Physical Manifestation Of A Gay Gene?
It's long been a controversial subject: the gay gene. Some gay folk stand behind the gene, stating that it is completely immoral to deny basic rights to a naturally occurring segment of society--if orientation is decided at birth, like skin color, then what's the big deal? Other people balk at the idea of a gay gene, finding it an offensive "excuse" for "turning out a certain way." My own parents seemed to jump at the idea when they first heard about it, no doubt feeling some element of relief that it "wasn't their fault" or that I couldn't have turned out any other way. And that's pretty irritating when you rather like the way you "turned out."
New York Magazine has released a new article that is rather interesting titled "The Science of Gaydar." It deals with physical likelihoods among homos that have been occurring in a recently done study. Did you know that gay men's hair is more likely to grow in a counterclockwise pattern while straight men grow clockwise? Or that a gay man's index finger is likely to be longer than his ring finger--something rarely found on straight men? It seems that many of the body traits that gay men commonly have (being left handed) are shared by straight women.
So of course, I look at myself. Right handed. Index finger very short, much shorter than my ring finger. Hair grows clockwise (the boyfriend had to confirm this one). Does this make me "less gay?" Although I have often met with surprise when revealing to the straights that I prefer the manly set, and my interests are clearly not traditionally gay (I hate ANTM), the truth is I couldn't possibly be happy in a relationship with a woman.
Studies like this tend to worry me, if only because sets of rules, no matter how much based on high statistics, will always be met with exception when it comes to human beings. We're just not that simple.
Oof, my next post will definitely be about fragging MOBs.
Pirate Prince
Posted to Miscellany on 26 June 2007
· Comments (14)
Other stuff like this: fingers, gay gene, hair growth, new york magazine, studies, whorls
I too have a shorter index finger, am right-handed, and have a clockwise rosette atop my head. Of course, the fact that I use the term "rosette" to describe my hair pattern is all the proof you need to know I'm a big growlin' homo.
I'm ight handed. But the other two things seem to be true for me.
Great. Does that make me a woman now?
When I was in college not too long ago and taking my biology courses, the one main thing the professors drilled in my head was "Nothing in Biology is absolute. Nature is very queer".
Granted more my interpretation on the overall view, but still valid since new life is always being discovered (a fossil of a large penguin which lived in a warm period of Peru was discovered), perceptions changed (seems that sharks in captivity can reprodue asexually), and limits are being pushed (not all life derives its energy from the sun).
Most people who study the possiblity of a gay gene also admit there are environmental factors which can influence the sexuality of humans. Sexaulity, as well as many other traits, may end up being a mix of nature and nurture.
Take the study for what it is, a possible (and partial) explaination for a complex question which may never be completely answered since Mother Nature does like to confuse us.
I had a big long ramble on how a lot of the physical things really seem like normal variables that may be more noticed in certain contexts and things like voices and preferences are probably more culture (either wanting or not wanting to fit in), but I decided to kill it.
Maybe there are just different traits that happen to go along with liking certain things, like video games. I wonder if Gay Gamers have their own set of traits... or maybe gamers, both gay and straight, have their own special traits (like a mushroom-shaped birthmark).
(There are no male bisexuals? Really? Because I know someone who...)
I find the index vs. ring finger thing suspicious because it's also been touted as related to your logical and mathematical prowess.
I'm also pretty up-in-the-air about nature vs. nurture. I'm like the textbook example of "nurture" but what I feel for men (and don't feel for women, despite having some experience there and caring about my female friends as I have my male friends) sure feels like a biological urge.
I encourage folks to actually read the referenced article, and not just the first page or so. It actually is very well written and does a good job of exploring what is meant by these findings. While there are statistically higher rates of these physical traits across the population of gay men versus straight men, it is very clear that there is still lots of variation. Left handedness is a great example to use--the article is clear in indicating that gay men are far more likely to be left handed--but that still doesn't mean that most gay men are left handed. In fact, most gay men are still right handed. It just means that proportionally, gay men have a higher likelihood of being left handed than do straight men.
All of these traits point to the potential of gay genes, but the article is very well written in talking about the likelihood of multiple factors--both physical and cultural/environmental.
