Sometimes I have the sense of humor of a five year old

Me: *heading to friend’s birthday party* Hey, what sort of booze do you like? It’s your gift.
Friend: Um, I like wine, and rum, and vodka.
Me: What kind of rum?
Friend: As long as it isn’t clear and doesn’t come in a plastic bottle, it should be fine.

Me: *in liquor store* I know nothing about good rum… How do I pick between all of the nice rums that are about the same price?
Bottle: MT. GAY RUM
Me: …Hehehehehehe. …Meh, that’s good enough selection criteria *buys it*

Apparently it was tasty, and we (me and a bunch of straight guys) somehow ended up at an awesome gay bar by the end of the night. Subliminal messaging FTW.

And now I’m going to go watch a bunch of burly men in tight spandex pile on top of each other. Can this weekend get any more fabulous?

Genetics will not be used to abort straights OR gays

Not because of ethics, necessarily, but because of science.

Genetics is complicated. This is a concept that all non-scientists, regardless of political leaning, seem to have a hard time grasping. I’ve heard liberals who are worried that advances in genomics will result in a simple prenatal test, which bigots would gobble up to make sure they’re not growing the next Ricky Martin or Ellen DeGeneres. This always seemed like a silly fear, since people from the religious right also tend to be not so fond of abortion.

But it’s not just the liberals. Now World Net Daily is worried gays are going to abort straight babies:

If two homosexual men want to use in vitro fertilization to conceive a baby and then use genetics technology to ensure the baby is also “gay,” while disposing of any “straight” embryos, would the law have any ethical problems with that? John A. Robertson of the University of Texas Law School is the chair of the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and an advocate of what his book “Children of Choice” calls “procreative liberty.” In a paper for the Washington, D.C., think tank Brookings Institution, Robertson presents a futuristic scenario where advancing science and society’s evolving morality could create a once only dreamed-of ethical dilemma:

“Larry, a pediatrician, and David, a wills lawyer, meet in their late 20s, fall in love, and marry on June 15, 2025, in Indianapolis,” Robertson writes. “By 2030, they are well-enough established in their careers to think about having their own child. Larry’s 24-year-old sister Marge has agreed to donate her eggs, and David will provide the sperm, so that each partner will have a genetic connection with the child. … In the process, Larry and David come to realize that they would prefer to have a male child that shares their sexual orientation.” He continues, “The clinic doctors are experts in embryo screening and alteration, but cannot guarantee that the resulting embryos will in fact turn out to be homosexual. To increase the certainty, they will insert additional ‘gay gene’ sequences in the embryos.”

Of course gays, what with their agenda and all, are going to engineer some gaybies! So much more reasonable. Heterosexuals are doomed.

…

I don’t think you should chose an embryo based on sexual orientation, but let’s put ethics aside for a moment and talk about the science. The ethics debate is irrelevant because the “science” they discuss is ludicrous. As someone who’s studying the “mushrooming” field of genomics, let me try to explain.

Homosexuality almost certainly has a genetic component (1) and has potentially been associated with certain areas of the human genome (2). However, “genetic component” does not equal “gene.” Genetics is way more complicated than what you learned back in middle school – it’s not just single genes with dominant and recessive alleles. You can have multiple genes affecting the same trait, numerous alleles per gene, and interactions between certain combinations of certain alleles between different genes.

If you do find a single mutation that’s associated with homosexuality, it’s likely to be very very rare in humans. If it was more common, we would have identified it a long time ago using traditional genetic tools. Such a mutation would be able to explain just a small percentage of homosexuality. I’m sure by now you’ve heard of studies in the news that have claimed to find a genetic component to heart disease, or schizophrenia, or something. If you read the fine print, it usually only explains something like 3% of the disease. Not really predictive enough to start aborting the breeders.

If this sounds complicated already, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. You can also have mutations in regulatory regions of genes. These aren’t DNA sequences that code for the actual protein, but rather regulate things like how often or in what tissue that protein is made. You can also have copy number variants (CNVs), where some people have extra (or less) copies of a certain gene.

Thanks to massive advances in technology, we can study stuff like mutations, regulatory regions, and CNVs pretty well now… but they’re still not the full story. Often times a single “hit” – one mutation in a gene, or one big deletion in a chromosome – isn’t enough to actually cause a trait. This is especially true when dealing with neurological traits like autism or learning disabilities, and may be implicated in a behavioral trait like homosexuality. Often times you need multiple mutations or deletions – or a combination of both – until you actually show the trait in question.

But it’s still even more complicated than that. It’s not as easy as saying Mutation A + Deletion 2 = FABULOUS! Both of these events are extremely rare, and there are likely thousands and thousands of different combinations of “lesions” (messed up DNA) that could cause a trait. So even if you sequenced a baby’s full genome, you’d have no idea what all the de novo (new) mutations and deletions would do, because they’ve likely never been seen in that combination before.

And all of this isn’t even taking into account epigenetics (which can further regulate DNA, and can even differ between twins), and environmental factors (which can range from hormones you’re exposed to in the womb, to listening to too many show tunes as a small child).

So the odds of Teh Gay being boiled down to a simple test, or a simple gene you can use to infect the population? Basically zero.

Genetics is complicated, and I don’t expect everyone to be able to understand it in depth. Even as a first year PhD student, I tried my best to write the above paragraphs jargon free and without unnecessary detail. But at the very least, admit that it’s complicated and you have no real idea how it works instead of concocting conspiracy theories.

Though I have to admit, it’s amusing that these are the same type of people who claim that simply knowing gays exist, or worse, allowing them to be parents is enough to turn someone gay. Which is it, nature or nurture? Oh right, whatever currently fuels your paranoid hate speech the most.

But you know, maybe the totally wacked out religious types would be content aborting fetuses if they even had a 5% higher chance of being gay. In which case, I’d like to point them to a study that showed each older brother a man has increases his probability of being homosexual by 28% to 48% (3). If they really want to avoid bringing gay men into the world, stop giving birth to sons. And if you’re not willing to rely on abortion, only have one child.

A win-win situation, if I do say so myself.

1. Bailey JM and Pillard RC (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48:1089-1096.
 2. Mustanski BS, et al. (2005) A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. Human Genetics, 116(4):272-8.
 3. Blanchard R (1997) Birth order and sibling sex ratio in homosexual versus heterosexual males and females. Annual Review of Sexual Research, 8:27-67.

Gay rights are to blame for massive bird deaths

Everyone around here should know by now that any disturbance in the natural world is a direct result of God agreeing with the political agenda of the religious right. Here’s yet another example: the recent massive bird deaths are all because of DADT being repealed!

Cindy Jacobs is obviously wrong. Birds aren’t dying because Americans made progress in gay rights! Birds are dying because they’re so gay! With your lesbian albatrosses, and gay penguins (who got a book deal to corrupt our youth, no less)… There are so many examples of homosexual behavior in birds that Wikipedia has a list devoted to it!

No wonder why god struck them down. It’s just unnatural.

14 year old stands up for gay-defending teacher

Graeme Taylor is my new favorite person in the world. He’s an openly gay 14-year old who eloquently defended Jay McDowell, a teacher who had been recently suspended without pay at his school in Howell, Michigan. What horrible thing did McDowell do that warranted this suspension? He told a student to take off a confederate flag belt buckle and removed two students for making anti-gay remarks.

You can hear Taylor’s speech to the school board here:

Videos like this make me simultaneously proud and disappointed. Proud that young people can so eloquently understand and defend the rights of minorities…and disappointed that so-called adults still don’t get it.

The lesbian agenda…

…is to not abuse their children or force them to be homosexual.

The paper found that none of the 78 [National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study] adolescents reports having ever been physically or sexually abused by a parent or other caregiver. This contrasts with 26 percent of American adolescents who report parent or caregiver physical abuse and 8.3 percent who report sexual abuse.

[…]On sexual orientation, 2.8 percent of the NLLFS adolescents identified as predominantly to exclusively homosexual.

I can’t wait for the religious right to desperately attempt to spin this into showing how everyone deserves a Mom and Dad, or that gays aren’t fit parents, or that gays secretly want to turn children gay. Really, what can they say? The heterosexual abusers aren’t True Christians? 2.8% homosexuality is still too much?

…Oh wait, that’s exactly the sort of stuff they’re likely to say. I give it a day before a press release is out.

When are people going to realize it’s better for children to be raised by adults who want them than by adults who can accidentally create them?

Indiana doesn't care about GLBT rights? Shocking

From the South Bend Tribune:

The South Bend Common Council voted Monday to defeat a proposal to ban workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The vote was 6-3 with council members Tom LaFountain, David Varner, Derek Dieter, Timothy Rouse, Karen White and Henry Davis Jr. opposed.

[…]Explaining his opposition to the proposal, council President Derek Dieter, D-District 1, said afterward, “I just don’t think it’s needed in South Bend.”

Dieter said he had not seen any documentation proving workplace discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people exists, “and I think it (the proposal) would cause more harm than good to small businesses.”

For his part, Patrick Mangan, executive director of the conservative group Citizens for Community Values, praised Dieter and other opponents of the proposal, who he said “stood up to a lot of pressure behind the scenes.”

“I’m pleased the council did the right thing in lovingly opposing special rights for homosexuals,” he said, adding, “And I renew the offer to all those struggling with same-sex attraction to come to freedom and come to wholeness.”

