Support NeoGAF

[Ethelwulf]

“Baby, I was born this way,” Lady Gaga sang in a 2011 hit that quickly became a gay anthem. Indeed, over the past 2 decades, researchers have turned up considerable evidence that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice, but is rooted in a person's biology and at least in part determined by genetics. Yet actual “gay genes” have been elusive.

A new study of male twins, scheduled for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) in Baltimore, Maryland, today, could help explain that paradox. It finds that epigenetic effects, chemical modifications of the human genome that alter gene activity without changing the DNA sequence, may have a major influence on sexual orientation.

Vilain's team stresses that the findings shouldn't be used to produce tests for homosexuality or a misguided “cure.” Bailey says he's not worried about such misuse. “We will not have the potential to manipulate sexual orientation anytime soon,” he says. And in any case, he adds, “we should not restrict research on the origins of sexual orientation on the basis of hypothetical or real implications.

More at this link. I find this very interesting. While in my graduate studies, I remember having this discussion about the origin (nurtured or inherited) of sexual orientation. We should not be afraid about embracing a possible Biological root though this study is on DNA methylation, which in short is a way of saying gene expression is highly modulated by the environment.

Interesting any way. What you think Gaf?

Lock if old!

 

[Always-honest]

More at this link. I find this very interesting. While in my graduate studies, I remember having this discussion about the origin (nurtured or inherited) of sexual orientation. We should not be afraid about embracing a possible Biological root though this study is on DNA methylation, which in short is a way of saying gene expression is highly modulated by the environment.

Interesting any way. What you think Gaf?

Lock if old!

That is a very interesting study.
I do fear that without a really clear explanation some people will use his information however they see fit.

Very curious to see where this study will lead. Not just for sexual orientation.

 

[BocoDragon]

So basically gay people are X-Men. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Ethelwulf]

That is a very interesting study.
I do fear that without a really clear explanation some people will use his information however they see fit.

Very curious to see where this study will lead. Not just for sexual orientation.

Hopefully, for encouraging and fruitful discussions. People tend to dislike (fear?) any claims about biology being on top of nurture though, so let's wait and see if this study is further supported by others.

 

[GasProblem]

So I'm a mutant? Cool. Does this mean I might have some latent superabilities I have yet to discover?

 

[SomedayTheFire]

Shame I can't control fire or something along with being gay. That would be rad.

 

[Kangi]

So I'm a mutant? Cool. Does this mean I might have some latent superabilities I have yet to discover?

Our superability is making straight men less secure in their sexuality.

 

[MrRudiMentary]

So all the homosexuality metaphors in X-Men movies were legit?

 

[Dan]

So, is this just them doing their own study on the theory they posited a few years ago?

I do fear that without a really clear explanation some people will use his information however they see fit.

I can see the headlines now... CHEMICALS are making your babies GAY!

 

[Blood Diamonds]

i mean... i would have preferred telekinesis or some shit but being gay is a cool power too i guess

 

[Siegcram]

Vilain's team stresses that the findings shouldn't be used to produce tests for homosexuality or a misguided “cure.” Bailey says he's not worried about such misuse.

He must have not met the american right.

 

[Stiflers Mom]

Well, you guys have the power to have all kinds of orgys whenever you want..

Well, that's how us poor straight men imagine life as a gay person..

 

[Klyka]

Who wants to start a food movement for some really REALLY terrible food that we claim will "stop your baby from turning homosexual in the womb!" to sell to all the bigots out there?

 

[M3d10n]

There's a lot of resistance to acknowledging biological basis to human behavior, which makes no sense since we have many "conditions" which are known to originate from the brain being wired in a different way.

 

[SamVimes]

I can see the headlines now... CHEMICALS are making your babies GAY!

"Our babies today are pumped full of dna"

 

[Cizeta-Moroder]

"Our babies today are pumped full of dna"

"Babies may absorb estrogen into their DNA from GMO products"

 

[Ape]

I can see it now, weapons in the future that switch your sexual orientation.

 

[Klyka]

"How OBAMA went BACK IN TIME to INJECT your BABY with DNA to TURN it GAY!"

 

[Gus tha God]

I can see it now, weapons in the future that switch your sexual orientation.

Make me bi so I can fuck the world like Tupac.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Chic-Fil-A makes kids gay!

