Scientists Claim There Is No "Gay Gene"; Homosexuality Is Caused By Factors In Gestation

  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Dec 11, 2012 8:35 PM GMT
    Scientists Claim There Is No "Gay Gene"; Homosexuality Is Caused By Factors In Gestation

    http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/scientists-claim-there-is-no-gay-gene-homosexuality-is-caused-by-factors-in-gestation?directory=100011

    Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development
    Author(s): William R. Rice, Urban Friberg, and Sergey Gavrilets
    Reviewed work(s):
    Source: The Quarterly Review of Biology, (-Not available-), p. 000
    Published by: The University of Chicago Press
    Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167 .


    http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/10.1086/668167.pdf?acceptTC=true
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 10:43 PM GMT
    I was born this way. And it's your fault. Mom!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 10:44 PM GMT
    Every time a straight person says something to me against being gay, I just say "blame yourself; cause we don't breed ourselves."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 10:54 PM GMT
    I was fearing an "in utero" explanation for being gay. This will add to the argument that it's an abnormality, a birth defect that needs to be treated prenatally. And even if gay does ultimately have a genetic component, advances in gene therapy could still make that "curable" too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 11:32 PM GMT
    ART_DECO saidI was fearing an "in utero" explanation for being gay. This will add to the argument that it's an abnormality, a birth defect that needs to be treated prenatally. And even if gay does ultimately have a genetic component, advances in gene therapy could still make that "curable" too.


    It's pretty easy to draw up a religious argument for not tampering with the genetic component of sexuality because they'd be killing off the person who was meant to be. They'd be aborting that person in favor of the birth of a different person. I believe they are only allowed to play God after birth.

    But that all sounds a bit paranoid at this point.

    If I read the report correctly, this still sounds genetic to me in the sense that it is the regulatory switches of the genes which cause the gay. I'm no scientist, so, question for anyone who is: are the switches not part of the genes? Or is that some separate, isolated mechanism?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26872/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 1:10 AM GMT
    25 years ago a popular a talk show guy, Michael Benner, always said gay people are made just like deaf people, people without legs, mentally handicapped, etc. When I heard that I stopped listening to him years.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Dec 12, 2012 1:18 AM GMT
    why don't scientists focus on real problems, like cancer and the Kardashians?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 1:26 AM GMT
    The factors that make us gay could still be hereditary without being genetic. I found this article, which explains it in more detail. (I am not familiar with the site.)

    http://www.livescience.com/25431-gene-regulation-homosexuality.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 1:51 AM GMT
    The idea that there was ever a single gay "gene" has long been dismissed. Sexuality is caused by a complex array of factors including genetics, hormones, etc.

  • TheBizMan

    Posts: 4091

    Dec 12, 2012 2:13 AM GMT
    yourname2000 saidHmmm.....I worry that this kind of stuff will only lead to an in utero test for homosexuality and an excuse to abort the child. icon_neutral.gif


    If we can change the world quick enough, people will have no reason to abort gay children as gays would be accepted in society.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 2:16 AM GMT
    yourname2000 saidHmmm.....I worry that this kind of stuff will only lead to an in utero test for homosexuality and an excuse to abort the child. icon_neutral.gif
    In that case, they should abort straight people because they're the ones breeding us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 2:20 AM GMT
    I find it funny that we ever thought there was one gay gene. However did gays ever promote there was one. I only heard homophobes shouting that.
  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    Dec 12, 2012 2:28 AM GMT
    Let me try to clarify something here: when they talk about "factors during gestation", they do not mean anything that's related to what the mother did or didn't do (eat, smoke, etc.) during pregnancy. The article refers to epigenetic markers, which in essence are proteins clinging to the DNA, and certain modifications thereof. For the child, they act very much like a real gene, that is, you got them from your parents, and there is nothing you can do about it, and it's no one's "fault". They are, however, much less likely to be passed on the the next generation. So if that's what makes us gay (discounting any true genetic causes), then children of gays shouldn't be any more likely to be gay than children of straights. Identical twins, however, have a high likelyhood of inheriting the same epigenetic modifications. And that's consistent with the data, I believe.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Dec 12, 2012 2:31 AM GMT
    MashogaNubianPrince saidI find it funny that we ever thought there was one gay gene. However did gays ever promote there was one. I only heard homophobes shouting that.


    I've heard tons of gays claiming it was a definitive find, even though there has never been anything close to that suggested.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 3:31 AM GMT
    Timbales saidwhy don't scientists focus on real problems, like cancer and the Kardashians?


    Cancer and the Kardashians ARE THE SAME PROBLEM.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 5:25 AM GMT
    I'm still confused as to whether epigenetics is a fundamental aspect of a gene. Is that in the make up of the gene or are genes just the DNA. Because doesn't the DNA have to know what to do, whether to make a limb or a kidney and isn't that the role of the switches?

    But it is wrong to say that something which is functioning at the level of epigenetics is not a matter of genetics? Somebody unconfuse me.


