Gay genetics
I have been thinking about the arguments about gay genetics again. Specifically, are gays really "born that way" without choice, or is it possible that there is an element of choice or the influence of environment after conception?
I try to remain open to the arguments. Personally, I tend to discount the gay gene theory, and would put forth that if homosexuality is not a choice, the explanation must be in environment. Now when I describe environment, I include the environment the fetus is exposed to in utero. My considerations do not exclude the environment after the child is born, this environment should also be included.
Why do I dismiss that a gay gene exists? Well other then in obvious cases where, for example, a male child is forced to develop without normal levels of testosterone, little evidence exists that the child is preordained from conception into forced homosexuality without choice.
Let us examine one of the strongest arguments put forth by gay gene proponents as to the validity of their beliefs. In approximately 50% of the occasions where one identical twin is homosexual, the other twin is as well. This rate exceeds the rate of homosexuality when compared to the general population. There is the proof, they claim.
Got that? Homosexuality in both identical twins only occurs half the time. But these guys (or gals) have identical genes. If a gay gene is the explanation for homosexuality, then certainly this rate should approach 100%. Without a near 100% similar outcome, there must be some other explanation.
Even if studies of identical twins separated at birth (which would eliminate methods of rearing a child from environmental causation) yielded similar results, we would still be facing a less then 100% identical outcome.
Something after the conceived single cell entity split into two entities causes half of identical twins, where one is homosexual, to develop into opposing sexual indentaties.
Perhaps the explanation is environment, which includes the environment within the uterus. Certainly both fetuses will not receive exactly the same nourishment from their placentas within the womb nor with any certainty will both be exposed to exactly the same hormonal levels. Perhaps one receives a higher dose of certain hormones as it develops in the womb?
Or perhaps there does exist some element of choice in the matter? Perhaps a gene exists that does allow choice when it comes to sexual identity? Flip a coin, and over time half the time you will experience heads and half the time you will experience tales. When the identical twin is faced with sexual identity where his sibling is homosexual, half the time he "chooses" homosexuality and half the time he "chooses" heterosexuality.
The strongest argument put forth by the "gay gene" crowd actually shoots them in the foot. Perhaps some environmental explanation can explain the discrepancy, and this environment includes the environment within the womb. Or perhaps their evidence points towards an element of choice exists.
I am saying no gay gene exists, except in obvious cases such as when a male is born with genes that causes him to develop without testicles.
Perhaps, still, they are "born that way". Perhaps, in utero, they developed within an environment that left them with no choice other then to be gay. Or perhaps, despite this environment, despite their genes, there still was some element of choice. And no matter how loudly they scream this is not the case, some element of choice still exists. They could exist in society quite happily if they "chose" to be heterosexual. This just is not the choice they made, and they want to force society to accept what they have chosen.
I try to remain open to the arguments. Personally, I tend to discount the gay gene theory, and would put forth that if homosexuality is not a choice, the explanation must be in environment. Now when I describe environment, I include the environment the fetus is exposed to in utero. My considerations do not exclude the environment after the child is born, this environment should also be included.
Why do I dismiss that a gay gene exists? Well other then in obvious cases where, for example, a male child is forced to develop without normal levels of testosterone, little evidence exists that the child is preordained from conception into forced homosexuality without choice.
Let us examine one of the strongest arguments put forth by gay gene proponents as to the validity of their beliefs. In approximately 50% of the occasions where one identical twin is homosexual, the other twin is as well. This rate exceeds the rate of homosexuality when compared to the general population. There is the proof, they claim.
Got that? Homosexuality in both identical twins only occurs half the time. But these guys (or gals) have identical genes. If a gay gene is the explanation for homosexuality, then certainly this rate should approach 100%. Without a near 100% similar outcome, there must be some other explanation.
Even if studies of identical twins separated at birth (which would eliminate methods of rearing a child from environmental causation) yielded similar results, we would still be facing a less then 100% identical outcome.
Something after the conceived single cell entity split into two entities causes half of identical twins, where one is homosexual, to develop into opposing sexual indentaties.
Perhaps the explanation is environment, which includes the environment within the uterus. Certainly both fetuses will not receive exactly the same nourishment from their placentas within the womb nor with any certainty will both be exposed to exactly the same hormonal levels. Perhaps one receives a higher dose of certain hormones as it develops in the womb?
Or perhaps there does exist some element of choice in the matter? Perhaps a gene exists that does allow choice when it comes to sexual identity? Flip a coin, and over time half the time you will experience heads and half the time you will experience tales. When the identical twin is faced with sexual identity where his sibling is homosexual, half the time he "chooses" homosexuality and half the time he "chooses" heterosexuality.
The strongest argument put forth by the "gay gene" crowd actually shoots them in the foot. Perhaps some environmental explanation can explain the discrepancy, and this environment includes the environment within the womb. Or perhaps their evidence points towards an element of choice exists.
I am saying no gay gene exists, except in obvious cases such as when a male is born with genes that causes him to develop without testicles.
Perhaps, still, they are "born that way". Perhaps, in utero, they developed within an environment that left them with no choice other then to be gay. Or perhaps, despite this environment, despite their genes, there still was some element of choice. And no matter how loudly they scream this is not the case, some element of choice still exists. They could exist in society quite happily if they "chose" to be heterosexual. This just is not the choice they made, and they want to force society to accept what they have chosen.
posted by Little David at 7/29/2006 10:13:00 AM
4 Comments:
If a gay gene is the explanation for homosexuality, then certainly this rate should approach 100%
Um, no. You are taking the "Hollywood" view of genetics. If you learn about some basic genetics, you would realise that genetics does not work in a cut and dry way.
Many genes INCREASE YOUR RISK (or likelihood) of having a particular characteristic. Most cancer genes, for example, work in this way.