And Indiana wonders why it suffers from such a brain drain. Let me give you a hint: educated, caring people get sick of dealing with the rampant backwards bigotry. Unfortunately that means when you’re electing people, too many of your choices are hateful idiots. Sigh, what a Catch 22.

Federal judge bans Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Hooray!

A federal judge in California issued a permanent ban Tuesday on the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays and lesbians in the military, ordering the Defense Department to immediately halt any efforts to remove personnel because of their sexual orientation.

The government has 60 days to appeal the ruling, which gives the administration until after the midterm election next month to make a decision. But it also presents a problem for President Obama as he tries to rally his Democratic base.

Don’t fuck this up, Obama.

Setting the record straight

Why am I such an ally to gay rights issues? Why do I care so much about issues that don’t directly affect me? People ask me this all the time, and my responses so far haven’t been lies. I care about my GLBT friends. I care about civil rights. I think the world could use some more fabulous drag shows.

But I’ve always omitted that I personally understand.

I’ve bottled this up so long, that it may take a while to explain. Let’s hop into a time machine and head back 10 years, when I was starting the 7th grade.

It started when chatting with an online friend who was a couple years older than me. She was playfully teasing me, asking if I liked any boys in my classes. Answering truthfully, I said no. Being a progressive person, she then asked me if I liked any girls. Again, answering truthfully, I said no. I was still at an age where everyone had cooties.

But the interesting thing about that conversation was that I didn’t make any judgment call between opposite and same sex attraction. No one had ever explicitly told me “Girls are supposed to like boys.” It must be different for kids being raised in conservative religious families, or really, kids raised in this time at all. Gay marriage is much more of a public issue now, and it’s hard to ignore someone spitting venom on TV about how homosexuality is wrong. Being told one way was the right way wouldn’t have stopped my biology, but it would have definitely drag me down with guilt.

Why? Because a year later I found myself with my first crush, and that crush was a girl.

Oh, it was awkward, and it was heartbreaking – but mostly because that’s how all crushes are to a 13 year old girl. I was just lucky that I never thought it was sinful or wrong. I wasn’t religious, and I was delightfully oblivious to the people who thought my feelings were disgusting.

But it still wasn’t easy. There was something overwhelmingly horrible knowing the odds are against you – that, if you’re rounding up, maybe 10% of people would also be interested in the same sex. I couldn’t get my friend out of my mind, but I knew the odds of her feeling the same way were slim to none. It’s terrible liking someone without them liking you back, but it seems just a tad more terrible when you know there’s literally nothing you can do about it. No amount of persuasion will change their biology.

Eventually after much agonizing, I told her. And because she’s a wonderful person, she didn’t freak out or blab my secret. I knew she was pro gay rights, but I didn’t know how she’d handle being the object of someone’s infatuation. So, it could have been worse. But she still wasn’t interested, so I forced myself to move on.

In high school I started dating guys. It wasn’t an act, or a way to hide away the gay – I was legitimately attracted to guys too. Eventually I discovered the term for this was “bisexual,” and I felt relieved. There was a label for me, and that was comforting at a time where you feel like you don’t fit in. But also in high school I discovered another thing – that there was a lot of hatred targeted toward homosexuals. I was happy I was at least attracted to guys as well. I wasn’t lying by omitting my attraction toward girls, I was just avoiding the constant harassment.

I made my mistake when I felt comfortable enough to tell my friends. My boyfriend at the time laughed at me, though he doesn’t remember his reaction now. I do.

“You’re not bisexual. This is just a phase. Girls just act bi because they want attention.”

I was hurt. I had mustered up the strength to tell him, and all he tried to do was convince me I was straight. I turned to my gay friends for support.

“Uh huh, you say you’re bisexual now. Give it time and you’ll realize you’re gay. You’re just too afraid to admit it.”

At the time I didn’t know it, but apparently this was common enough to have its own name – bi erasure. Thinking that bisexuality doesn’t really exist. And you know what I did?

I erased myself.

I started calling myself straight. It was just easier, and I was sick of putting up with the constant debates about my personal preferences. And I was predominantly attracted to men, so it made it easier. I wasn’t shutting down such a huge part of myself like other closeted people do.

Now I’m nearly 23, and I still call myself straight. To be honest, I found the best definition when reading The God Delusion:

Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’

Except for me, I read it as:

Very low probability of homosexuality, but short of zero. De facto straight. “I cannot know for certain, but I think me having a relationship with a woman is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that I won’t.”

I could have called myself a number of things. Bicurious. Heteroflexible. A Kinsey 1. Two beer queer. Eventually I gave up, because all the labels were just silly. I was me. I decided if you want to know who I’m attracted to, you can get to know me instead of judging me from a couple words. I stuck with “straight” because it was good enough and because I didn’t want to constantly defend myself. No one has to defend heterosexuality.

