Is Homosexuality In The Genes?
While meandering through Ars Technica last night, I stumbled over an interesting article that, while it has nothing to do with gaming, will probably be of interest to at least a couple of readers here.
It seems there’s a new study out with the theory that if there was a gene which dictated one’s sexuality, why would one that made a person gay (and thus limited the reproduction of a species) be allowed to survive?
The theoretical study by Gavrilets and Rice looked at a single gene with two alleles (variants) and examines three previously reported hypotheses as to how this gene can persist in a population. It should be noted that this model did not strictly classify an individual as straight or gay, but determined the level of homosexual activity by relating it to the fitness within the model. The first mechanism examined is one of overdominance, where in this scenario if the offspring only receives the ‘gay allele’ from one parent (heterozygous), then they would have a competitive reproductive advantage over others in the population. Here the ‘gay allele’ would need to be received from both parents (homozygous) in order for the offspring to exhibit homosexuality and have a reproductive disadvantage.
Admittedly, a lot of the science went right over my head; this is mainly due to the fact that I only have one biology class to my name, but I still understood most of the article’s presentation. It’s interesting, and a several of the theories that Gavrilets and Rice examine actually make for some plausible-sounding science. As for whether or not such ideas could prove to be true… well, maybe the answers will be found within our lifetimes. Until then, it’s all just some intriguing food for thought.
Genetic models of homosexuality: generating testable predictions [The Royal Society]
[via Ars Technica]
Boy of Tomorrow
Posted to on 13 January 2007
· Comments (4)
Other stuff like this: ars technica, food for thought, genetics, homosexuality
It’s simple as to why there are gay people, homosexuality is natures way of population control. As the dominant species we need something to stop us from overpopulation.
And basically what the article said was that the gay gene was recessive. Too bad homosexuality is caused by insufficent chemicals in the womb and not genes. Hence why you could get a gay son when none of the people on either side of the family is gay.
I don’t buy the “gay/not gay” binary logic thing at all anymore. If being gay is caused by a gene, it really doesn’t matter whether anyone up your family tree was openly gay because they were still probably thinking of Steve Reeves in the shower regardless.
There might be a gene, or a group of seemingly unrelated genes, which strengthens same-sex attraction and another one that strengthens opposite-sex attraction, but I really don’t think they’re ever going to find the “gay gene”. Our sex drives are motivated by way too many different factors for it to be a simple on/off switch passed down recessively.
It’s like saying a guy who prefers matronly women because his mom died when he was young got the “MILF gene” rather than accepting that sexuality is also affected by our experiences.
RE: homosexuality
Homosexuality Is Natural Part 2
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2007/01/homosexuality-is-natural-part-2.html
I read an article recently that indicated your sexuality is most influenced by your first sexual encounter. That isn’t to say if your first encounter is homosexual, you’ll be gay. It’s more about if it feels good, you’ll be back for more (and more and more).
Of course sexuality is not the same as gender, gender identity, and sexual identity. Gender and sexual identity seem to be most influenced by chemical reactions in the womb (we all start out as hermaphrodites after all).
I don’t buy this “reproductive disadvantage” crap, though. Gays have kids, idiots. People evolve. Genes evolve. Are red heads or people with blue eyes labeled as “reproductive disadvantaged”? It’s called luck of the draw.