There's no 'gay gene,' but genetics are linked to same-sex behavior, new study says

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Washington Post

Health
There's no 'gay gene,' but genetics are linked to same-sex behavior, new study says

By Lindsey Bever
August 29 at 2:00 PM

There is no one gene that determines a person's sexual orientation, but genetics -- along with environment -- play a part in shaping sexuality, a massive new study shows. ... Researchers analyzed DNA from hundreds of thousands of people and found that there are a handful of genes clearly connected with same-sex sexual behavior. The researchers say that, although variations in these genes cannot predict whether a person is gay, these variants may partly influence sexual behavior.

Andrea Ganna, lead author and European Molecular Biology Laboratory group leader at the Institute of Molecular Medicine in Finland, said the research reinforces the understanding that same-sex sexual behavior is simply "a natural part of our diversity as a species." ... The new study, published Thursday in the journal Science, is not the first to explore the link between genetics and same-sex behavior, but it is the largest of its kind, and experts say it provides one of the clearest pictures of genes and sexuality.

Ganna, who is also an instructor at Massachusetts General and Harvard, and an international team of scientists examined data from more than 470,000 people in the United States and the United Kingdom to see whether certain genetic markers in their DNA were linked to their sexual behavior. Specifically, the researchers used data from the UK Biobank study and from the private genomics company 23andMe, which included their DNA data and responses to questions about sexual behaviors, sexual attraction and sexual identity.

More than 26,000 participants reported at least one sexual encounter with someone of the same sex. Earlier studies, the researchers said, weren't large enough to reveal the subtle effects of individual genes. ... The researchers were able to find five genetic variants that were statistically associated with same-sex sexual behaviors, but none had a large effect and none could itself predict same-sex behaviors. One of the variants was found in a stretch of DNA that includes several genes related to the sense of smell. And another one of the genes is related to male pattern baldness, which the authors said could suggest that sex hormone regulation may somehow be involved.
....

Lindsey Bever is a general assignment reporter for The Washington Post, covering national news with an emphasis on health. She was previously a reporter at the Dallas Morning News. Follow https://twitter.com/lindseybever

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/08/29/theres-no-gay-gene-genetics-are-linked-same-sex-behavior-new-study-says/

---

Genetics are linked to same-sex behavior, but there is no 'gay gene,' massive new study says

Link to tweet

-- -- -- -- --

STUDY: Many Genes Influence Same-Sex Attractions

https://www.joemygod.com/2019/08/study-many-genes-influence-same-sex-attractions/

-- -- -- -- --

brooklynite has it in GD too, posted at 2:33 p.m. I didn't see it in a search.

There's no 'gay gene,' but genetics are linked to same-sex behavior, new study says

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212419804

[qazplm135]

1. sexual response is an autonomic function

so if you get aroused looking at a woman, or a man, or both, that's not a conscious decision...which tells me it's clearly biological, which tells me it's genetic.

[wasupaloopa]

2. Suppose what it tells is something different? We don't know enough as the

study shows.

What we do know we pay 23&me so they can give your data to anyone with the price.

I don’t know for sure but I think none of us did research in this area.

[qazplm135]

4. you can't think your way to an autonomic response

you can't condition it or condition it away. It just is, and you just are.

We don't know PRECISELY how it works, just like we don't know PRECISELY what's behind gravity.

But we know enough to know it's genetic and probably epigenetic but it's most definitely biological and not nurture and certainly not "a choice."

[Mosby]

10. It could be the mother's genetics

Which could affect prenatal androgenization.

[Igel]

12. It's certainly alterable.

As seen by the varying sexually attractive norms over time. They vary; they're not genetic, or at least not purely genetic. That's the claim of the article--they influence behavior.

"Not a conscious decision" is also a non-starter. Examine any discussion of implicit bias. Studies that looked at fMRI responses and found a skew based on the race of the stimuli (i.e., pictures) pointed to completely non-conscious. Rather than say, "The response must be rooted in genetics"--a horrible conclusion akin to the worst racialist theories from the late 1800s--they merely said, "conditioned."

Notice that the pictures produced some very clear responses--increased adrenalin, blood pressure, heart rate. Yet nobody wants to say (let's aver) that whites are genetically biased against blacks. And for those few that want to believe such nonsense, note that the studies showed black subjects had the same response when shown the same stimuli.

[qazplm135]

13. you are adding in

being physically attracted to a gender is different from racial attraction. Just because you are attracted to some women does not mean you are attracted to all women.

