Live data from Hacker News

The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

nature.com

101–110 of 495 posts

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#101
post #3

A lot of the search for a gay gene seems trapped in an outdated understanding of sexuality as a binary proposition: "you're either A or B." How do you even begin to contemplate a study on sexuality once you understand it as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.

I mean, yes, of course. But the fact that it's not fluid in so many individuals is part of what fascinates me! The supposed binary split is not real of course, but you note yourself a rather strong bimodal distribution. And that distribution is itself, fascinating and hard to explain.

I am gay, and I have been since I hit puberty. It's completely stable, a fixed personality trait my whole life. It's so... exact. That one little thing, completely inverted from a good majority of men. It's like someone flipped one little switch, that affected only that, at least as far as I can tell.

Bisexuality or pansexuality or whatever you want to call it, on the other hand, seems to fit many of the proposed origins, far better than exclusive homosexuality would. E.g., fuzzy pattern matching gone awry for finding a suitable mate, triggering a bunch of false matches. But it's not like that. It's very precise. That has always struck me as ever so strange.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#102
post #51

Honest question: what is being gay? Is it physical attraction? Emotional attraction? Both? Is it dislike, fear(?) of opposite sex?

I would suggest asking yourself "what is being straight?", assuming that you identify as such.

It's more like not having a deficiency in perceiving the full spectrum of colours; or having a difference in spectrum deficiency.

If you can't see red, then I'm going to have a tough time explaining red to you.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#103
post #2

Not an expert here but, IF a gay gene existed, wouldn't have it been evolved into extinction?

The trouble with that argument is that it also works with, "If there was a genetic cause for shortsightedness, why is it still around?" "If there was such a thing as a genetic disease, why haven't they evolved out?" "If not having X-ray vision was genetic, wouldn't the absence of X-ray vision have been selected out?" You really can't expect evolution to accomplish its "goals," per se. It is sort of a gentle flow down…

"If there was a genetic cause for shortsightedness, why is it still around?" - because myopia doesn't significantly affect your chances to produce offsprings.

It seems reasonable that being gay does significantly reduce your ability to have children; therefore it is reasonable to expect that if it was an inheritable trait it would have been selected against.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#104
post #2

Not an expert here but, IF a gay gene existed, wouldn't have it been evolved into extinction?

The trouble with that argument is that it also works with, "If there was a genetic cause for shortsightedness, why is it still around?" "If there was such a thing as a genetic disease, why haven't they evolved out?" "If not having X-ray vision was genetic, wouldn't the absence of X-ray vision have been selected out?" You really can't expect evolution to accomplish its "goals," per se. It is sort of a gentle flow down…

Not really. Say I'm shortsighted, and still a potential mating partner due to a variety of other traits (being a billionaire, or looking suspiciously similar to Ryan Gosling). In that case, I would be able to transmit my genes to my eventual offspring.

The case with gay genes is different. Regardless of any other trait, I'm genetically prone to not have any offspring. Thus, eventually my genes would be less and less common.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#105
post #51

Honest question: what is being gay? Is it physical attraction? Emotional attraction? Both? Is it dislike, fear(?) of opposite sex?

I would suggest asking yourself "what is being straight?", assuming that you identify as such.

I can certainly interpolate my personal experiences but I'm afraid I would miss something. Also, doing so would not explain this:

Why some people dress or act similar to opposite sex to appear attractive to someone of the same sex? I mean, voice gestures etc. Hm...I should not said act, it's likely their trait. Anyway, why would someone who is gay be attracted to that person rather than opposite sex. I think sexuality is quite more fluid and calling someone gay does not mean much beyond 'not straight'.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#106
i dont get it. whats the problem with accepting that homosexuality might have traits other than where people want to put their genitalia. perhaps its about sending information down via genes and culture? seems homosexuals are amazingly beautiful at generating art and cracking nazi spy codes. maybe their families have other genes and we are just focusing on the whole where people put their genitalia thing vs the "wow maybe gays have a lot to contribute with, you know, just as women or men who are sterile." still find it hilarious that people have been obsessing about this since i was born and longer. accepting homosexuality took me like 1 minute. 45 seconds of laughing at two genitals of the same kind not fitting, and 15 thinking about i love my friend and i want her to be happy because she deserves to feel loved the way she needs too.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#107

I'd definitely be surprised if a significant portion of homosexuality wasn't environmental, but to my knowledge there is a degree of heritability shown in twin studies. Actually reading the article shows that they found several genes that each contribute, but no single gene. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone, considering that almost every complex trait is somewhat affected by a huge number of genes each tweaking…

Remember that heritability is a measure of a population, not an individual. So you're measuring the amount that genes vs environment contributes to a trait within that population. It's not an absolute number.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#108
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be ideal, but some people need to be convinced that it is not a choice before they will consider treating gay people with respect. So long as they think it's just a behavioral decision, they can rationalize their bigotry.

If anything this headline means the opposite, right? That you are not born a homosexual, at least from a genetic perspective.

It is much more nuanced than that.

What they found was 5 areas of the genome that had predictive potential for people being gay or straight. Combined, they were able to predict about 25% of what makes someone gay. The other 75% is environmental.

Note that some "environmental factors" may still be genetic in nature. For example there is strong evidence in animals that the prenatal environment has an impact on homosexual behavior. Which means that a mother's genetics can be correlated with her children's sexuality. Therefore a gene could impact homosexuality through changing the environment in the mother's womb. In that case the child having that gene would be correlated with the child being homosexual and the gene would show up in this study. But the differences between the child's genetics and the mother's would be an environmental factor.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#109

Kind of hopeful we can stop using genetics as a way of justifying queer peoples' existence. Whether it's conditioning, a choice, or genetics, shouldn't really be a factor in how you treat queer people.

If you want people to be treated equally, wouldn't you want their existence to be justified?

It's difficult to think of a PC analogy here, so maybe... super villain mind control device strapped to someone's head. Provably unjustified behaviors due to the mind control device implies the ethical thing to do is try to remove the device. Treating someone normally implies an implicit belief that they're normal. Sound biological evidence that being queer is just how some people are feels like the best way to reinforce that belief and remove requirements for heteronormativity.

Re: The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality (2019)

#110

"Ganna and his colleagues also used the analysis to estimate that up to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors — a figure similar to the findings of smaller studies." 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…

Others are pointing out that non-genetic biological factors (e.g. prenatal hormones) can still mean that a person's sexuality could still be determined (or significantly predisposed) at birth.

And others are pointing out that gay people shouldn't need to argue that they were born gay, with the implication that if a choice were possible there would be a right or a wrong choice justifying marginalization or shaming or discrimination.

But I think it's worth flipping around: What is the source of some people's persistent desire to legislate, regulate, punish, mock or vilify other people's loving relationships? Whenever I encounter this behavior in others, I hope that it's just a phase that they'll grow out of. I worry that they'll pass these traits on to kids by modeling their behavior in public. I'm guessing the cause is cultural. I wonder if it can be fixed.

Post reply on HN