Health [Claim] Smoking increases chances of child being gay in adulthood

[The Helper]

A neuroscientist has claimed a woman's lifestyle during pregnancy is directly linked to the development of their children, influencing whether they may be gay and having an impact on their IQ

Women who smoke or lead a stressful life during their pregnancy can influence their child’s sexuality and IQ, a neuroscientist has claimed.

A pregnant woman’s lifestyle is believed to have an impact on the development of their babies – with drinking, taking drugs and even living in an area with a lot of pollution affecting children in later life.

Dick Swaab, professor of neurobiology at Amsterdam University, suggests drinking and taking drugs can lower a child’s IQ while taking synthetic hormones and smoking can increase the likelihood of girls being lesbians or bisexual.

Smoking increases chances of child being gay in adulthood, controversial study claims

A neuroscientist has claimed a woman's lifestyle during pregnancy is directly linked to the development of their children, influencing whether they may be gay and having an impact on their IQ

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Accname]

bs.

 

[KMilz]

[...] but said the research proves that the development of the brain during pregnancy is directly linked to adult lifestyles.

Anyone claiming proof of something like this, when there are so many variables left unconsidered, is totally full of shit. If he said that it suggested that data I'd be more inclined to look further into it, but I guarantee this guy's a quack.

 

[Snowbizzle]

"Dick Swaab, professor of neurobiology at Amsterdam University..."

 

[Zakyath]

"Dick Swaab, professor of neurobiology at Amsterdam University..."

a very serious and recognized scientist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Swaab

 

[Accname]

Hes called Dick Swab? His parents must be dicks.

 

[FireCat]

What a bunch of crap!

 

[Zakyath]

What a bunch of crap!

no it's not. this guy is one of the worlds more prominent scientists in his area, and knows more about the human brain than 99,99999% of the worlds population
the fact that the main criticism seem to be about his name, I'm quite sure that I trust him more than the critics

 

[Accname]

Wow, that just sounded pretty uneducated.

 

[Zakyath]

I've studied behavioral neuroscience, so I have a basic understanding of how the mind works, and this does not seem way out there - what qualifies you to disregard this scientist?

 

[Accname]

I didnt disregard the scientist. I disregarded his study, which sounds highly questionable to me.
When I said you sound uneducated I was referring to:
1)

this guy is one of the worlds more prominent scientists in his area

cite your sources.

2)

this guy [...] knows more about the human brain than 99,99999% of the worlds population

sounds like what an 8 year old would say about a neuroscientist.

3)

the fact that the main criticism seem to be about his name, I'm quite sure that I trust him more than the critics

So if I make fun of an idiot you will trust the idiot regardless of his actual knowledge and expertise?

 

[KMilz]

The fact that he posed no statistics to back up his claims and expects us to just go on his word is a pretty big stretch, even if he is at the head of his field. If he has the data to back up his claims then I don't have any problems with them, but until then it's just hearsay.

 

[Zakyath]

I didnt disregard the scientist. I disregarded his study, which sounds highly questionable to me.

Which you failed to mention before now - you've only referred to his name.

1)

cite your sources.

Here's his CV:
http://www.herseninstituut.knaw.nl/research_groups/swaab_group/team/swaab

Although you could have just checked the wiki-page, and you would have gotten a picture of what he's been up to

2)

sounds like what an 8 year old would say about a neuroscientist.

How so? I was obviously referring to the unlikeliness that anyone in this thread possessed any knowledge that could legitimate their claims that this was "bullshit", "a load of shit" or " a "bunch of crap" (who sounds like an eight year old?), without reading further than his name or what his hypothesis was concerning.

3)

you will trust the idiot regardless of his actual knowledge and expertise?

No, that's why I don't trust you; besides, I've never said I believe his conclusions to be correct. I've simply just disregarded yours as non-informed nonsense. Even if he were to be wrong, you would only be right concerning the question by fluke.

 

[Zakyath]

The fact that he posed no statistics to back up his claims and expects us to just go on his word is a pretty big stretch, even if he is at the head of his field. If he has the data to back up his claims then I don't have any problems with them, but until then it's just hearsay.

He did not write that article.

 

[KMilz]

Eh, touche I guess. But I can't seem to find any statistics anywhere that would support his claims either, so I don't know why he'd be making the claims in the first place.

 

[Zakyath]

There are tons of statistics linking alcohol abuse, smoking etc to many different neural changes. If you haven't found any, you've clearly not been looking. Now as I've understood this, this is a "qualified guess" with basis in many (researched) facts, such as the direct hormonal effects smoking has on the fetus, how these hormonal changes affect sexuality, how other drugs have had the same effect, etc. I don't have the answers, but you could always look into his research - or even send him mail. Or do nothing. Calling him a quack is not on the list of appropriate things to do, if uncertain.

