If being gay was genetic, how has it not been wiped out?
Surely, if being gay was genetic, it would get wiped out because they can't reproduce.
So it a choice? Or is there more to it?
So it a choice? Or is there more to it?
Scroll to see replies
I don't think its genetic in the sense that it could be bred in or out of a population, more that its what your exposed too when you get conceived or while in the womb. Or maybe how your brain starts to get wired as you grow from a very early age.
Thats my take on it. I don't think its a choice. Touchy subject.
As a disclaimer, I'd like to point out I have nothing against gay people, Infact, three of my best friends are gay and I live with them.
Thats my take on it. I don't think its a choice. Touchy subject.
As a disclaimer, I'd like to point out I have nothing against gay people, Infact, three of my best friends are gay and I live with them.
It probably contains some genetic component but clearly that is only a small part of the picture. It's not a question of choice I don't think. Have you read the research about older brothers? Something happens inside that woman that means that if a baby boy has already had an older brother(in fact the more older brothers he has) the more likely he is to be gay. This is scientifically established.
The biological explanation is far too convenient for me. And indeed the biological evidence for homosexuality is dubious and not well founded. Until a gay gene(s) are identified no one can with certainty say either. Most people say it's a combination because it's probably the most logical explanation.
It could be a recessive trait: needing two carriers to make said homosexual baby.
Also, it is likey that, due to rampant homophobic social persecution throughout the ages, gay people still had families; forcing themselves, as to avoid stigmatisation.
Source: a clueless nonscience student!
Also, it is likey that, due to rampant homophobic social persecution throughout the ages, gay people still had families; forcing themselves, as to avoid stigmatisation.
Source: a clueless nonscience student!
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bealzibub
because they can't reproduce.
Also, some of these couples can reproduce.
The T in LGBT is there for a reason!
Genetics is a pretty complex thing. You have recessive genes, you have genes that influence more than one trait (there are very, very few bits of the human genome that can be attributed to a single trait), and so a trait that seems counter-productive can easily continue to be bred through the population.
There's also some conjecture about the "gay uncle theory", the idea that genes beneficial to a family group may be selected even though they're actually detrimental to the individual themselves.
So basically, it's entirely possible that being gay is genetic. In some ways everything we do is genetic to a certain extent. The question is how much influence genes have over adaptability.
There's also some conjecture about the "gay uncle theory", the idea that genes beneficial to a family group may be selected even though they're actually detrimental to the individual themselves.
So basically, it's entirely possible that being gay is genetic. In some ways everything we do is genetic to a certain extent. The question is how much influence genes have over adaptability.
In nature it's often that when a male ( for example a rat ) cannot mate with a female rat, that one of the two male rats starts to behave like a female,
one can see this also in human behaviour, when to males wind up liveing in a small flat togheter, soon one of the two starts to become the dominant male, and the second one starts to clean the trash up that the dominant male makes, so the in a way he starts to play the "house wife"
This might seem as a veeeery old fashion view, while i must say that i will never look with mean eyes towards a person who is gay. or will never spit on a woman.
one can see this also in human behaviour, when to males wind up liveing in a small flat togheter, soon one of the two starts to become the dominant male, and the second one starts to clean the trash up that the dominant male makes, so the in a way he starts to play the "house wife"
This might seem as a veeeery old fashion view, while i must say that i will never look with mean eyes towards a person who is gay. or will never spit on a woman.
Original post by ladybec
It's not inherited, but it's not something that you can physically control.
So it's the way you're wired, yes, but it's nothing to do with what your ancestors were.
So it's the way you're wired, yes, but it's nothing to do with what your ancestors were.
Spoiler
You say to trust you, but why? You haven't actually said how what you've claimed is true or why you believe it is.
I've read quite a lot about this in the past; it's an interesting study. One which I can actually relate with, in fact. My older brother is straight whilst I am gay.
Original post by Dez
Genetics is a pretty complex thing. You have recessive genes, you have genes that influence more than one trait (there are very, very few bits of the human genome that can be attributed to a single trait), and so a trait that seems counter-productive can easily continue to be bred through the population.
There's also some conjecture about the "gay uncle theory", the idea that genes beneficial to a family group may be selected even though they're actually detrimental to the individual themselves.
So basically, it's entirely possible that being gay is genetic. In some ways everything we do is genetic to a certain extent. The question is how much influence genes have over adaptability.
There's also some conjecture about the "gay uncle theory", the idea that genes beneficial to a family group may be selected even though they're actually detrimental to the individual themselves.
So basically, it's entirely possible that being gay is genetic. In some ways everything we do is genetic to a certain extent. The question is how much influence genes have over adaptability.
Good post. I think sexuality could be something linked in with recessive genetics. The latter part of your post is getting rather philosophical, Dez.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Reluire
You say to trust you, but why? You haven't actually said how what you've claimed is true or why you believe it is.
Just a little joke, considering (nearly) all of my extended family is straight. Anyone who I've inherited genes from is, at least.
It is genetic to a degree, not hereditary genetics so much as the way the genotype and the environment interact to form the phenotype, which is different for even genetically identical twins; my own hypothesis is that to a degree it comes down to pheromone compatibility. Because it's something I might choose to write a thesis on, it's hardly something I'm about to explain to the world yet; but random mutations may lead to certain pheromones being more attractive than others, and other mutations altering the way the brain receives these pheromones. Writing the word mutation in this context makes me cringe, there are negative connotations associated with it of course, and I don't think that homosexuals are grotesque mutants of course! They're just wired a bit differently.
