Is Sexual Identity Genetic ?

[Very_Bad_Man]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/identi...brother-sister/story?id=15142268#.Tukjl9RSTyo

I found this article very curious since there has been debate that sexual preference or identity is genetic. I wonder how this will play scientifically in the debates.

 

[CJontherocks]

I'm not sure I care whether a genetic connection can be scientifically proven. I am who I am.

I do see a benefit in DNA proof, if it exists, in that it could help change minds and attitudes toward sexual and gender identities that don't fit the mainstream desires. But bigotry is bigotry, and realistically, I don't think even scientific proof will stop it. And if the science proves it's not genetic... what then?

No, I don't need scientific proof. Wait... do I sound like one of those religious anti-evolution people?

 

[Nerdy_Harold]

I'm not sure I care whether a genetic connection can be scientifically proven. I am who I am.

I do see a benefit in DNA proof, if it exists, in that it could help change minds and attitudes toward sexual and gender identities that don't fit the mainstream desires. But bigotry is bigotry, and realistically, I don't think even scientific proof will stop it. And if the science proves it's not genetic... what then?

No, I don't need scientific proof. Wait... do I sound like one of those religious anti-evolution people?

That is not the context of the question. Understanding ourselves and why we are what we are is important and helpful. Science is important whether it is behavioral or medical. Understanding is the path to acceptance especially for those with preconceived notions or beliefs.

I am not prejudiced yet information I have gained on this site from various sources has given me better understanding and made me a better man I think.

The fact that here are two people who are genetically identical diverging on two completely separate paths of sexual identity is extremely interesting and worth of study I feel.

 

[CJontherocks]

That is not the context of the question. Understanding ourselves and why we are what we are is important and helpful. Science is important whether it is behavioral or medical. Understanding is the path to acceptance especially for those with preconceived notions or beliefs.

Your point is well taken. I immediately assumed, from the word "debate," that the context was in how the scientific evidence could support the cause of LGBT issues against heterosexuals who are opposed to us. I suppose my predisposition to argue that says I'm jaded now. Dammit, I didn't want that to happen.

But you're right, of course. There is a richer purpose to looking at this for one's own education, and certainly for those who might be experiencing some apprehension about their own sexual or gender identity. The article was very interesting from whatever angle you choose. The strength of that young girl, the unconditional love and acceptance of her parents and brother... I was touched by that especially.

 

[infinity706]

Even with identical twins, a gay twin only has a 50% chance of the other being gay, too, so it's not strictly genetic.

 

[Little Bird]

Before the question if sexuality should be answered, we should first get to the point where it doesn't mater anymore.
The debate about birth or choice I only know from america. In europe it's just interesting, but irrelevant when it comes to human rights.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Before the question if sexuality should be answered, we should first get to the point where it doesn't mater anymore.
The debate about birth or choice I only know from america. In europe it's just interesting, but irrelevant when it comes to human rights.

Really depends on what part of Europe.

It would be more beneficial for humanity once we can all set aside our preoccupation on what religion or sexual orientation a person is and judge them by what is in their heart. However, I do not hold such hope for such enlightenment before we kill each other off.

 

[klippert]

I'm not sure I care whether a genetic connection can be scientifically proven. I am who I am.

I do see a benefit in DNA proof, if it exists, in that it could help change minds and attitudes toward sexual and gender identities that don't fit the mainstream desires. But bigotry is bigotry, and realistically, I don't think even scientific proof will stop it. And if the science proves it's not genetic... what then?

No, I don't need scientific proof. Wait... do I sound like one of those religious anti-evolution people?

This straight away was the most reasonable response. You is who you is, whom we chose to be. You certainly can't stop bigotry and you never will. Your last comment, can be construed as religious bigotry.

I guess the next question: IF their is proof, What happens to the abortion debate...50 percent of those babies could be gay, are aborted......

I Think we are going to see a lot of different scientific groups coming out with "I've solved it" media attention. If you have been asleep. The worlds economies are on the brink. Every nation is making cuts... first cut is the deepest. Will most likely be from grant monies....Need to save the planet.....give me money

 

[Kurokami]

This straight away was the most reasonable response. You is who you is, whom we chose to be. You certainly can't stop bigotry and you never will. Your last comment, can be construed as religious bigotry.

This. This precisely. Here's the thing: bigotry against the gay community... I've never really thought it had anything to do with this whole "homosexuality as choice vs innate," question. The "it's unnatural!" argument is just a veneer of justification over a very visceral reaction- either "it's derided by my religion," or "I personally find homosexual sex gross." If something being unnatural was the sole criteria, then the people who employ it wouldn't go to hospitals when they get sick, or wear clothes. Or, y'know... cook food.

Even if the concept is solved definitively, and proof is found that homosexuality is genetic- even in part- and is thus natural, it's not going to suddenly remove a large segment of bigots. They'll just shift their justification to some other bullshit argument. There's no winning, this one.

 

[LucyH]

I guess the next question: IF their is proof, What happens to the abortion debate...50 percent of those babies could be gay, are aborted......

