Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 146 posts

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#61

Post by zer00eyz »

flukus wrote: post #32
peatmoss wrote: post #5

Wow, the bioethical implications of potentially identifying the mechanism of sexual orientation are staggering. I wonder if / how long it will be before parents have the technical means—if not the legal right—to alter their child to be gay or straight through gene therapy. Or even simply selectively bring to term one orientation or the other.

It's interesting how the timing has an effect on the ethical implications as well. If we had this technology 50 years ago it would be a clear cut case of selecting the straight genes only. This discovery coming now means that the debate could go the other way (no interfering). Much of the world is also less friendly to homosexuality, to put it lightly. I wonder if they will eliminate it entirely?

In 1974 the book "The Forever War" was published that had a take on this (granted in a round about way). Roe V Wade (legalizing abortion in the USA) is 1973.

I think that 50 years ago "homosexuality" would not have been "preventable" at least in the US.

However those who were untreatable were not treated kindly - it is still the era of institutionalization. We probably would have had a far more horrific solution to the precived problem than the one you suggest.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#62

Post by gh02t »

brucephillips wrote: post #53
gh02t wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't determine everything is my point. Environment paired with genetics has a strong (sometimes overwhelming) influence on the decisions you make for sure, and they make many decisions harder or easier, but you still maintain the ability to choose. Free will isn't the ability to make any choice without external influences, it's just that you have a choice at all.

What are you calling a choice? Are you simply saying that people act? Then yes, that's of course tautologically true.

It's more that I'm saying humans have agency (in the philosophical meaning of the word). You can't know with 100% certainty what a person will do, even with perfect knowledge of everything about them. You can predict with very high confidence, but never certainty, because people can (and occasionally do) act randomly.

That said, I do believe that people are more or less the sum of their parts and I accept that genetics are especially important. However, there are always people who defy expectations. I just don't except that it is a totally deterministic connection.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#63

Post by nikolay »

Afforess wrote: post #4

I suspect that as we come to better understand genetics, we (as a society) are going to be more and more uncomfortable with the findings that we uncover. Physics and mathematics have made it long since clear that the universe is deterministic, that all the answers lie in the genes and atoms and equations we are made up of. The implications of this are dire - our society is built on exactly the opposite foundations; l…

Here's what I don't get: we glorify the Theory of Evolution and science in general, but at the same time we let politics and activism get involved. So, which of these is true, at the end, when we remove politics from our decision: homosexuality is a) "nature (not a disorder)", b) "nature (disorder)", or c) "nurture"? In addition to removing politics, let's remove emotions before answering. Science doesn't and shouldn't care if its conclusions are easy to digest or what we expect.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#64

Post by gh02t »

md224 wrote: post #58
brucephillips wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you calling a choice? Are you simply saying that people act? Then yes, that's of course tautologically true.

I think we just have an unbridgeable gap of beliefs here: one of you believes that they are the ultimate author of their own words and actions, that their experience of making decisions should be taken as strong evidence that they are in fact making decisions, and that any theory that denied this fact would be in need of revision. The other believes that the scientific enterprise has conclusively disproven the possib…

Not quite, at least in my case. Like I said I do think that people mostly are the sum of their parts. It's just that for me, the possibility that anyone can escape their circumstances makes it irrational (as well as immoral) to totally exclude a class of people based on characteristics like genetics. The ultimate debate is on sociological reflexivity, and I don't believe that someone's behavior can ever be totally deterministically predicted, analogous to how certain physical phenomena like radioactive decay are truly random.

Which is not what the other comment was saying I don't think, but the parent comment was.

Edit to add: and even if human behavior was actually a deterministic function of their history it'd surely be a chaotic system. I can't say I really see much difference in that case.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#65

Post by exclusiv »

brucephillips wrote: post #40
gh02t wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I don't know if you want to take it quite that far. Your genes might predispose you towards one path or another, but there is still free will involved. Complex sociological events like someone committing a criminal act can't just be reduced to "their genes made them do it." There are other factors involved and they are far more complex than what can be reduced to simple genetics. I think sexual orientation is pro…

> Your genes might predispose you towards one path or another, but there is still free will involved. Genetic determinism is not the same as free will. Our genes don't determine everything, but together with our environment, they do.

I believe in free will but I think it's possible it doesn't exist at a 100% level in practice as you allude to with genes, environment, history, brain chemistry, etc. If you imagined free will as Madden football awareness ratings, some will be close to 100 but many others will be a lot lower.

So sane people aren't incapable of making the right choice but they are incapable of doing as reliably as others across multiple scenarios over time because there are a lot of other factors at play than being human and having free will.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#66

Post by quantumofmalice »

zer00eyz wrote: post #26
peatmoss wrote: post #5

Wow, the bioethical implications of potentially identifying the mechanism of sexual orientation are staggering. I wonder if / how long it will be before parents have the technical means—if not the legal right—to alter their child to be gay or straight through gene therapy. Or even simply selectively bring to term one orientation or the other.

In reading your comment I was struck by the dilemma that this reality would bring. Those most opposed to homosexuality are those most opposed to terminating pregnancy (mostly). It would create quite a quandary for folks who are inclined to hold these two beliefs.

By HN standards I would be considered opposed to homosexuality and I am opposed to abortion.

The idea of aborting a baby due to their likely sexuality is as horrifying to me as sex-selective abortion. I don't view this as a quandry whatsoever.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#67

Post by zer00eyz »

quantumofmalice wrote: post #66
zer00eyz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reading your comment I was struck by the dilemma that this reality would bring. Those most opposed to homosexuality are those most opposed to terminating pregnancy (mostly). It would create quite a quandary for folks who are inclined to hold these two beliefs.

By HN standards I would be considered opposed to homosexuality and I am opposed to abortion. The idea of aborting a baby due to their likely sexuality is as horrifying to me as sex-selective abortion. I don't view this as a quandry whatsoever.

Thanks for your candor:

Since were in the realm of hypothetical, I would like to ask you a question.

If we manage to identify homosexuality as a genetic disorder, and we determined that there was a 99.999% chance that your children would be homosexual, what would you do?

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#68

Post by [deleted] »

gh02t wrote: post #64
md224 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we just have an unbridgeable gap of beliefs here: one of you believes that they are the ultimate author of their own words and actions, that their experience of making decisions should be taken as strong evidence that they are in fact making decisions, and that any theory that denied this fact would be in need of revision. The other believes that the scientific enterprise has conclusively disproven the possib…

Not quite, at least in my case. Like I said I do think that people mostly are the sum of their parts. It's just that for me, the possibility that anyone can escape their circumstances makes it irrational (as well as immoral) to totally exclude a class of people based on characteristics like genetics. The ultimate debate is on sociological reflexivity, and I don't believe that someone's behavior can ever be totally de…

[deleted]

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#69

Post by throwacide »

md224 wrote: post #43
throwacide wrote: post #31

I gave my saliva to 23andme two years ago. I’ve been suicidal my whole life. If genetic markers for suicidal tendencies are discovered in the future, can they use my stored sample to assist in such studies?

> I’ve been suicidal my whole life. That’s pretty intense. Have you tried medication or therapy? Or anything else?

That’s not really important. What is important is that they receive data about the suicidality, because it is inevitable that a large percentage of people like me who are long term suicidal will not have documented it with a medical professional. And, due to privacy laws, it’s difficult to say whether that data if it did exist with a medical professional would make it to 23 and me for them to be able to make such a correlation. I would presume that they may be able to and for or data mine from articles if I were to commit suicide for instance bud
Post reply on HN