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

451–460 of 495 posts

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

#451

Post by Bostonian »

dang wrote: post #421
Bostonian wrote: post #22

"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…

Would you please stop posting generic ideological flamewar comments to HN? You've gone to this, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26056636 , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26055100 , and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26054989 just in the last 24 hours. That's way over the top. We ban accounts that use HN primarily for ideological battle, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.htm…

OK.

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

#452

Post by yters »

memling wrote: post #445
yters wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus it doesn't make sense from a Christian perspective. The Roman Catholic branch and derivatives all believe everyone is genetically predisposed to sin through Adam's lineage, and that is a bad thing, and we don't have a choice in the matter. So saying homosexuality is a genetic predisposition just means it gets lumped into the rest of our fallen attributes. Making it a choice doesn't fix things either, since a cho…

> Plus it doesn't make sense from a Christian perspective. The Roman Catholic branch and derivatives all believe everyone is genetically predisposed to sin through Adam's lineage, and that is a bad thing, and we don't have a choice in the matter. So saying homosexuality is a genetic predisposition just means it gets lumped into the rest of our fallen attributes. Making it a choice doesn't fix things either, since a c…

Ironically, it only makes sense to say humanity is more than the body from a religious perspective. Otherwise all we have is materialism, and this we must be reducible to our matter, i.e. bodies.

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

#453

Post by rootusrootus »

dragonwriter wrote: post #374
rootusrootus wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are enough twin studies out there to rule out environmental factors as the sole cause.

Twin studies where the twins don't share gestational environment are...rare, to say the least.

Which makes them interesting when one twin is gay, and the other is not; or when comparing outcomes for monozygotic twins vs fraternal twins.

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

#454

Post by ben_w »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #429
billyruffian wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Effeminate' is an adjective of demeanor.

lol @ all these comments immediately jumping to stereotypes. My English is great but it's not my first language. What's the right word here? Feminine? "More female in brain structure"?

I’d say there is no “right word” at the moment, and the topic is a euphemism treadmill because, as with so many other disenfranchised groups, social norms have not yet universally settled onto “that’s fine, no seriously it’s fine”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill

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

#455

Post by ravi-delia »

hajile wrote: post #136
ravi-delia wrote: post #58

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…

Identical twin studies point away from genetics very hard. Pretty much all genetic anomalies will affect both identical twins 100% of the time. The fact that it's less than 40% points much more to environmental effects rather than genes.

I'd say that that's probably more than a little bit of a simplification. Sexuality is almost certainly extremely polygenetic, interacting with the environment in all sorts of miserably complicated ways. Plus, the standard twin study design winds up counting pretty much all error as environmental.

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

#456

Post by ravi-delia »

unishark wrote: post #179
ravi-delia wrote: post #58

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…

The same goes for a cause we'd consider purely environmental, such as an illness caused by an infection. There will still be lots of associated genes with small effect determining how resilient a person is to the infection. Twins share environmental causes from early stages of development (like an infection during pregnancy) so that angle gets potentially confounded too.

Twin studies typically compare identical and fraternal twins to eliminate such environmental factors (Obviously there are still errors, but they generally wind up as counting towards environmental). And of course polygenetic factors probably have a sort of necessary-but-not-sufficient type of relationship with the traits they contribute too, but that doesn't mean that anything that isn't pegged to a single gene can be thought of as environmental.

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

#457

Post by hyperpape »

nashashmi wrote: post #258
hyperpape wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "born that way" argument was always a compromise/simplification. The true argument is that gay relationships, regardless of cause, are just as worthwhile and life affirming as straight relationships. But, if you're stubborn, and refuse to acknowledge that, "they're born this way" might temporarily get you to acknowledge the absurdity of your position. It feels cruel to condemn someone for something they can't con…

If that is true then the far right are correct to say this was a lie and a hoax. We reconstructed laws and systems worldwide to make an accommodation that as per you had no genetic basis or reason. In other words, this has been the greatest fraud to humanity and all those who went down this path in belief that it was a gene they could not change.

Of course not.

1) Several other posts in this thread explain that genetics isn't the only way you can be born a certain way. The environment includes the prenatal womb. So the premise isn't false. It's part of a sound argument that you should not persecute homosexuals. It is just that the truth is that you should view homosexual relationships as the full equal of straight relationships, equally real and valuable. Once you realize that, the first argument is just a stepping stone.

2) Even more importantly, this discussion only happened because ignorant moral codes prohibited homosexuality. But such a moral principle is no better than demanding that people crack their eggs from a certain side. In fact, it's worse, because you can just switch sides of the egg with no consequences. Meanwhile, in the real world, these moral codes prevented people from experience love in peace.

You don't get to embrace an absurd and stupid moral code, then whine because someone didn't use a perfect argument to knock you out of your ignorance.

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

#458

Post by ravi-delia »

anaphor wrote: post #107
ravi-delia wrote: post #58

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.

I mean, yeah? It's still fairly strong evidence against there being literally no genetic component to homosexuality, which I definitely saw a lot of in this thread. Unless I misunderstand your comment?

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

#459

Post by ravi-delia »

coldtea wrote: post #325
jdgoesmarching wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread seems very insistent on pushing the environmental case when presented with evidence to the contrary. It’s like I stumbled into a Republican convention in the 90s. Baseless theories: people do this to feel better about LGBT discrimination or the idea of sexuality being out of our control is too scary for dudes who haven’t come to terms with their own masculinity. The latter isn’t necessarily shade, I’m not…

Hello, 1990 called. It's 2021, gender (including sexuality) is fluid. And yet, it's the other commenters who seem backwards to you?

I'm really not seeing anything in the above comment that indicates they don't see gender as fluid.

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

#460

Post by [deleted] »

rcoveson wrote: post #415
rayiner wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody here is saying that discrimination isn't wrong. But why that discrimination is wrong matters. In the west, you can appeal to notions of individual self-determination: "We shouldn't care about peoples' consenting sexual conduct." Those rationales have little meaning in Asian or African societies. That's why the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice people make one day, but is instead something they are b…

If I follow you, you're suggesting that these Asian and African societies you have in mind would be more accepting of LGBT rights if they were convinced that it was something biological and immutable. I present the counter example of birth sex, which is quite genetic and practically immutable for most people. Do those same countries afford women and men equal freedoms and opportunities, considering the biological nat…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN