Please, please, please don’t be upset with me. I’m not asking this out of anything but curiosity. Really. Probably someone has asked before and maybe people ask you this all the time…but-
What do you think makes you gay?
I mean, I understand that the vast majority of gay people say it wasn’t/isn’t a choice they simply made, and most say they were born that way. Either way, fine by me. To clarify, I’m straight. I assume that I was born that way and continue to be so because of some hormonal/primitive drive to further the species. So, if gay people (Is it okay to say it that way?) are born with that trait, how come?
Again, please don’t be mad. I know you probably don’t have definitive answers. I just wondered if you had any thoughts/hunches.
Czarcasm, . I get that part, though. I meant more along the lines of what biologically or scientifically (or whatever). As in what causes the attraction to people of the same gender.
I don’t know, and have to say that I have never found it a really interesting question. I don’t know why it doesn’t interest me, but ther you have it. I’ve known I was lesbian for 29 years, BTW.
Actually, I suspect that it’s basically a combination of physical factors, most likely before birth - but that’s just because the prominent psychological theories never really resonated with me. (Although I suppose Freud would point out that I do indeed have an overbearing smother - I mean mother! - and a distant father.) I suspect it’s a mix of genetic predisposition, and maybe the uterine hormonal environment. I can’t quite reconcile any theory relying strictly on genetics - after all, wouldn’t a gay gene quickly evolve out of the population? But a gene that makes it a little more likely, plus a hormonal nudge at the right time . . .
I suspect it’s just that our sexuality is complex enough that it consists of a million different factors. I lean towards pre-natal or very early childhood explanations, because I’ve been gay for an awful long time. As long as I can remember, anyhow.
I don’t think such a gene would evolve “out” of the population; in fact, I think it would do the opposite, as an antidote (albeit not a very good one) to global overpopulation. Yes, we’re able to biologically reproduce, but many of us choose not to - so less children to be born. I’m not saying any of this is really substantiable; it’s just interesting food for thought.
But I agree that a gene that predisposes one to homosexuality, plus a “hormonal nudge” - or lack thereof, who knows - is a very plausible theory.
I also heard something a long time ago about traumatic birth experience having some correlation to homosexuality - but it was second-hand, and I’d really have to search for a cite of this theory.
The correlation put forth between left-handedness and homosexuality is certainly something to ponder.
Anyway, I’m absolutely sure I was born gay, and that there was genetics involved, since two of my mother’s uncles were gay (“confirmed bachelors” was the polite term), and at least one of my cousins on my mother’s side is also gay.
Some evolutionary biologists have refered to the “good uncle theory”: that gay men may indirectly perpetuate their genes by helping to raise their genetically similar nephews and nieces. Homosexuality may carry a “fitness cost” in evolution (i.e. it is nonreproductive and against natural selection), but this “cost” may have been possibly offset by the fact that child-bearers with gay family members had these non-parents to help them raise their children. That is, over time gay men and women may have indirectly propogated their genes through their family’s offspring-- who theoretically carry a better chance of survival due to the assistance of a non-reproductive family member.
**
**One study assigns us a 39 per cent greater chance of being left-handed than hetero folk.
(Also borne out by my own anecdotal evidence. ;))
hyperjes: personally, I suspect it’s a combination of genes and environmental factors. As to how much from Column A, and how much from Column B… <shrug>
Well, you can add me to the sample population of left-handed gay men. And I’m pretty sure that a genetic link to homosexuality will be found. As with others, I have gay male relatives in my family (a couple of cousins and a great-uncle), and I’m reasonably certain that’s not coincidental.
Straight, non-human-biology expert here (okay, why the hell am I posting again?).
Anyway - the question is simply a specific version of the Nature vs. Nuture question, as other posters have already pointed out. In other words, there appears to be some combination of genetic/congenital (i.e., due to inherited traits, hormonal influence during upbringing and/or some event happening during the fetal stage) that may contribute, and some socializing elements. It would seem that there could be an infinite variety of combinations that might result in a person realizing they are gay.
There have been studies that assert that gender preference is on a spectrum - I think Masters and Johnson is one - where preference can go from 100% same sex, through 50/50 to 100% opposite sex. That would suggest that for some individuals, homo/heterosexual preference is 100% burned in - there is no conscious component that can be influenced through socialization. It would seem reasonable that this would represent a fairly small sample of the population. For others who are somewhere in the middle, then the influence of nuture/socialization/self-perception/conscious assertion could have more of a factor.
I’m no expert, either, but there is some fascinating work out there being popularized by the likes of Matt Ridley.
Selfish-gene hypothesis: Genes which reproduce are successful, in the sense of becoming more common in a population, rather than less common. Genes which outreproduce other genes increase their commonness further.
This means that genes can be at war with other genes in the micro-environment of the cell; particularly, in the fertilized egg. There is some evidence that the reason the Y chromosome is so small is due to successful wars against it, on the part of the X chromosome. After all, an X chromosome that creates only daughters leaves far more copies of itself than one that creates sons, in which about half the grandkids will not carry the X chromosome.
Bear in mind that the X chromosomes are not “trying” to “maximize your fitness”. They don’t know about you, that you exist. They don’t know that there’s a world out there in which we’d be in trouble if there were no men, or that a desirable or lucky man can fertilize a lot more women than a woman can have babies of her own. They don’t know anything. They are only reproducing more if they reproduce more.
