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

[plagiarize]

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 for one day somebody to find a "fix" for something that's not a disorder.

well, it would be much harder to test for conditions. I'm sure you'd get people trying to minimize 'risks' but honestly, I hope there isn't a genetic identifier for the same reason you state.

 

[royalan]

The title of this article is incredibly misleading.

This is just a study, amongst a bunch of other studies that all claim different theories as to the origin of homosexuality. It's no more or less valid.

Interesting study, but not conclusive, and not at all indicative of some majority opinion among the scientific community.

 

[metalslimer]

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?

That's not exactly how it works. If the so called gene had other beneficial effects., it could easily remain in the gene pool. It could be a gene that one would think has nothing to do with sexuality

 

[Trurl]

I do have to agree with this though:

Saying "couldn't possibly" over sells the point by a country mile. Also, if being gay happens in the womb, it could be an expression of a gene that exists in the mother. An "extended phenotype" if you will. Evolutions motivations are not alway obvious.

 

[BruiserBear]

The title of this article is incredibly misleading.

This is just a study, amongst a bunch of other studies that all claim different theories as to the origin of homosexuality. It's no more or less valid.

Interesting study, but not conclusive, and not at all indicative of some majority opinion among the scientific community.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

I can see it now. People picketing gay wombs...

Or aborting them.

 

[Agent Ironside]

Science.

Its this. No its that, this that. that this that that.

 

[Esch]

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.

I have a test on epigenetics and Cancer today too :X

Basically they just discovered that some of the germline imprinting is sexually antagonistic; causing homosexuality in opposite sex offspring.

 

[Kinitari]

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. And Religious hypocrites would be the first in line.

I would prefer they don't investigate it further though, I would hate for one day somebody to find a "fix" for something that's not an illness.

Too bad that's not realistic to expect. I really am curious about how society will change when we start having more control over our environment and ourselves. Would you vote to make it illegal for a woman to take some pills that "ensured her kids were straight" or whatever? I'm not even really sure how i feel about that.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

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.

I had always assumed it was genetic. That would imply it's not a choice and it's not under control. It seems plausible that certain genes will make people inherently attracted to certain qualities/people. And same gender can be one of them.

That being said, it seems as if there might be evidence to the contrary which I look forward to reading more deeply.

 

[rbanke]

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

A potential upside might be that some ignorant parents who really think it's a choice might eventually be less inclined to think they can make their kids 'not gay' by sending them to camps or whatever other conditioning they try on them. I also don't see a real downside to furthering our understanding on any subject.

 

[Timedog]

homosexuality is common for men and women in most cultures — an observation that clearly demands an explanation.

In most cultures? More like every culture.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

pretty much this

 

[Wilsongt]

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?

You're thinking of natural selection. Believe it or not, it doesn't occur as often as people may think.

There are certain genetic make-ups that are tolerated by the fetus and the mother and not tolerated during pregnancy. Being homosexual doesn't reduce your likely hood of making babies. It just reduces your desire to mate with someone of the opposite sex. This is common in animals, also. You are just as reproductively successful as a straight man or woman.

By your logic, we shouldn't have trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) because it isn't something beneficial. However, we do because it is a mutation that is tolerated by the womb and isn't aborted.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

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.

I haven't read the study, but the thread title is a bit misleading. The study is actually titled "Homosexuality as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development" which is a lot different than calling it "homosexuality is not genetic." There's a genetic component with the envirnoment influencing gene expression. To use a simple (very simpilfied) example, an anxious mother's offspring may be susceptible to anxiety. But if they are not placed in a stressfull environment to trigger expression of those genes they won't be anxious like the mother. we're finding that the nature v. nurture dichotomy isn't particularly valid.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Too bad that's not realistic to expect. I really am curious about how society will change when we start having more control over our environment and ourselves. Would you vote to make it illegal for a woman to take some pills that "ensured her kids were straight" or whatever? I'm not even really sure how i feel about that.

