'Gay gene' ruled out as huge study shows environment is major factor in homosexuality

First topic message reminder :

Genes play just a small role in whether a person is gay, scientists have found, after discovering that environment has a far bigger impact on homosexuality.

In the biggest ever study into the genetic basis of sexuality, researchers from more than 30 institutions including Cambridge University and Harvard, looked at the DNA of nearly 500,000 people in Britain and the US.

They found that genes are responsible for between eight to 25 per cent of the probability of a person being gay, meaning at least three quarters is down to environment.

Scientists said it worked in a similar way to height, in which genes are partly responsible, but other factors - such as nutrition - also play a major role, adding or knocking off inches.

In this case, environment could mean anything from being exposed to certain conditions in the womb, to differences in upbringing or education.

Although the research may seem controversial, suggesting that homosexuality is not primarily ‘written in the genes’, the scientists say it does not mean that sexuality it a choice or can be altered.

“Some people will misunderstand or even deliberately twist our findings,” said senior author Dr Ben Neale, a statistical geneticist at Harvard Medical School.

“There is a long history of people using genetics in harmful ways to advance their own misguided agendas.

“As a gay man I’ve experienced homophobia and I’ve felt both hurt and isolated by it. This study disproves the notion there is a so-called ‘gay gene’ and disproves sexual behaviour is a choice.

“Genetics absolutely plays an important role, many genes are involved, and altogether they capture perhaps a quarter of same-sex sexual behaviour, which means genetics isn’t even half the story.  The rest is likely environmental.

“It’s both biology and environment working together in incredibly complicated ways.”


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/08/29/gay-gene-ruled-huge-study-shows-environment-major-factor-homosexuality/

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/genetics-may-explain-25-same-sex-behavior-giant-analysis-reveals

Tommy is a fuckwit...

Tommy says that "nature is designed.."  !!!

We all recognise that Tommy knows less-than-nothing about science --  that's a "given".  By this one fuckwitted outburst above, stating that "nature is designed.." Tommy has gone further, outing himslef as a Creationist/"Intelligent Design" proponent --  whether he has realised it before or not..

And for the record, I have forgotten more about genetics, evolution and natural selection (and biology/'life sciences' in general.. ) just in the last 5  minutes, than what Tommy will ever know over his whole pathetic life...

gelico wrote:
meh, i'm not sure i'm buying this,,,,i still think it's mainly genetics

''In this case, environment could mean anything from being exposed to certain conditions in the womb, to differences in upbringing or education.''


well, specifically exposed to which certain conditions in the womb?  they don't say anything about that

also upbringing,,,,,how come two brothers with exactly the same upbringing could have one as gay and one as hetro

incidentally, does anyone know if there are twins where one is gay and one is hetro?  if genetics play a part would they not both turn out gay, being as they are formed from the one seed?

interesting anyway

Point # 1 -- people don't grow from "seeds", gellibellico...

Point # 2 -- I know of a couple of cases of twins where one turned out 'gay', and one where both were gay -- so I simply take those possibilities as "a given"...

Point # 3 -- in genetics, it should be remembered that we aren't always dealing in "absolutes" with genetic outcomes -- genes often set a 'range' for a characteristic/trait, with parameters between which an entity will end up somewhere between the possible min and max extremes depending on external factors (in the OP the "gay geneticist" mentioned height -- other similar traits in humans can include weight, musculature/fat ratios, endurance, fecundity, speed..);
Some genetic traits - e.g. hair and eye colour -- are determined by multiple combinations of genes;
As Ben mentions above, proceedings can be further complicated by mutations, and the existence of "junk" genes.

And as the researchers in this one study actually said -- the "nurture" side of the argument (which doesn't simply mean parenting -- but also the 'environment', both in the womb and after birth, as well as the local environs/society/culture that a person grows up in..) seems to be much more significant than the "nature" (i.e. genetics..) side of the equation;
And noone has yet discovered a "gay gene" -- that notion still remains the domain of certain 'theoretical' biologists..

Original Quill wrote:In response to eddie's question as to what you mean by 'normal', tommy, you said:

Tommy Monk wrote:I use the word as it is defined in the dictionary...

Do you have some other authoritive source for the definition of the word...!?

If not... then the definition is already clearly set out and unambiguous...

Taking you at your word and direction, I went to the dictionary:

Merriam Webster Dictionary wrote:normal adjective
nor·​mal | \ ˈnȯr-məl  \
Definition of normal (Entry 1 of 3)
1a : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
normal working hours
He had a normal childhood.
the effect of normal aging
b : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
The normal way to pluralize a noun is by adding -s.
2 : occurring naturally
normal immunity

This is what the dictionary says about "normal".  It is an adjective.  But other than that, it fails to list any material state of affairs.  Rather, it refers us to "a type, standard, or regular pattern", or "according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle"

So, before you can define 'normal' you must have a principle or pattern in place.  Then you plug facts into the pattern.

Now, we look for a pattern within and among human society, and we find that it includes LGBT individuals.  That's a fact.  A fact gives you the state of affairs by which to define normal.  So, as a genuine factual part of the pattern, LGBT'S are 'normal'.

Tommy, you say it's in the dictionary.  That's what the dictionary says: normal means a part of a principle or pattern.  LGBT's are a part of the "principle or pattern" of human society.

Now apologize to eddie.

He won’t apologise because he knows he’s talking shite with the whole “normal” thing.
But thanks for trying.

As programmers are fond of saying, "it's not a bug, it's a feature."

Homosexuality in human beings (and probably other species that exhibit homosexual behavior) isn't a glitch, it's part of who we are as a species.

There have even been studies showing that the sisters of gay men have more children than average, more than making up for the fact that their brothers may not bring children into the world.

'Wolfie wrote:

gelico wrote:
meh, i'm not sure i'm buying this,,,,i still think it's mainly genetics

''In this case, environment could mean anything from being exposed to certain conditions in the womb, to differences in upbringing or education.''


well, specifically exposed to which certain conditions in the womb?  they don't say anything about that

also upbringing,,,,,how come two brothers with exactly the same upbringing could have one as gay and one as hetro

incidentally, does anyone know if there are twins where one is gay and one is hetro?  if genetics play a part would they not both turn out gay, being as they are formed from the one seed?

interesting anyway

Point # 1  --  people don't grow from "seeds",  gellibellico...

pips then

baby pips

Gayness is innate, it comes from within. It's not due to the environment.

But bisexuality? - I'm a bit sceptical about, in some instances. (I think it's called pansexuality these days?). I don't quite get the  "all comers are welcome" mentality.  I'm not expert tho. Just giving my opinion!

Jules wrote:Gayness is innate, it comes from within. It's not due to the environment.

But bisexuality? - I'm a bit sceptical about, in some instances. (I think it's called pansexuality these days?). I don't quite get the  "all comers are welcome" mentality.  I'm not expert tho. Just giving my opinion!

None of us on here are experts. We all just have our OPINIONS. People would do well to remember that.