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

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

Not sure I believe a lot of that.
Perhaps some things - like physical attraction - just cannot be explained.

eddie wrote:Not sure I believe a lot of that.
Perhaps some things - like physical attraction - just cannot be explained.

I dont think its questioning phsyical attraction eddie, as none of us can control that. We can only control how we act on that attraction
I think they were trying to define a gene to explain homosexuality. Of which they found in a number of people but that other factors could factor into this as well. More studies will happen on this and we will know in years to come as we come to more understand the human body

Ah, I stand corrected. I understand what the article is saying now. It’s interesting and will perhaps shut those up who say that homosexuality is a choice.

Or give them ammunition -- I can imagine some pointing to this as evidence that homosexuality is a choice.

To which I can only respond with the two things I always point out -- one, in a world where being gay is still not widely accepted, who would make that choice, and two, so what if it is a choice, anyway? If you could really choose to be gay, why would choosing homosexuality be the "wrong" choice?

Ben Reilly wrote:Or give them ammunition -- I can imagine some pointing to this as evidence that homosexuality is a choice.

To which I can only respond with the two things I always point out -- one, in a world where being gay is still not widely accepted, who would make that choice, and two, so what if it is a choice, anyway? If you could really choose to be gay, why would choosing homosexuality be the "wrong" choice?

Second point....Good point.

Ben Reilly wrote:Or give them ammunition -- I can imagine some pointing to this as evidence that homosexuality is a choice.

To which I can only respond with the two things I always point out -- one, in a world where being gay is still not widely accepted, who would make that choice, and two, so what if it is a choice, anyway? If you could really choose to be gay, why would choosing homosexuality be the "wrong" choice?

The redneck anti-science dumbfucks of this world --  the MajorStormee_racists, SmellyBum_fascists, and Tommy"mini ice age !"_geniuses, and their oxygen-deprived cheer squads --  never need much ammo' to fuel their warped personal agendas...

Let's consider some of the background environmental and genetic factors affecting the actual development stages of a person, i.e. the first couple of decades of life  :

*  nobody "chooses" to be born
*  nobody "chooses" their parents
*  nobody "chooses" where they are conceived, born, or grow up --  we have no personal 'control' over whatever industrial pollution, agricultural pollution, water quality, societal pressures, nutrition and exercise, familial pressures and expectations, etc. that we might be exposed to during both gestation, and over that first 15 -->> 18+ years of life..

Won't stop the ignoramuses with their own hate-fuelled agendas 'cherry picking' research to suit themselves, though.  Never does..

There is no gay gene!

Homosexuality is normality gone wrong!

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

Tommy Monk wrote:

There is no gay gene!

Homosexuality is normality gone wrong!

See that’s where you sound stupid. For example, can you explain “normal”? What is normal, Tommy?

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

Even among "identical" twin brothers, one can be gay and the other straight:

For men, new research suggests that clues to sexual orientation may lie not just in the genes, but in the spaces between the DNA, where molecular marks instruct genes when to turn on and off and how strongly to express themselves.

On Thursday, UCLA molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun reported that in studying the genetic material of 47 pairs of identical male twins, he has identified “epigenetic marks” in nine areas of the human genome that are strongly linked to male homosexuality.

In individuals, said Ngun, the presence of these distinct molecular marks can predict homosexuality with an accuracy of close to 70%.

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetic-homosexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.html

Viral infections can also alter the way DNA "expresses," i.e., which genes are turned "on" or "off." And sometimes, very rarely, so-called "junk DNA" can become activated, resulting in weird shit like chickens with teeth

Ben Reilly 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

Even among "identical" twin brothers, one can be gay and the other straight:

For men, new research suggests that clues to sexual orientation may lie not just in the genes, but in the spaces between the DNA, where molecular marks instruct genes when to turn on and off and how strongly to express themselves.

On Thursday, UCLA molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun reported that in studying the genetic material of 47 pairs of identical male twins, he has identified “epigenetic marks” in nine areas of the human genome that are strongly linked to male homosexuality.

In individuals, said Ngun, the presence of these distinct molecular marks can predict homosexuality with an accuracy of close to 70%.

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetic-homosexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.html

Viral infections can also alter the way DNA "expresses," i.e., which genes are turned "on" or "off." And sometimes, very rarely, so-called "junk DNA" can become activated, resulting in weird shit like chickens with teeth

Ben... your C&P article is not new, but from 2015, and the 'study' it is quoting is without any credibility...!



And, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that homosexuality is caused by corrupt/damaged DNA, and this damage may be caused by viral infections, or some other damaging external influence...!?

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

There is no gay gene!

Homosexuality is normality gone wrong!

See that’s where you sound stupid. For example, can you explain “normal”? What is normal, Tommy?