Very interesting stuff in the entire thread.
From your link "According to several studies, each older brother increases a man's odds of having a homosexual orientation by 28–48%" wow those are crazy high odds, seems very unreal.
Original post by Bealzibub
Very interesting stuff in the entire thread.
From your link "According to several studies, each older brother increases a man's odds of having a homosexual orientation by 28–48%" wow those are crazy high odds, seems very unreal.
From your link "According to several studies, each older brother increases a man's odds of having a homosexual orientation by 28–48%" wow those are crazy high odds, seems very unreal.
Seems quite likely given a lot of guys I've known. Also, I've noticed my guy friends, who like me have older sister(s) (or just sisters) only being quite different to the ones with brothers only. Even the guys who are older brothers, are different socially, they hang out with guys more. Guys with sisters are more loners or.have female company more.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Alaric III
It is genetic to a degree, not hereditary genetics so much as the way the genotype and the environment interact to form the phenotype, which is different for even genetically identical twins; my own hypothesis is that to a degree it comes down to pheromone compatibility. Because it's something I might choose to write a thesis on, it's hardly something I'm about to explain to the world yet; but random mutations may lead to certain pheromones being more attractive than others, and other mutations altering the way the brain receives these pheromones. Writing the word mutation in this context makes me cringe, there are negative connotations associated with it of course, and I don't think that homosexuals are grotesque mutants of course! They're just wired a bit differently.
Seems like an interesting hypothesis!
Do you think it could also explain, say, asexuality?
Original post by ladybec
Just a little joke, considering (nearly) all of my extended family is straight. Anyone who I've inherited genes from is, at least.
Whatever causes homosexuality could be passing on genetically through family generations though. So you might be carrying the homosexual gene recessively for all you know.
Original post by Reluire
Whatever causes homosexuality could be passing on genetically through family generations though. So you might be carrying the homosexual gene recessively for all you know.
Not exactly homosexual, but anyway-
Your point is correct, I'm just not a biologist, and I forgot about recessive genes for a moment there.
So where do you think romantic preference comes into play? I know that in some people the two preferences differ.
(edited 8 years ago)
There are several theories that have been proposed to explain this. The aforementioned "Gay Uncle Theory" suggests that in the context of kin selection, a gay uncle (who statistically should share approximately a quarter of your genes) in whom the gay phenotype is present might assist in child rearing, or otherwise enhance the likelihood of your survival.
There's also the idea that perhaps while a 'gay' gene for a male may reduce reproductivity in the male, the gene might have a different effect in the context of a female relative who is also a carrier of the gene. If this gene for instance has the effect of increasing female fertility or libido, the net effect will cancel out and the gene will proliferate as usual.
Other theories suggest that a gene that increases odds of one being gay may arise from a pleitropic gene that also has the effect for example of something like increased intelligence, the carrier of which has an increased chance of surviving due to higher income, social class etc. that ties in to the Gay Uncle theory- but expanding on this, up until recently in an evolutionary scale homosexuality has been largely repressed in most cultures (and still is), meaning that gay people burdened with societal pressure might have been just as likely to reproduce and pass on their genes to their offspring. If the gene also indirectly led to increased chance of financial welfare, this would increase the likelihood of the offspring surviving and reproducing, regardless of whether the offspring expressed the gay phenotype. The gay gene advantage could also manifest itself in the form of making the male carrier more feminine which could endear them to women, increasing likelihood of reproduction.
Many twin studies hover around a figure of something like 50% for the genetic component of homosexuality, meaning that, as with many other behavioural traits like alcoholism, it is hard to describe it as purely genetic.
There's also the idea that perhaps while a 'gay' gene for a male may reduce reproductivity in the male, the gene might have a different effect in the context of a female relative who is also a carrier of the gene. If this gene for instance has the effect of increasing female fertility or libido, the net effect will cancel out and the gene will proliferate as usual.
Other theories suggest that a gene that increases odds of one being gay may arise from a pleitropic gene that also has the effect for example of something like increased intelligence, the carrier of which has an increased chance of surviving due to higher income, social class etc. that ties in to the Gay Uncle theory- but expanding on this, up until recently in an evolutionary scale homosexuality has been largely repressed in most cultures (and still is), meaning that gay people burdened with societal pressure might have been just as likely to reproduce and pass on their genes to their offspring. If the gene also indirectly led to increased chance of financial welfare, this would increase the likelihood of the offspring surviving and reproducing, regardless of whether the offspring expressed the gay phenotype. The gay gene advantage could also manifest itself in the form of making the male carrier more feminine which could endear them to women, increasing likelihood of reproduction.
Many twin studies hover around a figure of something like 50% for the genetic component of homosexuality, meaning that, as with many other behavioural traits like alcoholism, it is hard to describe it as purely genetic.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ladybec
Not exactly homosexual, but anyway-
Your point is correct, I'm just not a biologist, and I forgot about recessive genes for a moment there.
So where do you think romantic preference comes into play? I know that in some people the two preferences differ.
Your point is correct, I'm just not a biologist, and I forgot about recessive genes for a moment there.
So where do you think romantic preference comes into play? I know that in some people the two preferences differ.
I'm no biologist either. My knowledge in biology extends to GCSE level from years ago now.
So you mean being sexually attracted to one sex, but romantically interested in the other? I'm not really sure how that would work from the romantic interest perspective. Can you be romantically interested without being sexually attracted?
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
