9 ms·
Study Finds No Single Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior
- buboard 7y agoI get the sentiment but the title is misleading. There IS a significant genetic contribution, but it's polygenic.
- superpermutat0r 7y agoHow did they discover that, given the curse of dimensionality? If the genetic contribution is significant, how do they know it's not some unreproducible model that is significant due to it having too many parameters (thousands of genes)? Or do they have a theoretical model of homosexuality and took just the genes that the model predicts should point to it?
- buboard 7y agostatistics
- qzx_pierri 7y ago[citation needed]
- acdha 7y agoIt’s a scientific study so the citation is literally present in the story if you want to learn what they did: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7693 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7693
- superpermutat0r 7y agoCurse of dimensionality and statistical significance are terms I used in my comment. I'm quite aware of the statistical methods and am a bit confused about how they avoid the dimensionality problem. I'm pretty sure I could get statistical significance for any trait with a highly dimensional dataset.
- dooglius 7y agoRather than making armchair dismissals, consider looking at the paper and its citations which discuss the statistical methods used. From a cursory glance, it looks like they use a standard model of how genes affect traits, which uses O(N) parameters for N genes, so the "curse of dimensionality" would not apply.
- superpermutat0r 7y agoWhen there's thousands of genes then it applies.
- vixen99 7y agoMaybe akin to the IQ story. Polygenic scores have been shown in at least 20 studies to predict IQ & educational attainment. "Childhood intelligence is heritable, highly polygenic and associated with FNBP1L" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935975/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935975/
- bayesian_horse 7y agoInheritability of a trait can be inferred through statistic means, though I feel like there is too much confidence around such computations, given that it is virtually impossible to isolate environment from genetics in Humans. But when looking for specific mutations, the sum of all these effects is often just a small fraction of that inheritability, suggesting that the interaction of the genes and the environment is more complex than can be captured with such models.
- DangerousPie 7y agoThat's why it says "no single genetic cause" and not "no genetic cause".
- Vinnl 7y agoTechnically true, and I'm sure the title wasn't intended to have that effect, but judging by the other comments, it appears some people still seem to be led to believe it meant "no genetic cause" - so it's still worth pointing out. But yes, that's not necessarily malice or incompetence on the part of the title's author.
- lone-commenter 7y ago> But yes, that's not necessarily malice or incompetence on the part of the title's author. If it's not malice, then it's linguistic incompetence.
- Vinnl 7y agoWell, incompetence in that they didn't manage to achieve clarity for all readers, but not in the sense that someone else would've been able to think of a better title that would achieve that, I think.
- lone-commenter 7y agoSure they would: "Study Finds No Unique Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior".
- darkwater 7y agoYet a handful of comments here are already jumping to the "it's environmental, not genetic" conclusion
- CriticalCathed 7y agoIt's also raging across the right wing internet. Has been for 3 days. Facts don't matter, even here.
- roansh 7y agoThis needs to be at top. Lots of commenters seem to have misunderstood the title just as this comment suggests.
- dooglius 7y agoRight, and I don't think anyone would expect any complex behavior to be brought on by changes in only a few proteins.
- scotty79 7y agoYou might be surprised how mane really complex outcomes can come from a single mutation.
- dooglius 7y agoI should clarify what I mean... yes, single mutations can definitely have far-reaching effects, but you would not expect a high-level emergent behavior to be the result of one or a few genes.
- scotty79 7y agoThat single mutation could affect level of some hormone during som3 crucial step of brain development and that might result in some complex behavioral changes.
- draugadrotten 7y agoWhat about genetic causes in the parent(s)? Such as a genetic cause in the mother affecting the hormonal levels in uterus.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoThat should still result in specific mutations having significant effects. And maternal effects are a thing that can be computed statistically, both as a genetic and environmental factor. And it's not helpful to confuse sexual orientation with hormonal causes or effects.
- NextHendrix 7y agoAs someone who knows nothing about this subject, if the cause doesn't appear to be genetic then what does that leave? Environmental? Something else?
- m4r35n357 7y agoWhat do you think causes big noses?
- NextHendrix 7y agoboth?
- jrugk 7y agoJudaism?
- bayesian_horse 7y agoI would like to say your comment is right on the nose, but it really isn't a helpful question at all.
- matthewmacleod 7y agoThe title doesn’t mean “the cause is not genetic”, but rather “the cause does not appear to be a single obvious gene”. In reality there are going to be a bunch of different factors. Genetic predisposition is certainly likely to be one of them. Environmental factors too - like the hormonal environment in the womb, which I seem to remember had some correlation. Upbringing and social factors will also play an effect - a child with a strongly homophobic upbringing is less likely to explore their sexuality and end up identifying or embracing same-sex attraction.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoErm. You apparently don't know a lot about homosexuality... Homosexual children having problems with homophobic parents is a pretty common theme. Also, same-sex attraction usually occurs long before any kind of "exploration", and doesn't seem to be any more controllable or malleable than heterosexuals would be able to control their attraction to the other sex.