Eddie... if you don't understand the meaning of simple words of our English language... and you are unaware of the existence of a big book of words and their definitions (known as the "dictionary")... then it is you who is sounding very stupid...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

There is no gay gene!

Homosexuality is normality gone wrong!

See that’s where you sound stupid. For example, can you explain “normal”? What is normal, Tommy?

Eddie... if you don't understand the meaning of simple words of our English language... and you are unaware of the existence of a big book of words and their definitions (known as the "dictionary")... then it is you who is sounding very stupid...!

So your answer to my question “What is normal, Tommy?” is the above....

Okay then.

Tommy Monk wrote:

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

There is no gay gene!

Homosexuality is normality gone wrong!

See that’s where you sound stupid. For example, can you explain “normal”? What is normal, Tommy?

Eddie... if you don't understand the meaning of simple words of our English language... and you are unaware of the existence of a big book of words and their definitions (known as the "dictionary")... then it is you who is sounding very stupid...!

Very much the opposite, Tommy. If you're smart enough to know that there have been gay people ever since there have been people, then you should be smart enough to know that what would be abnormal would be for there to be no gay people.

Throughout human history, gay people have existed -- thus, gay people must be normal, and logically can't be classed as anything other than normal.

Unless you're too stupid to see that. Which of course, you're not -- you're not stupid, you're a bigot.

Come on Eddie...!!!


You accused me of sounding stupid...


But you then try to explain your accusation of me sounding stupid, by you then admitting that this is based on the fact that you don't know the definition of the word "normal", as you then ask me to provide you with a concise definition of this very simple and commonly used word of our english language...!?


Try checking the dictionary for the correct definition of words... if you're not sure what words mean...

But Tommy! I asked YOU what you meant by “normal”

Why do people on here do that? It really amazes me.

Pretty sure she asked you that to get you to think about what normal really means, Tommy. The fact that you haven't picked up on that yet makes you sound further stupid.

I'll ask you another question -- who appointed you as the sole arbiter of what is and what isn't normal?

eddie wrote:But Tommy! I asked YOU what you meant by “normal”

Why do people on here do that? It really amazes me.

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...


So... please explain why you tried saying that it was me who sounded stupid, when I was using words that have meanings that are clearly defined, but which you needed to ask what the word meant...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

eddie wrote:But Tommy! I asked YOU what you meant by “normal”

Why do people on here do that? It really amazes me.

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...


So... please explain why you tried saying that it was me who sounded stupid, when I was using words that have meanings that are clearly defined, but which you needed to ask what the word meant...!?

You sounded stupid when you said, "Homosexuality is normality gone wrong!"

Normality for the human race is for a small portion of the overall population to be homosexual, so homosexuality is normal.

There has never been an era or society that didn't have homosexuals, which provides abundant proof that homosexuality is normal.

I think, personally, that when you falsely claim that homosexuality isn't normal, what you're really trying to say is that homosexuality is wrong. Am I right?

Tommy Monk wrote:

eddie wrote:But Tommy! I asked YOU what you meant by “normal”

Why do people on here do that? It really amazes me.

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...


So... please explain why you tried saying that it was me who sounded stupid, when I was using words that have meanings that are clearly defined, but which you needed to ask what the word meant...!?

Okay, can you humour me for a second?

If I started a thread (and I will if you’d like) and I asked other posters what they’re definition of “normal” is, do you think everyone’s answer would be the same or is “normal” different for everyone - ie subjective?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly 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

Even among "identical" twin brothers, one can be gay and the other straight:

For men, new research suggests that clues to sexual orientation may lie not just in the genes, but in the spaces between the DNA, where molecular marks instruct genes when to turn on and off and how strongly to express themselves.

On Thursday, UCLA molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun reported that in studying the genetic material of 47 pairs of identical male twins, he has identified “epigenetic marks” in nine areas of the human genome that are strongly linked to male homosexuality.

In individuals, said Ngun, the presence of these distinct molecular marks can predict homosexuality with an accuracy of close to 70%.

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetic-homosexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.html

Viral infections can also alter the way DNA "expresses," i.e., which genes are turned "on" or "off." And sometimes, very rarely, so-called "junk DNA" can become activated, resulting in weird shit like chickens with teeth

Ben... your C&P article is not new, but from 2015, and the 'study' it is quoting is without any credibility...!



And, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that homosexuality is caused by corrupt/damaged DNA, and this damage may be caused by viral infections, or some other damaging external influence...!?

Four years is not that old, and if you have something to refute the study, I'd be happy to take a look.

And no, I wasn't suggesting that homosexuality is caused by damaged DNA. I was making a point about DNA, not about homosexuality.

Ben Reilly wrote:

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...


