The Right to Choose
1. QUESTION: What about all the evidence that shows that homosexuality "is genetic"? ANSWER: There is not any, and none of the research itself claims there is; only the press and, sadly, certain researchers do-when speaking in sound bites to the public.
2. The story of the so-called ‘gay gene’ is indicative of scientific experiments and conclusions molding themselves into media forces that then seem to have a life of their own.
3. There is no evidence for the "gay gene", a study claims to have found.
4. Will we ever find a "gay" or "transsexual gene"? Most likely not.
5. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited.
6. "I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain . . . Since I look at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later."
7. Twin studies show that something other than genetics must account for homosexuality because nearly half of the identical twin studied didn't have the same sexual preference.
8. Overall, data appear to indicate that genetic factors play some role in the development of sexual orientation, but that they probably account for only a minority of variation and that further work will be needed to quantify their influence more precisely.
9. There is no question that people who think sexuality is inborne are, in general, much better disposed towards gay people and gay rights than people who think it's some kind of lifestyle choice.
10. LeVay, Hamer, Friedman, Downey, Byne and Parsons concluded that homosexuality is not a purely biological phenomenon. All of these researchers arrive at the same conclusion: an interactionist model (not the "born that way" theory) reflects the current data to explain the development of homosexuality.
Outside reading.
Comments
They're looking in the wrong place. They should be looking for the independance gene, not the "gay" gene.
Posted by: Tyler West | April 21, 2005 10:54 PM
Well... The answer "There is not any" is a bit misleading/inaccurate. Human development is really a complex thing, with almost every aspect of our development the product of interactions between nature and nurture, not mutually exclusive causes. Even something like height isn't a genetic certainty. Malnourish or seriously abuse a child genetically predisposed to be tall and he may grow into a short adult. Genetic material creates potential for genius, disease, ability, or gayness, but everything from prenatal nutrition/care to how you're treated at the senior prom plays a large part too.
But isn't this all beside the point? Why does ontogeny even matter? Unless you're a religious zealot bent on destroying all that contradicts your world view or a bigot trying to justify your baseless hatred, who cares?
By the way, nice site.
Posted by: Ryan | April 24, 2005 3:51 PM
Looking for the 'cause' of homosexuality is looking for the wrong thing. The fact is that there are many ways people express sexuality, and searching for what force, or combination of forces, determines gender attraction only encourages a pathologizing of LGB people.
Time and money would be better spent finding the cause of heterosexism and homophobia. Are those conditions genetic, or a matter of choice?
Posted by: Ben | April 25, 2005 5:16 AM
I agree in part with Ryan. It is inaccurate to say "there is no evidence" that homosexuality is physiologically based in some respects. Indeed, identical twin studies do report an incidence of homosexuality between identical sibilngs at around 50%. The same goes for schizophrenia (50%). The incidence for schizophrenia in the general population is around 0.5% (give or take a little). This does indicate that though schizphrenia is not completely genetically-based, there is a strong nature component to it. Likewise, this arguement can be made for homosexuality. Simply put, it warrents further investigation and there will be more mechanisms elucidated in the future. I think it is ok to speculate and hypothesize b/c that is what science is about. To say that there is a definite in either case is wrong and a bit closeminded.
By the way, in science a 50% incidence of identical twins being gay, alcoholics, singing well or any other trait in common is a big deal (that obviously goes for diseases too). That means there IS a physiological basis involved. Not the other way around. It is a bit more complex than "one gene."
Posted by: Eugene | April 29, 2005 4:28 AM
Yep, agreeing with Eugene, for the most part. >50% coincidence in twin studies IS a big deal. People like to forget (or don't often realize) that there are other ways for traits to be genetic than the single gene, you have it or you don't. As with skin color, and lots of other traits (schizophrenia, as mentioned), it's likely that gayness is the result of a lot of genes adding little tweaking effects to the equation, plus some environmental factors that muddy the mix. Yes, it's hard to tease out with genetic studies, like it is with every complex trait. But this is very different from saying there is "no genetic basis" because there very probably is, in fact.
But more to the point, and I guess Ryan already covered this, but the argument is sort of unimportant either way. People have been gay ever since there have been people. Regardless of whether it's genetic or not, there is no excuse for anti-gay bigotry. It boggles the mind how people can conjure so much hate because of who other people love.
Posted by: Joy | May 2, 2005 7:52 PM
IF THERE'S NO GAY GENE, THEN WHY DOES THE FDA HAVE NEW "RULES" ABOUT GAY MEN GIVING SEMEN SAMPLES???
(and don't give me the old HIV excuse...now that WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE THE LARGEST SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION CARRYING HIV.
Posted by: austinGirl | May 9, 2005 2:18 PM
One "environmental" non-genetic factor that likely contributes to homosexuality is indeed biological: the fetal hormonal environment, i.e., hormones in the womb. Non-genetic does not mean non-biological or non-inborn.
Posted by: Take science | May 10, 2005 12:24 AM
austinGirl, don't be such a dolt. Women and children aren't the ones donating sperm, and homosexual men in this country are ten times more likely (at the least) to be carriers of HIV than heterosexual men.
Posted by: homocon | May 17, 2005 3:46 PM
it was fun visiting here. wishing you a great day! discontent makes rich men poor: http://www.bartleby.com/100/ , it has been well said , few people are capable of expressing
Posted by: michael williams | October 17, 2005 4:24 PM