Support NeoGAF

[Bailey 87]

"Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows"

A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight

A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men's sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.

In follow-up work, he found that 33 out of 40 gay brothers inherited similar genetic markers on the Xq28 region of the X chromosome, suggesting key genes resided there.

Researchers have speculated in the past that genes linked to homosexuality in men may have survived evolution because they happened to make women who carried them more fertile. This may be the case for genes in the Xq28 region, as the X chromosome is passed down to men exclusively from their mothers.

The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a limited and variable impact. Not all of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay.

While genes do contribute to sexual orientation, other multiple factors play a greater role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb. "Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice," said Bailey. "We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved."

"When people say there's a gay gene, it's an oversimplification," Sanders said. "There's more than one gene, and genetics is not the whole story.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study

 

[The One Who Knocks]

"Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows"





Lets see if this study makes people go crazy. This is what the daily mail used as their headline when the last study came out. "Abortion hope after 'gay genes findings"

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study

Something I'm curious about after reading this is related to the line:

"Researchers have speculated in the past that genes linked to homosexuality in men may have survived evolution because they happened to make women who carried them more fertile. This may be the case for genes in the Xq28 region, as the X chromosome is passed down to men exclusively from their mothers."

I'm aware that, as it mentions in the article, the genetic component is not deterministic, and I'm also aware that this ("because they happened to make women who carried them more fertile") seems to be merely speculative, but it does make me curious about whether or not this would imply that different areas are involved in female sexuality. I've no knowledge of genetics (I dropped Biology for Applied Mathematics before the gentic chapter had been covered, so I know close to nothing) so apologies if the answer is somewhat obvious, or if it's unanswerable given what is presented in the article, so I'd be interested if somebody can comment more knowledgeably on this.

EDIT: It is an interesting article though. I would hope that, since it is merely indicative, that 'genetic testing' for homosexuality would not occur. Not only is it unethical as the article comments upon, but, as it also notes, it would be largely innaccurate.
EDIT: Actually, one thing I'm also curious about, is there any actual link to the study itself? I haven't been able to find it in the article but perhaps the link is obscure.

 

[bsej87]

So, I just want to point out that the article says his results are unpublished, which means they have yet to be vetted by peer review. I would be cautious at best, especially since psychologists don't tend to have the best grasp on genetics. It might be due to the way the journalist wrote it up, but it just sounds like a correlation trying to be spun into a causation even though the gene is neither necessary or sufficient. So, he's basically making the claim that genetics maybe plays some kind of role sometimes in some people which doesn't seem all that groundbreaking.

 

[mantidor]

We kind of knew this from twins studies, but it´s interesting they are now pin pointing some of the genes.

I do think that biology studies of human sexuality are left short if they ignore the whole anthropological aspect of it, it really is a multi-dicipline thing, our biology tells half the story.

 

[Red Mage]

So, I just want to point out that the article says his results are unpublished, which means they have yet to be vetted by peer review. I would be cautious at best, especially since psychologists don't tend to have the best grasp on genetics. It might be due to the way the journalist wrote it up, but it just sounds like a correlation trying to be spun into a causation even though the gene is neither necessary or sufficient. So, he's basically making the claim that genetics maybe plays some kind of role sometimes in some people which doesn't seem all that groundbreaking.

Pretty much. I'd add, if you read about a study in a newspaper, it's probably best to actually go look up the study proper, to see what it's really saying.

 

[jmdajr]

So, it's complicated.

 

[RatskyWatsky]

"Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice," said Bailey.

I see what you did there.

 

[Valhelm]

Any reason to think this would not apply to women, as well?

 

[Escape Goat]

Any reason to think this would not apply to women, as well?

Women have two xx chromosomes so I guess so.

 

[Fenderputty]

So when it is conclusive that being gay isn't a choice, will hard core Christians snub the data like they do evolution and the Big Bang?

I can't stand when someone suggests there's a choice in the matter or that it's purely nurture with no nature.

 

[TacticalFox88]

So when it is conclusive that being gay isn't a choice, will hard core Christians snub the data like they do evolution and the Big Bang?

I can't stand when someone suggests there's a choice in the matter or that it's purely nurture with no nature.

Anyone who genuinely believes homsexuality is 100% a choice is a fucking moron through and through.

 

[entremet]

Pretty much. I'd add, if you read about a study in a newspaper, it's probably best to actually go look up the study proper, to see what it's really saying.

Most studies require you to pay a view to read them, so it limits their exposure. Additionally, a lot of it not easily digestible for laypeople as well.

