Autism + Homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

Actually hypothesis is not an opinion. An opinion is based in subjectivity, example "Iyogurt is gross." Where as a hypothesis requires objectivity, example "If genes play a role in autism, then genes that express sexuality may affect the expression of the autistic genes creating distinct characteristics seen only in those that fit sexual subgroups."

One can be tested and defined, the other can not.

None of the questions above define or test anything. They gather opinions. Which is as devilkisses put it trying to label.

As well there are numerous studies on the subject of sexuality and autism, I don't see how opinions about it (especially ones that seek to create a your weirder than me opinion feed) is helpful or productive.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start ... s_sdt=0,11

An hypothesis is a formalized opinion, as far as I'm concerned.

What's the use of opinions? Plenty.

People have to dwell in both the formal and informal in order to get a true impression of life.

If one relies solely upon "logic," an erroneous view of the world will be obtained--not all "truth" is derived from logical progression.

We have to have research studies. We have to have anecdote. We can't just have one or the other.

In economics, Macrocosmic results frequently do not reflect Microcosmic realities.

I am Christian, but I prefer to respect other people's decisions. I have a few friends who are homosexual.

It's not a decision, sexual orientation is not a choice,

On topic, gender dysphoria seems common in those with autism (at least from my experience in the past)

I've known MANY NT's with gender confusion.

You noticed (especially in Love and Dating), that there are many heterosexual Aspie/autistics here.

You're certainly entitled to think that way if that's where you are at. Have a good day/night!

At least you're amiable.

But why don't you believe in the value of anecdote?

I guess it's because it leaves room for doubt--whereas research studies lessen the doubt somewhat (though it doesn't completely eliminate it).

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 18 Nov 2014, 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That depends on the person, how they view the differences in presentation. There seems to be a general idea that females are better able to hide their autism, and more readily adapt to social situations.

I do understand that this is erroneous on my behalf. I would suggest that if a person does not see a difference that they should specify themselves, but I know that I probably would have responded the same way had I not a preconceived idea of a difference. Next time I will be precise.



This is true, I was again relying on a shared perception of the general difference between the presentation of male and female autism.



Nope, but on the basis of a general difference between male and female presentation, I assumed the possibility that homosexuals (having a brain that more closely resembles the opposite gender) may deviate from the norm of their given sex and present as the other.



This isn't so much a scientific inquest as it is to gather the experience/observations of autistic individuals. I am in no position to undertake a scientific study, which would be the only accurate means of obtaining a reasonable conclusion.

There was no intent other than to gather all posters' thoughts on the subject.



I have read many studies and there are some that describe differences between male/female presentation, but none directly explore the role of sexuality, where it has been determined in various studies that homosexual brains tend to be structured more similarly to heterosexual brains of the opposite sex.

I'm not sure what you mean by the sentence in brackets, nor this sentence as a whole. I apologize if I have offended/bothered you, but I can't entail any specific type of thread being arbitrarily more productive, or helpful than this one. It's as if you're suggesting that I should not post questions when relevant studies may exist, which to me doesn't achieve anything in itself.

I'm glad to know that you're against homosexual discrimination.

No need to be sorry for the post.



There is a commonly referred to general difference between female and male presentations of autism, which is all I was really exploring.



I would just classify that as a person's unique self, rather than autistic presentation. The brain similarities between straight women and homosexual men, and straight men and homosexual women have made me wonder if presentation, as a result of neurology, would change. I suspect that it would.

I can relate this to the (disagreeable) idea of the low/high functioning labels. 'Low functioning' only serves to describe an IQ lower than 70, and high functioning is the opposite. The IQ would be determined not by personal identification, but by brain structure.



I have had my doubts here before too, and still do. I can't really decide whether or not to accept a different presentation. That's not why I made this thread (as most people agree that the presentation is different), but it has recently crossed my mind. I read a post recently where somebody described the difference between ASD and BAP as being fluid, but I'm not too sure what to think of that as of yet.

What I meant, in this sense, is the hypothesis that somebody who "identifies" as a female (despite being born male), and is autistic, might exhibit characteristics which seem to be found within female autistics.

Conversely, a person born female, yet identifies as male, might exhibit the characteristics of a male autistic person.

Of course, this idea was arrived at on a impulse--without any direct stimulus (other than the thread's title) which was related to the idea--out of "left field" (an American baseball term)

But, then again, much progress has been achieved through ideas taken out of "left field"

I am not an adherent to this notion at all; I just thought of it a half an hour ago. I just "put it out there," basically.

There was no reason not to be.

It's not that I don't believe that anecdotal information can't be beneficial, it just shouldn't be relied upon for truth.

People whether willingly or unknowingly are subjective. You can have 20 people witness an accident and have 20 different recalls of the events. Worse yet people who are asked about themselves give a skewed version. Someone may think they are more masculine then they are to others or more feminine. yet they will tell you what they think even if it isn't so.

So collecting any sort of data or idea from that is useless as it will only skew you further from the truth.

An example I'm sure you've been called heartless, I know I have. Were they accurate in their opinion of you/me? No, yet they saw it, they formed an opinion about it. If someone came along and asked them to give an anecdote about you or me don't you think the person asking will then be biased into thinking you/I am heartless? If they relied on the anecdotal evidence then they would believe you/I am heartless.

Where as my way, without relying on anecdotal evidence I wouldn't just stop at asking someone about you, I would want to go up and say hi.

Does that make sense?

It makes sense. I agree with the above post.

Obviously, though, even when consummate methodology (double-blind, peer-reviewed, etc.) is employed, bias sometimes also rears its ugly head.

Frequently, when "counterintuitive" results are obtained, I question the findings--though, just as frequently, I adhere to the findings despite the fact that they are counterintuitive.

I believe in the Scientific Method. I don't believe in sole reliance on it, though, in my everyday life.

If I took a course in neuropathology, however, I'd have to rely on the Scientific Method and previous findings (like precedence in law)--otherwise, I would lack credibility.

@normy

I wasn't offened so no need to be sorry.

I wasn't saying you shouldn't post, I was saying I don't see the value in collecting opinions on something so broad. As well I think there will be people who have strong opinions of homosexuality on both sides of it that may alienate some people or even cause tempers to flair. I'm a pessimist by nature. I also tend to be a pacifist, I'd rather everyone get along.

I am going to venture a guess and say that you do, which is ok, if it helps you, great!