Tricky topic. On one hand, we are essentially here to reproduce and pass down our genes. Being homosexual typically hinders that goal.
However, there's a lot more to it than that and I can imagine most parents would prefer their kids to be straight so they can continue to pass their genes on and have grandkids.
Of course there's always adoption and what not and other ethical questions involved.

 

[Trurl]

In most cultures? More like every culture.

I've heard that Iran doesn't have any gay people. Try again, Timedog.

 

[mantidor]

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.

This pretty much. Maybe this will give us light about transgenderism ( is that a word?), but homosexuality really doesn't correlate with feminine or masculine traits, and hormones have long been proven to have no effect at all in someone's sexual orientation.

I still want to read the article though, the more people start realizing genes and genetics are more complex than just switches you turn on and off the better.

 

[Seanspeed]

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.

If I was able to ensure my son or daughter was 'born straight', I would do it. Not because I find anything wrong with homosexuality, but because it would mean an easier time growing up for them.

 

[Chichikov]

So why do people seriously believe it's a choice again?

Why does it matter?
We should accept homosexuality because it hurts no one and because we shouldn't legalize our religious beliefs.

Okay, it hurts the first time, but after a while you get used to it.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

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?

There's always an environmental component.

 

[twobear]

First thing to note is that this is absolutely the first step on the road to parents being 'able' to chose not to have gay children. In other words, for the vast majority of people choosing not to have gay children. I might be an endangered species before long. Yay!

Secondly, the first section of the article is a pernicious non sequitur. Natural selection does not predict that homosexuality would not exist. It predicts that homosexuality exists because it provides some benefit to populations that have the trait.

I'm kind of fed up of it because I've been casually informed on a number of occasions that I am a 'failure' according to 'nature' because I am not reproductively successful. No. Firstly nature doesn't give a shit about whether I am reproductively successful, you do. Secondly, stop rating humans according to the same standards that you rate fucking bacteria.

 

[Shambles]

Son is gay - comes from the mother
Daughter is gay - comes from the father

Am I reading this right?

Glad that's all wrapped up. Now on to creating flying cars for us science!

 

[McLovin]

So....if I have a daughter and she's gay it's because I was too much man? ::Cough:: yeah, if I have a girl shell probably be gay. If she's super girly it will probably hurt my ego.

 

[Gouty]

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 that we can engineer more gay people.

 

[Dali]

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.

Why does science have to exhibit a clear benefit to society t be worthwhile? The pursuit of knowledge and better understanding ourselves and the world around us isn't benefit enough?

I'm sure when designer babies become a mainstream thing, the ability to control the sexualiy of your son or daughter would make this research quite useful.

 

[Kinitari]

First thing to note is that this is absolutely the first step on the road to parents being able to chose not to have gay children. I might be an endangered species before long. Yay!

Secondly, the first section of the article is a pernicious non sequitur. Natural selection does not predict that homosexuality would not exist. It predicts that homosexuality exists because it provides some benefit to populations that have the trait.

I'm kind of fed up of it because I've been casually informed on a number of occasions that I am a 'failure' according to 'nature' because I am not reproductively successful. No. Firstly nature doesn't give a shit about whether I am reproductively successful, you do. Secondly, stop rating humans according to the same standards that you rate fucking bacteria.

Hey, as much as I'd trick the fuck out of my future kid if technology let me - I wouldn't give him/her any anti-gay treatments! You have my sword.

 

[SugarDaddy]

Why does science have to exhibit a clear benefit to society t be worthwhile? The pursuit of knowledge and better understanding ourselves and the world around us isn't benefit enough?

I'm sure when designer babies become a mainstream thing, the ability to control the sexualiy of your son or daughter would make this research quite useful.

No man or woman should ever have this much power over another living being; it is highly unethical.

 

[GothPunk]

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?

You should read this Wiki entry on 'Kin Selection'. Basically, a trait does not necessarily have to benefit you as an individual organism to become selected for - it can also be selected for if it is beneficial to your kin.