There's nothing "racialist" about saying it's rooted in genetics. Race is "rooted in genetics" too but it's also a fairly meaningless thing overall, certainly compared to sexuality.

You cannot palate swap race and sexuality here. Completely different things.

[Ramsey Barner]

14. Nothing in an organism is all genetic or all environmental.

Organisms are formed by a complex interplay between genes and the environment. In other words, if something is biological, it's neither all genetic or all environmental.

[qazplm135]

15. as I said in another post..

certainly epigenetics can come into play but it's not environmental in the sense that upbringing makes you sexually attracted to a woman or a man.

It may be that some environmental factor triggers a gene, but it still requires a gene to be triggered in the first place.
One can act any way they want. But they cannot, for example, will their penis to get hard at something they are not at a base level aroused by.

Which is one of the reasons of course why gender and sexuality are different things.

So it may not be "all" genetic thanks to epigenetics, but genetics is at the base of sexual attraction. Certainly how people otherwise choose to express their gender may or may not be genetic (although I suspect it is similar to sexual attraction).

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Meh.

Genetic factors, no doubt. I guess some will be saddened that no "Twilight of the Golds" can ever take place, they'll have to settle for the old-fashioned ways of ridding themselves of us -- disenfranchisement, abuse, and murder.

I hope people read the entire article because it, once again, demonstrates some cannot or do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual activity. I also find it interesting that the 'influence' of "environment" is not quite what one would think.

Previous studies have suggested that sexual orientation and same-sex behaviors may be, at least in part, genetic. For instance, research has shown patterns in families with multiple men in the same family identifying as gay. There is some evidence of a correlation between left-handedness and same-sex attraction, and left-handedness has both genetic and environmental influences. Environmental effects may be a factor for some people; for instance, having older brothers increases the odds that younger brothers will be gay, which researchers suspect may have to do with changes to the mother’s immune system in response to the earlier pregnancies.

So, yes, there is sexual diversity among people and it is good to acknowledge this, and it is helpful, I guess, that there are genetic components because this can be used to combat the idea of same-sex attraction is "unnatural".

[qazplm135]

5. I suspect environment is more about epigenetics

turning on or off genes via environmental stimuli.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. Agreed.

However, I would wager most would not think of it in those terms, but rather look at "environment" as being "how they were raised" or "who they came in contact with".

[qazplm135]

8. no doubt

then again ignorance in general and ignorance about science specifically is widespread.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Wow, you nailed it with your comment!

It is really scary how ignorance of science has been raised to a new height, thanks in large part, to the POS currently squatting in the WH and his enablers, including the media.

[YOHABLO]

21. Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Martin Luther King Jr.

[paleotn]

18. Indeed. The language needs to be more precise.

What the researchers are referring to when they mention environment is primarily the complex dance of hormones and other biochemicals in utero, affecting gene expression and gene expression affecting the extracellular environment. It's wondrously complex. But without clear language it's easy to misunderstand. Or....purposefully misunderstand when it comes to homophobes. I suspect they've already picked up on this vague mention of "environment" and are going to run with it in 3...2...1...ugh!

[LiberalFighter]

6. I would say environment would be a factor too along with DNA.

Just as a person is attracted to someone they are not attracted to others.

[qazplm135]

16. There's a difference between

having a sweet tooth, and liking everything that happens to have sugar in it.

[ck4829]

11. Things like gay and straight are ultimately social constructs. So this makes sense.

[backtoblue]

17. All this shows me is

Eugenics + religious +power+ money is a REALLY BAD idea... Imagine they find a way to mess with the "gay" gene and decide for the sake of ridding tha homos.. I'm in a dark mood. Sorry

[paleotn]

19. Fortunately, messing with human behavior

is vastly more complex than giving someone red or blond hair through genetic manipulation. Then again, it may not matter. These are rich, evil religo-nuts we're talking about, with limited understanding of science. They still think there's a "then there was magic!" step between fertilization and fetal heartbeat.

[backtoblue]

20. Exactly

IMO, the fascist/religious extremist are too fucking stupid to see the beauty in these findings.

Instead they will stop at NOTHING to fund scientists to come up with the "cure" for homosexually.

[Buckeyeblue]

22. Human sexuality is quite interesting

I think humans are very sexually fluid because we have sex because it feels good. We've attached societal conditions around sex, such as sex should only be between married couples or sex is a form of love. The reality is, sex is biology. And for humans it goes beyond reproductive biology.

[Sparky 1]

23. If we're going for genetic manipulation, haters need a MYOB gene.