• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Gay Gene And The Nature / Nurture Debate About Gender

Mighty_Emperor

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
19,407
There is a big article as the lead in the Garudian's G2 today given an impressive overview of the debate. I couldn't find a thread specifically on this and I also can't find the actual article on their website (pos. some technical problem?) but I thought I'd get the ball rolling and post the article when it became available.

---------
See also:

Genes for gay men make women fertile:
https://forums.forteana.org/threads/18239

Gay animals:
https://forums.forteana.org/threads/3216
 
Last edited by a moderator:
New study revives this thread.

A genetic analysis of 409 pairs of gay twins has provided the strongest evidence yet that gay people are born gay. The study clearly links sexual orientation in men with two regions of the human genome that have been implicated before, one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8.

The finding is an important contribution to mounting evidence that being gay is biologically determined rather than a lifestyle choice. In some countries, such as Uganda, being gay is still criminalised, and some religious groups believe that gay people can be "treated" to make them straight.

"It erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice," says study leader Alan Sanders of the NorthShore Research Institute in Evanston, Illinois.

The region on the X chromosome picked out by the study, called Xq28, was originally identified in 1993 by Dean Hamer of the US National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, but attempts to validate the finding since have been mixed. The other region picked out is in the twist in the centre of chromosome 8. Known as 8q12, it was first signposted in 2005.

The latest study involves about three times as many people as the previous largest study, which means it is significantly more statistically robust. ...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... Gp54fmsWHQ
 
A gay gene seems a little self-defeating in the short term, as gay people (or animals) would appear less likely to reproduce. As we know though some gay people do have children so being gay doesn't always rule out reproduction!

Where a gay gene wins out in evolution is, the theory goes, through its helpfulness in groups. Children are more likely to thrive when they have interested adults around them. Childless aunts and uncles fit this role.

So a family group which carries a gay gene is more likely than others to have 'spare' healthy adults present to help raise and protect children.

In societies where people are expected to marry and have children whatever their orientation the gene would still be passed on. People would still be gay but would have to hide it.

Seems plausible to me. Genetics is far more complicated than our old ideas of the 'selfish gene'. Genes that promote group living and wider family attachments will succeed where more solitary ones won't because we need all the help we can get when raising families.
 
I've heard the community theory for 'gay' genes too, however I've never seen a 'gay' gene study on women, but always thought that as a community, where childbirth is dangerous, it would be more prudent to have the 'gay' gene attached to women.
 
There's no particular reason to think that same-sex attraction functions the same way in different sexes. "Attraction for males" and "attraction for females," not to mention all the variants, can co-exist in the same individual, for one thing, and needn't be tied to one's own biological sex at all. And then there's intersex people, whose attractions necessarily destroy all dichotomies.

That there is a physiological component to sexual attraction is logical and natural, even inevitable. That some of this can be traced to specific genes is only to be expected. That this is the same thing as "a gay gene" does not follow at all.

And the theory that specific changes to genes, to survive, must convey an advantage is also not true. The advantage is in the diversity of genes; but all a gene needs to hang on in the genome is, to not actively preclude carriers of the gene from having offspring.

Look at sickle cell anemia - an actively lethal recessive gene. Double carriers die before reproducing in droves. People in malaria-prone areas, however, who lack it have a greatly increased chance of dying of disease before they can reproduce. So people with an ordinary blood-shape gene, and a sickle-cell gene, get the anti-malarial benefit without the penalty, live long enough to breed, and the gene persists.

If the genetic cause is for "attraction to males" or "attraction to females" (two separate entities, independent of the biological sex of the carrier), then females carrying a robust "attraction to males" gene will naturally tend to have more children than those with a weaker attraction, and males carrying a robust "attraction to females" gene likewise. But these genes will be passed to both male and female offspring, with some inevitably winding up on the "wrong" gender.