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.

Have you read anything to do with CpG islands by any chance? If a mutation interrupts or introduces a CpG island into a regulatory element (promoter, enhancer etc), it can result in epigenetic effects (either loss or gain). So then extend this to the parental or maternal allele - they may have a different methylation pattern for the same allele, and depending on which on is expressed you get a different effect.

 

[Monocle]

We need to find a way to convince fetuses not to make the wrong choice in vevo.

 

[Esch]

I'm kind of fed up of it because I've been casually informed on a number of occasions that I am a 'failure' according to 'nature' because I am not reproductively successful. No. Firstly nature doesn't give a shit about whether I am reproductively successful, you do. Secondly, stop rating humans according to the same standards that you rate fucking bacteria.

You are reproductively successful as an organism if you have children. You dont have to have sex with a girl to even do that anymore. But who cares? You're not in nature.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Hey, as much as I'd trick the fuck out of my future kid if technology let me - I wouldn't give him/her any anti-gay treatments! You have my sword.

If I ever got a kid, I'd probably chose to have them gayified if that was possible.
Gay people are generally better than straights, so it'd be the best for him/her.

Source: Will & Grace.

 

[phisheep]

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.

That bit is just nonsense as I posted three years ago. I rather hope that it is journalistic nonsense rather than scientific nonsense - otherwise it would kind of cast a pall over the rest of the paper.

 

[Esch]

Have you read anything to do with CpG islands by any chance? If a mutation interrupts or introduces a CpG island into a regulatory element (promoter, enhancer etc), it can result in epigenetic effects (either loss or gain).

In a hypermethylated promoter CpG island the end result would be silencing right?

 

[Dali]

No man or woman should ever have this much power over another living being; it is highly unethical.

Why?

 

[twobear]

You are reproductively successful as an organism if you have children. You dont have to have sex with a girl to even do that anymore. But who cares? You're not in nature.

I'm not denying that I'm reproductively successful if I have children. That's a tautology. I'm saying that reproductive success is not the natural unit of success (in the sense that the planck length is the natural unit of length), and that if you think it should be, you're an idiot.

 

[Kinitari]

No man or woman should ever have this much power over another living being; it is highly unethical.

Why is it highly unethical? Where is the line drawn? If I could make my unborn child madddd resistant to disease, physical harm and general ailment - would you be against that? What if I could make my child 'smarter' - if even 10% smarter? When is it unethical to you?

If I ever got a kid, I'd probably chose to have them gayified if that was possible.
Gay people are generally better than straights, so it'd be the best for him/her.

I don't know about that, I know some pretty horrible gay people.

 

[ultim8p00]

I could be wrong, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but would this imply that being gay is an abnormality? I always liked the more genetic explanation because it implied that being gay was just another possibility of sexual orientation that was merely "recessive" if you know what I mean, and not necessarily the result of an abnormal process. It seems like this is saying that epi-marks from the parents are carrying over (be it from the mother or father) and can sometimes cause the wrong type of "sexual protection"

 

[ReBurn]

Why does science have to exhibit a clear benefit to society t be worthwhile? The pursuit of knowledge and better understanding ourselves and the world around us isn't benefit enough?

I'm sure when designer babies become a mainstream thing, the ability to control the sexualiy of your son or daughter would make this research quite useful.

I can see that there might be a political narrative that could be upset if science rocks the boat. There are times when they "why" makes a difference when it comes to how society deals with things. If science proved that being gay is not genetic then undoubtedly someone would try to use that to impede the equality movements that so many people are fighting for.

 

[Wilsongt]

I could be wrong, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but would this imply that being gay is an abnormality? I always liked the more genetic explanation because it implied that being gay was just another possibility of sexual orientation that was merely "recessive" if you know what I mean, and not necessarily the result of an abnormal process. It seems like this is saying that epi-marks from the parents are carrying over (be it from the mother or father) and can sometimes cause the wrong type of "sexual protection"

If the body felt this was abnormal, the fetus would be aborted by the mother early during pregnancy.

