• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

New study claims homosexuality is not genetic but it arises in the womb

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apr 6, 2009
57,151
0
0
Vancouver...ish.
http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-c...etic--but-it-arises-in-the-womb?post=55103548

A team of international researchers has confirmed that there's no such thing as a ‘gay gene.' But that doesn't mean biology is off the hook in terms of explaining why homosexuality exists in the human population. It's not about genetics, say the researchers, it's about epigenetics — the process in which the expression of DNA is influenced by any number of external factors. And in the case of homosexuality, these factors are happening inside the womb.
And indeed, when looking at this issue through a strictly Darwinian lens, it makes no sense for homosexuality to exist in the gene pool. Given the "selfish gene" theory, it couldn't possibly be a beneficial adaptation — it's a trait that could never be passed down. But that said, homosexuality is common for men and women in most cultures — an observation that clearly demands an explanation.

An added layer of information
Writing in The Quarterly Review of Biology, researchers William Rice, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Urban Friberg, a professor at Uppsala University in Sweden, believe that homosexuality can be explained by the presence of epi-marks — temporary switches that control how our genes are expressed during gestation and after we're born.

Specifically, the researchers discovered sex-specific epi-marks which, unlike most genetic switches, get passed down from father to daughter or mother to son. Most epi-marks don't normally pass between generations and are essentially "erased." Rice and Friberg say this explains why homosexuality appears to run in families, yet has no real genetic underpinning.

Epigenetic mechanisms can be seen as an added layer of information that clings to our DNA. Epi-marks regulate the expression of genes according to the strength of external cues. Genes are basically the instruction book, while epi-marks direct how those instructions get carried out. For example, they can determine when, where, and how much of a gene gets expressed.

Moreover, epi-marks are usually produced from scratch with each generation — but new evidence is showing that they can sometimes carryover from parent to child. It's this phenomenon that gives the impression of having shared genes with relatives.

Masculinization and feminization
To reach this conclusion, Rice and Friberg created a biological and mathematical model that charted the role of epigenetics in homosexuality. They did so by applying evolutionary theory to recent advances in the molecular regulation of gene expression and androgen-dependent sexual development.

Normally, sex-specific marks that are triggered during early fetal development work to protect boys and girls in the womb from undergoing too much natural variation in testosterone, which should normally happen later in a pregnancy. Epigenetic processes prevent female fetuses from becoming masculinized when testosterone exposure gets too high, and vice versa for males.

Moreover, epi-marks also protect different sex-specific traits from swinging in the opposite direction; some affect the genitals, others sexual identity — and others affect sexual orientation. And at the same time, these epi-marks can be transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters, or mothers to sons — which can cause reversed effects like the feminization of some traits in boys (like sexual preference), or a partial masculinization of girls.

Essentially, Rice and Friberg have discovered the presence of "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks — which sometimes carryover to the next generation and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring.

And importantly — in order to satisfy the rules of Darwinian selection — the researchers noted through their mathematical modeling that these epigenetic characteristics can easily proliferate in the population because they increase the fitness of the parent; these epi-marks normally protect parents from natural variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development. They also only rarely escape erasure and reduce the fitness of offspring.

The entire study will appear online at The Quarterly Review of Biology later this week and go by the title, "Homosexuality as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development."

Some of the biological jargon goes over my head, but I thought it was an interesting article nonetheless.
 

shinobi602

Member
Sep 28, 2010
33,551
6
0
www.twitter.com
 

pants

Member
Feb 21, 2012
10,754
1
0
Essentially, Rice and Friberg have discovered the presence of "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks — which sometimes carryover to the next generation and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring.
Son is gay - comes from the mother
Daughter is gay - comes from the father

Am I reading this right?
 

nib95

Banned
Feb 26, 2007
34,612
2
0
Interesting findings, though some of it is hard to digest and goes over my head a bit.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Jul 17, 2007
26,341
0
0
So DNA methylation made me gay. I'm going to need to see some primary articles on this... Not a review.

Yeah... I'm a little skeptical that this is all epigentics, especially if they bring up the Darwinian term.
 

Viewt

Member
Jan 5, 2007
5,362
0
0
32
Chicago, IL
crosstawk.com
I guess there's nothing inherently unethical about studies like this, but whats the point, exactly? I mean, even if they were to say, "Yep, Gene X is present, this kid's gonna be gay," there doesn't seem be any clear benefit to society.

I guess that's why some people might be insulted by stuff like this. Because if there isn't a societal benefit to completing the research, then what's the motivator? It wouldn't be a stretch to attach nefarious intentions.
 

GregLombardi

Member
Dec 5, 2008
6,092
1
0
That is very confusing to me. At least the way it is written.

