本篇文章来自网路 , 翻得不好请见谅 , 也附上原文供大家矫正 http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html 翻这篇的目的是因为最近家人出柜 我很震惊 所以开始在网路上找资料 一方面 找理由让自己接受继定事实 另一方面 也回应出柜的家人 , 你说你生来如此 , 为何你如此确信? ---------------------------------------------------------------- Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is from the moment of conception. 许多外行人相信 , 同性恋是 "同志当事人当时的想法(不一定是永久的)" The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature? 同志社会活动者(家)与大众媒体积极宣导一种理论 , "同志是遗传性且不可改变" , 但 , 同性恋是否真的是天生与人类正常变异? No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. 不 , 没有任何证据支持同性恋仅仅是"遗传"决定 , 也没有任何一个研究如此陈述 , 只有记者与某些学者在公开演讲时口头陈述 How The Public Was Misled (公众是如何被误导的?) In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature. 1993年7月 , 着名的 Science 期刊刊登了Dean Hamer的文章 , 宣称有一个基因与同性恋有关 , 研究似乎已经达到离核心不远的边缘 , 隐隐地支持同性恋具有天生与遗传性, 而因此在遗传上具有生下来就不可改变的性质. Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation." 随即 , 美国国家公共广播电台鼓吹此研究结果 , 新闻周刊(Newsweek) 在封面故事下的标语为 "同性恋基因?" , 华尔街期刊宣称 "研究指出同性恋基因是正常存在於人类族群的少数基因" Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way." 当然 , 这些新闻故事有经过许多必须的审稿与修正 , 但只有专家才能了解这些讯息的真正意义. 大众被引导去相信“同性恋天生如此” In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some little known facts about behavioral genetics. 为了把握住真正的情况 , 人必须事先理解一些不普及的讯息“行为遗传学” Gene Linkage Studies (基因连锁研究) Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then: a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait. Dean Hamer和他的同事进行了一个很常见的行为遗传研究 "同性恋之家族分析", 针对有同性恋的家族中的同性恋比例做研究 , 包含以下两重点 a) 寻找家族中的染色体遗传变异 (一些相对少见的遗传因子) b) 判断这些少见的遗传因子是否在同性恋中比例较多 To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited. 对外行人的解释 , 某些遗传因子相关於同性恋行为 , 则这些行为会被认为是遗传上可继承的. (与後天影响无关 , 生下来就被决定) In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations. 事实上 , 这些相关性与这些研究并非大家想的如此 , 所有遗传因子或多或少都与无数的人类行为会有一定程度的相关性 (统计称为混淆因子 , 假相关) Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research (科学家知道 "同性恋基因" 研究的真相) **译者注 : 这里指的是真实研究真相 + 报章渲染的假相 But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994: Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated."Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1} 在我们考虑细节之前 , 这里有段说法较能解释最近学界对遗传行为研究之观点 : (1994 Science 期刊) 一次又一次当科学家宣称某些遗传因子关联於某些人类行为(同性恋行为), 最後都因为实验难以被重复验证而被迫收回. 不幸地 , 复杂的人类行为与基因的关联性之研究成果 , 很难再被重复验证 , 每次研究结果都被大肆宣扬 , 都被记者当作不可怀疑的结果报导 , 且最後总是令人蒙羞(不可被重复验证而被学界拒绝). Homosexual Twin Studies (以双胞胎作同性恋研究) ***错误率较低的实验设计 , 应对於错误率高的行为遗传研究 Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic." 最近两个美国同志社会活动者(家)发表了针对同卵双胞胎的研究 , 指出若其中一个是同性恋 , 则另一个也是的机会很高 ; 但50%的同卵双胞胎并非同性恋 , 在以上的基础 , 他们宣称“同性恋是遗传” 译者注 : 此研究的强势点在於 , 若对比於社会上的比例 , 同卵双胞胎同时为同性恋的倾向很明显 , 代表受到遗传所影响很明确 ; 弱势点在於 , 在他研究的同卵双胞胎中 , 低於50%的兄弟会同时是同性恋 , 同时也代表了遗传至少不能解释 50% 以上的状况. But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment: While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2} 但另外两位遗传学者 , 一位在美国最大的遗传部门工作 , 一位是哈佛人 , 两人认为上述的研究 , 事实上也同时支持同性恋是受到环境所影响 (比方说相同的成长环境 , 或兄弟互相影响) The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that: ... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3} 在 Science 所举办的特殊议题会议中 , 原作者表示他也认同环境因子相当重要 : 基因与环境的交互作用 , 远比记者吹捧的 "暴力基因" 与 "智力基因" 等故事要复杂得多. 相同的一份 data , 既能支持基因影响与相关於同性恋的假说 , 也能支持是具有影响力的环境因子所诱发. More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community (科学社群中更保守的陈述) Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously. 科学家对记者的采访 , 通常把研究成果讲的很伟大与影响深远, 但回到学术中的演讲後 , 科学家的演讲才会恢复谨慎小心. "Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied: "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4} 当“同性恋基因”的作者Dean Hamer , 被美国科学人杂志采访时问到 :“同性恋是否仅仅归因於遗传?”, 他回答到 : “绝非如此 , 从同卵双胞胎实验中 , 我们已知道至少有一半以上同性恋的同卵兄弟是异性恋 , 因此同性恋行为并非绝对由基因继承 , 我们的研究仅试着指出 , 遗传因子确实能解释一部分的同性恋倾向 , 而非否定其他任何可能的因子如心理因子等” But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as: 但对於研究成果的发表(写论文) , 学者通常使用很难被理解的学术语言来避免被大众轻易理解, 也回避被记者直接引用 , 例如 : ...