I have read many of the original sources cited, and was very impressed by this piece.
I think one of the biggest problems I have with the concept of a gay gene is the concept that, through gene therapy, the "condition" is curable.
If someone had asked me at a younger age if I wanted to be gay, I would have said no. Now, I wouldn't change anything about what I went through, what I have and what I have done. Would I want a cure now? No. Would I want people to treat being gay as a curable genetic condition? No.
~ See Gatika
I believe in the gay gene, but I don't think it's an on-or-off thing, something that shouts "GAY!" OR "NOT GAY!"
I think there are genes in gay people and straight that influence sexual preferences that, over time, build up into stronger, more absolute "Gay!" or "Not Gay!" decisions.
I'm bi, myself, so sometimes the preferences lead only to the middle of the road. But there are definitely genetic factors that brought me here, such as the fact that I am somewhat aroused by sexual activity with another male. If it weren't true, I wouldn't bother with males, would I?
This is absolutely genetic influenced and not environment. Preferences are not something you decide on, they are the underlying basis for decision.
You may as well fault someone for being fat (which people do, unfortunately) or liking or disliking particular flavors of ice cream.
Self-help gurus aside, one can not build your personality brick by brick, motivation by motivation. Nobody decides to be person A or person B. If they did, we would all be supermen and superwomen, wealthy, athletic, self-motivated, happy, well-educated ubermensch.
The fact that we're not indicates strongly that it doesn't work that way.
Interesting article but some of the research does seem a little suspect. The whole career aspirations thing just gives stereotypes a nice scientific sheen. That phenomenon can be explained a lot better with sociology than biology.
I also defy the gay physical characteristics (well, I think my hair goes clockwise, it's hard to tell) and no one I've asked has ever said I "sounded gay."
The article basically explains why all these studies should be taken with a grain of salt: hardly anyone is actually researching the topic and it's all based on people who are both self-identified as gay and comfortable enough with their sexuality to participate in research. I would say that probably weeds out a fair amount of less stereotypical gay men.
LOl i find all the studies people are doing now a days stupid. Remember almost everything causes cancer now a days. everything is unhealthy. Its like sugar gives us diabetes and sugar substitute gives us cancer so WTF am i supposed to use fruit juice but oh wait there come the fructose. The fact that this study with the finger and the head growth swirls are done means too many research scientists exist in the world. AND wtf is up with the sndrogen theory wouldnt that just make is manlier? it is a male hormone after all
All three of those things are untrue for both me and my boyfriend.
(And we both actually thought we'd heard the opposite before about the index/ring finger thing. That gays tended to have shorter index fingers than ring fingers.)
All of them are true for me but I'm bi.
According to some of these researchers over the past couple years, certain fingers mean gay, hair circles scream queen, and bi guys don't really exist. Oh, and fat people on average use more soap.
This whole trying to discover a cause seems like an attempt to catalog and identify something as changing and undefinable as sexuality. Some people are comfortably gay, some comfortably straight, some comfortably indefinable, some like to make up their own identity. So what if they do fide a cause, are they going to start offering a 'cure'? It shouldn't matter why we are the way we are, just that we are and deserve to be treated with equal dignity and respect.
Let's really ask ourselves as a society why we so desperately want to know what makes us LGBTQ. Because often, the first step in solving a problem is identifying the problem and that is how it the thinking seems to be whether anyone wants to admit it or not. We are not problems.
I'm not LGBTQ, brandon, I'm a gay man. Can't speak for anyone else here, but I get tired of being lumped in with everyone else who might at some time in their life have shown some attraction for the same sex, or changed their own. The LGBTQ thing was useful in presenting a united front back when not that many people came out (when it was still just "G&L", not alphabet soup), but I think each of these subgroups is big enough to do their own thing now.
Coherent, researchers are even now trying to find the gene or genes that make some people tend towards obesity, so that it may be disabled. It's not so far-fetched that someone, somewhere, maybe in Mexico or Thailand, will offer gene therapy to homophobic parents to "guarantee" their kids won't be gay.
I don't put a lot of stock in it working in either case (and I think gene therapy in general will have some pretty horrible side effects for decades yet, if not centuries), but don't think for a moment that people won't try.