It sounds like the argument they are making is that if there is a presence of an epi-mark, AND the person has certain triggers in their family / environment, then they are likely or will be homosexual or at least open to the possibility?
 

XenoRaven

Member
Sep 4, 2009
9,727
0
0
I had read in my biopsych class that the "how" had to do with hormonal levels during development. I guess this has to do with the "why." I haven't read the whole thing yet but this is pretty interesting.

Unfortunate it will likely be ignored by the people that need to hear it.
 

RM8

Member
Mar 11, 2012
21,312
1
0
I guess there's nothing inherently unethical about studies like this, but whats the point, exactly? I mean, even if they were to say, "Yep, Gene X is present, this kid's gonna be gay," there doesn't seem be any clear benefit to society.

I guess that's why some people might be insulted by stuff like this. Because if there isn't a societal benefit to completing the research, then what's the motivator? It wouldn't be a stretch to attach nefarious intentions.
I think it's good to know how stuff works.
 

Karsticles

Member
Oct 25, 2010
44,326
0
0
Florida
www.youtube.com
Am I reading this right, and that no actual experiments have been done? This looks like a hypothesis with an accompanying "model" to explain how it works.

It's also not clear why masculinity and femininity are important. Homosexuals of either sex are often just as masculine/feminine as their heterosexual counterparts. Heck, I know plenty of gay men who are more masculine than I am.
 

kswiston

Member
Mar 25, 2005
35,134
2
0
Canada
So DNA methylation made me gay. I'm going to need to see some primary articles on this... Not a review.

The Quarterly Review part is just the name of the journal. It seems like this is a primary study. And actual reviews in scientific journals are very useful for aggregating various independent studies to show consensus trends.

EDIT: Also, people can read the actual science article when it is published. New reports on science articles often misinterpret things and make faulty claims that the researchers were not endorsing themselves.
 

TimeEffect

Member
Mar 17, 2010
27,951
0
915
Cool, but what does this change? Does it really matter how you are gay? Whether you choose or are born gay?

Article sounds suspicious too, but I wouldn't know what to look for anyway
 
Dec 15, 2004
13,435
29
1,505
Wasn't there a study looking at the rates of homosexuality in fire bombed cities like Dresden vs other German cities in WW2? I can't remember if that study was valid or not, but it certainly isn't a new idea that a person's sexuality may be influenced by environmental factors.
 

Fenderputty

Banned
Apr 14, 2008
23,121
0
0
Cali
I guess there's nothing inherently unethical about studies like this, but whats the point, exactly? I mean, even if they were to say, "Yep, Gene X is present, this kid's gonna be gay," there doesn't seem be any clear benefit to society.

I guess that's why some people might be insulted by stuff like this. Because if there isn't a societal benefit to completing the research, then what's the motivator? It wouldn't be a stretch to attach nefarious intentions.

There's an a huge section of the population that thinks being gay is a choice and base their bigoted beliefs off this premise. Or at least feel moral justification because of it.
 

Jackpot

Banned
Nov 8, 2011
11,465
3
0
Article is written really poorly. Catch-all term of "scientists" and use of "confirms" are big no-nos. You'll have to read the paper or a better site to get a good gist of it.
 

Anoregon

The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
Jun 9, 2011
17,222
1
0
New york
I guess there's nothing inherently unethical about studies like this, but whats the point, exactly? I mean, even if they were to say, "Yep, Gene X is present, this kid's gonna be gay," there doesn't seem be any clear benefit to society.

I guess that's why some people might be insulted by stuff like this. Because if there isn't a societal benefit to completing the research, then what's the motivator? It wouldn't be a stretch to attach nefarious intentions.

So we can finally cure the gay. Duh.
 

Seanspeed

Banned
Sep 10, 2009
29,406
1
0
I guess there's nothing inherently unethical about studies like this, but whats the point, exactly? I mean, even if they were to say, "Yep, Gene X is present, this kid's gonna be gay," there doesn't seem be any clear benefit to society.

I guess that's why some people might be insulted by stuff like this. Because if there isn't a societal benefit to completing the research, then what's the motivator? It wouldn't be a stretch to attach nefarious intentions.
Knowledge.
 

shinobi602

Member
Sep 28, 2010
33,551
6
0
www.twitter.com
I do have to agree with this though:
And indeed, when looking at this issue through a strictly Darwinian lens, it makes no sense for homosexuality to exist in the gene pool. Given the "selfish gene" theory, it couldn't possibly be a beneficial adaptation — it's a trait that could never be passed down.
 

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
Sep 10, 2009
14,189
0
790
This research is important because accurate knowledge is important.

The idea that there is "a gene" for homosexuality is something that laypeople might come to believe but scientists already know genetics doesn't work that way.

