Ship of Fools: Found: The gay gene (The science of gayness)

Thread: Found: The gay gene (The science of gayness) Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030817

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Well not really. It is about patterns of genes that are found on stretches of the genome that are stronger in gay men.

Story here.

DNA methylisation is not fixed at or before birth, so the 'are people born gay' issue will continue to rage on. It looks to me like nature and nurture both play a role, but this is not my field.

There are dangers here.

If there is something genetic that can be changed I can see people being pressured to go into some sort of genetic realignment against their will, which is not good.
Worse still, women may have abortions if they believe their son will be born gay.

On the positive side, there is a bit more evidence that being gay is natural, I think we can celebrate that.

Molecular gaydar is now part of my vocabulary [Smile]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I suppose we can take some comfort from the fact that the ardent homophobes also tend to be the most determinedly anti-abortion.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

I am interested in the scientific side of things, though my knowledge is more about physics and maths than genetics and psychology.

This is another move away from the prevalent ideas of some in the 1980s that gay was somehow less human than straight.

The 1991 Church of Enland document, Issues In Human Sexuality is of this period, coming as it did from the 1988 Lambeth conference. It says that Tradition, Scripture and Reason all point to homophilia being less than ideal. This is still official CofE policy, It can be linked to directly from the House of Bishops web page. (Can we keep the theological side except where it relates to science to another thread? (Hosts note this a request from the OP not an order,))

But science has moved on in the 30ish years since then. This new information seems to be another step towards saying that homophilia is natural from a scientific viewpoint. Genetics is confirming what psychology has already been saying. I hope that the CofE will be able to update its thinking soon to be in line with what science, and reason, are already saying.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

N=37, then "further analysis", N=10. Mention of epigenetics, which means environmental influence on gene expression gets a mere mention down the article.

quote:
Scientists question whether the finding will hold up in larger groups of unrelated people. Also, the computer algorithm hasn’t been tested on other datasets, raising concerns about whether the method is valid.

Prediction: Another little study which will disappear into the mass of other little studies.

Question: Why is science expected to assist us in determining moral and ethical reasoning, and human rights?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It wouldn't be expected to if people didn't pervert moral and ethical reasoning to oppress others.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It wouldn't be expected to if people didn't pervert moral and ethical reasoning to oppress others.

It isn't so uch that scirnce should not be expected to, but that science, sociology in particular, has been leading the gay is normal debate.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
no prophet's flag is set so...Question: Why is science expected to assist us in determining moral and ethical reasoning, and human rights?

It is perfectly OK for science to assist us with that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It wouldn't be expected to if people didn't pervert moral and ethical reasoning to oppress others.
It isn't so uch that scirnce should not be expected to, but that science, sociology in particular, has been leading the gay is normal debate.

Science studies mechanism. It is inevitable that sexuality will be examined. And, as parts of society drag their feet, research will outpace them by default.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Question: Why is science expected to assist us in determining moral and ethical reasoning, and human rights?

It's embedded in the argument "I was born this way, therefore what I do is not immoral."

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Question: Why is science expected to assist us in determining moral and ethical reasoning, and human rights?
It's embedded in the argument "I was born this way, therefore what I do is not immoral."

DNA methylisation is not fixed at or before birth. The research weakens the "I was born this way" argument whilst strengthening the homosexuality is normal arguement.

But the research is flawed. The lack of women and low sample size are two of the big drawbacks, more needs to be done before anything can be said definitively, but it is looking good.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Those quick to leap on this small study are also making the assumption there's one single genetic cause of homosexuality instead of a constellation of genetic causes.

Anyone remember when the big research funding was for "a cure for cancer". Turns out cancer was caused in many different ways.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Question: Why is science expected to assist us in determining moral and ethical reasoning, and human rights?
It's embedded in the argument "I was born this way, therefore what I do is not immoral."
DNA methylisation is not fixed at or before birth. The research weakens the "I was born this way" argument whilst strengthening the homosexuality is normal arguement.

But the research is flawed. The lack of women and low sample size are two of the big drawbacks, more needs to be done before anything can be said definitively, but it is looking good.

It is too small a study, and there is concern about methodology, but I think it too early to say "flawed".
"I was born this way" is more "I didn't choose this, it is natural" than it is meant to specify a moment when preference forms. More and more studies are supporting this.
But it should not matter anyway. Do whatever you wish as long as it does not hurt anyone else.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Question: Why is science expected to assist us in determining moral and ethical reasoning, and human rights?

Because moral and ethical judgements should be based on facts. And science provides us with some.

It wouldn't be difficult to come up with some moral positions that would be manifestly ludicrous because they either say that something impossible is virtuous or that something unavoidable is sinful.

It's simply another variation of the truism that "people are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts".

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Those quick to leap on this small study are also making the assumption there's one single genetic cause of homosexuality instead of a constellation of genetic causes.

