3 ms·

Narrowing things down is easier when you control for one aspect instead of multiple ones. If, hypothetically, being trans inverted the expression of the gene f

Narrowing things down is easier when you control for one aspect instead of multiple ones. If, hypothetically, being trans inverted the expression of the gene for being gay, you'd have a harder time finding the gene until you accounted for it. By eliminating the possibility, you make it easier to find the gene you're looking for. If you can't find the gene in the smaller pool of subjects, you weren't going to find it in the larger one. But if you did find it, you can learn how it affects everyone in a different study.

Udik 6y ago
> If, hypothetically, being trans inverted the expression of the gene for being gay That, although always possible, seems pretty far-fetched. > If you can't find the gene in the smaller pool of subjects, you weren't going to find it in the larger one. Except that here the larger one includes precisely the community of people that has the highest incidence of same-sex attraction. Imagine trying to determine the influence of genetics on skin colour after having removed from your study everyone who self-identifies as black.
- tofery 6y ago
  >That, although always possible, seems pretty far-fetched. Sure, perhaps it is farfetched. But the point is trying to eliminate as many variations as possible to focus on a smaller set of people. Then once we have that, we can expand outward. Consider that instead of there being a "gay gene", there is a gene (or set of genes) that controls not homosexuality, but androphilia (sexual attraction to men/males/masculinity) and perhaps another that controls gynephilia (sexual attraction to women/females/femininity). [note 1] In that case, by looking at only one sex we could find such a gene. This is just an example of which there are many, but my intent is to show why looking at a smaller sample first could prove useful later. Note 1: There is some precedent for this particular theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androphilia_and_gynephilia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androphilia_and_gynephilia

Udik 6y ago

> If, hypothetically, being trans inverted the expression of the gene for being gay That, although always possible, seems pretty far-fetched. > If you can't find the gene in the smaller pool of subjects, you weren't going to find it in the larger one. Except that here the larger one includes precisely the community of people that has the highest incidence of same-sex attraction. Imagine trying to determine the influence of genetics on skin colour after having removed from your study everyone who self-identifies as black.

tofery 6y ago
>That, although always possible, seems pretty far-fetched. Sure, perhaps it is farfetched. But the point is trying to eliminate as many variations as possible to focus on a smaller set of people. Then once we have that, we can expand outward. Consider that instead of there being a "gay gene", there is a gene (or set of genes) that controls not homosexuality, but androphilia (sexual attraction to men/males/masculinity) and perhaps another that controls gynephilia (sexual attraction to women/females/femininity). [note 1] In that case, by looking at only one sex we could find such a gene. This is just an example of which there are many, but my intent is to show why looking at a smaller sample first could prove useful later. Note 1: There is some precedent for this particular theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androphilia_and_gynephilia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androphilia_and_gynephilia