So... please explain why you tried saying that it was me who sounded stupid, when I was using words that have meanings that are clearly defined, but which you needed to ask what the word meant...!?

You sounded stupid when you said, "Homosexuality is normality gone wrong!"

Normality for the human race is for a small portion of the overall population to be homosexual, so homosexuality is normal.

There has never been an era or society that didn't have homosexuals, which provides abundant proof that homosexuality is normal.

I think, personally, that when you falsely claim that homosexuality isn't normal, what you're really trying to say is that homosexuality is wrong. Am I right?

How long is it known for humans to have been in existence...?


How long ago has the existence of homosexuality been proven...!?

From Ben's copy and paste article...


"...For men, new research suggests that clues to sexual orientation may lie not just in the genes, but in the spaces between the DNA, where molecular marks instruct genes when to turn on and off and how strongly to express themselves..."



Ben's subsequent comment from post...

"...Viral infections can also alter the way DNA "expresses," i.e., which genes are turned "on" or "off." And sometimes, very rarely, so-called "junk DNA" can become activated, resulting in weird shit like chickens with teeth..."

Tommy.

Okay, can you humour me for a second?

If I started a thread (and I will if you’d like) and I asked other posters what they’re definition of “normal” is, do you think everyone’s answer would be the same or is “normal” different for everyone - ie subjective?

Why does everyone keep getting suckered into Tommy doing this everytime?

Seriously?

No matter how much you explain this to him, he thinks its all a joke.

I shows the distain he has for homosexuals

So no matter how many times people easily reason how poor his views are. He will always remain closeminded and it simple becomes yet another tedious debate. Which as seen he has already diverged from the topic at hand

If you want to go through this yet again, then more fool those who do

Tommy, homosexuality was accounted for among Native American tribes long before European colonization. References to homosexuality appear in Chinese writings from more than 2,500 years ago. In Japan, Buddhist monks and Samurai engaged in homosexual behavior attested from at least 1,000 years ago.

Plato equated acceptance of homosexuality with advanced, democratic (as opposed to despotic) societies more than 2,200 years ago, in his work "Symposium." Later in life, he opposed homosexuality, for which he was criticized by Aristotle.

The words "sapphic" and "lesbian" come from Sapphos, a homosexual woman who ran a school on the Greek island of Lesbos about 2,500 years ago.

The Roman emperor Hadrian had a younger, male lover. Pretty sure he's also known for some kind of wall in this country ...

From around the 1300s or so, Florence and Venice in Italy were well-known cities with large gay populations.

Ancient Assyrians believed that male homosexual relationships brought blessings from the gods.

A few tribes in Papua New Guinea considered straight people sinful, and celebrated homosexuality as more moral. They were the Marind and Etoro people.

The first known use of the word "homosexual" in English writing was in 1892.

What, did you think homosexuality was some recent invention?  

A few examples of abnormal sexually deviant behaviour...

Tommy Monk wrote:

A few examples of abnormal sexually deviant behaviour...

if you like,,,,,so as far as you are concerned, sex is only for procreation so therefore, between a man and a woman,,,

kissing, fondling, fingering, sucking, in fact anything except the basic penis in vagina, shake it about a bit and finish would be deviant

also, if a woman has finished her periods then she can't procreate so no sex for her either, i suppose

that would be sexually deviant

eddie wrote:Tommy.

Okay, can you humour me for a second?

If I started a thread (and I will if you’d like) and I asked other posters what they’re definition of “normal” is, do you think everyone’s answer would be the same or is “normal” different for everyone - ie subjective?

I'm normal enough

It's every other sod that's gone mad

Attraction and sexual behaviour between those of opposite sex is normal and natural.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Attraction and sexual behaviour between those of opposite sex is normal and natural.

Do you ever get bored with your own posts?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Attraction and sexual behaviour between those of opposite sex is normal and natural.

no, tommy. uh uh,,,,,i've seen you going on about how sex is solely between a man and a woman in order to procreate. you can't bring it in to the argument when it suits you and dismiss it when it doesn't.

if, as you say, sex is only meant to be between a man and a woman for procreation purposes then that's how it is.

you say sexual behaviour between same sex couples is deviant, why? because they can't procreate so therefore it's wrong

so between a man and a woman any sexual behaviour is deviant unless it's for the purposes of procreation


so if a woman is past her sell by date, or just cannot have children, or even just doesn't want them and is on the pill
having sex is deviant

if a man is a jaffa, or has had a vasectomy, or just doesn't want kids and wants to use a condom or pull out
having sex is deviant

i know this is an unfortunate term, tommy, and there's no pun intended but i just can't think of how else to put it, but it's simply

you can't have it both ways

No... the solely for procreation argument is what you brought in gelico... as it is essential for you to make your argument...