 

[Skittles]

So, is this just them doing their own study on the theory they posited a few years ago?


I can see the headlines now... CHEMICALS are making your babies GAY!

"Are vaccines the reason your child is gay? New studies point to yes! "

 

[Ethelwulf]

There's a lot of resistance to acknowledging biological basis to human behavior, which makes no sense since we have many "conditions" which are known to originate from the brain being wired in a different way.

True that. And in my opinion brain, mind and behavior are the same thing.

 

[Golnei]

Who wants to start a food movement for some really REALLY terrible food that we claim will "stop your baby from turning homosexual in the womb!" to sell to all the bigots out there?

That seems like a slightly lacking reason for poisoning pregnant women.

I can see it now, weapons in the future that switch your sexual orientation.

It's not like it hasn't been tried before.

 

[linkboy]

"Are vaccines the reason your child is gay? New studies point to yes! "

Don't give them any ideas

 

[SuperBanana]

So basically gay people are X-Men. Nothing wrong with that.

We already knew that.

 

[Calvero]

vaccines cause homosexuality if you didn't know

 

[Alcoremortis]

He must have not met the american right.

Eh, they're so anti-science they'll probably just say this study is a conspiracy by the gay agenda or something. And then the vast majority of real scientists are too caught up in their own research to bother fixing something that isn't broken.

 

[SomTervo]

Our superability is making straight men less secure in their sexuality.

HOMOSEXUALS: GRANTED THE ULTIMATE POWER... OF EMASCULATION

 

[Aiii]

That is a very interesting study.
I do fear that without a really clear explanation some people will use his information however they see fit.

Very curious to see where this study will lead. Not just for sexual orientation.

Luckily, most of the people "opposed" to gays are not really interested in acknowledging science, since that has some serious implications on their views and life in general.

 

[PdotMichael]

He must have not met the american right.

We can't ban large parts of the biology because of some special snowflakes in the USA.

 

[gofreak]

I thought the vague idea of this had been floated around for some time.

I mean, I thought chemicals/hormones in the womb flooding through the fetus was responsible for all kinds of developments, including for example the sexing of the body and the brain (?) The idea that combinations of chemical/genes could do the same for sexual orientation doesn't seem like a big leap. Understanding the precise mechanics of that would be a big step of course.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Link to vaccines in 5, 4, 3...

Fascinating study though, but how woefully naive of the author to think it won't be misused. It'll be misused to the high heavens and no matter how much they protest, people will take selective quotes and misrepresent this data for decades...

 

[Always-honest]

Luckily, most of the people "opposed" to gays are not really interested in acknowledging science, since that has some serious implications on their views and life in general.

True. But they're not shy of misusing science either.

 

[dity]

I guess I'm a partly from the most secret tribe in Avatar The Last Airbender: the dick benders. I'll put my power to good use.

 

[bigjig]

"How OBAMA went BACK IN TIME to INJECT your BABY with DNA to TURN it GAY!"

Next on SICK SAD WORLD

 

[Klyka]

That seems like a slightly lacking reason for poisoning pregnant women.



It's not like it hasn't been tried before.

I'm not talking about poisoning D:

Just like, bad tasting food or food that makes you fart a lot or something!

"I get gas for my straight baby!"

 

[Kimawolf]

So, is this just them doing their own study on the theory they posited a few years ago?


I can see the headlines now... CHEMICALS are making your babies GAY!

No no... CHEMTRAILS! Are making your baby gay!!! It's the government folks gobbity gook nonsense speak about Illuminati and gay mafia being one and the same *Alex Jones scream*.

 

[Sblargh]

I spent the last month or so studying philosophy of biology

(This cool book)

And one of the topics is how it is difficult to say that there are "genes for x" (in this case, a gene for homosexuality) precisely because of how genes develop during an individual's life; so a gene for x can also be a gene for y (and in general, the same "x", say, wings, is constructed by different sequences on different spescies because evolution kind of doesn't give a fuck).

This kind of study seem to go this route. There is no "gay gene", but certain genes can be modulated into a tendency for sexual attraction torwards the same sex.

