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

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

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 495 posts

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

#141

Post by Brian_K_White »

sjg007 wrote: post #138
readams wrote: post #53

It's unlikely there's a gene that codes for being gay. Homosexuality instead is better thought of as more like why men have nipples. Obviously the nipples are not useful to the reproductive success of men, but genetics and natural selection are messy and there's likely no easy path to not having them in men while maintaining their function in women. For homosexuality, the systems of sexual attraction in the brain nee…

Umm... Men have nipples because they form before sexual differentiation occurs.

I don't see how this makes their illustration invalid.

This is, or could be, just the how not the why.

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

#142

Post by klmadfejno »

bonoetmalo wrote: post #132
klmadfejno wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 biol…

I acknowledge this is the prerequisite a lot of people need to justify queer peoples' existence. > wouldn't you want their existence to be justified In my ideal world, I would want my existence to be justified even if I 100% chose to be bisexual, gay, trans, etc. So yes, I do want it to be justified, but I don't want genetics to be the justification.

Hmm, maybe this is a pointless semantic argument, but being justified by a choice sounds like its just passing the ball to justification for the choice. In a world where identity is proven to be 100% just a choice, that sounds like its not justified, and while not deserving of discrimination, to some extent committed to being non-normative.

This paper suggests genetics control at least 25% of variance in sexual orientation. We know hormone profiles control another decently large proportion. Are you saying you are upset that deterministic factors cause queer identities? or are you trying to say you wish a deterministic factor for queer identities wasn't necessary for equal treatment?

The first feels strange, the latter makes a lot of sense.

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

#143

Post by Aeronwen »

Udik wrote: post #60

> The study authors also point out that they followed convention for genetic analyses by dropping from their study people whose biological sex and self-identified gender did not match. As a result, the work doesn’t include sexual and gender minorities (the LGBTQ community) such as transgender people and intersex people. I don't get it, isn't this the whole point of the study? The G in LGBTQ stands for "gay", did they…

Narrowing things down is easier when you control for one aspect instead of multiple ones.

If, hypothetically, being trans inverted the expression of the gene for being gay, you'd have a harder time finding the gene until you accounted for it. By eliminating the possibility, you make it easier to find the gene you're looking for.

If you can't find the gene in the smaller pool of subjects, you weren't going to find it in the larger one. But if you did find it, you can learn how it affects everyone in a different study.

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

#144

Post by Brian_K_White »

lultimouomo wrote: post #96
creata wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common analogy here is that in lots of insects, you see whole groups of non-reproductive members, and yet the idea of a "non-reproductive worker insect" hasn't "evolved into extinction." (I'm not commenting on whether being gay has a genetic basis or whether it's an example of kin selection, because honestly, I have no idea.)

The point is that non-reproductive insects don't have specific set of genes that make them non-reproductive - it is not an inheritable trait. If it was, then it would have evolved into extinction.

Of course they do (have genes that make them non-reproductive) and of course it hasn't (evolved out of extinction).

There is nothing about a possible genetic basis (whether complex and indirect or simple and direct) for an individuals non-reproductiveness that implies it has to result in extiguishing itself.

Humans are social enough that genetics which benefit the group at the expense of the individual are perfectly selectable.

Heck it even works for utterly antisocial species.

All that's required for a trait to persist is for it to be good for any members by any means. It doesn't have to be good for the individual carrier, and it doesn't have to be good in a way that we happen to understand.

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

#145

Post by Brian_K_White »

ohduran wrote: post #104
whatshisface wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Incorrect.

All that's required for a trait to persist is that it benefits the pool.

If the pool benefits from have 1% of members being blind, then so they shall be.

We don't have to understand the benefit for it to exist either.

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

#146

Post by smnthermes »

There's a theory* that says things like autism, creative genius and homosexuality are caused by suppression of innate characteristics of our species. If so, then it makes sense why there isn't a "gay gene", since there aren't also specific genes for more than 90% of autistics.

* https://archive.is/BsxMm

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

#147

Post by Brian_K_White »

lultimouomo wrote: post #103
whatshisface wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Everyone keeps saying that, but it's simply not true.

We have understood how this is not true for decades or even hundreds of years, and it's not even some impossible concept to grasp.

All that's required for a trait to persist, is for it to benefit the pool, not the individual.

The only way the seemingly obvious but incorrect idea you descibed applies is, a trait which is good for the group at the expense of the individual, if it's 100% effective like sterility unlike say alarm-calling which merely carries a risk for the individual, is that such a trait can never grow to where all members exhibit it.

But it can absolutely be strongly selected for maintaining whatever the optimal percentage is. IE, if it benefits the pool for 10% of members to be sterile, then the percentage of sterile members will not decrease through the mechanism you and so many imagine, but will stay at 10% for as long as the benefit exists.

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

#148

Post by Brian_K_White »

nabla9 wrote: post #32
ohduran wrote: post #2

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

Not necessarily. * the same gene can have different phenotypes in different individuals. One phenotype may be net negative but the benefit from the other makes it net positive. * in social animal gene can be carried by relatives. Extreme example is ants and bees, most of them are not fertile but they help to spread their genes by helping those who are.

More than just that, as far as I can see, there is no reason this only applies to social species.

If it benefits the pool that x% of members have a trait, even full sterility, then the genetics will result in x% having that trait, as long as the benefit continues to exist.

I'm not sure what an example mechanism might be for some mountain cats or spiders or whatever that the species benefits from 4% of their members being sterile, but I see no reason that there couldn't be one, and it doesn't require the unfortunate exhibitors of the trait to preserve and occasionally produce the next exhibitor of the trait.

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

#149

Post by est31 »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #94

People latched onto the idea that sexuality is genetically determined because it seemed like the only viable way to defend themselves against rampant religious bigotry and oppression. It was a rope dangling into the well you were trapped in, and the well was filling with acid, but if you could just manage to climb that rope then you'd make it out. The reasoning went something like "if I can prove that sexuality is ge…

I agree that one shouldn't support the genetic predetermination theory of sexuality just as a defense for oppression. That's not how science should be done.

That being said, I still doubt that people really have a choice over their sexuality. Otherwise there would be far more stories from people who have "successfully" turned straight or something, instead of stories from people who have tried to suppress their true sexuality for years and who just turned sad in the process.

It might not be genetically determined, but there are so many more immutable determinants to our behaviour that are outside of our control. The brain is a giant state machine and not all of that is plastic all of the time. It might be determined before you are even born, in the womb. It might be determined in your first few years of life. Or it might actually be genetically determined but through a complex interplay from multiple genes, something that our statistical tools can't catch yet, especially as we don't have an objective measure for gayness. Last, there might be multiple ways someone turns gay.

Post reply on HN