I’ve seen this research trumpted as such. Can anyone give me more info on it, to decide if this characterization is a valid one?
I’m not sure who is making what claims, but the linked article does not prove anything one way or another. The linked article criticizes a separate study for making a claim regarding homosexuality that the critics claim fails to make a case. Thus, we have one study claiming a (vague and ill-defined) correlation (not cause) between various genetic conditions and homosexuality and a review of the study asserting that the claim was not substanitated. Nothing is proven regarding hoosexuality and genetics, regardless which study is correct.
Yeah, I’ve never understood the claim that homosexuality = genetic. I mean, sure it does make sense in some ways. But on many internet forums I see that given as a fact yet I’ve never seen any real study or report that has proven any sort of causation in this regard.
I think **tomndebb **gave a good summary of the article.
This Wikipedia article gives a broad overview of some of the key data twin data, and as you can see, there isn’t a clear consensus.
But it’s important to realize that it’s not an either/or situation: Either genetic or environmental. It’s quite possible that a combination of factors are involved, as well as non-genetic, but still biological causes such as hormonal exposure during gestation.
I thought the lastest (evolving) hypothesis was that predisposiiton toward homosexuality was quite heavily influenced by the neo-natal hormonal environment.
That’s one of the ways I’ve seen it used as I mentioned in my OP: the argument that “hey, substance abuse has both genetic and environmental components, but no one argues with trying to fix THEM.”
I guess what I’m trying to figure out is whether the headline in my OP’s link is true AND significant to the debate.
This is an area of research where I feel progress is virtually impossible. Not only because it’s exceptionally difficult to conduct tests of gestative hormonal exposure, or to cut open the brain and find the bit that controls sexuality (if indeed such a bit exists), or to draw definitive conclusions from genetic examination. More important than this is the lack of will on “both sides” to really know the truth. Those who are pro-homosexual, because they (some) are afraid to open a Pandora’s Box by researching deeper along avenues opened by the twins studies, and those who are anti-homosexual because they (some) are frequently rather nasty people who demonstrate far too much glee when they think they can put the homos in their place.
That having been said, my personal view is that parents (and their parents, and their parents ad infinitum) have a large role to play in many cases. This, simply put, is the major “environmental” factor, whatever the “biological” factors might be.
That title is a bit misleading. It would have been more accurate to say “New Genetics Study Claims to Undermine Some Gay Gene Theories”. If the study had successfully “debunked” earlier genetic research (which it actually didn’t, btw) there still might be other genes invovled that haven’t been studied yet. You seem to be reading the article as saying that it proved homosexuality is NOT genetically based, and that ALL genes had been ruled out as being a cause of homosexuality.
“Pro-homosexual” and “anti-homosexual” forces don’t do a lot of research. Scientists do; it’s their job. As far as I know, the current scientific consensus is just what astro said.
My graduate work is in sexual differentiation of the brain. I will be the first to say that research in this area is pretty rudimentary. I do get annoyed when people throw out the term “genetic” when trying to make the point that it is inborn. It may very well be genetic or have that as a component. However, it is sex hormones that cause the brain to differentiate into a sex-specific pattern. Sex hormones act on different brain areas during specific critical periods during development. It seems most likely to me that whatever critical period(s) define sexual orientation are the ones that are not responding to sex hormones in a typical pattern. I can’t prove that is the case but there is plenty of animal research on altering rat and monkey sexual orientation by blocking sex hormones during certain critical periods. Most, but not all of this research has been done in males.
Your height is genetically determined, but there is no gene that says you will be 5’8" tall. A series of different genes involved in limb development all are set to determine what your height will be within a certain range, say 5’2" - 5"10. You ended up at 5’8" due to environmental factors, some obvious like nutrition, and some that we probably have no idea.
Almost everything physically about you is the same thing. Many genes denote a range, and environment determines the rest. Eye color, hair color, hell, the one gene disease is very uncommon unfortunately for proponents of gene therapy.
So, I think of sexuality like this. If there is a scale of 1 to 10, and anything above 7 means you are gay, your genes may put you at a 5, and whatever environmental factors may either push that to 4 or to 8. But, someone else’s genes probably start them at an 8 or 9 (or the gay zone…). Environment may push them under 7 (the straight zone), or may leave them exactly where they are.
I don’t see why homosexuality would be any different from height.
But all human beings in every field have their stance on issues. Politicians, advertising people, journalists, doctors, engineers, scientists. Their stance affects what they are interested in, how they approach it, and what question they ask. It also has some effect on what answers they wish to find.
And scientific consensus is just that - consensus. Who knows what it will be tomorrow, twenty years hence, two hundred years on?
Well, now, it’s not genetic per se, but my understanding was that a correlation had been drawn between pituitary structure and sexuality in males, that the texture, if you will, of certain pituitary tissues are quite different between the sexes, and that a homosexual man’s was more like a heterosexual woman’s. I must have heard this at least ten years ago. Did this not stand up to further research?
If a scientific study is done properly, the opinions of the people running the test won’t matter.
I don’t know, but I don’t think it makes it pointless to search.
Well, I wish I shared your optimistic view of human nature. When the same people put pen to paper (publish their research findings), then the likelihood of their stance affecting their text becomes rather high.
This is not (IMO) going to be all that difficult a test design issue. At some point in the near future it will be possible to implant tiny recorders or transponders that will record or relay the hormonal levels present in the neo-natal environment. It may be possible now in some fashion for all I know.
Take that baseline and then test the babies/children/adults at various intervals to determine if the expression of sexual preferences across time correlates in a meaningful way to measured hormonal differences.
It’s doesn’t seem to be that big a brain teaser.
Astro, can we ever be sure that a certain hormone always correlates to a certain sexual orientation? Might that hormone not function in other ways, perhaps not (directly) connected with orientation?
Note that if a certain in utero factor such as a particular hormonal cocktail is important in determining predisposition to homosexuality, some women might well be genetically more or less likely to manifest this factor during pregnancy, ie. an in utero factor could effectively itself be genetic.
Certain statistical results, such as the probability of male homosexuality increasing hugely (>30%, I believe) for every older brother a male has, indicate that some hormonal or in utero factor does have a bearing (since homosexuality would be more randomly spread among male siblings if it were more directly genetic in character).