So it has been put forward, and there is some good evidence in cichlids, that there are anti-Y features carried by many X chromosomes. A suggestion has been made that one of the reasons, only one, for gay men to exist, is part of the fallout from an anti-X competition on the chromosome level. Needs more research, and I for one find the good uncle / good aunt hypothesis compelling, with good aunt even moreso. But it’s interesting.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by scott evil * I don’t think such a gene would evolve “out” of the population; in fact, I think it would do the opposite, as an antidote (albeit not a very good one) to global overpopulation. Yes, we’re able to biologically reproduce, but many of us choose not to - so less children to be born. I’m not saying any of this is really substantiable; it’s just interesting food for thought.{QUOTE]
Scott, I’m a nonbreeder straight, and I’m not an expert, but you have the wrong idea about the mechanisms that drive overpopulation. No gene does anything because it’s good for other people.
I’m gonna waste a post and say “I don’t care” anymore than a straight guy cares about what made him straight. Yeah in an abstract sense that science is cool it might be interesting, but too often we’re expected to Justify Our Existence in a way no one else is. Its like we’re forced to prove being gay isn’t “our fault” to get some sort of respect.
“Oh don’t stare, Bobby, he can’t help being gay.”
Maybe we’ll have lavender “homosexual access” toilets for the “specially sexualized”. And then, of course, when they find out precisely what makes us gay, they won’t waste any time before tinkering around to find a cure for those poor poor people who should be pitied.
Thanks to everyone who has replied so far. You’ve all been so nice. I was afraid I’d be upbraided for asking.
phraser, as I mentioned in the OP, I’ve always assumed (for as long as I’ve been able to have logical thoughts about such things) that the “reason” I’m straight is basically biological. By this I mean that the drive is fueled by an instinct to “make more.” I continue to be straight, I suppose, because I am attracted to- and enjoy being attracted to- men.
Generally, I’ve thought that the predisposition to homosexuality must be present at birth. Cliche as it is, I can’t imagine anyone would actively choose what must at times be a very difficult lifestyle. I’m sure there are, as with everthing, some exceptions. Nurture and childhood experience probably come into play somewhere as well. So far, I think most posters have agreed with these theories on some level.
Priam, I meant no offense, honestly. I wasn’t asking because I believe that gay people should be “changed” or “fixed.” I wasn’t asking for anyone to “prove” anything either. I’ve always been facinated by how things and people work and why things are the way they are. I am aware that science hasn’t made any decisions about the answer, but I wondered if anyone with first-hand experience had a hunch. I most assuredly never meant to suggest that anyone should be segregated or that there was anything “wrong” with anybody.
If I’m phrasing things offensively, or if I can state something differently, please tell me and I will try to do better.
If I had a nickel for every damn time I heard this . . . seriously, global overpopulation, if it’s a problem at all, is a recent problem. Long before global population started exerting selective pressure, any straight-up ‘gay gene’ would have long died out.
This is an illustration of what I think is a common misconception about evolution. Evolution is not some magical force designed to maximize a species’ fitness - it’s competition within a species. If being gay makes one significantly less likely to reproduce (and I suspect it does) than a single genetic factor that results in a kid being gay would not be passed into the next generation - at least not many times.
Genes that benefit everyone are not an advantage. Genes that benefit their possessor are. There’s a big difference. Having some gay people might, in theory, be good for a community that can’t support its entire population - but it wouldn’t help the individual, and wouldn’t be passed on. This is mindless theorizing, anyway - there is absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever.
The ‘good uncle’ theory is much more solid - the implication that a family member who has no offspring of their own is likely to protect others’ offspring - but even this, in my mind, seems to necessitate that the genetic influence is limited - after all, for that single gene to survive, then the offspring being protected must also bear it - and if they don’t end up reproducing, no matter how good an uncle ol’ Unckie Queer was, his genes aren’t going to be passed on.
All in all, though, these theories depend heavily on a lot of assumptions. Isn’t it easier to assume that one’s sexuality is just one of the easier things to be screwed up during a fetus’ development - given that the development of sex is so complicated? Note that I don’t mean to imply that being gay is a ‘mistake’ or a bad thing - I’m quite happy being queer myself. But from an evolutionary perspective, there’s not yet any evidence to suggest that it’s not pretty much a biological dead end.
Well, Excalibre, you seem to assume that if it is genetic is linked to a gene that does nothing else. It’s possible that it is a recessive trait linked to another gene that is beneficial. Or perhaps it’s a complex of genes, each of which individually don’t cause homosexuality; but together do. We just don’t know.
Also, if homosexuality has a genetic component, it is almost certainly due to the action of several different genes, rather than a single ‘gay tendency’ gene. This makes heritability a lot more complicated, and selection against the trait more difficult. To compare, think of the genetics of sicle-cell anemia. Having sickle-cell anemia (2 recessives for the gene) is going to interfere with your fitness, but having just 1 recessive will increase your fitness (by making you more resistant to malaria), so in an area where malaria is a big risk, the recessives will be retained within the population, meaning that ocassionally a double recessive pops up despite the selection against that trait. This would also help explain the spectrum of sexualty from a genetic viewpoint – it’s not a gase of a single gene being on or off.
I’d like to make it clear that this does not preclude other selective processes such as the Good Uncle hypothesis, and neither am I trying to claim that homosexuality IS genetic, and I couldn’t care less from a nonscientific standpoint whether it is or isn’t, because people have the right to love whoever they damn well please. deep breath