But that's not even what the authors of the study say.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"I was born this way" is more "I didn't choose this, it is natural" than it is meant to specify a moment when preference forms. More and more studies are supporting this.

Point taken. Thank you.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Those quick to leap on this small study are also making the assumption there's one single genetic cause of homosexuality instead of a constellation of genetic causes..

The study is too small and even to my unscientific eyes seems to have other flaws, but I don't see any reason why there must/must not be a single genetic cause of hetero- (or homo-) sexuality.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

In part because there are cases of identical twins with differing sexual orientations, so we can say with some conviction that there is no single genetic toggle switch for hetero- or homosexuality.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Which is why the study is about epigenetics, not genetics.

The notion that genetically identical twins must always be identical has pretty much died in the scientific community. It's just that the general public is yet to catch up.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The small sample size isn't really a problem. It means the results are not statistically convincing, but for a preliminary study to show something that can be followed up in a larger study it's adequate.

What confuses me is that they used saliva. They admit that brain tissue, sampled from the foetus and through development to adulthood would be ideal - but practically impossible to obtain and ethically not allowed. They then state that blood samples would be better. So, why didn't they use blood samples? There's no practical difficulty extracting blood, so why not? What it smacks of to me is additional analysis of samples collected for a different study, a study where saliva was a suitable choice of sample. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you recognise that it may result in a bias because the sampling is not matched to testing the hypothesis you are proposing. The big bias here is that there is no cohort of identical twins where both men are straight.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks Alan - by "cohort" do you mean what I in old-fashioned parlance would call a "control group"?

The problem I see in the reporting of this, and also inherent in some of the posts, is that it still treats heterosexuality as normal (which it is in the very strictest of statistical senses) from which this gene causes a deviation. ISTM that what the researchers should be looking for is the genetic determinant of sexual preference pure and simple, be that hetero-, homo-, bi- or anything else you want to name.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

In a purely scientific sense, heterosexuality can not be normal. If there's a continuum running from 100% heterosexual through bisexual to 100% homosexual then 100% heterosexual is at one extreme. That can't be a normal distribution.

Of course, if sexual orientation does follow a normal distribution then it would mean that the mean would be somewhat bisexual.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

AIUI, the available evidence is that the distribution along the spectrum is not normal: there is a very large cluster at the heterosexual end, a much smaller one at the homosexual end, and a scattering along the line between. I appreciate the recent UK survey suggested otherwise, but the problems with that particular survey are well known and understood.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

See? According to science there is nothing normal about heterosexuality. Or, any other sexual orientation for that matter. "Normal" is a word that has no scientific meaning in that context.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Exactly my point.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

What has happened to the hypothesis that male sexual orientation is determined by various hormones and chemicals in the womb?

So the gay gene isn't something that a gay man has, but something his mother had.

There is also evidence, as I recall, that it relates to how many children the mother had earlier. More older siblings = higher probability of being gay.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

That particular research only provided a mechanism to explain 1 in 7 or 1 in 10 gay men, by the researchers reckoning. It was only ever one possible mechanism.

Sorry on my phone and not going to attempt to look it up.

Posted by Aristotle's Child (# 18498) on :

I think I underwent the usual male sexual development:

1. When I was very young I didn’t realize there was any difference between male and female except that girls had longer hair.

2. Then I discovered that there were other differences.

3. But based on my then limited experiences I concluded that girls were “icky” and all my closest friends were male.

4. If there was any affection at this point, it was directed to my male friends.

5. As I approached puberty, more and more I discovered that girls were really lovely and I wondered where these gorgeous creatures had been all my life!

6. My attraction to my male friends changed and my feeling were transferred to girls.

Question: But what would have happened if my sexual attraction stopped before number 5 and 6? Would that in any way have really changed my worth as an individual? The only possible difference would be that I would have been less likely to produce offspring.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Welcome to the Ship!
Pedantically, I would say you attraction did not 'progress' or change, but that before puberty it didn't really have much strength.
But no, one's value should not be determined by sexuality.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
What has happened to the hypothesis that male sexual orientation is determined by various hormones and chemicals in the womb?

So the gay gene isn't something that a gay man has, but something his mother had.

There is also evidence, as I recall, that it relates to how many children the mother had earlier. More older siblings = higher probability of being gay.

I don't think it's either/or. To me, it's perfectly compatible to say there are a variety of factors that contribute. For example, once you're in the realm of epigenetics rather than pure genetics, you have to ask what flips the epigenetic switch, and womb hormones could be easily be one of those things.

Posted by Aristotle's Child (# 18498) on :

Although my work background has involved some genetic studies, I am by no means very knowledgable in that area.

But I recall reading several years ago in one study that compared identical twins (which should have the same DNA), and found that if homosexuality developed in one, it was nearly always in the offspring that had the lower birth weight.

This might suggest some developmental difference, but what that is still unknown.

Has anyone read anything more recent in this area?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0