 

[FlyinJ]

Anyone who genuinely believes homsexuality is 100% a choice is a fucking moron through and through.

Anyone who genuinely believes it's a choice is most likely closeted.

 

[BocoDragon]

I do know a surprising amount of gay people with gay siblings.

 

[John Kowalski]

So when it is conclusive that being gay isn't a choice, will hard core Christians snub the data like they do evolution and the Big Bang?

I can't stand when someone suggests there's a choice in the matter or that it's purely nurture with no nature.

Watch as the investment in embryo eugenics increases tenfold.

 

[Mondy]

So it's not a fucking choice.

Done. Next question.

 

[Jarate]

Any reason to think this would not apply to women, as well?

women and male sexuality are very different beasts.

 

[ezrarh]

Any reason to think this would not apply to women, as well?

No, women are only lesbians for attention.

 

[Kinitari]

As much as I think it's important to highlight how homosexuality is not a choice, I think it's even more important to stop giving a fuck even if it were a choice. I mean... who gives a shit.

If my roommate was all "you know, I think I want to be gay, I'm gonna go be gay for a bit" I'd be like "cool" - and that would be the entire conversation!

 

[AbsolutBro]

In the end, aren't most if not all (at least starting) physiological aspects of a human defined by genes? They're the building blocks of life.

Honest question, I'm no geneticist. Hell, I don't even have a CPR cert anymore.

 

[Mononoke]

So when it is conclusive that being gay isn't a choice, will hard core Christians snub the data like they do evolution and the Big Bang?

I can't stand when someone suggests there's a choice in the matter or that it's purely nurture with no nature.

They will then say it's a defect, a mutation of natural genes. These people will see it as a handicap or something. They will argue this just proves it's not natural.

Seriously, hate drives these people beyond logic and rationality. They will just move on to something else to justify their way of thinking.

But I do think with time they will be in the minority as the majority comes to accept it and their numbers dwindle.

 

[Lafiel]

How do we define "choice" when it comes to choosing a sexual orientation? when it comes to the big picture in terms of psychological and biological science it's pretty much undeniable we as people are products of interacting elements of both nature and nurture.

Not that it prevents the existence of a "gay" gene though. But I pretty much agree that it ultimately doesn't matter if it's a "choice" or not.

 

[Goldrush]

So when it is conclusive that being gay isn't a choice, will hard core Christians snub the data like they do evolution and the Big Bang?

I can't stand when someone suggests there's a choice in the matter or that it's purely nurture with no nature.

I think they moved beyond that. Whether the attraction is biological or not, I think the argument is that it is the person's choice to act on it.

 

[leadbelly]

How do we define "choice" when it comes to choosing a sexual orientation? when it comes to the big picture in terms of psychological and biological science it's pretty much undeniable we as people are products of interacting elements of both nature and nurture.

Not that it prevents the existence of a "gay" gene though. But I pretty much agree that it ultimately doesn't matter if it's a "choice" or not.

That's kind of how I look at it. I don't think anyone really 'chooses' to be attracted to someone they just are.

I'm not sure there is a gay gene specifically, but rather genes that have an influence on sexual behaviour that may make homosexuality a little more likely.

The article also states this:

The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is clear from studies of twins, which show that the identical twin of a gay man, who carries an exact replica of his brother's DNA, is more likely to be straight than gay. That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still be less effective than flipping a coin.

Which shows that the extent in which genes have an influence on homosexuality is complicated and confusing. If someone who is genetically identical to their gay sibling is more likely to be straight than gay, exactly what role does genetics play?

It seems to me that at best there are specific genes that may allow for a greater variation in sexual orientation rather than directly causing sexual orientation..

 

[bobbychalkers]

Any reason to think this would not apply to women, as well?

My knowledge from one month of a 200 level genetics class makes me think that this specific case is x-linked. Sexuality as a whole is very complex. This hasn't even been peer reviewed yet.

 

[jay]

As much as I think it's important to highlight how homosexuality is not a choice, I think it's even more important to stop giving a fuck even if it were a choice. I mean... who gives a shit.

Yeah, I always go on about this. I get that where we currently are that it's the best debate we can have, but it still seems like an apology to the bigots.

 

[EmiPrime]

I would not trust any findings from Bailey. The guy is an unethical creep who has published heavily discredited research on trans people and as such is universally hated in trans circles.

 

[Valhelm]

women and male sexuality are very different beasts.

I'm guessing that's all societal.

 

[leadbelly]

I'm guessing that's all societal.