The causes are still biological and therefore out of the person's control, which has important implications for arguments and attitudes about homosexuality. The more evidence that it's not a choice, the better for gay rights activists. I don't see anything nefarious here, except that any science like this can be easily misunderstood or intentionally misrepresented by nefarious people.

I don't see why people are posting popcorn gifs and anticipating a firestorm of controversy in here.
 

notsol337

marked forever
Dec 21, 2007
4,372
0
1,105
Ohio
It's interesting from a purely scientific standpoint. I have never, ever cared what someone's sexual orientation is. There's just no point in being that much of an ass. It would be nice, however, to pinpoint a "reason" as scientific to shut up a bunch of bible thumpers.
 

Matt

Member
Jun 7, 2004
10,824
3
1,320
I guess there's nothing inherently unethical about studies like this, but whats the point, exactly? I mean, even if they were to say, "Yep, Gene X is present, this kid's gonna be gay," there doesn't seem be any clear benefit to society.

I guess that's why some people might be insulted by stuff like this. Because if there isn't a societal benefit to completing the research, then what's the motivator? It wouldn't be a stretch to attach nefarious intentions.

Knowledge in and of itself is a worthwhile pursuit.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Dec 28, 2005
39,512
0
1,455
Article is written really poorly. Catch-all term of "scientists" and use of "confirms" are big no-nos. You'll have to read the paper or a better site to get a good gist of it.

Yeah, that was my first red-flag. I'd rather read a better paper, or a better summary.
 

kswiston

Member
Mar 25, 2005
35,134
2
0
Canada
I don't see anything nefarious here, except that any science like this can be easily misunderstood or intentionally misrepresented by nefarious people.

Ya, misinterpretation would be the biggest issue with this claim. I can imagine that there more than a few bigoted fathers out there that will now blame their wives for "turning my son gay".
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
Feb 10, 2008
20,293
0
0
This has been suggested for a while, it's interesting reading more research on it.
 

Sblargh

Banned
Dec 13, 2008
11,822
1
0
It's somewhat irrelevant to the ethical arguments regarding the notion that people can be cured out of homosexuality, but that would be true even in some extreme bizarre world where you could turn homosexuality on and off at will.

So I don't see the point of this debate out of the natural curiosity to know why we are the way we are.

There's an a huge section of the population that thinks being gay is a choice and base their bigoted beliefs off this premise. Or at least feel moral justification because of it.

The same people who will develop pseudo-science out of thin air to justify their beliefs or just ignore it completely when they absolutely can't.
Doing research saying programs to cure homosexuality are bullshit is only important in context where people already thinks homosexuality is something to be cured.
We should be so way past that.

Article is written really poorly. Catch-all term of "scientists" and use of "confirms" are big no-nos. You'll have to read the paper or a better site to get a good gist of it.

Also, this.
This is one team in one university who believed they found something, maybe they're right, but jeez.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Jul 17, 2007
26,341
0
0

metalslimer

Member
Jun 9, 2012
26,527
0
0
Wait, my understand of epigenetics (genetics finally today oh god I'm screwed) was that while the imprinting was erased, it didn't really matter because the gamete was was methylated in pretty much the same exact way. By the way the whole idea of a gay "gene" was always ridiculous.
 

plagiarize

Banned
May 24, 2006
41,130
1
0
And indeed, when looking at this issue through a strictly Darwinian lens, it makes no sense for homosexuality to exist in the gene pool. Given the "selfish gene" theory, it couldn't possibly be a beneficial adaptation — it's a trait that could never be passed down.

the above part isn't true. the trait that would be passed down would be the 'higher than average propensity to give birth to a gay child' gene. give me some leeway here, i'll try to keep it simple.

a 'breeder' will succeed at being a breeder if they have a higher likelihood of giving birth to able bodied compassionate successful children more than one that has dumb children.

even if we are presuming two people of equally low wealth and social standing, this is true. a gay family member is less likely to gain children of their own, and thus the 'breeder' is likely to receive more of their compassion.

therefor, the breeder more likely to have gay children (to a point) succeeds more than on the unlikely to have any. as in, is able to have more straight children to pass on their genetic traits, than the breeder who didn't have any gay children.

it isn't about survival of the individual. a queen bee that mothers bees more likely to lay down their own life for hers, is more likely to succeed compared to one that doesn't.

the rudimentary understanding of the selfish gene that io9 outline wouldn't encourage bees to kill themselves by stinging an enemy.

I'm not disputing the science saying homosexuality isn't in the DNA, I'm just saying that yes, it absolutely could be a beneficial adaptation.
 

pants

Member
Feb 21, 2012
10,754
1
0
It's interesting from a purely scientific standpoint. I have never, ever cared what someone's sexual orientation is. There's just no point in being that much of an ass. It would be nice, however, to pinpoint a "reason" as scientific to shut up a bunch of bible thumpers.