I said attraction is normal between people of opposite sex... and sexual behaviour is normal between people of the opposite sex...


If someone is attracted to another of the same sex... then it is abnormal because it is not the way that nature is designed to work... and an example of where something has gone wrong...


Now... the OP says that research has shown that there is no gay gene... so nobody is born gay... but therefore must be turned gay by some other way...

Tommy Monk wrote:

No... the solely for procreation argument is what you brought in gelico... as it is essential for you to make your argument...

I brought it into this argument only because it is an argument that you use when it suits you


If someone is attracted to another of the same sex... then it is abnormal because it is not the way that nature is designed to work... and an example of where something has gone wrong...

why?

says who?

explain to me how nature 'is designed' to work

Tommy Monk wrote:




Now... the OP says that research has shown that there is no gay gene... so nobody is born gay... but therefore must be turned gay by some other way...

do you believe t his?

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Attraction and sexual behaviour between those of opposite sex is normal and natural.

Do you ever get bored with your own posts?

what do you think of these findings, les

didn't you say you always knew?

do you think your 'environment' had any influence?

gelico wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

No... the solely for procreation argument is what you brought in gelico... as it is essential for you to make your argument...

I brought it into this argument only because it is an argument that you use when it suits you


If someone is attracted to another of the same sex... then it is abnormal because it is not the way that nature is designed to work... and an example of where something has gone wrong...

why?

says who?

explain to me how nature 'is designed' to work

No... you are twisting...

Tommy Monk wrote:

gelico wrote:


why?

says who?

explain to me how nature 'is designed' to work

No... you are twisting...

No, I'm not, Tommy

How is nature designed to work? (your words)

In a natural way...

Tommy Monk wrote:

In a natural way...

that's a silly answer


what is a natural way?

You're being silly gelico...


What do we mean by natural?

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. ... The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or "essential qualities, innate disposition", and in ancient times, literally meant "birth".

Tommy Monk wrote:

You're being silly gelico...


What do we mean by natural?

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. ... The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or "essential qualities, innate disposition",

very interesting but completely irrelevant to sexual relationships,,,,,,,


and in ancient times, literally meant "birth".

that last bit is simply going back to procreation

Tommy fires intellectual and moral blanks as well as semenal ones.
What woman in their own mind would marry an ignorant racist twat that would want to stop intercourse once her fruits have stopped falling from the trees?.

There is no gay gene!!!

gelico wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

You're being silly gelico...


What do we mean by natural?

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. ... The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or "essential qualities, innate disposition",

very interesting but completely irrelevant to sexual relationships,,,,,,,


and in ancient times, literally meant "birth".

that last bit is simply going back to procreation

No... it's going back to birth... which is natural... and where there is no gay gene... nobody is born gay!!!

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.

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Attraction and sexual behaviour between those of opposite sex is normal and natural.

Do you ever get bored with your own posts?

what do you think of these findings, les

didn't you say you always knew?

do you think your 'environment' had any influence?

I think they are unremarkable tbh.

They come to no conclusive discovery, simply stating it's a combination of factors, which is no further than where we were. The 'gay gene' idea was unlikely from the start.

A problem with this research, acknowledged in the article, is that in saying there is no 'gay gene' unscientific idiots (none spring to mind lol) will cite this as a 'told you so' moment and decry fanatically that it's a choice.

As if things are that simple. But as said, such dimwits are idiots and we needn't waste breath on them

I knew from a very young age. I'd say as a primary school child I always felt different, but at that age boys think girls are gross anyway and vice versa lol

In High School it became acute. I knew I was becoming attracted to boys and had zero interest in girls. But late nineties Manchester estate's were not a nice place to be gay, so I was in denial and just assumed I'd outgrow it. I went to church till age 12, had passively homophobic male relatives (who never suspected, as no one does - I'm not camp and love watching football, videogames and rock music lol). Lucky none are homophobic now, and love my husband - most neanderthal opinions died in the 90s.

But in these circumstances environment could have had little effect. I had a very similar upbringing to many male cousins who are all straight.

It is a great unknown. For me though, it really doesn't matter

I don't know why anyone is looking for a singular gene. I remember when I had eye surgery, and came out with a weird, twisted vision of the world, the doctors explained to me that human function is a composite of physical, psychological and neurological influences. It took about 9-months, but sure enough my sight snapped back into regularity as my mind and body both adjusted. Any organism will adjust, look at a three-legged dog.

As for LGBT's I can't imagine that someone would reduce the matter to genes vs. choice, as if it's a simple dichotomy. It's a complex montage of many things, just like my eyesight. I'm sure that someday they will find out more about it, but what does it matter? The irregularity is in asking the question.

The idea of a single gene so oversimplifies the issue as to be meaningless.