 

[meltingparappa]

Wait wait, I need a popcorn gif for all the inevitable bans

But that said, homosexuality is common for men and women in most cultures — an observation that clearly demands an explanation.

This is a weird out of context statement, but I think a lot of that can be attributed to closeting due to lack of cultural acceptance.

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 idea that a tribe could have more protective males or surrogate mothers without increasing the tribe's liability with extra children has an obvious benefit, if written into a universal human dna that is only dependently active if a combination of other traits are inherited.

 

[Alx]

There's always an environmental component.

Of course there is. How else could we explain that in some cultures like ancient Greece, everyone was "gay" at a certain age, in a perfectly accepted way. Was it because of genetics/epigenetics, or because boys grew up in the army without meeting a female before adulthood ?

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

I haven't read the study, but the thread title is a bit misleading. The study is actually titled "Homosexuality as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development" which is a lot different than calling it "homosexuality is not genetic." There's a genetic component with the envirnoment influencing gene expression. To use a simple (very simpilfied) example, an anxious mother's offspring may be susceptible to anxiety. But if they are not placed in a stressfull environment to trigger expression of those genes they won't be anxious like the mother. we're finding that the nature v. nurture dichotomy isn't particularly valid.

I just used the title of the article.

If I ever got a kid, I'd probably chose to have them gayified if that was possible.
Gay people are generally better than straights, so it'd be the best for him/her.

That seems like a leap. People are just people, man.

 

[GothPunk]

In a hypermethylated promoter CpG island the end result would be silencing right?

Yep! I'm basically trying to explain that there can still be a genetic component to epigenetics, due to introduction/removal of CpG islands.

 

[Kinitari]

I could be wrong, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but would this imply that being gay is an abnormality? I always liked the more genetic explanation because it implied that being gay was just another possibility of sexual orientation that was merely "recessive" if you know what I mean, and not necessarily the result of an abnormal process. It seems like this is saying that epi-marks from the parents are carrying over (be it from the mother or father) and can sometimes cause the wrong type of "sexual protection"

I think what's most likely is that being gay is just a lot less binary than some people would have you to believe. Probably the accumulation of a lot of different factors, and if you are a proponent of the 'kinsey scale' - you also consider that sometimes you're not entirely gay OR straight.

Looking at some of our close relatives, like Bonobos, you can see sexuality is a much more... vague and fuzzy idea, it might be we're a lot like Bonobos and we just like to pretend otherwise.

 

[Trurl]

That bit is just nonsense as I . I rather hope that it is journalistic nonsense rather than scientific nonsense - otherwise it would kind of cast a pall over the rest of the paper.

I hate the way that it uses the term "selfish gene." I have no doubt that Dawkins would disagree with the statement.

 

[Phreaker]

So they are confirming we are "born this way"? (Not that I need some study to tell me this though.)

 

[Necron]

Does the news article link to the research paper? Or did I just miss it...

 

[SugarDaddy]

Why?

I'm not a religious person, but you're essentially 'playing god'. The random discrepancies in life are what make each and every person interesting, by 'tricking out' your child, and others doing the same, you're radically similarizing the entire human species. And those children who might not have this luxury would be prone to stigmatization. By thinking this is socially acceptable, you're just furthering the idea that it is wrong to be different.

 

[twobear]

I'm not denying that I'm reproductively successful if I have children. That's a tautology. I'm saying that reproductive success is not the natural unit of success (in the sense that the planck length is the natural unit of length), and that if you think it should be, you're an idiot.

I've thought about this and realised I expressed it badly.

I mean that, even if reproductive success is the natural unit of success, it should have as little to do with everyday notions of success as does the Planck length with every day notions of length.

The idea that I am somehow a de facto failure as a living organism because I am not reproductively successful (and have no desire to be) has been put to me a whole shedload of times and it's getting tedious.