Determining that something is influenced by genetics and actually being able to predict what a person is going to be like by examining their genes are two very different things.

 

[CJontherocks]

I guess the next question: IF their is proof, What happens to the abortion debate...50 percent of those babies could be gay, are aborted......

Doesn't the argument already exist that abortion is unconstitutional because minorities and economically disadvantaged people are over-represented in abortion statistics? I'm not sure how strong that argument is, but I do remember reading something about a pending Supreme Court case to that effect.

That line of thinking worked, at least in part, in Furman v. Georgia... for a little while.

By the time any empirical data could be determined, the point will be moot I'm sure, if that case hasn't been decided already.

 

[PricelessT]

Sexual identity, while usually being the same as one's sexual orientation, is different than sexual orientation. A person may identify as heterosexual, for example, but actually be homosexual. Identity is not always the same as who you truly are.

So, no, while sexual orientation is considered to be genetic, in part, by many researchers, I certainly wouldn't call sexual identity genetic.

EDITED TO ADD: And I see that the source is mainly talking about gender identity. Yes, some researchers believe that gender identity is partly genetic. And there is some research showing that some male-to-female transgender individuals have physical brain structures that resemble those of biological females.

 

[none2_none2]

..
Even if the concept is solved definitively, and proof is found that homosexuality is genetic- even in part- and is thus natural, it's not going to suddenly remove a large segment of bigots. They'll just shift their justification to some other bullshit argument. There's no winning, this one.

That is precisely why I couldn't care less about the root cause of someone's preferences. As an example, imagine a society where it was taboo for someone to have a significant other whose height was very different. Should such a couple have to "prove" a genetic or hormonal reason behind why they choose to violate their society's taboo? Would all those that despised it really change just because someone found genetic proof?

My example may sound silly, but so is the whole debate over sexual preference. The only time I could imagine it making a difference is if our population were widely killed off to the point where reproduction to replenish our numbers was so important to survival that all non-reproductive configurations had to be curtailed. That most likely will never happen in our lifetimes. So there is no reason to fuss about it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

First of all, "genetic" does not mean that there isa gene that makes people gayand another gene that makes people straight. What there are are lots of genes which we all have-- all of us. If we all remember our highschool biology, an egg or a sperm each has one half of a set of genes. And the same half-a gene can be "off" in one sperm but "on" in the next.

But that does not mean that a mom has one gene and a dad has a different one, it means that the genes, which are all just about the same set, are "expressed" or "suppressed" (turned "on" or "off") in each individual depending on a whole lot of factors, some being whether or not that gene was expressed or suppressed in the donor egg or sperm, but ALSO, depending on conditions in the womb. As far as we know thus far-- because science is NEVER completely certain because there always might be new information-- sexual identity is very much a function of the womb environment, along with a lot of other personality traits, and a bunch of health-related stuff like propensity towards diabetes. (at least in rats). The tides of hormones and chemicals that flood the womb at different times as the zygote grows influence a lot of the offs-and-ons during cell development.

So that's a quick gloss on the subject of "genetic" and I'll go look for articles if people want them

Other than that, I agree with Kurokami and None2 that the lack of choice in sexual identity will never, ever matter to a bigot. The fact that blacks can't stop being black nor women stop being female has never mattered to them either.

 

[TallOne]

Even with identical twins, a gay twin only has a 50% chance of the other being gay, too, so it's not strictly genetic.

Um, "only 50%"...that's very, very statistically significant.

 

[CandiCame]

This. This precisely. Here's the thing: bigotry against the gay community... I've never really thought it had anything to do with this whole "homosexuality as choice vs innate," question. The "it's unnatural!" argument is just a veneer of justification over a very visceral reaction- either "it's derided by my religion," or "I personally find homosexual sex gross." If something being unnatural was the sole criteria, then the people who employ it wouldn't go to hospitals when they get sick, or wear clothes. Or, y'know... cook food.

Even if the concept is solved definitively, and proof is found that homosexuality is genetic- even in part- and is thus natural, it's not going to suddenly remove a large segment of bigots. They'll just shift their justification to some other bullshit argument. There's no winning, this one.

Yeah- I'm firmly in the camp of not giving a shit as well. I think that it's probably genetic inasmuch as it's human- I don't know or care if it's something one could breed for. I'd just have to get somekind of gay cancer or something.

 

[PricelessT]

Even if the concept is solved definitively, and proof is found that homosexuality is genetic- even in part- and is thus natural, it's not going to suddenly remove a large segment of bigots. They'll just shift their justification to some other bullshit argument. There's no winning, this one.

Or (and your "shift their justification" line covers this) they'll argue that it's just a genetic/birth defect, which is what some people (researchers included) worry about being argued if they find a definite genetic explanation for homosexuality.

Anyway, I wonder how this "definite genetic explanation" would differ from one with regard to heterosexuality. Are we supposed to assume that the definite genetic explanation for heterosexuality is reproduction and that's it. If that's all to it, researchers wouldn't be looking for a cause for sexual orientation in general. What they've found (or rather their research suggests) so far is that there is not one cause, but rather an interplay of causes.