% of the time (like being able to stop disease, accidents, everything) then it seems (?) the fitness cost would still be 50% (assuming they had no children) although the math seems to get much more complicated when dealing with multiple siblings with multiple children.

I've written the individual from that link you've given about the 80% figure and they are very cooperative and helpful if you'd like to ask them where that figure is from (I would not want to bug them further since I've asked for clarification about some points already :) ).

I am not quite sure why there is an issue about 'biological children', when dealing with core ideas such as fitness cost then reproduction (though children primarily or relatives) is key. The article already mentions kin selection, and looking at it it seems unlikely (unless a gay or lesbian indvidual helps their relatives double the amount of children they have) that kind selection will make up for having few if any children (but still is important to mention, I'd discount it more though and look for sources to confirm this). --ShaunMacPherson 12:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that "evolution would have bred out homosexuality genes" ignores the existence of kin selection; individuals share half their genes with their own offspring, but share one quarter of their genes with their siblings' progeny. The benefit provided by non-breeding uncles and aunts may compensate for the associated fitness cost.

To my understanding, "gay uncle" theory is not taken seriously by mainstream researchers.

Another objection to this idea is the observation that homosexuality is found in many species of animals, and that such a pathogen would have to be wide spread. A pathogen so ubiquitous would likely fairly easily found and affect a larger percentage of the species' populations.

Reading Cochran more closely, this might be attacking a strawman. I don't think he's saying that it's cause by a pathogen, necessarily, in species where it is rare. Which he claims is all of them except humans and sheep, though I don't know if that's disputed. -- Beland 08:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The aguement is in a species (or human culture) where gay/lesbian beahviour is rare the microorganism is absent / rare. Where the microorganism is present there is more gay and lesbian behaviour which can explain why homosexuality varies so much, apparently, among different cultures (examples given in the links as 'bush people' not knowing what homosexuality is / was).--ShaunMacPherson 12:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also argue about adding this theory into the gay gene abortion debate. If genes are not the cause of gay / lesbian behaviour then it should be mentioned that selective abortion will not be possible. This issue is becoming important as it seems featuses that will likey have aspeger's syndrome, autism, spinabifida are at increasing chance of being aborted. There was an interesting article about Bill Gates possibly being aborted in today's age since he may have aspeger's syndrome (or so the article discusses). --ShaunMacPherson 12:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to get a copy of the February 1999 story from the Atlantic Monthly, and also more original publications by these Cochran and Ewald and any other advocates. -- Beland 01:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd help in doing this, it seems a very useful project. Perhaps a Wikibook would also be useful, for some reason I have an urge for an original research project. Perhaps a subpage called references were we can list references. The Fact and Reference Check (FARC) project has useful styling tips and tools for going about making a list of references, and examples of articles that have been referenced.

Refeferencing an article that is controversial is useful, and interesting as you say, since it is easier to be NPOV when describing what others' have said. --ShaunMacPherson 12:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 2005 Nobel_Prize_in_Physiology_or_Medicine was awarded to the pathogenic theory of bacteria causing stomach ulcers. I was somewhat surprised in reading up on this that the scientific community was very much opposed to this idea, only a few decades ago. Even the prize mentions the 'dogma' they had to fight against in presenting their idea, I am happy they won out in the end.

I believe that such dogma still exists against pathogenic theories in general and is relevant to this article. I'll probably add a blurb in a bit after checking to see if anyone has any ideas on how to best word it. --ShaunMacPherson 10:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The intro needs rewriting. It's clumsily worded, and hard for the layman to figure out what point exactly is being made. Here's my guess:

• It's the theory that homosexuality is caused by germs not genes. The theory argues that genes could not be the cause, so it must be something in the environment.

Stated like this, it's much easier to see the weakness in the theory: why have they overlooked childhood upbringing, for example? Uncle Ed 17:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is at Louisville not Brown. He used to be at Amherst, I don't think he has ever been at Brown. 152.17.49.136 14:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the concern about this article has to do with the way that the hypothesis is described. Consider the following statements:

• Homosexuality is a disease or illness.
• Homosexuality is caused by a pathogen.
• Homosexuality is caused by a virus.
• Homosexuality is caused by a symbiote.

Clearly these have different implications.

Although the word "pathogen" comes across as more neutral than the word "disease" or "germ", it still means "disease-causing organism". Our article pathogen defines it as "a biological agent that causes disease or illness to its host." Thus, even using the word "pathogen" carries the implicit claim that the organism's effect is a disease or illness. --FOo 02:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is correct to ban a scientific hypothesis from Wiki because some people might find it offensive. Everything is offensive to someone. What if we let the Creation Science crowd ban articles on Evolution because they found it offensive? The Social Controversy section is a good place to put quotes and information from respected thinkers who criticize this hypothesis because they find it offensive. --funkymunki 09:54, 4 Aug 2007

Uh, dude, who's talking about "banning a scientific hypothesis from Wiki"? I was talking about changing the terms in which we describe that hypothesis. --FOo 20:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you remove all reference to germs from a germ theory? --funkymunki 09:13, 7 Aug 2007

Ok, maybe I misunderstood. You don't want to remove ideas like germs from this article. You'd like germs to be presented in a positive light. --funkymunki 09:29, 7 Aug 2007

@Crossroads: I wonder what you think about having this talk page deleted? The original article was merged a decade ago and this article still comes up in Google. Sxologist (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "noindex" template for that issue. You may be interested in this discussion as well: [4] Crossroads ^-talk- 16:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]