Gay gene

[dmaiski]

what i am trying to get across is that there is more choice then there is direct genetics in the "gay gene" and any mental trait (like sexuality) will have a high environmental factor, thus searching for the "GAY GENE" is pointless, because the alleles that make up the "GAY GENE" probably don't code for homosexuality, but rather general sexual attraction, and arousal, or even more likely, stable mental states(ie. they keep you from going insane).

 

if that is true(i have no idea) EVRYONE will have at least some "GAY GENES" and people who lack them will eithere be insane, or asexual.

 

 

 

 

if you want to figure out what causes homosexuality, first work out how the brain works, only then, start working out the more specific things like what genes code [specifically] for homosexuality.

 

we don't know how the brain works(not very well at least) so searching for specific mental traits without any clues will give very inaccurate results

 

these results will then be misinterpreted, and we will have a mess that will need to be cleaned up at some point

 

(this isn't speculation, we are already doing it for a lot of the genes that exist, where someone made a bad guess as to what a gene dose, never confirmed it, and it stuck throwing all subsequent studies off, wasting a lot of research grants in the process)

 

what i mean by "gay gene" is the specific causative genetic agent(s) that result in a predisposition to homo/bi-sexual behaviour

 

what i mean by specific, gene A controls promoter B which regulates signalling pathway C, which controls the development of D, resulting in E which makes you SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to be homo/bi-sexual, because E dose F differently to normal F which results in G being initiated incorrectly (i expect A-G to be known values, and how the system works explained)

 

(till then all you are doing is speculating what genes may, or may not cause SOMETHING non-specific to happen that may or may not influence something else non-specific, that through some form of magic results in you being sexualy attracted to the same sex, through some unknown mechanism)

 

in summary:

i accept there is a genetic cause for everything, there has to be, we are made by our genes

i accept that you can find these causes, isolate them, and figure out how they work

i do not accept that you can say something works like this, if you dont know what "this" is

there are simply too many unknowns about BASIC brain architecture, to even start going into the specific genetic mechanisms that cause specific subtypes of traits

 

to summarise the summary:

you do not know enough to make that association stick

(means start crawling before you try to fly)

Edited September 18, 2012 by dmaiski

[jp255]

I'm assuming that is a response to manfromzurich.

 

You are right when you say we don't have much knowledge of specific genetic factors and it is pretty much speculation at the moment. No knowledge has to be known about specific mechanisms in order to estimate the heritability however. It is the genome wide association studies which are where your criticism will be directed, and I agree with you that each loci found to be associated needs to be investigated. Some could be false positives even after bonferroni.

 

any mental trait (like sexuality) will have a high environmental factor

That is an assumption? otherwise provide the evidence.

[Manfromzurich]

@jp255

 

Yes I'm looking forward to the GWAS of homosexuality. Thanks this, the first time the human can see which genes are involved in the brain masculinisation and brain sexual differentiation. What a big step forward!

 

I get angy when I must read of researchers who said things like ''its immoral to find the genes which causes homosexuality''

They were such stupid in earlier times as in the 1950's and 1960's that they thought sexual orientation is a psychological thing.

 

 

Humans are animals. Of course some people are such stupid so they don't what to accpet that humans are in fact animals. All kind of drives are in the hypothalamus. So also the sexual drive! Do you know of any person who had to learn to have hunger or thirst? Do you know what I mean?

 

 

@dmaiski

 

Sexual orientation and sexual identification can't be learned!

Edited September 18, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[dmaiski]

@jp55

this is really basics, genes make brain cells, and arrange them in some rough pattern

these cells then "boot up" and start discharging every which way, forming connections in the process

these connections either strengthen, or weaken, depending on the amount of stimulation they get

if these connections are not used at all they will be re-purposed by other circuits from nearby sections

 

its been shown to happen, in everyone. its called learning.

 

if you want studies that show it to the extreme examples of this, look at brain studies of blind people.

their visual cortex is re-purposed to "see" sound because it is not in use

 

also if you are going to try throwing those studies showing different sized brains in gay men and lesbian women

go google postnatal brain development

(you would think that the brain being capable of growing and changing as you age, and use it, was unheard of news to some people)

 

 

Edited September 19, 2012 by dmaiski

[Moontanman]

Some support besides exchanging claims and what you believe would give this thread a bit more accuracy at the very least. I see no support for anyone's assertions here, simply claiming these things gets us no where, if you think a lesbians brain is larger than a heterosexual woman's brain you really need to show some support for it other than your claims. This is not the only assertion that needs to be supported, in fact there is so many i would have to pretty much quote everyone for the last few pages.

