jbd555 Wrote:If you believe homosexuality is part of your genetic makeup than this story is bs. This kid was either gay from birth or went off the deep end mentally and adopted a "gay similar" lifestyle. It's seems impossible that your brain can be "rewired" so that anyone can be "transformed" from gay to straight or vice versa. But then again I'm not a doctor or psychologist.
It's not that simple, your genes and your environment contribute to producing your sexual orientation, and your culture and life experiences will effect how you conceptualize your sexual identity. After all, a culture without a conception of gay identity, can't express gay identity in the same way we do, even if same sex sexual desires exist in the population.
What I'm trying to say is that just because your brain can be "rewired" to change your orientation, does not mean that genes do not play a part in determining sexual orientation. In fact, I actually think it reinforces the idea of a physiologically determined sexual attraction.
It's difficult to map how all these things (genes, pre-natal environment, early childhood experiences, neurophysiology, and culture) work together to not only produce the phenomena of sexuality, but also our personal subjective understandings of that phenomena.
Bowyn Aerrow Wrote:All of the more recent studies point at factors that take place in the womb, hormonal, chemical changes in mom while the fetus is developing leading to brain structures that are slightly different in ways we do not clearly understand.
This is why one brother sharing the same genetic code with the other can be born straight, while the other is gay. What went on inside of mom during pregnancy is setting the stage.
Thus it is a brain thing, in the case of this one man, we have an indicator that the brain can be rewired, changing a persons sexual preference. In the rest of us, the brain was wired before we were born.
We have to be cautious to avoid being overly reductionist in either direction. It isn't as simple as it being the pre-natal environment, thus not genetic. After all, what is determining the environment of the womb? Also, we are presented with the problem of genes not having a direct 1 to 1 relationship to phenotype, a gene can be expressed in multiple ways, depending on what other genes it is co-expressed with and the environment. Long story short, it's complicated, like all human behavior, and there's a lot of stuff at play in all of it.
Personally, I think the search for a "gay gene" as a matter of naturalizing homosexuality is problematic from a perspective of social liberty. Why should we care what is natural? Do we ask whether or not it is natural to prefer pepsi to coke? It all seems to go back to an archaic argument of disability, where we are expected to think of being gay as an unfortunate result of fate, so we should tolerate it in the way we tolerate and pity someone with Down's syndrome.
The fact of the matter is that even if gay were a choice, it wouldn't be anyone's business, and there would still be no legitimate reason to moralize it. Look at other societies that have conceptualized of sexuality differently. The Roman Republic viewed sex as act of dominance and submission, thus they allowed sex between men, but only if the bottom was not a citizen. So, if you were a citizen of Rome you were expected as a proper man not to be dominated, but otherwise all sex acts were moral. For the Athenians, it was a matter of excess and control, if you could control your sexual acts, that is make sure you produced offspring and didn't overly indulge in same sex acts, then that was permissible. These kinds of sexual moralities are somewhat alien to us, but they aren't that far off from modern Western values. If we step out of the West, we can find many different ways of thinking about sex that are completely different from how we think of it. These preoccupation with naturalizing sex is a modern Western preoccupation that we should look at as arising from arbitrary biases.