8 ms·

Wow, the bioethical implications of potentially identifying the mechanism of sexual orientation are staggering. I wonder if / how long it will be before parent

Wow, the bioethical implications of potentially identifying the mechanism of sexual orientation are staggering. I wonder if / how long it will be before parents have the technical means—if not the legal right—to alter their child to be gay or straight through gene therapy. Or even simply selectively bring to term one orientation or the other.

epistasis 9y ago
It's unlikely that we'll find definitive predictors for this trait in the next decade, it will just be associations that predict an increase or decrease in the odds. The really strong predictive associations are also easier to find.
zer00eyz 9y ago
In reading your comment I was struck by the dilemma that this reality would bring. Those most opposed to homosexuality are those most opposed to terminating pregnancy (mostly). It would create quite a quandary for folks who are inclined to hold these two beliefs.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Cognitive dissonance is alive and well. (edit - spelling)
  - yipopov 9y ago
    Whose cognitive dissonance?
    - r00fus 9y ago
      Those that hold two mutually incompatible ideas. "Taxes are evil" - "Don't take away my medicare". My point is that the choice will be easy for some to ignore their dictates that "abortion is abhorrent" and might choose to abort a "gay baby" because they fear homosexuality more than keeping their ideals.
      - yipopov 9y ago
        That's hypocrisy, not cognitive dissonance. Though I suppose a lot of hypocrites also experience cognitive dissonance. But if you're going to accuse someone of hypocrisy I think you should be a bit more specific about exactly who you are accusing.
- quantumofmalice 9y ago
  By HN standards I would be considered opposed to homosexuality and I am opposed to abortion. The idea of aborting a baby due to their likely sexuality is as horrifying to me as sex-selective abortion. I don't view this as a quandry whatsoever.
  - zer00eyz 9y ago
    Thanks for your candor: Since were in the realm of hypothetical, I would like to ask you a question. If we manage to identify homosexuality as a genetic disorder, and we determined that there was a 99.999% chance that your children would be homosexual, what would you do?
    - quantumofmalice 9y ago
      That would be a tough situation, I'm not sure. My first thought is that the moral choice for me would be to accept celibacy and try to do the best I can for others in that role.
      - debatem1 9y ago
        Out of curiosity, why not select life? Everybody sins-- why not accept that maybe this sin is more likely and love the children that might be born to you?
        quantumofmalice 9y ago
        That's a reasonable perspective. I would have to ask my children to remain celibate, though, and would it be fair to put that burden on them, even (maybe especially) if they didn't accept it? It seems more fair to me if I bear the burden of my moral framework, given the proposed determinism.
        azinman2 9y ago
        Why do you have to go to sin? What’s sinful about being born any which way?
- grondilu 9y ago
  Well, there's always preimplantation genetic diagnosis[1] and CRISPR. That wouldn't require the termination of any pregnancy. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagno...
- natecavanaugh 9y ago
  Your other comments make me think you're someone who appreciates an honest discussion, so thanks for that. I do have an honest question of the reverse. Those most in favor of homosexuality are also those okay with abortion. But if parents started aborting because they were homosexual, would there be any sort of moral/ethical issue? Other comments have rightly commented it could be inverse (selecting for homosexuality), but I think all pro-lifers would prefer anyone being born, and allowing them to be responsible for their own soul, so that answer is easier for me to imagine.
  - mfukar 9y ago
    > But if parents started aborting because they were homosexual, would there be any sort of moral/ethical issue? Not more so than terminating a pregnancy for any other reason.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - coldtea 9y ago
      Doesn't sound like it. Usually it's for some reason that's justifiable, e.g. don't have the means to support it, don't want a child ever/at this moment in my life, teenage pregnancy, product of rape, fetus has some inherited disease, etc. Merely dropping a child because it'll be gay, while being ok to keep another that wouldn't is not exactly of that nature. Even the most casual reasoning for abortion ("I don't want a child, period") doesn't imply anything more, whereas this can be seen as implying you hate gay people.
      - bobthechef 9y ago
        > fetus has some inherited disease By your logic, if homosexual attraction had genetic causes, could it not also be seen as "some inherited disease"? You're doing a great deal of question begging. You're beginning with an ideological stance vis-a-vis homosexual attraction that is exactly a point of issue, and then tailoring moral arguments to suit the position. You've confused "the position that homosexual attraction is disordered" with "hating gay people" and then unjustifiably construed "hating gay people" as not entailed by the desire to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, i.e., it's okay to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason unless the reason is that the fetus is genetically conditioned for homosexual attraction, in which case it isn't okay because that would be an act of hate against gay people by virtue of my prior ideological commitments. You must see the absurdity of that line of thought. The position of sound anti-abortionists would be that no matter the characteristics of the fetus, the fetus is a human being and the killing of any innocent human being is immoral. Your position, on the other hand, seems to be very ad hoc, relying on special pleading that is driven by prior sui generis ideological commitments.