 

Come on guys, we can type what we think is true or what we want to be true forever and it shows nothing other than the biases and beliefs of the people making those claims..

 

Show some support for these assertions, that is the idea of this forum, not just arguing opinions...

[Manfromzurich]

@moontanman

 

 

That even why we must wait until the GWAS is finished(a few months). Or do you want to say there isn't an error in my DNA? Look at my face in my video! I think this says everything!

Edited September 19, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[jp255]

@jp55

this is really basics, genes make brain cells, and arrange them in some rough pattern

these cells then "boot up" and start discharging every which way, forming connections in the process

these connections either strengthen, or weaken, depending on the amount of stimulation they get

if these connections are not used at all they will be re-purposed by other circuits from nearby sections

 

its been shown to happen, in everyone. its called learning.

 

if you want studies that show it to the extreme examples of this, look at brain studies of blind people.

their visual cortex is re-purposed to "see" sound because it is not in use

No, it's not really basics. I realise that there is an environmental component to mental traits, but to say it is high for sexuality requires evidence. The study itself has to be about sexuality, do all mental traits have to have the same amount of environmental contribution? That assumption isn't really appropriate and extending the conclusions of studies on blind people to sexuality is not meaningful.

 

Some support besides exchanging claims and what you believe would give this thread a bit more accuracy at the very least. I see no support for anyone's assertions here, simply claiming these things gets us no where, if you think a lesbians brain is larger than a heterosexual woman's brain you really need to show some support for it other than your claims. This is not the only assertion that needs to be supported, in fact there is so many i would have to pretty much quote everyone for the last few pages.

 

Homosexuality isn't understood all that well. There are very few known examples of human genetic factors. The evidence for hormonal impact only raises the question "to what extent is hormonal contribution to homosexual behavior genetic and environmental?". Both are possible. All we really have is speculation, and prediction of what we think is most likely.

[dmaiski]

JP55 twin studies have show that there is at least a 60% enviormental factor...

you said this yourself

 

i belive >50% enviormental is high, dont you?

[jp255]

Yeah, it is high. I was just criticising that statement and the approach you used to say how all mental traits have high environmental contribution.

 

Or do you want to say there isn't an error in my DNA? Look at my face in my video! I think this says everything!

 

What is it about your face that allows you to tell you possess a mutation which contributes to homosexuality?

[Manfromzurich]

What is it about your face that allows you to tell you possess a mutation which contributes to homosexuality?

 

Don't be foolish!

 

I want to understand what EXACTLY goes biological wrong in my body!

Edited September 19, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[Arete]

Don't be foolish!

 

jp55 isn't and your response is unwarranted.

 

Knowing a number of hetero and homosexual men, I don't believe there is anything particular to a man's facial features which are correlated with his sexuality. Do you have evidence there is?

 

I want to understand what EXACTLY goes biological wrong in my body!

 

Nothing.

 

Homosexuality is observed in hundreds of species and fits well within the bounds of kin selection/inclusive fitness models when the raising of offspring is communal. Notably, homosexual behaviour is highly prevalent amongst many of our closest relatives, indicating that homosexuality has been prevalent in human populations since their beginning.

http://en.wikipedia....vior_in_animals

 

As for the heritability of homosexuality - it appears to be wildly variable, and highly environmentally correlated:

http://www.springerl...5uwn8023010803/

http://www.sciencedi...169534709001542

 

It seems similar to other complex, enviromentally influenced traits such as IQ, which varies in both the genetic/environmental quotient amongst individuals and populations (i.e. not only does the enviroment influence your IQ but the very amount of IQ that is heritable varies dependent on your enviroment, your genes, your developmental history, your nutrition, etc) and is exceptionally complex and nearly impossible to make generalizations about.

 

There appears to certainly a percentage of your sexual orientation which is heritable, and it is almost certainly an incredibly variable, environmentally labile percentage.