You see how simple it is to propose solutions to a mystery, if you stop mistaking convenient categories for physical reality? The solution still requires testing; but if it expresses the truth, it should be a much easier thing to demonstrate than genes for "same sex attraction." And the more different questions you ask, the more interesting data you'll get.
 
Update ... The most massive study to date failed to identify any specific gene or genetic evidence uniquely indicative of, or even linked to, a homosexual orientation.

The 'Gay Gene' Is a Total Myth, Massive Study Concludes

No individual gene alone makes a person gay, lesbian or bisexual; instead, thousands of genes likely influence sexual orientation, a massive new study of the genomes of nearly half a million people suggests.

Across human societies and in both sexes, between 2% and 10% of people report engaging in sex with a member of the same sex, either exclusively or in addition to sex with a member of the opposite sex, the researchers said. The biological factors that contribute to sexual orientation are largely unknown, but many scientists suspect that genetics plays a role, given that same-sex sexual behavior appears to run in families and is seen more often in identical twins than in fraternal twins.

But a precise genetic basis for sexual orientation has been elusive, largely because scientists previously had relatively small groups of volunteers to investigate. ...

"Because it is a controversial topic, funding has historically been limited and recruitment of participants was difficult," study co-author Fah Sathirapongsasuti, a senior scientist and computational biologist at the genetic testing company 23andMe, told Live Science. Same-sex orientation remains criminalized in more than 70 countries, some with the death penalty, often stifling those willing to disclose such personal information.

The new study, however, included a much larger number of participants, making the results more statistically reliable than those of the previous, smaller studies. In the largest genetic study of sexual orientation to date, scientists studied a group of about 470,000 volunteers in the United Kingdom and the United States who reported on whether they had ever engaged in same-sex sexual behavior. They relied on genetic data from the UK Biobank (a long-term health and genetics study running in the United Kingdom) and 23andMe, as well as responses to surveys asking questions about sexual identity, attraction, fantasies and behavior.

"To give you a sense of the scale of the data, this is approximately 100-times-fold bigger than previous studies on this topic," study lead author Andrea Ganna, a researcher at the Institute for Molecular Medicine in Finland, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School ...

The researchers could not find any one gene linked with same-sex sexual behavior. Five genetic variants did appear significantly linked to sexual orientation, and thousands more also seemed involved to a lesser extent.

In the end, the scientists could not find any genetic patterns that could be used, in any way, to identify a person's sexual orientation. Instead, the predisposition to same-sex sexual behavior appeared influenced by a complex mix of genetic and environmental influences. That's also the case for many other human traits, such as height.

"It's effectively impossible to predict an individual's sexual behavior from their genome," study co-author Ben Neale, a statistical geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, told Live Science.

However, the finding that there's no single gay gene does not mean that sexual orientation is not genetic or biological, and is therefore a lifestyle choice.

"This is wrong," study co-author Brendan Zietsch, a geneticist at the University of Queensland in Australia, told Live Science. "We find that there are many, many genes that predispose one to same-sex sexual behavior. Each of them individually has a very small effect, but together they have a substantial effect. ...
FULL STORY: https://www.livescience.com/no-single-gene-makes-someone-gay.html
 
...And the more different questions you ask, the more interesting data you'll get. ...

I'll go make some more coffee.

INT21.
 
The genetic theory never seemed likely to me. Years ago, I remember reading that some old-school connoisseurs were a bit concerned their favourite delicacy would become mainstream. In their view, it was so wondrous that a "forest-fire effect" would send the world tumbling into Sodomitical chaos.

Are we there yet? I did, recently, overhear two young men on the Metrolink, discussing, fairly loudly, the best and surest ways to "gay" themselves. One claimed it took him a weekend with gay porn and viagra. The other put it down to one night with a lady-boy and "whizz." Do people do it for the fashion now? I think that to set out on the quest suggests a certain interest to begin with, though some say economic factors have rendered traditional dating habits obsolete.

