The difference between "mutation" and "genetic ailment" (mental illness in this case) is academic at most, purely social at the norm.
A mutation that doesn't cause harm is a mutation. A mutation that does cause harm is a genetic-based ailment.
If you mutate that your arms are two inches shorter than they should be, it's a mutation. If you mutate that your arms are two feet shorter than they should be, it's a genetic ailment. Neck-down alopecia? Mutation. Neck-up alopecia? Ailment. Caved-in flat head? Fashionable and sexy to some points in history. Ailment now.
At a human population bottleneck, adult male homosexuality would be an ailment. At a surplus population, it's a mutation.
That stated, the mysterious "genetic component" has only spurious evidence at best. Taking a flight of CRISPR/MRNA shots or skinny dipping in a radiation coolant pool might alter your genetics, but it isn't going to alter your sexual preferences.
It's not really a "scientist" distinction, because to proper true scientists, they're all mutations, no such thing as ailments, they don't make values judgements on their research: Is it the norm, or not the norm? (And they do not care whether "the norm" is good or bad).
The difference between "mutation" and "genetic ailment" (mental illness in this case) is academic at most, purely social at the norm.
A mutation that doesn't cause harm is a mutation. A mutation that does cause harm is a genetic-based ailment.
If you mutate that your arms are two inches shorter than they should be, it's a mutation. If you mutate that your arms are two feet shorter than they should be, it's a genetic ailment. Neck-down alopecia? Mutation. Neck-up alopecia? Ailment. Caved-in flat head? Fashionable and sexy to some points in history. Ailment now.
At a human population bottleneck, adult male homosexuality would be an ailment. At a surplus population, it's a mutation.
That stated, the mysterious "genetic component" has only spurious evidence at best. Taking a flight of CRISPR/MRNA shots or skinny dipping in a radiation coolant pool might alter your genetics, but it isn't going to alter your sexual preferences.
Thanks for the distinction, not a scientist so I'll use it in the future
It's not really a "scientist" distinction, because to proper true scientists, they're all mutations, no such thing as ailments, they don't make values judgements on their research: Is it the norm, or not the norm? (And they do not care whether "the norm" is good or bad).
It's more a linguistic difference.