 

I imagine that the fact that sexuality exists on a gradient severely complicates studies of its heritability, and it seems that the heritable component adds weight to the kin selection models explaining it.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Arete

[dmaiski]

arete has possibly said the first intelligent, pertinent, and productive, thing in this discussion for the last 20 posts at least

 

kin selection, in humans this would be social behaviour, supports my argument

 

but still i have to question it...

humanity is not a hive species, where kin selection is most common

its a society, where each individual is generally aiming to kill the one next to them(humans are very violent, or at least the males are)

 

...it supports the argument, if you assume "gay", or at least bi men avoid competing with straight men the gay trait would be advantageous, since gay men would die/get injured less often, and would be able to reproduce more/be more attractive, also they would be less threatening to women, when compared to the "women! get me beer, manly men"

 

(i know im using generalisations, not supporting it with evidence, and a lot of conjecture. but this actually works (on a logical level), because "gay" men are less threatening to women, don’t compete directly with straight men for mates, and as a result (at least in prehistoric society) survive and prosper, by laying low and keeping their heads down)

 

 

 

im sorry i hijacked your point arete, but you gave me an idea

[jp255]

Don't be foolish!

 

Ok I'll admit, I am a fool. Now will you answer the question? I am interested to hear your response.

 

As for the heritability of homosexuality - it appears to be wildly variable, and highly environmentally correlated

 

 

Yeah. I have not seen any studies that have large sample sizes however. This could explain some of the large variation present between different independent heritability studies.

 

I imagine that the fact that sexuality exists on a gradient severely complicates studies of its heritability, and it seems that the heritable component adds weight to the kin selection models explaining it.

 

The heritability studies for homosexuality I have seen (so far) just used the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" for sexual orientation. In reality these phenotypes can be broken down into a more quantitative trait. If there is a GWAS for homosexuality then I hope they at least tried to quantify homosexuality, maybe a scale from 0 to 100 (0 is complete attraction to female, 100 to male), as well as asking sexual orientation etc.

 

After identification of contributing genetic factors, it could be difficult to explain the heritability (Could be phantom "missing" heritability, quite likely). Firstly the heritability itself might not be that accurate due to low sample sizes. Varying heritability across different populations would mean that the heritability and GWAS need to be carried out in the same population at the very least. Trying to explain the varying degrees of homosexuality will probably be tricky, it might be limited to association only (going on to research the severity or level of homosexuality a genetic factor contributes is very hard). The GWAS should be able to provide data on the relative risk for particular alleles in the population.

 

...it supports the argument, if you assume "gay", or at least bi men avoid competing with straight men the gay trait would be advantageous, since gay men would die/get injured less often, and would be able to reproduce more/be more attractive, also they would be less threatening to women, when compared to the "women! get me beer, manly men"<br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">(i know im using generalisations, not supporting it with evidence, and a lot of conjecture. but this actually works (on a logical level), because "gay" men are less threatening to women, don’t compete directly with straight men for mates, and as a result (at least in prehistoric society) survive and prosper, by laying low and keeping their heads down)

 

 

Of course that is pure speculation, but in general I am very skeptical of the kin selection hypothesis for homosexuality being advantageous or selected. You raise a different point, which is of course a possibility, but the popular theory is that homosexual offspring help care for siblings. I am very skeptical of that theory, despite the evidence suggesting homosexual uncles/brothers give more attention to niece/nephew/siblings. I am doubtful as to how that evidence and theory actually relates to positive selection, because in order for it to rise in frequency there needs to be a higher average number of offspring that reach reproductive age than the population average in the family with homosexual individuals.

 

Due to the varying degrees of homosexuality, it is possible that the level of selection against it could be weaker than you might think.

Edited September 19, 2012 by jp255

[MattyG]

its a society, where each individual is generally aiming to kill the one next to them(humans are very violent, or at least the males are)

Where the hell did you get that idea from? One quick scan of the Wikipedia page for Crime in the United States shows that violent crime rates haven't been above 800/100,000 in the time between 1960 and 2010. http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States That's less than .8% of Americans committing violent crimes. And as to warfare, from what I understand less than 1% of the US population serves in the military, and saying that they're just "aiming to kill the one next to them," is incredibly ignorant and disrespectful.