It was a few years since I had heard the verb "to gay" someone or something. I am pretty certain that the last time was in the context of a very dubious story that the lesbians of Hebden Bridge were "gaying" their female pussy-cats, because they could not bear to see them mating in the more usual way! :cat:
 
Hey, I missed that. I can almost see Hebden Bridge from the window in front of me.

INT21.
 
James,

I do believe we had a long and interesting discussion about the hereditary aspect of this some time back.

Can't seem to find the thread though.
 
Are we there yet? I did, recently, overhear two young men on the Metrolink, discussing, fairly loudly, the best and surest ways to "gay" themselves. One claimed it took him a weekend with gay porn and viagra. The other put it down to one night with a lady-boy and "whizz." Do people do it for the fashion now? I think that to set out on the quest suggests a certain interest to begin with, though some say economic factors have rendered traditional dating habits obsolete.
Why on Earth would someone do that to themselves deliberately, unless they're already gay or bi to begin with?
 
Can't seem to find the thread though.

Probably gone down the memory hole in Chat. I do distinctly recall once referring to the familiar quote that whatever percentage are claimed to be gay, there are plenty would help out in a shortage!

unless they're already gay or bi to begin with?

I suspect there's just less grain, these days, to go against. :dunno:
 
I don't believe anyone is born gay. I think it is a response to the ghastly way some people get treated in early puberty through to their thirties. And possibly overcrowding and rejection from the other sex who are led to believe their partner should be a celebrity god or goddess - again at the behest of the media.

No, I don't believe it is 'curable' - I think it is a natural response to overcrowding, rejection, unrealistic expectations, and the modern incapability of separating sexual love from platonic love. One can - I'll say 'hero worship' - a brilliant exponent of some skill or attribute in one's own sex without being gay, but to some people the two are indistinguishable. I love Jimi Hendrix and David Gower but I never had erotic dreams about either of them.
 
You know I'm fine with it if there's no such thing as a 'gay gene', people being what they are.
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1567262444487.jpg
    FB_IMG_1567262444487.jpg
    179.8 KB · Views: 11
Would a gene that increased the likelihood of homosexual attraction make that attraction any more or less legitimate?

And if a person were to have such an attraction or engage in homosexual activity without possessing such a gene, would it make any difference?

I can't see much point to it--other than pure curiosity.

A quick look around nature shows:
  • Sexual preferences can be strongly influenced by environment and opportunity.
  • Sexual drives can be sated by non-productive copulation.
  • Sexual intercourse can serve a number of purposes in addition to and apart from procreation.
 
It probably wouldn't make any difference to legitimacy.

But it would be one more gene that can be ascribed a purpose.

And as homosexuality is legal in this country, whatever the driving motive is is mostly irrelevant.
 
It probably wouldn't make any difference to legitimacy.

But it would be one more gene that can be ascribed a purpose.

And as homosexuality is legal in this country, whatever the driving motive is is mostly irrelevant.

Not entirely. A homosexual gene - if such a thing existed - would doom its carriers to genetic extinction. Precisely because I don't believe there is such a thing I believe homosexuals are the same as the rest of us, but with different life experiences. For which reason I believe they are as entitled to exactly as much respect as everyone else.
 
Of course they should.

Not so sure about dooming any carriers of such a gene to extinction though. Some genes appear to skip a generation every now and then.

Things like one ginger headed child in a family of dark haired kids is an example.
 
The whole issue of aborting babies that carry the "gay gene" poses some interesting questions for the Church I'd wager.
 
Of course they should.

Not so sure about dooming any carriers of such a gene to extinction though. Some genes appear to skip a generation every now and then.

Things like one ginger headed child in a family of dark haired kids is an example.

Only if the postman isn't ginger :rollingw:
 
The whole issue of aborting babies that carry the "gay gene" poses some interesting questions for the Church I'd wager.

I don't see why.

The way the church has managed to avoid dealing with its child abusers in an effort to protect itself, the church has proved itself perfectly able to avoid dealing with difficult and contentious issues. :mad:
 
Back
Top