It's funny actually. This is looking at things in the opposite manner than the debate about homosexuality. With homosexuality it seems basing it solely on genetics is flawed. There are possibly environmental factors and other things that may have an influence on it as well.

In the same way, I personally think that basing everything on nurture is equally flawed. I suspect that it is a mixture of nature and nurture.

 

[SwiftDeath]

So if true, in 50 years will people be deciding the sexual orientation of their babies via designer babies and the like?

Weird

 

[charsace]

A huge waste of time and money that had to be done because of all the stupid and ignorant people who lack empathy.

 

[Jarate]

I'm guessing that's all societal.

there's a little bit of column a, and a little bit of column b. Remember, sexuality is something we hardly know anything about.

The answer i've seen in a few sex health books are that men are generally able to be heavily attracted to a just a pretty girl, whether she's poor, or a psychopath, while women need some type of emotional connection, or some type of show of societal dominance (money, power, washboard abs, tan...) If you are interested on the subject of the differences in mens and womens sexualities, and one that also looks into homosexual sexuality, I would take a look at this book.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0452297877/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Excellent book that talks about sexuality.

 

[Jarate]

A huge waste of time and money that had to be done because of all the stupid and ignorant people who lack empathy.

I would disagree wholeheartedly, while this answer is important to undermine a deep layer of bigots, the question of, "why are there gay people" is an incredibly necessary answer to understand why certain people do certain things. Sexuality is hardly known, scientifically, and it's nice to see some research being done on this front.

Also, this study still has a ways to go before it's been proven as a fact. We need to make sure that it can be replicated by other scientists and also see if the results aren't just purely coincidental, like did they cover every type of gay person (did they just test white gays, black gays, hispanic gays, mixed breed gays, etc...)

 

[kirblar]

there's a little bit of column a, and a little bit of column b. Remember, sexuality is something we hardly know anything about.

The answer i've seen in a few sex health books are that men are generally able to be heavily attracted to a just a pretty girl, whether she's poor, or a psychopath, while women need some type of emotional connection, or some type of show of societal dominance (money, power, washboard abs, tan...) If you are interested on the subject of the differences in mens and womens sexualities, and one that also looks into homosexual sexuality, I would take a look at this book.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0452297877/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Excellent book that talks about sexuality.

See also: the differences between gay and lesbian culture in regards to sexuality. They couldn't be more different.

 

[Jarate]

See also: the differences between gay and lesbian culture in regards to sexuality. They couldn't be more different.

basically this. A big answer that book provided is that most likely, gay males don't choose to be gay, but gay women can choose to be gay. And this isn't an indoctrination on homosexuality, which is not, nor should it ever be a problem if it's found out to be a choice.

Essentially what they argue is that since women have a much more complex need for sexual gratification, they may choose a women who can she can be attracted to due to her emotional needs.

Of course, there are women who are most likely born gay, but women don't have the "I look at this naked guy, now I have a boner" quirk that males have. Of course this is a very generalized view since human sexuality is so complex.

 

[devilhawk]

Which shows that the extent in which genes have an influence on homosexuality is complicated and confusing. If someone who is genetically identical to their gay sibling is more likely to be straight than gay, exactly what role does genetics play?

It seems to me that at best there are specific genes that may allow for a greater variation in sexual orientation rather than directly causing sexual orientation..

Could very well be epigenetic. Those differences in the genome are not realized from the type of whole genome sequencing these studies use.

So when it is conclusive that being gay isn't a choice, will hard core Christians snub the data like they do evolution and the Big Bang?

I can't stand when someone suggests there's a choice in the matter or that it's purely nurture with no nature.

The "choice" may then be whether or not to take an inhibiting or activating small molecule to swap your sexual preference. That could very well happen. What then?

 

[charsace]

I would disagree wholeheartedly, while this answer is important to undermine a deep layer of bigots, the question of, "why are there gay people" is an incredibly necessary answer to understand why certain people do certain things. Sexuality is hardly known, scientifically, and it's nice to see some research being done on this front.

Also, this study still has a ways to go before it's been proven as a fact. We need to make sure that it can be replicated by other scientists and also see if the results aren't just purely coincidental, like did they cover every type of gay person (did they just test white gays, black gays, hispanic gays, mixed breed gays, etc...)

You're right. Its just the thought of all the stupid people gets me worked up.

 

[NTIETS13A_Superiority]

I remember reading some time ago (few years back) that men get their sexuality from mothers side (genetically) and women from fathers. Old news.