- Top19 9y ago
  This is actually the plot of a movie from the 90’s based on a popular play: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_of_the_Golds_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_of_the_Golds_(fil...
- Balgair 9y ago
  Maybe. Many people still think homosexuality is a choice, not an inherent trait. The genetic argument may just be ignored entirely. People somehow believe stranger things about the flatness of the Earth.
flukus 9y ago
It's interesting how the timing has an effect on the ethical implications as well. If we had this technology 50 years ago it would be a clear cut case of selecting the straight genes only. This discovery coming now means that the debate could go the other way (no interfering). Much of the world is also less friendly to homosexuality, to put it lightly. I wonder if they will eliminate it entirely?
- itronitron 9y ago
  The countries that could afford this type of intervention are typically much more friendly than the countries that could not afford this.
  - mkl 9y ago
    For now. Some genetics costs are decreasing faster than exponential: https://www.genome.gov/27541954/dna-sequencing-costs-data/ https://www.genome.gov/27541954/dna-sequencing-costs-data/
- zer00eyz 9y ago
  In 1974 the book "The Forever War" was published that had a take on this (granted in a round about way). Roe V Wade (legalizing abortion in the USA) is 1973. I think that 50 years ago "homosexuality" would not have been "preventable" at least in the US. However those who were untreatable were not treated kindly - it is still the era of institutionalization. We probably would have had a far more horrific solution to the precived problem than the one you suggest.
- junto 9y ago
  Say hello to mutation. The process that says screw you to trying to try and remove such genes.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pzone 9y ago
The notion that sexual orientation could be genetically selected for at birth is science fiction. We know for a fact that no one gene or set of genes causes homosexuality - it's "biopsychosocial" in nature.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
woodpanel 9y ago
Hallelujah, with these findings and the advancement of CRISPR, religious re-education camps can step up their game! irony_off While I doubt we'd see these means anytime soon, it could go either way I think: Forced abortions because of sex orientation (and who says that it'll have to be the straight people that abort homosexuals, not the other way around?) or taking a pill and become gay for some months, as you wish. I'd assume that the usage of such products would move towards more (percieved) comfortness in life (like not being gay in teenage years, bc. some studies found you're more likely to feel bad ... but being gay in college/post-college years because higher income).
- jcelerier 9y ago
  > (and who says that it'll have to be the straight people that abort homosexuals, not the other way around?) /me trying to picture two guys having an abortion
  - yipopov 9y ago
    Surrogacy is legal in many parts of the world, and the women are often not in a good position to resist pressure to have abortions.
  - woodpanel 9y ago
    Just for clarification of what I've meant: a homosexual majority/elite could equally make it unpopular to come to labor with an heterosexual child.
Animats 9y ago
Birth order is another known input for male homosexuality.[1][2] For every older biological brother, the chances of being born gay go up substantially. But the mechanism isn't known yet. A number of other objective measurements also change with birth order. Parent genetics alone aren't enough. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626369/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626369/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28608293 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28608293
- junto 9y ago
  Interesting. Then by that rationale, since families used to on average produce vastly more children per closed family unit, the amount of gay children in total should be dropping?
cabalamat 9y ago
> I wonder if / how long it will be before parents have the technical means—if not the legal right—to alter their child to be gay or straight through gene therapy. I'm not sure that'll ever be possible. Once a gene has "done its work", possibly when the fetus was in the womb, that least to homosexuality (or whatever other characteristic is of interest), then editing the genome will have less or no effect. > Or even simply selectively bring to term one orientation or the other. This seems a lot more doable to me. I expect it will be possible by 2025-2030.
SamReidHughes 9y ago
Unless homosexuality is directly useful for reproduction, if the findings here are correct, these genotypes probably have some sort of reproductive advantage. I'd bet you replacing would harm the child in some way, or in certain combinations with other genes.

