Why Does the Search for a Gay Gene Freak Everyone Out?

[DonViejo]

By Tim Spector

Why does a “gay gene” paper still cause a stir? A similar paper on any other topic would probably have passed unnoticed. But this is sex research—where public interest is huge but real funds and real science are very scarce and stories get recycled.

A study that is not even yet a paper was presented in preliminary form on Valentine’s Day by sex researcher Mike Bailey at a conference in Chicago. It said there is a genetic component to homosexuality. In fact, the study of 400 pairs of brothers where at least one was gay confirmed a smaller, controversial study from 20 years before and several twin studies in between. (The 1993 study led the Daily Mail to run one of its most infamous headlines: “Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding.”)

The Bailey paper claims to have found large segments of chromosomes containing hundreds of genes that are common in gay men. The researchers admitted they couldn’t find any specific “gay genes.”

Last year, a paper in a relatively obscure journal also caused a public stir for saying just the opposite. The authors came up with a complicated biological explanation for why gay men have more female relatives, tend to have older brothers, and why it involves testosterone in the womb and runs in families. Controversially, they said it wasn’t due to their genes but to small chemical signals that alter the genes (called epigenetics), which can pass from one generation to the next, and had some (unclear) evolutionary advantage.

more
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/18/gay_gene_research_why_does_it_make_people_freak_out.html?

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Twilight of the Golds

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Of course, but I'm adding a link, I doubt the great minds of DU know that or any other play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_of_the_Golds

[geek tragedy]

2. here's a few:

1) behavior as complex as sexuality is not going to be located in a single gene. eye color isn't even on the same gene;
2) do we really want to have people getting tested for the 'gay gene' prior to marriage, etc? Would we want embryos tested?
3) why aren't people looking for the 'heterosexual gene' instead?

[belcffub]

5. The Heterosexual gene...

If you found the "gay gene" wouldn't you have found the "heterosexual gene"? I do agree that its over simplifying things though...

[geek tragedy]

7. they're looking for homosexuality as the exception--the abnormality.

I just don't see the productive use for this information--the people who think it's a choice are going to continue to believe so.

[Wounded Bear]

3. Well, it strikes me as the whole "you can't have it both ways" argument...

If people are truly "born gay" (which I think is true) then there must be a genetic cause of it, whether it be genes, or complex epigenetic chemistry or whatever.

I tend to be of the opinion that neither gender nor sexuality is as black/white-either/or as many on the extremes of opinion seem to think and there are complex nature/nurture issues to be explored here.

There is the fear-probably with some reason-that people will start to abort children who show the "gay gene" should it exist, which follows the "gender specific" abortions we hear about from RW extremists. That would be a deplorable result TBS.

[Blue_Tires]

12. +1...I predict the science will show how many happily hetero people have it

(ala how many Caucasian people have some trace of African DNA) and people are not ready to deal with that reality...

And you're right about it not being a strict black/white issue, as well...Years ago I remember scientist advancing the theory that very, very few people are 100% gay or 100% hetero...The vast majority of people are in the 80/20 or 70/30 split...

[dilby]

4. It's a waste of money, what will it prove?

Besides I think there is more involved than a single gene, there are instances where you have identical twins where one is gay and the other is not, they should have identical genes.

[justiceischeap]

6. I think there are two issues at stake here

The first being that if people are found to be born gay, well, the religious will have to admit God made the gays that way. That takes a lot of wind out of their sails.

The second, some gay folks fear that we'll be "culled" genetically so to speak. How many people would get rid of their children if they could test for the "gay gene?"

[geek tragedy]

8. on point one, they don't believe in evolution or global warming

genome sequencing won't convince them to abandon their bigotry

[One_Life_To_Give]

9. Potential Harm

Assuming a physical cause is found, then what? Do we find parents screening fetus's for it? Will there be a search for a "cure" to make everyone straight? And when we find someone who identifies Gay but lacks the physical marker? What then?

Mostly it's a case of little to gain and fear of alot to loose.

[LittleBlue]

10. I would love to find a gay gene

It would be conclusive proof to the religious homophobic types that homosexuality isn't a choice to sin, but that God did indeed create gay people. And since people are created in God's own image, this would cause many heads to explode (Bill Donahue, Pat Robertson, etc)

[Behind the Aegis]

17. They's have to believe in science first. 6000 years later, and they still don't!

[AngryAmish]

11. It is the same reason people get freaked about sex-selective abortion

If a mother wants to test an embryo for anything, it is her choice. Except her doctor no one has literally anything to say about it.

[dipsydoodle]

13. I have no idea

Maybe one day everyone will have the gene, women will all be infertile and that will be the end of the story.

In other words.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Any author who can pick that title while his text quotes the headline '“Abortion hope after 'gay gen

is clearly not of full cognitive capacity. He seriously sees no connection? Not to mention that 'science' in Africa just told the Ugandan government they need to attack gay people because we are defective and curable, and this author is not speaking against that, but instead asking 'why are straight scientists not trusted?'. This stooge comes from a field that spent most of history calling gay people sick and doing 'water cures' and 'electrical shock therapies'.
What a self important fuck this guy is.

[LuvNewcastle]

16. I think it's hilarious. Are people getting paid for this?

To take something as complex as sexuality and try to codify it with a gene is a ridiculous enterprise. When I think of all the little things in my life that had an impact on my sexuality, I realize just how random life is. And that's just the things my conscious mind picked up. Who my parents were, how I was raised, the people I knew, they all had an affect on me. All the random occurrences that we all experienced. I'm in awe. When they count all the stars in the sky, they'll know how many factors go into making a person's sexuality.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. I want to know where they get their funding. I need some for my important research.

Is water wet?

I could really use the scratch.

[LuvNewcastle]

19. I never ceased to be amazed at the useless shit people pour money into.

Why can't it be us? Give me a grant so I can figure out why my apartment is messy.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. You and I'd be fighting over that grant!

It does seem there is some really stupid shit out there being "studied."

[closeupready]

21. Eugenics gets popular support even on this board.

Typically, it's in reference to people like Octomom or the Duggards.

Eugenics is ugly stuff, in any case.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Whether biological, psychological, or by choice, it's still their business and their right.

[William769]

23. Simple answer

It would show that it's not a choice.

[Vashta Nerada]

24. Eugenics.