I dunno, scientific evidence doesn't traditionally have a high standing amongst the very religious (using this term to define the earth is 4000 years old people)
 

Dance Inferno

Unconfirmed Member
Dec 30, 2008
11,555
0
0
www.neogaf.com
I didn't understand half of that article but this seems like an interesting development in the nature vs. nurture argument. Doesn't seem like they ran any studies though, so I'm not really sure what they're basing this on.
 

hachi

Banned
Apr 28, 2012
1,515
0
0
Scientists propose that homosexuality (of which their understanding is remarkably reductive and quite frankly poor, placing it along a spectrum of expressions of masculinity / femininity) is not genetic but arises in the womb.

Nothing to see here.
 

metalslimer

Member
Jun 9, 2012
26,527
0
0
the above part isn't true. the trait that would be passed down would be the 'higher than average propensity to give birth to a gay child' gene. give me some leeway here, i'll try to keep it simple.

a 'breeder' will succeed at being a breeder if they have a higher likelihood of giving birth to able bodied compassionate successful children more than one that has dumb children.

even if we are presuming two people of equally low wealth and social standing, this is true. a gay family member is less likely to gain children of their own, and thus the 'breeder' is likely to receive more of their compassion.

therefor, the breeder more likely to have gay children (to a point) succeeds more than on the unlikely to have any.

it isn't about survival of the individual. a queen bee that mothers bees more likely to lay down their own life for hers, is more likely to succeed compared to one that doesn't.

the rudimentary understanding of the selfish gene that io9 outline wouldn't encourage bees to kill themselves by stinging an enemy.

I'm not disputing the science saying homosexuality isn't in the DNA, I'm just saying that yes, it absolutely could be a beneficial adaptation.


If it were genetics there could also be some beneficial adaptation with other factors due to the pleiotrophic effects of said gene. Same way sickle cell and cystic fibrosis shouldn't exist as much as they do.

I didn't understand half of that article but this seems like an interesting development in the nature vs. nurture argument.

That argument is and has always been a fallacy. It doesn't even exist.
 

shinobi602

Member
Sep 28, 2010
33,551
6
0
www.twitter.com
Except... It is a trait that is passed. The epigenetic markers are in place either in the egg or the sperm. Then I assume additional methylation occurs in the fetus.

Edit: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121211083212.htm

Science Daily link. Though, most of it appears to be copy and pasted, most likely the website in the OP rewrote based on SD's report.

I'm no expert on this, but if there is indeed some type of 'homosexuality gene' or what have you, by nature it wouldn't be passed on, due to it's inhibiting and pretty much negating procreation/reproduction, which is pretty much the basis of life?
 

hym

Banned
Aug 10, 2011
2,483
0
0
I always feared that if it was discovered there was such a genetic trigger deciding somebody was predestined to be gay there would be a ton of people having abortions solely for this reason, similar to wealthy parents in China having sex-selective abortions. Religious hypocrites would be the first in line.

I would prefer they don't investigate it further though, I would hate if one day somebody finds a "fix" for something that's not a disorder.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Jul 17, 2007
26,341
0
0
the above part isn't true. the trait that would be passed down would be the 'higher than average propensity to give birth to a gay child' gene. give me some leeway here, i'll try to keep it simple.

a 'breeder' will succeed at being a breeder if they have a higher likelihood of giving birth to able bodied compassionate successful children more than one that has dumb children.

even if we are presuming two people of equally low wealth and social standing, this is true. a gay family member is less likely to gain children of their own, and thus the 'breeder' is likely to receive more of their compassion.

therefor, the breeder more likely to have gay children (to a point) succeeds more than on the unlikely to have any.

it isn't about survival of the individual. a queen bee that mothers bees more likely to lay down their own life for hers, is more likely to succeed compared to one that doesn't.

the rudimentary understanding of the selfish gene that io9 outline wouldn't encourage bees to kill themselves by stinging an enemy.

I'm not disputing the science saying homosexuality isn't in the DNA, I'm just saying that yes, it absolutely could be a beneficial adaptation.

Eh, your explanation is a little flawed, I think. It deals with reproductive success, yes, but it's a little different.

As the article states, sometimes when DNA is methylated, the methylation can be erased, especially during the formation of sex-cells, or the egg and the sperm. However, if particular bits of methylation are not erased, in this case some part of the chromosome that the scientists are talking about, then that trait is going to be passed on to the offspring with the methylation in tact. Then, the fetus will do its own methylation, I suppose. Thus in turn giving it a double dose or making it more vulnerable/invulnerable to the hormones being produced.

It is still genetic, but according to these articles, it's not a gene that is transcribed and subsequently translated. It appears to be more of a dose-dependent sort of thing...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.