Finally! A refreshing perspective on gay gene!

Hello! I just read this really cool article and I felt like sharing it with you, I´d love to know your thoughts about it...

the gay activist Peter Thatchell (known for his attempt to arrest twice the Zimbabwean President)
is presenting a refreshing point of view from an "insider" of the movement: "Biology is not destiny",
where he does not only manifests that there is no such thing as a "gay gene", but that this idea
attempts in various ways against a positive perception of and from the gay people.

The online magazine Liberate the Mind (http://www.liberatethemind.com/) is presenting the article
as a way to promote a deeper inner debate.

I hope it is of your interest because I think it presents an interesting opinion for everyone in the LGBT...(etc, etc) community.

 

The closest thing I've believed about "gay-from-birth" was always the fact that there's less testosterone in the womb for a second child and that was pushing it. To me the whole thing sounds alot more like a last defence mechanism, where you can equate it to being born black or a woman (and hence compare the equal-rights movements to the two of the same) but never put forward any real evidence.

I'm going with a combination of the nature and nurture. Just like they think there's a gene that makes you more susceptable to suggestion -> religion but you'd still need the thing put upon you as you grow up. I think that is the same for homosexuality. Not only does a gene that determines sexuality make no sense in evolutionary terms (on a cellular / non-high-level thinking level our main aim is to reproduce), but if it was the cause then even from a LGBT's view it would be obvious that homosexuality is some form of "illness" (or incorrectness in our genes).

Looking at the side for nurture being the cause, it seems much more likely to me. The whole logic behind it is sound and although not everyone goes through those things, it's entirely likely that there are other reasons which we just haven't found.

Sorry for the long post. And yes, I realise I'm going to be on the wrong side of alot of people for posting this. And so I apologise in advance for any offence if I've caused it.

 

Statistically the more sons a woman has the more likelihood the youngest son will be gay. It increases with each son, so I think something happens during the pregnancy stage.

 

i read the article, know the dispute and in my opinion this is all still speculations. there's no proof either way. it's pointless to start taking sides with such inadequate facts.

all i know about being gay is that it's natural. that's the reason why i tend to lean towards homosexuality being biologically or genetically induced rather than environmentally. but what do i know.
and --- i don't think that if it turns out to be biological/genetic that it would then mean it's a disease (or 'incorrectness'). evolution does not have a will. all it does is secure the survival of the genes fit for life. if there is a 'gay gene' the fact that it's still alive proves one thing and one thing only -- that it's fit for life. nothing else. all the moral and ethical implications come from us, and the societal structure.

 

Eugenists would greatly welcome a 'gay' gene. It is a dangerous thought.

 

That's not really true. Evolution is a series of random mutations and accidents. Some disappear because they are not fit for life, some stay because they are. Other's just stay because they don't necessarily help or hurt, they're just there and they don't disappear because they aren't hurting, but that doesn't mean they're especially beneficial. Of course, if you want to get deeper into it, technically evolution itself is still just a theory.

 

i didn't say beneficial. i said fit for life. and evolution is not in a status of theory.
it's been proven long time ago. if you think otherwise you obviously don't understand what it's about.

 

All evidence points to it being a hormone, not a gene. Basically, part of the hypothalamus is cut off from receiving testosterone while it's still developing. Never receiving testerone, the cells develop as they would in a female. Genes may play in role in some cases, but the mechanism would still be the same. It happens because testosterone doesn't reach all the areas of the brain it normally would, whether it's genetics, or a hormone that causes it not to reach the area is not really important. Either way you get a gay guy.

 

yes. it's very important exactly which region of hypothalamus is deprived of testosterone. male-to-female transsexuals come to be in a similar fashion. but in their case it's a different part of the brain that's deprived of testosterone, the region that determines gender identity (don't know which part it is though). thus depending on the timing and duration of cut off from testosterone you get a gay male or a male-to-female transsexual or both.

and how birth order has been injected into this argument (the chances of homosexuality increase ca 30% with every next male fetus) is that women supposedly become immunized to male fetuses the more they have them. they start producing antibodies that counter the effects of male-specific antigens. these antibodies actually bind to those molecules in the developing brain of the fetus. thus the brain is deprived of testosterone and chance of homosexuality is increased.

a link from the study:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0417v7308624l342/

 

I have 2 issues with this paragraph, but thank you for posting it as there is a lot of people that feel this way. The first is that you assume that if there is a gay-gene that homosexuality will be deemed an illness. In order for it to be deemed an illness it must cause harm and distress. As homosexuality itself does neither, it will never again be deemed an illness. The only harm or distress that is given to a homosexual person is through the discrimination and social stigma, which is caused by the disease of homophobia, not homosexuality.

Second, I would like to point out that it is already viewed as a mutation of the genes. But that is how evolution takes place. Being "incorrect in our genes" is more common than people realize at first thought. Anyone who is not dark skinned with dark hair and eyes is a mutation from the "normal" genes of a human. But it is what makes us who we are so go with it.

 

B.I.N.G.O and BINGO was his name-o!

 

Gay human beings are only gay based on what they do with their genitals, bottom line

 

What about emotional and sexual attraction. I am attracted to guys, could not fathom being attracted to females.

There have also been studies on the brain that say that gay men's brains function closer to a woman's than a straight male's.

I am sorry there is more to it then, "ok here is a hole I am gonna shove my dick in it". I am not saying that there are not gay men who are like that, but it is not to say that there are actual biological reasons behind it as well.

Also, what about other animals who display homosexual attraction?

 

only in the region that determines sexual attraction. in any other aspect it's still a male brain. otherwise you'd be well on your way to get a sex reassignment surgery.

and that is what scientific studies have actually proven (this word is used too liberately when talking about science) -- that transsexuals' brains resemble more those of their desired sex than their genetic one. thus it's logical they would go at such great length to change their body.

so, unless you feel like a woman, your brain is a typical male brain.

 

So, where do bisexual ppl fit into these gene theories? Is there a gene for ambiguous sexuality? For those who enjoy fucking women equally to sucking cock, what is the cause?

 

Shale, "ok here is a hole I am gonna shove my dick in it". haha. I am sure there are variances in the gene or how dominant it is etc if it is a gene. Or the hormones the fetus is exposed to, ect. But it is a good question

 

yes, there's a continuous spectrum to sexuality. my guess is that the intensity and/or length of testosterone exposure at that critical point in brain development where differentiation of sexuality takes place could explain that spectrum.