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

    Epigenetic_mechanisms.jpg

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

    ADN_animation.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 5:37 AM GMT
    and another

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 5:41 AM GMT
    I swear I said that my mom had a virus during her pregnancy somewhere on this forum. With that, I'm going to say, about damn time this study came out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 5:43 AM GMT
    theantijock saidI'm still confused as to whether epigenetics is a fundamental aspect of a gene. Is that in the make up of the gene or are genes just the DNA. Because doesn't the DNA have to know what to do, whether to make a limb or a kidney and isn't that the role of the switches?

    But it is wrong to say that something which is functioning at the level of epigenetics is not a matter of genetics? Somebody unconfuse me.


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

    Epigenetic_mechanisms.jpg

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

    ADN_animation.gif


    To make it short, genetic problems are related to the presence/absence/mutation of genes in your chromosomes.

    Epigenetic is about turning existing genes on/off or in between, like putting a tag on gene saying to your cell :'do no use'. But that tagging doesn't change your genes, and is normally removed in the fecondation process.

    Genes are the body instruction book, epigenetic is like using black marker on some parts of the text so that it's never used.

    I doesn't change what written in the book, just your ability to read it.

    The same book can be black marked in thousands of different ways.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 5:50 AM GMT
    minox said
    To make it short, genetic problems are related to the presence/absence/mutation of genes in your chromosomes.

    Epigenetic is about turning existing genes on/off or in between, like putting a tag on gene saying to your cell :'do no use'. But that tagging doesn't change your genes, and is normally removed in the fecondation process.

    Genes are the body instruction book, epigenetic is like using black marker on some parts of the text so that it's never used.

    I doesn't change what written in the book, just your ability to read it.

    The same book can be black marked in thousands of different ways.


    Yes, thank you. I get that. But just give me a yes or no to this question:

    Are the switches an intrinsic aspect of the gene itself?

    Or are they considered as separate from the gene itself?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 5:55 AM GMT
    And the study just provide a mechanism that could explain how homosexuality could be from birth without being genetic, AND the probability to be gay being being stronger in some family (inheriting epigenetic tag).

    Yet, I may be unaware it exist, but I'm still waiting for a study demonstrating homosexuality is linked to hormonal unbalance.

    It should be possible to test is there is a strong or weak or in existing correlation between hormonal levels and sexual orientation in both gay and lesbians.

    I find the assumption than homosexuality is the consequence of deficient hormonal balance culturally biased if it's not baked by scientific testing.

    The number of studies like that which imply that homosexual range lower on the physical masculinity scale is astounding and disturbing.

    How can they make any good research if the assumption is that homosexuality is about feminine men and masculine women ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 5:55 AM GMT
    Gene or not Gene, I didn't choose my sexuallity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 5:59 AM GMT
    Walter92 saidGene or not Gene, I didn't choose my sexuallity who I want in my jeans.


    fixed
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 6:02 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    minox said
    To make it short, genetic problems are related to the presence/absence/mutation of genes in your chromosomes.

    Epigenetic is about turning existing genes on/off or in between, like putting a tag on gene saying to your cell :'do no use'. But that tagging doesn't change your genes, and is normally removed in the fecondation process.

    Genes are the body instruction book, epigenetic is like using black marker on some parts of the text so that it's never used.

    I doesn't change what written in the book, just your ability to read it.

    The same book can be black marked in thousands of different ways.


    Yes, thank you. I get that. But just give me a yes or no to this question:

    Are the switches an intrinsic aspect of the gene itself?

    Or are they considered as separate from the gene itself?


    The are separate, physically.

    The DNA is tighly packed over small 'perls', called histones.
    To make proteins out of the gene, the dna need to be unrolled from histones.
    Epigenetic making is done on histones, changing the ability to unroll .

    If you are the DNA, histone is like your belt of your pant.
    I need to open your belt to get at your ass.
    If I put a lock on your belt, I can no longer get at your ass, but I didn't change anything in your body, just my ability to acess it ;-)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 6:23 AM GMT
    minox said

    The are separate, physically.

    The DNA is tighly packed over small 'perls', called histones.
    To make proteins out of the gene, the dna need to be unrolled from histones.
    Epigenetic making is done on histones, changing the ability to unroll .

    If you are the DNA, histone is like your belt of your pant.
    I need to open your belt to get at your ass.
    If I put a lock on your belt, I can no longer get at your ass, but I didn't change anything in your body, just my ability to acess it ;-)


    lol talk about driving a lesson home lol

    Thanx for the explanation. I think you're getting me there (and I'm not even into anal).

    So then the genes don't carry with them their own instructions of what to turn on and off. But rather the gene knows what to make with each successive incarnation (see how I took that away from the grotesque to the subtle?) based upon information carried by proteins which make up the histones?

    So when you say "epigenetic making is done on the histones" then isn't that even more fundamental to the make up of life than genes? Am I thinking about that wrongly?

    Protein_H2AFJ_PDB_1aoi.png

    In other words, our sexuality is formed at an even more basic level than the gene? Wow. I wonder what the Vatican has to say about that. And look what it looks like. Well, no wonder we love to party.