new theory about us

[pellaz]

why we are gay; article appeared in the NYTimes today. Just thinking the 6mo thing is hokey.

[cardiganwearer]

The NYT article is too garbled to make much sense. The press release it links to is a bit clearer. It talks about mathematical modelling, so no empirical studies involved, just speculation about how particular epigenetic information may be expressed. It has not pinned down this epigenetic information nor has it definitively identified any with being gay, merely speculated about how epigenetic information may code for responses to intra uterine variations in hormone levels.

The disturbing thing is they seem to be working on the basis that gay men are just feminised men and lesbians are just butch women. They would appear to be giving a theory about the epigenetic basis for the expression of stereotypes; their own stereotypes of how gay men and women behave. The study does not appear to have looked at gay men or women or considered the vast variation in behaviour between gay individuals.

Although it has been published in what appears to be a respectable journal it is also doing science by press release, which is never a good sign. It's appearance in the NYT says more about what else is going on today than about it's credibility as science.

[Rainbowmum]

So now we are going to genetically engineer children by changing the hormone levels in the prospective parents.

But it all has to be true ,because it is written in the Treason Times.

Nice theory but no cigar.

[Counselor]

So now we are going to genetically engineer children by changing the hormone levels in the prospective parents.

But it all has to be true ,because it is written in the Treason Times.

Nice theory but no cigar.

*claps hands, rubs them together briskly*

Bring on the steroids! I'll be buff, horny and and Extra-Strength Gay!

[myapple]

Lol they constantly try to make us seem abnormal. It's pretty hilarious.

[OrphanPip]

The NYT article is too garbled to make much sense. The press release it links to is a bit clearer. It talks about mathematical modelling, so no empirical studies involved, just speculation about how particular epigenetic information may be expressed. It has not pinned down this epigenetic information nor has it definitively identified any with being gay, merely speculated about how epigenetic information may code for responses to intra uterine variations in hormone levels.

Actually, what they produced was a mathematical model that could explain the observed patterns of inheritance through the existence of a hypothetical epi-mark. So, the paper is an analysis and explanation of pre-existing empirical data. It is not just speculation. The paper isn't about explaining where homosexuality comes from, but how homosexuality can be inherited given what we know about evolutionary biology and genetics. Because natural selection is an insufficient explanation, and most evidence does point to it being an inherited trait.

It's actually pretty well established that male homosexuality is linked somehow to the maternal line. The media article is reductive about the role of genetics and sex hormones on development, but androgen hormones do play a role in the shaping of sexuality, sexual identity, and the bodies of people. Femininity and masculinity are social constructs and shouldn't be confused with the feminization or masculization of the brain in physiological terms.

William Rice seems to have (from my brief pubmed search) provocative ideas about maternal effect genes and epigenetic inheritance.

[MikeMG]

Actually, I see this as a good thing. Because it's more complicated then just basic genetics that will one day wash out until all children are born heterosexual. It actually guarantee that homosexuality will continue unless we artificially change it on our own.

It's natures built in variation executed at a totally different level then genes which decide your eyes are blue or brown. I am not a scientist, but to me that says nature decided this variation that created gay people was so important, it was not going to put the trigger in genes subject to random acts of procreation.

[MikeMG]

Wow, so I looked up with the word Epigenetic from the article, and basicly says that its not the genes, its something that affects the genes. But look how its phrased, I think our genes have a gay friend.

Epigenetic
"non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently"

LOL

[Counselor]

why we are gay; article appeared in the NYTimes today. Just thinking the 6mo thing is hokey.

I skimmed it, but I caught "extra layers of genetic information".

Proof that gays are X-Men. Nice going, math nerds.

[MikeMG]

After reading this article again, one could say it really is your parents fault you are gay. Science is a bitch! Literally its mom's fault if the son is gay, dads fault if the daughter is gay.