Most characteristics are a combination of your genetics and the environment, though some are strongly biased towards one or another.
For example, the likelihood that a human will have two arms is highly genetic, but, even having absolutely "normal" genetics will not guarantee that a foetus will develop two arms.
A genetic component to homosexuality is pretty clear. With the identical twins, this concordance occurs whether or not the twins were raised in the same household. If homosexuality was "learned", then one would expect that two monozygotic twins in the same household would more likely to be the same (i.e., both gay or both straight) compared to separated twins. This is not the case.
There is unlikely to be any one gene, but something in a person's genetics that makes them more likely to be gay.
There is, however, plenty of evidence that homosexuality is unlikely to be "learned". No amount of behavioural modification of analysis of upbringing has ever found a significant correlation with your chances of being homosexual.
I believe that I mentioned this in one of your articles before. The cause is probably neurobiological in origin in utero during brain development. This makes sense in accordance to the genetics.
Brain development is highly complex. A cluster of genes may make it more likely for you to be gay but is hardly definite. Similarly with intelligence. Intelligent parents are more likely to have intelligent children (regardless of upbringing) but this is not 100% (or even close to it).
As for "choice", you need to meet and talk to more gay people. Gay people don't choose to be gay, though they may have to choose whether to "come out of the closet". The best analogy is to ask yourself whether you "chose" to be straight.
Regards,
Michael Tam
There are many people who disagree with your opinions, and some of them are experts in the field of genetics. I would link to a few articles, however I am fairly certain that you would just explain they are not "really" experts. You have already made up your mind (and then closed it) on the issue, and if any experts disagree with you, you will only dismiss what they have to say.
In your post you do help me to make part of my point. You address how having "normal" genetics does not guarantee you will be born with two arms. Some environmental cause in utero could cause the child to only be born with one arm even if its DNA dictates that two arms will be developed. Perhaps even "identical" twins (or at least twins who possess identical DNA to their twin) exist where one was born with two arms and the other only one.
As for whether I personally "chose" to be heterosexual, well if I am honest I will have to answer in the affirmative. That at least some element of choice was present in my ultimately being a heterosexual.
It should not be too hard to prove whether or not there is no element of choice. Studies just need to be conducted of societies where the stigma against homosexuality is removed. Does the ratio of homosexuality increase or stay the same?
Now there would be some difficulty in obtaining accurate statistics. Gays could argue that any initial increase only reflects those who formerly would have been closet gays who now can freely identify themselves as gay etc etc.
I at least think that increases will be reflected in the number of bisexual individuals who now have the freedom to settle down in a stable homosexual union where in "the old days" they would have chosen a heterosexual union (some from both sides of the fence will argue there is no such thing as a bisexual, that those who label themselves as bisexuals really are liars).
As for my own opinion, I still try to keep an open mind. I do not think adequate evidence has been presented to solidly decide this issue. I know the shrinks now have come out on one side of the argument in their majority professional opinion, however it was not that long ago that most of them were on the other side of the fence. If they could be wrong once, well they can be wrong this time as well. You really have to watch them shrinks, it was not that long ago that they thought lobotomies were effective treatment for some mental illnesses.
There are many people who disagree with your opinions, and some of them are experts in the field of genetics.
Find me one who is internationally respected by scientists.
The risk that an random male is gay is about 5%. The risk that a man is gay if his has a gay identical twin is about 50%. That is a 10 times increase in risk, purely on genetics. That is staggeringly significant and it is ridiculous to imply that this is not the case.
If your brother had a condition that made you even twice as likely to have bowel cancer, we would call that pretty darn significant and that it would imply that there is some genetic contribution to the condition.
As for whether I personally "chose" to be heterosexual, well if I am honest I will have to answer in the affirmative. That at least some element of choice was present in my ultimately being a heterosexual..
Okay... So when you were an adolescent you had to consciously decide "am I attracted to girls"? Rather than it being innate?
It should not be too hard to prove whether or not there is no element of choice. Studies just need to be conducted of societies where the stigma against homosexuality is removed. Does the ratio of homosexuality increase or stay the same?
Unfortunately this is VERY hard as the reported "ratio" of homosexuality is usually very low when being gay is not only a crime, but actively discriminated against (hence, STIGMA). For example, there are apparently no gay people in China. I know for a fact that this is not true but you'd be pretty stupid to openly announce that you were gay in China.
The best that we can say is that we "don't know". Certainly in societies where there is traditionally less stigma and the change has meant society has become more permissive of homosexuality (e.g., Westernised nations over the past 1 or 2 decades), there does not appear to be any increase in the "rate" of homosexuality.
Also, there are definitely bisexual people. I've met plenty of them in my line of work. On the whole, they form a much smaller group of people compared to straight and gay though.
Regards,
Michael Tam
I will once again try and make this point.
That the incidence of homosexuality is only 50% could point to environmental conditions in utero while the fetus developes. While the twin fetuses would be subjected to similiar environmental conditions in utero, they would not be exactly the same. It is not unusual for one twin baby to be born weighing more then the other for example, so conditions would not be identical. Now, I am not an expert in genetics, but my uneducated opinion is that the 50%ratio would sooner point to an environmental cause then to the existance of a gay gene. Sure, it could be that the explanation is that the "gay gene" does not guarantee one will be gay but only a greater potential. But if this is so, then would that not then mean that something within the environment triggered the potential in one twin, while the potential remained dormant in the other?
As for my sexual experiences as an adolescent, sure the thoughts of girls excited me. But I was pretty sexually supercharged at that age and even watching a couple dogs mate would have been enough to get me aroused. However somehow I managed to never engage in bestiality either.
Post a Comment
<< Home