 

[Snowbizzle]

Blindly following Dick Swaab and belittling others because you can Wikipedia/Google the guy's academic/professional credentials is not an appropriate thing to do either. Have you researched his claims any more than anybody else in this thread? For instance, here's another (better-written) article that provides direct quotes to get a better idea of what he's about:

"In his book, We Are Our Brains, he writes: ‘Although it’s frequently assumed that development after birth also importantly affects our sexual orientation, there’s no proof of this whatsoever."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2542093/Smoking-drinking-pregnancy-increase-chances-baby-gay-claims-professor.html#ixzz2qzlBSlS7​

So what, people who experience life-altering/brain-altering experiences, people who have major accidents or brain injuries later in life, people whose brain chemistry is altered by taking various drugs...none of these changes affect sexual orientation whatsoever? It's all entirely determined before we're born? Sounds unlikely to me, and if that is true, it sounds more like genetics than neuroscience, no?

I am also 99% sure this guy has been making relatively the same claims for the past three decades, and that other people have made the same claims even before then, with as little supporting evidence or support from the general medical community.

Also, his name is laughable. You need to be less defensive over Dick Swaab. Dick Swaab.​

 

[Accname]

Which you failed to mention before now - you've only referred to his name.

I said his name is funny, his parents are probably dicks, and the article is bs. Where did I disregard him as a scientist? Can you quote me on that?

How so? I was obviously referring to the unlikeliness that anyone in this thread possessed any knowledge that could legitimate their claims that this was "bullshit", "a load of shit" or " a "bunch of crap" (who sounds like an eight year old?), without reading further than his name or what his hypothesis was concerning.

I dont think an 8 year old would read a scientific article in the news and call it bs.
But I can very well imagine a little kid talking like this: "this guy is a scientist and stuff, you guys dont know anything, he is soooo much smarter then all of you, hes like really smart, seriously!"

 

[KaerfNomekop]

So what, people who experience life-altering/brain-altering experiences, people who have major accidents or brain injuries later in life, people whose brain chemistry is altered by taking various drugs...none of these changes affect sexual orientation whatsoever? It's all entirely determined before we're born?

Most of those cause major changes in the individual's entire personality, not just their sexual orientation. I honestly doubt that there's a singular part of the brain responsible for that, or that it can be altered so easily. Functions of individual brain parts are easy to find out; the importance of parts that make up individuals' personalities are harder to define.

Sounds unlikely to me, and if that is true, it sounds more like genetics than neuroscience, no?

It would be both. Genetics in that it's carried through the baby's genes, and neuroscience in that it affects the brain.

I am also 99% sure this guy has been making relatively the same claims for the past three decades, and that other people have made the same claims even before then, with as little supporting evidence or support from the general medical community.

He's proposing a theory to explain homosexuality. There's nothing innately wrong with that. It's just that proving that theory is probably much harder to do without full statistical analysis, and until then it can't be regarded as anything more than (educated) speculation.

My opinion: we treat this the same way we treat the idea that people are gay because God's punishing them for their sins.

 

[Zakyath]

Blindly following Dick Swaab and belittling others because you can Wikipedia/Google the guy's academic/professional credentials is not an appropriate thing to do either. Have you researched his claims any more than anybody else in this thread?

I have not blindly followed Dick Swaab, nor have I said I believe this to be true. I have simply discredited your statements, much like you try to discredit statements I have not made.

For instance, here's another (better-written) article that provides direct quotes to get a better idea of what he's about:

"In his book, We Are Our Brains, he writes: ‘Although it’s frequently assumed that development after birth also importantly affects our sexual orientation, there’s no proof of this whatsoever."

​

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2542093/Smoking-drinking-pregnancy-increase-chances-baby-gay-claims-professor.html#ixzz2qzlBSlS7​

So what, people who experience life-altering/brain-altering experiences, people who have major accidents or brain injuries later in life, people whose brain chemistry is altered by taking various drugs...none of these changes affect sexual orientation whatsoever? It's all entirely determined before we're born? Sounds unlikely to me, and if that is true, it sounds more like genetics than neuroscience, no?​

​

​

The fetal development of the brain is still considered neuroscience. And he didn't say "traumatic experiences have no effect on sexuality", or something along those lines; he said that there is no evidence to suggest the conventional assumptions. There is however evidence to suggest that the fetus' brain is extremely sensitive, more so than an adults. I think you misunderstand the point of view he is advocating; he's saying that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice, but rather a result of how your brain is composed.​

​

​

I am also 99% sure this guy has been making relatively the same claims for the past three decades, and that other people have made the same claims even before then, with as little supporting evidence or support from the general medical community.

He's been researching neuroscience for decades, and how sexuality correlates with how the mind is composed, yes. Again, since I seem to have to be overtly explicit, do not know that what he says is true - but you seem so certain it's not; for how many days have you been investigating the issue?