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a non-Mendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5} "对於将非孟德尔遗传定率遗传因子 , 应用在同性恋倾向预测的统计显着程度 , 标准 究竟要定在哪 , 是一个令人头痛的问题" Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means: 上面的陈述方式(论文式)对一般人是无法理解的 , 对一般人适合的陈述应如下: It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is. 即便目前的同性恋研究有任何成果 , 也无法确定它的真实意义 , 因为同性恋行为不像眼睛的颜色这般单纯 , 只与基因有关不受後天影响. Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. 因此 , 论文内有正确地陈述学术研究成果的推论极限 , 但媒体可不. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters. 举例来说 , 专栏作家 Ann Landers 告诉他的读者“同性恋是天生 , 并非後天产生”, 媒体仅提供一部分的真相 , 因为科学的真相太过於不刺激 , 无法作为夜间新闻 , 太过复杂而无法被大众消化吸收 , 也太难在短时间的报导中被精准的陈述. Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites" (精确的报告永远不会在演讲场合出现) There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another. 没有任何一个精简的行为遗传学演讲 , 能免於一定程度以上的根本性错误 Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so little and will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improve so long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives. 尽管如此 , 若大众能至少掌握上述的基础思考 , 就能深入地理解为何现今对同性恋的研究几乎不具意义 , 且将来也是继续如此 , 即便研究的品质与方法学在进步 , 也仍受到政治观点的影响 , 而非单纯的学术观点. Understanding the Theory(理解理论) There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows: 1. Heritable does not mean inherited. 2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited. 为了理解最近研究的扭曲与误解 , 这里有两个主要的概念必须要清楚的厘清 1.可遗传不等於继承 (基因有遗传到 , 不能保证一定是) 2.遗传研究只能针对可遗传并直接继承的外显因子 (如眼色) , 不能明确界定行为因子 Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment. 几乎所有的人类的外显特徵都是可遗传 , 但很少数的人类行为是直接继承 , 举例来说 , 眼睛的颜色既可遗传 , 也可直接继承 , 我们也无法後天去改变 , 或透过环境影响而变化. ***译者注 : 继承(inherited) = 100% 由遗传导致 , 无法透过後天改变 可遗传(Heritable) = 与基因与遗传有关 所以遗传不可过度延伸成继承 ***译者注 : 这里要讲的重点就是无法科学性的界定同性恋行为是由基因所100% 引发 , 或许某种程度是可遗传 , 但绝非继承 How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way (如何证明篮球员是天生如此) **译者注 : 研究方法相同於证明同性恋基因 Suppose you are motivated to demonstrate for political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies. 若你要研究人是否因 "篮球员基因" 而变成球员 , 你会用相同於同性恋研究的方法 , 如下 (1)双胞胎 (2)脑部切片 (3)基因连锁分析 (遗传行为科学) The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying. 用双胞胎的理由是因为越相似的基因 , 就越有可能有相似的遗传因子 So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc. 当执行统计研究後, 大概会发现双胞胎较容易同时是篮球员. 然後 , 再下一步是更细致地分成三群 , 同卵双胞胎配对 , 不同卵兄弟 , 堂表兄弟. Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality. 用协同率估计遗传率後 , 大概也会发现在兄弟间会有高协同率. Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.) 之後你对运动期刊陈述 "我们的研究证实篮球运动的优势具有可遗传性" (你会是正确的 , 某些方面的确是可遗传 , 但并非直接继承 , 只有少数人会注意到这点) Soon after, the article appears. It says: "...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and well performed..." 然後记者马上就改写成 "新的研究指出 , 篮球技能可能是可以继承 , 篮球运动员似乎生来如此! 有些研究发现是大幅精准与善於…." But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting. 但多数人不会发现报导已经渐渐地不精准了 What All Neuroscientists Know:The Brain Changes with Use (所有的脑神经学家都知道 , 脑部结构随着使用方式不同而改变) Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players. Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players." 接下来你考虑脑神经科学研究, 在一个着名的研究, LeVay从死去的篮球员作下视丘脑切 片(实验组) , 接下来从不是篮球员的人们也蒐集脑切片(对照组) , 後来发现篮球员的脑 部在某些部份特别大块(发达) A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different." 少数的新闻采访此故事并校稿发布 "很清楚地 , 篮球打得好这件事并不是一个自由意志的选择 , 不仅具有家族性 , 连脑部结构都与普通人不同" **译者注 : 暗指天生如此 , 若不具此基因与脑结构 , 根本不要去想当篮球员 You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing. 你若是一个科学家, 当然会知道到脑部结构随着长时间的使用而强化发达 , 当篮球打得越多(後天) , 则处理这方面讯息的脑结构越发达 Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings. 现在 , 身为一个科学家 , 若被记者问起你的研究成果 , 一方面你当然不会故意说谎 , 但另一方面你也不会主动去澄清精准的真相. 真相会随着突然性地媒体热捧渐渐地失真扭曲. Gene Linkage Studies: "Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By" (基因连锁研究 : “Ａ与Ｂ有关”不等於“Ａ导致Ｂ,或Ｂ导致Ａ”) Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of non-players. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome. 承续上段 , 你在比对篮球员家庭与非篮球员家庭後 , 会找到无数与篮球有关的基因(身高,体重,快速放松等等) , 有些会为位於性染色体上 You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous. 你绝不会说这些基因 "导致" 打篮球行为 , 因为科学统计实验设计上就是不支援这种说法 , 原本也并非要证明这件事 , 但公众媒体会将 "有关" 误解成 "导致" , 认为这两个是同义词 **译者注 : 因为拥有同性恋基因而导致生来是同性恋 , 是错误的 After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly. 再经过一段时间的研究错误与假说修正後 , 你会发现实际上在寻找的是一群在篮球员中较常见的基因 , 而非导致人进行篮球行为的原因. **译者注 : 找到与擅长於打篮球的基因 , 不代表它们导致人变成篮球员 因果关系被过度推论一直是 关联性研究 的潜在问题 With a Little Help from the Media(媒体提供的小帮助) Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..." 现在 , 你在空中(以前指广播,现在可泛指网路与公众媒体) , 拥有一些同情支持者(可在广播中说话的人,如DJ) , 而他们长期安静的关注你的研究 , 他们想要人们对你的研究有所信服. 所以一旦记者采访你与讨论你的研究成果(小规模讯息) , 他们就在广播中说: "研究者热门地找寻篮球基因的线索,明天即将在运动科学期刊发表…"(帮忙扩大能见度) **译者注 : 这段的意思是说同性恋社运家会帮忙造势 Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?" 评论者(名嘴)张扬与武断地表示这个有力研究将会影响无数的公共政策. 两周後 , 再一次在国家级的新闻周刊封面故事又看到了这样的标题 ,“篮球基因?” Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traits muscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball. 但现在到底是哪里出了问题? 这很简单 : 当然篮球运动与某些基因有关, 某些基因自然是可遗传的 , 但这些只是一些侧面帮助的间接因子 , 如肌力 , 速度 , 敏捷 , 放松耗费时间 , 身高等 , 这些确实是遗传 , 这些因子让人有能力打好篮球 , 然後或许间接变成自发地想打篮球 , 但并非直接让人想打篮球 In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor. 在同性恋的状况 , 普遍较可能出现的遗传特徵 , 可能包括有焦虑 , 害羞 , 敏感 ,聪明 , 与高审美观 , 但这些只是炒作 , 至今仍没有具有足够科学严谨度的研究来支持这些假说 What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors. 目前主流的观点将同性恋归因於心理 , 社会与生物遗传的多重因素组合 From the American Psychological Association (美国心理学中心) "Many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6} 许多科学家在接触大量同性恋者後拥有一个共识 , 大多数人性别倾向在人生早期已成型 , 与生理 , 心理和社会因子有关 From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay (脑研究学者) "At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7} 如今最被广泛接受的观点 , 同性恋的起因与众多因子同时有关 From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist (神经学者) "Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8} 任何人类行为都是遗传与环境复杂交织而成. 若同性恋行为不依循此道理 , 将会令人非常震惊. From Sociologist Steven Goldberg (社会学家) "I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9} As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. 我确定研究同性恋领域的所有人 , 都认同环境因子对同性恋的生成肯定有影响. 没有证据证明同性恋仅仅只受到遗传因子影响 , 也没有任何研究会这样陈述 , 只有记者与一些研究者在公开演讲时会这样说. ------------------------------------------------------------- Endnotes (Reference) {1} Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994). {2} Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60. {3} Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689. {4} "New Evidence of a 'Gay Gene'," by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, vol. 146, Issue 20, p. 95. {5} Hamer, D. H., et al. Response to Risch, N., et al., "Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence," Science 262 (1993), pp. 2063-65. {6} The American Psychological Association's pamphlet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality." {7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press. {8} "Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998. {9} Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. The above article was adapted from two sources: a paper entitled, "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, available by calling (972) 713-7130; and past issues of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Bulletin. For an in-depth discussion of homosexuality and genetics, consult Dr. Satinover's 1996 book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, published by Hamewith/Baker Books. -- 统计是我栽 模型是我开 要想套此模 留下专利财 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.113.239.247 ※ 编辑: gsuper 来自: 140.113.239.247 (08/14 17:10) 可能我对所谓的 "正常" 满执着的 听到的当下 什麽理性思考全到一边凉快去了 ※ 编辑: gsuper 来自: 140.113.239.247 (08/14 17:24) ※ 编辑: gsuper 来自: 140.113.239.247 (08/14 19:45)