So why did I make this post? Because even though it’s comfortable, it’s a lie. And as a skeptic and a scientist who’s always in search of the truth, it just seemed wrong to keep on lying. Maybe 95% of the time I’m attracted to men, but the other 5% still matters.

But even more importantly, I think it’s necessary to say it to show that everyone doesn’t fit in neat little boxes. Not everyone is 100% gay or 100% straight. Bisexuals don’t always like each sex in equal amounts. Bisexuality doesn’t mean you’re not monogamous, or that you can’t make up your mind. Someone’s sexuality doesn’t necessarily stay exactly the same throughout their lifetime. And if you want to experiment or you have that one person you’d go gay for (or straight for), that doesn’t mean you have to have an identity crisis.

You don’t need a new label. You’re you.

So here I am, saying it. Sometimes I like the ladies. I’ve crushed harder on some of my female friends than on some of the guys I’ve actually dated. Those drunken makeouts weren’t really due to drunkenness that much – I just thought you were hot. I’m disappointed that I somehow made it through undergrad without doing more than those drunken makeouts. I blame my unfortunate tendency to fall for straight women.

I wanted to post this last year, but I chickened out. I almost psyched myself out of it again. The fact that I was so afraid to admit a smidgen of gayness to a welcoming, pro-gay, liberal community really speaks wonders of how hard this is. Bigots want to shame us all into the closet, and we can’t make progress for civil rights until we’re able to be honest about who we really are. So, my secret is out.

Of course, after flipping through photos from TAM, maybe it wasn’t a huge secret after all…

Yay vaginas!

Eek, a penis!

Help a Purdue lesbian couple get married

I’m glad I still check out my old student newspaper, because I found this wonderful story (emphasis mine):

Indiana regulations on homosexual marriage could be ignored for a Purdue Director of Communication in the College of Education and her partner when they entered to win a wedding in Washington, D.C., where binding their love is legal. Tonya Agnew and her spouse Amy Crampton received an e-mail that could bend the rules of gay marriage and reinforce love with no boundaries.

With a 200 word essay, any gay couple could enter to win a $100,000 wedding ceremony in the nation’s capital. Expenses could cover anything from the rings to the flowers to the entertainment. The winner is determined through online voting that ends Sept. 30. Anyone can vote in the contest, Freedom 2 Wed.

Agnew and Crampton are one of six finalist pairs that anticipate Thursday’s results, waiting to see if other applicants beat their first place standing of over 4,000 votes. Even though they live in a conservative state, putting faces to their names has brought overwhelming support and encouragement from friends and strangers.

“I was pleasantly surprised with the responses we were getting and many people have come up to us and thanked us for doing this,” Crampton said. “I started crying.”

Not only has this been an exciting experience for Agnew and Crampton, but marriage directly influences the lives of their two sons, Jesse, 17, and Leo, 7. The affirmation of their family was the primary inspiration for partaking in the competition, but it was also about letting the voters know that they are as equally committed to their family as anyone else.

Former co-worker to Agnew, Jennifer Jeffries, said winning will highlight compassion and love regardless of sex, because communities like Lafayette and Purdue are strengthened by the presence of strong and caring families.

“Tonya and Amy love each other, but they didn’t enter the contest to make a statement,” Jeffries said. “It is a response to their 7-year-old who couldn’t understand why, in the land of the free, his parents couldn’t marry.”

The eldest son, Jesse, has been an advocate for their cause and believes that his parents should have the same rights and freedoms as any other citizen. For that reason, Agnew says that having an actual ceremony where they will be legally recognized demonstrates that “if it’s good enough for our nation’s capital, it should be good enough for the rest of the country.”

Since the role of Crampton and Agnew as a joined family has become exceedingly more important to their children, their status as public figures and leaders in the gay community is also having an impact on Agnew’s work at Purdue.

“I feel responsible to be available and out and proud, especially for those who can’t be for whatever reason,” Agnew said. “Hopefully we are raising awareness and breaking down misconceptions.”

It’s not being out at Purdue, and it’s even harder being out in the rest of Indiana. What these women are doing is brave, and will hopefully serve as an example of how loving and normal gay couples can be, just like any heterosexual couple. It’s a message Indiana definitely needs to here.

I’m sure any of the couples in the competition are worthy of winning, but I’m going to play favorites for my Alma mater and ask that you vote for Amy and Tonya here. Voting ends 11:59pm EST TONIGHT, so please hurry! They’re in second place – let’s have Blag Hag readers get them into first.

Need more convincing? They even stopped by the Society of Non-Theist’s Blasphemy Day event today and took a photo with our secretary.So, go vote!