 

And as to your statement about males being the violent ones, the CDC claims that half of all domestic violence is committed by women. http://www.eworldwir...ssrelease/17670

 

Please do some research before broadcasting your stereotypes and prejudices.

 

Also, this has been bothering me:

 

dose: n. a quantity of medicine prescribed to be taken at one time.

does: v. a 3rd person singular present indicative of do.

Edited September 19, 2012 by MattyG

[Manfromzurich]

@jp255

 

 

23andme has more than 200'000 costumer! So they have a big mass of genetic datas which they can use for the GWAS!

 

 

Brain = sexual organ. There are specific genes wich masculinize and which sexually differentiate the brain. There is no difference in the different ethnic groups! An asian person who has XY but a defect SRY gene becomes female! this is the same with an european person! No ethnic difference!

 

 

There is no scale between 0 an100. If these genes arew coded correctly, a person who carries XY gets heterossexual! If one of this genes is defect, this person becomes homosexual, because the brain doesn't develope correctly male. In this matter there is no difference in ethnic groups!

 

 

What do you believe with this stupid scale! A man with scale 40 gets faster a hard dick and is more erected when he see tits than a person who is on 80 or what! Please stop witjh this BS!

 

Transsexualityy and homosexuality= neurological Intersexuality!! It's a medical/biological problem and not a psychological neither a sociological problem!

 

 

Phew! I'm so glad that the GWAS of homosexuality comes soon! Yeah!

 

 

As long the people don't understand that the brain is a sexual organ adn sexual identification and sexual orientation are biologica l substrates, as so long I am not wondering why so a lot people still believe homosexuals choose to be homosexual!

Edited September 20, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[Arete]

What do you believe with this stupid scale! A man with scale 40 gets faster a hard %@#! and is more erected when he see $%@ than a person who is on 80 or what! Please stop witjh this BS!

 

You'd do well to stop with the profanities. Sexuality is not a binary state.

 

Transsexualityy and homosexuality= neurological Intersexuality!! It's a medical/biological problem and not a psychological neither a sociological problem!

 

The posted research in this thread suggests a highly significant influence of environment in sexual orientation. It is not a developmentally fixed trait.

[dmaiski]

i did a quick scan of history, and the numerous descriptions of when humans killed other humans

it was really just a guess at how you could explain the prevalence of the trait in terms of kin selection, when applied to humans

 

ive already stated my view on the subject

"the "gay gene" is not an accurate descriptor of whatever trait you are trying to study, and/or prove exists"

 

 

@manfro

the brain is a giant cluster or neurons

its a big, huge, colossal, immensely complex, biological supercomputer

with more processing power then the combined amount of all human technology based processing power made to date

 

and to top it all off, it grown and changes, constantly

 

being said that

if you study even the basics of computing

you will know that there is software, and hardware

on the same hardware (brain)

you can run completely different software (thinking)

you are trying to say the software the brain runs, is decided by the hardware

hardware can limit what you can run, but it dose not stop you from running a different type of the same thing

 

 

 

(this section is not for children, Christians, conservative humans, and anyone easily offended)

 

(so obliviously all aforementioned parties will pay close attention to what i say, so seriously, if your under the age of say 7 dont read this)

 

 

 

 

and another thing: google futanari

[expletive redacted] you people need to get out more, or at least read a book

there's more to human sexuality then white black and grey

there’s also red, blue, yellow, green, and he rest of the whole rainbow

 

 

insert a few [expletive redacted]'s in that text from your mind, discussing sexuality and thinking it is controlled entirely by genetics is just stupid

especially in humans, who are by far the second most perverted species that exists in this planet

BTW the first is

 

 

[jp255]

What do you believe with this stupid scale! A man with scale 40 gets faster a

hard dick and is more erected when he see tits than a person who is on 80 or

what! Please stop witjh this BS!

 

If the GWAS uses simple terms like "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" then the opportunity to gain information about varying degrees of homosexuality will be eliminated. Using a scale like the one I suggested, at least allows for some kind of attempt at quantifying the level of sexual attration an individual has to either sex. The identified genetic factors could then be tested for association to the scale values, which could potentially identify genetic factors associated to severe phenotypes (very strong attraction to same sex).

 

There is no scale between 0 an100. If these genes arew coded correctly, a

person who carries XY gets heterossexual! If one of this genes is defect, this

person becomes homosexual, because the brain doesn't develope correctly male. In

this matter there is no difference in ethnic groups!