- jawns 7y agoThe "born this way" aspect of gay activism is trending down, even apart from the lack of scientific evidence of a strong genetic component. It was immensely useful during the gay rights movement, especially in the years preceding Obergefell, as a way to essentially persuade straight people, "This is not something I can control, so it's not something I can change, even if I wanted to." There was a de-emphasis on how sexual relationships typically develop -- through a serious of free, conscious choices to which sexual partners consent -- and instead an emphasis on sexual attraction itself, which often does not feel like a fully a conscious choice. Now, I'm seeing more and more LGB people, especially those under 30, freely admit what had been considered an open secret: that many of those who insisted that they were "born this way" actually consider sexual orientation not to be immutable, but fluid, to various degrees. Whether one has conscious control over whom one finds attractive at any given time, of course, is another question, but for a time, evidence for sexual fluidity, especially within the queer community, was considered potentially damaging to the "born this way" efforts and de-emphasized or suppressed. Post-Obergefell, more queer people seem to feel like they've gained enough legal and cultural ground that they can freely admit it, though. And some do in an almost defiant way, saying essentially, "So what if my sexual choices are free choices? If I choose to be gay, who's to say I shouldn't?" That's a far cry from the prevailing narrative from just 10 or 15 years ago, when very few gay people would admit that they might have any conscious control over being gay.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoAs far as I understand it, "born this way" may as well be true. Environmental factors have never been identified, and there is no clue as to when the determination is made. The sexual orientation can only really be observed/felt around puberty, but it seems to be determined long before.
- chmod775 7y ago> Environmental factors have never been identified, and there is no clue as to when the determination is made. > but it seems to be determined long before [puberty]. If your first statement is true, your second statement has no basis. If your second statement is based on anything, your first statement is false. Just pointing this out because I'm curious what the actual findings in this area are.
- gingabriska 7y agoI wonder what if it's a learned behaviour. I used to very odd kid and mostly spent my life around girls from very early age. I almost never had male friends which ofc changed in late teenage. Now, don't find females that attractive and mostly spend time with guys. Don't call me sexist or smth but I find it's more fun to work with guys. That's my preference.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoThere is a difference between the neuro-biological sexual orientation and actual sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is definitely learned. But despite centuries of "theories" or convictions about "what experiences turn people gay", nothing has been identified scientifically.
- pndy 7y ago> Don't call me sexist Why it would be sexist? It's your personal preference and nobody's else but yours.
- tomp 7y agoProximity can go both ways... You might as well develop a strong liking of girls/women because of proximity. I've been bombarded from young age (by pop culture, TV, magazines, porn) by thin women wearing make-up. I have a strong sexual preference for thin (fitspo thin, not anorexic thin) women and a strong dislike of women wearing make-up. Go figure...
- JohnJamesRambo 7y agoThis is not really that surprising considering that the closer we look it seems like all genes affect complex traits, the omnigenic theory. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that...
- BiasRegularizer 7y agoI have read a few cases of identical twins having different sexual orientation. Perhaps they are also good subjects of study, since their genetic make up are so similar, it would be easy to identify if/which genes correlates to sexual orientation.
- verroq 7y agoI find it difficult to believe a universal genetic cause since same-sex relationships generally don’t produce off-spring and would be naturally selected out.
- danieltillett 7y agoThis is like saying there could be no genetic cause of blindness as blindness is naturally selected against.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoIn fact I read some time ago that one mutation that does have a small contribution to sexual orientation, has the same allele frequency in most Human populations, suggesting that even the "gay" allele is positively selected for. A Human individual's fitness affects the chances of his whole family. And it's just not true that Homosexuals don't have children. In practice they have fewer children, but more than you might think.
- DrScientist 7y agoJust because they can't pin something down to a single or low number of genes doesn't automatically mean there isn't a strong genetic determinant - it just means it might be spread among many factors, making any one factor hard to pinpoint. From a high level view, the idea that something that is so critical to species survival, like a sex drive, isn't largely genetic determined seems rather unlikely. I suspect the situation is something like height - this primer gives a good overview of properties of something that might be largely genetic but by many many factors. Also it covers the issue of rare exceptions, being different from the general rule. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/height https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/height Also note height is a continuous function not a binary state of tall or short - I suspect the same is here - this would easily explain, why some people feeling they were born that way, and others feel it's more a choice.
