21–30 of 495 posts
Not an expert here but, IF a gay gene existed, wouldn't have it been evolved into extinction?
Not necessarily, as long as it's recessive. Not an expert either here though.
I've pointed out on other HN threads that homosexuality has much lower concordance in identical twins (around 40%) than almost any other trait, making it an especially unlikely candidate for direct genetic causes.
An argument for gay rights has been that people are "born that way". That appears to be false. Does this suggest that it may be possible to shape the environment to reduce the incidence of homosexuality? I wonder if societal normalization of homosexuality through the recognition of same-sex marriage, Pride Month, and LGBTQ clubs in schools and colleges have increased its incidence, and if the same is true for transgenderism.
Not an expert here but, IF a gay gene existed, wouldn't have it been evolved into extinction?
If such a gene existed (which perhaps it doesn't), it might benefit families who had members carrying it.
This is the same reason some species have evolved alarm-calling when a predator is nearby. It benefits the collective (who share the gene), but at an obvious detriment to the individual's ability to pass on their genes in this case.
I thought they determined already it was a hormone released in the womb during pregnancy, similar to left-handedness. That’s how you can get identical twins, but one is straight and the other is gay.
Not an expert here but, IF a gay gene existed, wouldn't have it been evolved into extinction?
Honest question: what is being gay? Is it physical attraction? Emotional attraction? Both? Is it dislike, fear(?) of opposite sex?
Honestly i have no idea but this might be one of the last places left on the internet you can ask a question like this without getting dogpiled.
I've batted for both teams in my life and i still can't tell you.
In terms of XY exclusively-gay, I think epigenetic is still the leading hypothesis and not genetic by itself. It would be interesting to learn how the genetics set-us up for epigenetic influences.
Other non-heterosexual and flexible sexualities for XX and XY seem more fluid and complicated to unpack. For example, I am unsure what proportion of lesbians are gold star and cannot be aroused at all by males, but I suspect it is low.
A lot of the search for a gay gene seems trapped in an outdated understanding of sexuality as a binary proposition: "you're either A or B." How do you even begin to contemplate a study on sexuality once you understand it as highly varied and fluid? Same with gender. They're bimodal distributions at best . You can't just crop off the confounding valleys and call what you do with them good science.