I, myself, tend to be a holistic about these matters of nurture vs nature, as in both feed off each other due to how biology only makes sense in light of the enviroment; the way natural selection works, context matters (even if, in the end, context can be reduced to genes multiplying and sticking around to see if nothing will prevent them from multiplying again; and even that is up to debate).
-
I used to worry a lot about this subject of biological reductionism and such and this book has helped me shed a light on many such questions. It could have a subtitle of "how I stopped worrying and learned to love the gene" because of how reasonable and weighted the arguments are (and how, due to the nature of being an introductory book about debates, try to present multiple perspectives to every problem).

Just using the thread to give a shout out to a book that I loved reading.

 

[BocoDragon]

I spent the last month or so studying philosophy of biology

(This cool book)

And one of the topics is how it is difficult to say that there are "genes for x" (in this case, a gene for homosexuality) precisely because of how genes develop during an individual's life; so a gene for x can also be a gene for y (and in general, the same "x", say, wings, is constructed by different sequences on different spescies because evolution kind of doesn't give a fuck).

This kind of study seem to go this route. There is no "gay gene", but certain genes can be modulated into a tendency for sexual attraction torwards the same sex.

I, myself, tend to be a holistic about these matters of nurture vs nature, as in both feed off each other due to how biology only makes sense in light of the enviroment; the way natural selection works, context matters (even if, in the end, context can be reduced to genes multiplying and sticking around to see if nothing will prevent them from multiplying again; and even that is up to debate).
-
I used to worry a lot about this subject of biological reductionism and such and this book has helped me shed a light on many such questions. It could have a subtitle of "how I stopped worrying and learned to love the gene" because of how reasonable and weighted the arguments are (and how, due to the nature of being an introductory book about debates, try to present multiple perspectives to every problem).

Just using the thread to give a shout out to a book that I loved reading.

That's pretty fascinating actually. I'll check it out.

 

[Klyka]

No no... CHEMTRAILS! Are making your baby gay!!! It's the government folks gobbity gook nonsense speak about Illuminati and gay mafia being one and the same *Alex Jones scream*.

How OBAMA flew AIR FORCE ONE over YOUR HOUSE and used CHEMTRAILS to turn your BABY'S DNA into a HOMOSEXUAL!

 

[Ethelwulf]

I spent the last month or so studying philosophy of biology

(This cool book)

And one of the topics is how it is difficult to say that there are "genes for x" (in this case, a gene for homosexuality) precisely because of how genes develop during an individual's life; so a gene for x can also be a gene for y (and in general, the same "x", say, wings, is constructed by different sequences on different spescies because evolution kind of doesn't give a fuck).

This kind of study seem to go this route. There is no "gay gene", but certain genes can be modulated into a tendency for sexual attraction torwards the same sex.

I, myself, tend to be a holistic about these matters of nurture vs nature, as in both feed off each other due to how biology only makes sense in light of the enviroment; the way natural selection works, context matters (even if, in the end, context can be reduced to genes multiplying and sticking around to see if nothing will prevent them from multiplying again; and even that is up to debate).
-
I used to worry a lot about this subject of biological reductionism and such and this book has helped me shed a light on many such questions. It could have a subtitle of "how I stopped worrying and learned to love the gene" because of how reasonable and weighted the arguments are (and how, due to the nature of being an introductory book about debates, try to present multiple perspectives to every problem).

Just using the thread to give a shout out to a book that I loved reading.

Great to hear this! Our view of genes used to be completely deterministic, in the sense that once expressed, its function is unstoppable. With the emergence of epigenetics and complexity analysis this view changed and genes are now seen as a substrate for intricate expression patterns caused in part by the environment. These studies are just pinpointing to this substrate, while the environment might play a pivotal rol in regulating gene expression.

 

[toythatkills]

Link to vaccines in 5, 4, 3...

Fascinating study though, but how woefully naive of the author to think it won't be misused. It'll be misused to the high heavens and no matter how much they protest, people will take selective quotes and misrepresent this data for decades...

This particular turn of phrase was enjoyable

 

[Newline]

Basically this is saying that you need to have a gene and that gene needs to be affected by your environment? Sounds about right to me. I knew there had to be an element of environmental factors.

Well, you guys have the power to have all kinds of orgys whenever you want..

Well, that's how us poor straight men imagine life as a gay person..

You're not wrong.

 

[fawaz]

If there was a specific gene, and there was a way to alter it, would it be ethical to decide your child's orientation?