epistasis 9y ago

It's unlikely that we'll find definitive predictors for this trait in the next decade, it will just be associations that predict an increase or decrease in the odds. The really strong predictive associations are also easier to find.

zer00eyz 9y ago

In reading your comment I was struck by the dilemma that this reality would bring. Those most opposed to homosexuality are those most opposed to terminating pregnancy (mostly). It would create quite a quandary for folks who are inclined to hold these two beliefs.

r00fus 9y ago
Cognitive dissonance is alive and well. (edit - spelling)
- yipopov 9y ago
  Whose cognitive dissonance?
  - r00fus 9y ago
    Those that hold two mutually incompatible ideas. "Taxes are evil" - "Don't take away my medicare". My point is that the choice will be easy for some to ignore their dictates that "abortion is abhorrent" and might choose to abort a "gay baby" because they fear homosexuality more than keeping their ideals.
    - yipopov 9y ago
      That's hypocrisy, not cognitive dissonance. Though I suppose a lot of hypocrites also experience cognitive dissonance. But if you're going to accuse someone of hypocrisy I think you should be a bit more specific about exactly who you are accusing.
quantumofmalice 9y ago
By HN standards I would be considered opposed to homosexuality and I am opposed to abortion. The idea of aborting a baby due to their likely sexuality is as horrifying to me as sex-selective abortion. I don't view this as a quandry whatsoever.
- zer00eyz 9y ago
  Thanks for your candor: Since were in the realm of hypothetical, I would like to ask you a question. If we manage to identify homosexuality as a genetic disorder, and we determined that there was a 99.999% chance that your children would be homosexual, what would you do?
  - quantumofmalice 9y ago
    That would be a tough situation, I'm not sure. My first thought is that the moral choice for me would be to accept celibacy and try to do the best I can for others in that role.
    - debatem1 9y ago
      Out of curiosity, why not select life? Everybody sins-- why not accept that maybe this sin is more likely and love the children that might be born to you?
      - quantumofmalice 9y ago
        That's a reasonable perspective. I would have to ask my children to remain celibate, though, and would it be fair to put that burden on them, even (maybe especially) if they didn't accept it? It seems more fair to me if I bear the burden of my moral framework, given the proposed determinism.
      - azinman2 9y ago
        Why do you have to go to sin? What’s sinful about being born any which way?
grondilu 9y ago
Well, there's always preimplantation genetic diagnosis[1] and CRISPR. That wouldn't require the termination of any pregnancy. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagno...
natecavanaugh 9y ago
Your other comments make me think you're someone who appreciates an honest discussion, so thanks for that. I do have an honest question of the reverse. Those most in favor of homosexuality are also those okay with abortion. But if parents started aborting because they were homosexual, would there be any sort of moral/ethical issue? Other comments have rightly commented it could be inverse (selecting for homosexuality), but I think all pro-lifers would prefer anyone being born, and allowing them to be responsible for their own soul, so that answer is easier for me to imagine.
- mfukar 9y ago
  > But if parents started aborting because they were homosexual, would there be any sort of moral/ethical issue? Not more so than terminating a pregnancy for any other reason.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Doesn't sound like it. Usually it's for some reason that's justifiable, e.g. don't have the means to support it, don't want a child ever/at this moment in my life, teenage pregnancy, product of rape, fetus has some inherited disease, etc. Merely dropping a child because it'll be gay, while being ok to keep another that wouldn't is not exactly of that nature. Even the most casual reasoning for abortion ("I don't want a child, period") doesn't imply anything more, whereas this can be seen as implying you hate gay people.
    - bobthechef 9y ago
      > fetus has some inherited disease By your logic, if homosexual attraction had genetic causes, could it not also be seen as "some inherited disease"? You're doing a great deal of question begging. You're beginning with an ideological stance vis-a-vis homosexual attraction that is exactly a point of issue, and then tailoring moral arguments to suit the position. You've confused "the position that homosexual attraction is disordered" with "hating gay people" and then unjustifiably construed "hating gay people" as not entailed by the desire to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, i.e., it's okay to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason unless the reason is that the fetus is genetically conditioned for homosexual attraction, in which case it isn't okay because that would be an act of hate against gay people by virtue of my prior ideological commitments. You must see the absurdity of that line of thought. The position of sound anti-abortionists would be that no matter the characteristics of the fetus, the fetus is a human being and the killing of any innocent human being is immoral. Your position, on the other hand, seems to be very ad hoc, relying on special pleading that is driven by prior sui generis ideological commitments.
Top19 9y ago
This is actually the plot of a movie from the 90’s based on a popular play: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_of_the_Golds_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_of_the_Golds_(fil...
Balgair 9y ago
Maybe. Many people still think homosexuality is a choice, not an inherent trait. The genetic argument may just be ignored entirely. People somehow believe stranger things about the flatness of the Earth.