 

Then post the evidence that suggests there are discrete phenotypes. You also still have no answered my previous question about how you know you possess a homosexuality contributing mutation. I'd like to hear your explanation still.

[Manfromzurich]

Without this GWAS I have no evidence. So I have to wait the next couple of months until they show it ! It will be the first GWAS of homosexuality and it will confuse a lot of people so also you!

 

 

And in 2015 I will let sequence my DNA, so I have definitly then the scientific proof and you will say: Oj MAnfromzurich has indeed a mutation which cause homosexuality!

Edited September 20, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[jp255]

Without this GWAS I have no evidence

 

 

And in 2015 I will let sequence my DNA, so I have definitly then the scientific

proof and you will say: Oj MAnfromzurich has indeed a mutation which cause

homosexuality!

 

With no evidence how do you know this will be the case?

Homosexuality is complex and it is unlikely any one factor can explain an individuals sexuality alone, thus any one mutation should not be said to cause homosexuality, but rather, contribute to homosexuality.

 

It is exactly the same when people say smoking causes cancer. It doesn't, it contributes to it's development. Saying something causes x trait implies that in an identical situation, absence of the something will not result in the x phenotype. That is not necessarily always the case.

 

Just admit you'd like to be able to attribute your sexuality to a mutation?

[Manfromzurich]

First I want to see the GWAS and then we can continue to debate!

Edited September 21, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[jp255]

Unfortunately the GWAS results are irrelevant to this debate. The heritability studies don't show 100% genetic contribution. with less than 100% genetic contribution the possible involvement of the environment cannot be denied which means you cannot be sure if mutations are the sole cause (because environmental factors are hard to identify and study).

 

It seems pretty likely that you'd like to be able to say your sexuality is caused because of a mutation, you gave no reasoning at all and admitted not having any evidence. I presented the opportunity for you to admit it to yourself for your own good, but you chose to evade.

Edited September 21, 2012 by jp255

[Manfromzurich]

You will be surprised then, when the GWAS is showed! You have to wait! This GWAS is TOTALLY overdue I see. o much people haven't unserstand that sexual orientation is a biological substrate.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[Arete]

You will be surprised then, when the GWAS is showed! You have to wait! This GWAS is TOTALLY overdue I see. o much people haven't unserstand that sexual orientation is a biological substrate.

 

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a genome-wide association study is capable of explaining and aims to achieve. [apologies to those in the know for the brutal oversimplification].

 

A genome wide association study takes whole genome sequence from a whole bunch of control samples (i.e. nominally "straight" people) and a whole bunch of test samples (i.e. nominally "gay" people) and aligns them to a reference. It then looks for mutations (generally SNPs) which are found to be significantly similar within the test group, and different to the control group. In doing so, it aims to find genomic regions correlated with a particular phenotype (i.e. homosexuality). If you find clusters of associated SNPs in a gene or genomic region, you can identify alleles which potentially play a role in the development of the test phenotype, and elevate the risk of developing the test phenotype (i.e. being "gay").

 

1) It will not identify a "gay gene". A referenced alignment does not identify genes in the test population which are not present in the reference. If homosexuality is caused by the presence of a "gay gene" a GWAS is completely the wrong type of study to find it.

 

2) It won't find "gay alleles". The role of environment in sexual orientation is already well documented. There's no "cancer" alleles or "diabetes" alleles, etc. There are alleles that in combination with the enviroment, place you at higher risk of these conditions. There is no specific allele that "makes" you gay, or have breast cancer, or develop type 2 diabetes. Simply risk factors.

 

3) Even though you vehemently and abusively deny it, sexual orientation is not a fixed state. It exists on a continuum and is temporally labile. I'm not even sure that defining a test group and a control group for the purposes of a GWAS on sexuality is actually possible in any sort of scientifically meaningful way. The study might be interesting in determining that there is indeed a genetic component to the sexual orientation one identifies with, but beyond that I'd be highly skeptical of it having much explanatory power.

[dmaiski]

Arete i want to give you a hug, that was so logical

 

but that is what i have been arguing for the last 6 pages

(it doesn't seem to be getting through to these people)

Edited September 22, 2012 by dmaiski