 

[Laughing Banana]

So I'm a mutant? Cool. Does this mean I might have some latent superabilities I have yet to discover?

Gas Problem... Super fart?

Hahaha.

Interesting study.

 

[Sblargh]

That's pretty fascinating actually. I'll check it out.

Oh, happy to hear it. Since I just read the book, I'm on "preach it" mode. Haha.

Great to hear this! Our view of genes used to be completely deterministic, in the sense that once expressed, its function is unstoppable. With the emergence of epigenetics and complexity analysis this view changed and genes are now seen as a substrate for intricate expression patterns caused in part by the environment. These studies are just pinpointing to this substrate, while the environment might play a pivotal rol in regulating gene expression.

Yeah, it is an interesting topic for philosophy because the concepts are still developing within the scientific community; and as the science discover new things, philosophy must take it into consideration.

The fear of determinism is as inevitable as, I believe, justifiable. So much of our morals and ethics (and institutions and social organizations) are based around the notion of freedom that you can't expect to say that such and such is not a choice, but a consequence of something no one has control over without creating reasonable concern. At the same time, you can't ignore science.

The notion that, even hypothetically, someone can alter a chemical in your body and change something as intimate as who do you love is a scary one and I guess there's no getting around that. But what I think it must be said is that stuff is complex; something as complex as our behavior, even if it has a biological component, can't easily (or maybe even in principle) be reduced to chemical reactions within our body because the chemical reactions outside our body (i.e., the rest of the universe) also matters.

Which is why (this is me, and not the book I recommended talking) I am increasingly holistic on this nature vs nurture debate; nurture is part of nature because, you know, we are all physic beings in a physic universe and nature is so crazy complex you might as well call it freedom for short.
-
Another neat (albeit more "interesting stories" than either science or philosophy) about how our weird body deals with behavior is this one

 

[Golnei]

If there was a specific gene, and there was a way to alter it, would it be ethical to decide your child's orientation?

Actually manipulating orientation is probably far-fetched, but it's not that implausible to believe that if a reliable screening method were eventually available for a consistent set of symptoms relatively early into the pregnancy, parents could make the decision to abort it based on that information.

 

[Always-honest]

I spent the last month or so studying philosophy of biology

(This cool book)

And one of the topics is how it is difficult to say that there are "genes for x" (in this case, a gene for homosexuality) precisely because of how genes develop during an individual's life; so a gene for x can also be a gene for y (and in general, the same "x", say, wings, is constructed by different sequences on different spescies because evolution kind of doesn't give a fuck).

This kind of study seem to go this route. There is no "gay gene", but certain genes can be modulated into a tendency for sexual attraction torwards the same sex.

I, myself, tend to be a holistic about these matters of nurture vs nature, as in both feed off each other due to how biology only makes sense in light of the enviroment; the way natural selection works, context matters (even if, in the end, context can be reduced to genes multiplying and sticking around to see if nothing will prevent them from multiplying again; and even that is up to debate).
-
I used to worry a lot about this subject of biological reductionism and such and this book has helped me shed a light on many such questions. It could have a subtitle of "how I stopped worrying and learned to love the gene" because of how reasonable and weighted the arguments are (and how, due to the nature of being an introductory book about debates, try to present multiple perspectives to every problem).

Just using the thread to give a shout out to a book that I loved reading.

Thanx! Will read. Is it easy to digest?

 

[Kangi]

Actually manipulating orientation is probably far-fetched, but it's not that implausible to believe that if a reliable screening method were eventually available for a consistent set of symptoms relatively early into the pregnancy, parents could make the decision to abort it based on that information.

Well, that's one way of making the GOP go pro-choice...

 

[Sblargh]

Thanx! Will read. Is it easy to digest?

Depends on what you mean by digest. Haha.

It is easy to understand as it is an introductory book; it makes the effort to present the subjects with clarity and to not overburden people without a background on biology with esoteric terms, but also because it is an introductory book, it deals with subjects as distinct as evolutionary psychology, the meaning of progress and how complexity can arise without a design.

So in the end, you kind of have to organize your brain to deal with all those different topics and maybe choose the ones that picked your interest the most and go back to those chapters (and then to the "further reading" section of those chapters).

Well, that's one way of making the GOP go pro-choice...

Oh, that fine period of time when conservatives were pro-abortion.

It feels like yesterday.