flukus 9y ago

It's interesting how the timing has an effect on the ethical implications as well. If we had this technology 50 years ago it would be a clear cut case of selecting the straight genes only. This discovery coming now means that the debate could go the other way (no interfering). Much of the world is also less friendly to homosexuality, to put it lightly. I wonder if they will eliminate it entirely?

itronitron 9y ago
The countries that could afford this type of intervention are typically much more friendly than the countries that could not afford this.
- mkl 9y ago
  For now. Some genetics costs are decreasing faster than exponential: https://www.genome.gov/27541954/dna-sequencing-costs-data/ https://www.genome.gov/27541954/dna-sequencing-costs-data/
zer00eyz 9y ago
In 1974 the book "The Forever War" was published that had a take on this (granted in a round about way). Roe V Wade (legalizing abortion in the USA) is 1973. I think that 50 years ago "homosexuality" would not have been "preventable" at least in the US. However those who were untreatable were not treated kindly - it is still the era of institutionalization. We probably would have had a far more horrific solution to the precived problem than the one you suggest.
junto 9y ago
Say hello to mutation. The process that says screw you to trying to try and remove such genes.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

pzone 9y ago

The notion that sexual orientation could be genetically selected for at birth is science fiction. We know for a fact that no one gene or set of genes causes homosexuality - it's "biopsychosocial" in nature.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

woodpanel 9y ago

Hallelujah, with these findings and the advancement of CRISPR, religious re-education camps can step up their game! irony_off While I doubt we'd see these means anytime soon, it could go either way I think: Forced abortions because of sex orientation (and who says that it'll have to be the straight people that abort homosexuals, not the other way around?) or taking a pill and become gay for some months, as you wish. I'd assume that the usage of such products would move towards more (percieved) comfortness in life (like not being gay in teenage years, bc. some studies found you're more likely to feel bad ... but being gay in college/post-college years because higher income).

jcelerier 9y ago
> (and who says that it'll have to be the straight people that abort homosexuals, not the other way around?) /me trying to picture two guys having an abortion
- yipopov 9y ago
  Surrogacy is legal in many parts of the world, and the women are often not in a good position to resist pressure to have abortions.
- woodpanel 9y ago
  Just for clarification of what I've meant: a homosexual majority/elite could equally make it unpopular to come to labor with an heterosexual child.

Animats 9y ago

Birth order is another known input for male homosexuality.[1][2] For every older biological brother, the chances of being born gay go up substantially. But the mechanism isn't known yet. A number of other objective measurements also change with birth order. Parent genetics alone aren't enough. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626369/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626369/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28608293 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28608293

junto 9y ago
Interesting. Then by that rationale, since families used to on average produce vastly more children per closed family unit, the amount of gay children in total should be dropping?

cabalamat 9y ago

> I wonder if / how long it will be before parents have the technical means—if not the legal right—to alter their child to be gay or straight through gene therapy. I'm not sure that'll ever be possible. Once a gene has "done its work", possibly when the fetus was in the womb, that least to homosexuality (or whatever other characteristic is of interest), then editing the genome will have less or no effect. > Or even simply selectively bring to term one orientation or the other. This seems a lot more doable to me. I expect it will be possible by 2025-2030.

SamReidHughes 9y ago

Unless homosexuality is directly useful for reproduction, if the findings here are correct, these genotypes probably have some sort of reproductive advantage. I'd bet you replacing would harm the child in some way, or in certain combinations with other genes.