- kitawana 7y ago> From a high level view, the idea that something that is so critical to species survival, like a sex drive, isn't largely genetic determined seems rather unlikely. Actually I found that surprising to hear. We have so many social processes that in many cases discourage and reduce sexual behavior. Marriage works against the survival of the fittest you might get from sowing wild oats, but it's almost universal. Homosexuality, indeed, is a discouragement to species survival (if I understand your meaning correctly). Yet you're claiming it is unlikely that it doesn't originate in genetics? I don't know, I mean, I basically agree with your final statement - that we don't actually have a discrete variable here even if we largely see discrete behavior (since we tend to prefer long lasting relationships, so if you're F45-55M then you'll probably focus disproportionately on finding an M partner). And what it means to be a guy or a girl is definitely not genetic. Most of our interaction with sexual beings is "pants on". And those pants, and the nature of our interactions, is hugely cultural determined. And I think most people have the experience of being attracted to a person without engaging in any sex-seeking behavior with them. And many people seem to have experience of the reverse. Given the cultural and experiential components of sexual attraction, I really don't think genetics need to be worth that much. Maybe there's some contribution, but it doesn't seem to have much scope, nor does it need it.
- CriticalCathed 7y agoA lot of otherwise smart people in here didn't read the article and are popping off about how gays choose to be gay. The article says that it is a POLYGENIC situation, as in "not ONE gene, but many."
- enriquto 7y agoIf I understand correctly, this result is exactly equivalent to "no single genetic cause for heterosexual behavior", which does not seem as dramatic.
- dade_ 7y agoGarbage in, garbage out. This study doesn't mean anything as it relies on information provided to 23 and me. The question asked if a person had a same sex experience, which doesn't mean a person is gay, bi or straight. Further there are plenty of people that wouldn't answer truthfully to the question for a multitude of reasons. Good for advertising clicks and idiotic comments that have already started to appear.
- buboard 7y ago> The question asked if a person had a same sex experience Yeah i found that weird too. a Sexual experience is not "orientation" Another interesting thing is that homosexual people use 23andme more frequently than the rest. Perhaps looking for clues like this
- zed88 7y agoThe theory of gay gene couldn't have been supported by the evolutionary algorithms. Natural selection means that a trait like male homosexuality, if it had a genetic component, couldn't have persisted over evolutionary time if the individuals that carry the genes associated with that trait are not reproducing. In my observation of two contrasting cultures that I grew up in, it could be better explained by sociology than genetics.
- Spoppys 7y agoYes it is totally supported by evolutionary algorithms. Traits that are harmful in some situations and beneficial in others can be passed on, like sickle cell anemia which gives a degree of protection against malaria. The same as traits which are beneficial to some of your offspring and advantageous to others, like a strong jaw. Which would probably look better on your sons than your daughter. It can be evolutionary advantageous for some of your kids to come first, even if it means others come last, rather than all your kids coming second.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- fiblye 7y ago>The theory of gay gene couldn't have been supported by the evolutionary algorithms. We have genetic diseases that kill people before they reach adulthood. We have gay people who get married, make kids, and feel zero sexual attraction to their spouse. Evolution is a complex process. It's not a mere "more offspring = everyone else disappears" deal.
- gingabriska 7y ago> Natural selection means that a trait like male homosexuality, if it had a genetic component, couldn't have persisted over evolutionary time if the individuals that carry the genes associated with that trait are not reproducing. Not really, if we go back to time people were prosecuted for being homosexual. They used to have a wife and kid but still practised homosexuality in private or killed their desires and gave it up at great pain and sufferings. It will take time for natrual selection to remove Homosexual genes (if we believe they exit) if they've full freedom and aren't forced to have kids.
- mamon 7y agoThe key takeway is easily lost: "genetics seemed to account for between 8 and 25 percent of the behavior. The rest was presumably a result of environmental or other biological influences. " There is a lot of other research which identify these "other biological influences" as hormonal imbalance during the pregnacy, which in most severe cases causes a child to be transgender, in milder ones gay (this kind of explains "drag queens", gay man who identify as male, but still like to dress up as women sometimes. Not sure if there's a female counterpart to this phenomenon).
- fbn79 7y agoTo make it simple to understand I think "same-sexual behavior" can be compared to left or right handedness. There is not a single gene that determines it (probably more than 40) but it is certainly not a thing people can choose or that can be easily changed during life. More about handedness https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/handedness https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/handedness
- draw_down 7y agoI always thought the claim of a genetic cause for sexuality was a bit premature. Even if one is “born this way”, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s genetic.
- b_tterc_p 7y agoThere’s plenty of evidence to suggest some portion of likelihood of being gay is controlled by parental hormones. E.g. the probability of being gay is observably higher in men born after an older brother. So... this was obviously going to be true.