If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Scientists claim that homosexuality is not genetic - but it arises in the womb. With helpful picture of completely acceptable lesbian couple   (io9.com) divider line 471
    More: Interesting, genes control, sexual development, womb, lesbians, gays and lesbians, Urban Friberg, William Rice, gay gene  
•       •       •

21773 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2012 at 4:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



471 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-11 04:44:58 PM

Smeggy Smurf: How long till the queers start demanding abortion be illegal? The first kid to be aborted for being gay is going to be the catalyst for a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.



Because feti demonstrate gender-based sexual attraction in utero.
 
2012-12-11 04:45:49 PM
How long until straight parents get treatment to keep from having gay kids?

How long until gay parents get treatment to have gay kids.
 
2012-12-11 04:45:49 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: He'd play Barbie with the girls when you needed him to play football so that the teams would be even.



Obviously playing with girls denotes homosexuality and climbing all over sweaty boys is the height of hetero behavior. I had this conversation with a buddy after gym class, when myself and one other guy opted to do step aerobics instead of wrestling.

"Seriously man, you just spent the last 45 minutes rolling on the floor with sweaty dudes, I was standing at the back of a room full of girls in tight shorts."
 
2012-12-11 04:46:04 PM

lennavan: Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.


I don't know, I'm pretty sure I ate a cookie one time that made me gay.
 
2012-12-11 04:46:18 PM

Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

At a press conference in 1989 announcing that Patrick Stewart had been cast as Captain Picard:

Reporter: Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century.
Gene Roddenberry: In the 24th century, they wouldn't care.


Maybe he was born that way...
 
2012-12-11 04:46:58 PM

letrole: Prey4reign No lesbian couple can be called "completely acceptable" unless unclothed, well oiled and in 69 mode.

Lesbians are not hot. Lesbians are a fetish for involuntarily abstinent young men who have been desensitised to normal sexual imagery.


FTFY Mr The Troll.
 
2012-12-11 04:47:27 PM

Pro Zack: How long until straight parents get treatment to keep from having gay kids?

How long until gay parents get treatment to have gay kids.


You really think gay parents would prefer to have gay children?
 
2012-12-11 04:48:06 PM

tedthebellhopp: Maybe the fundies will change their minds on abortion now.


Two edged sword. How would liberals feel if people prescreened and aborted children that may turn out to be gay? Just fetal tissue right? In this case gay fetal tissue.
 
2012-12-11 04:48:17 PM

Gordian Cipher: At a press conference in 1989 announcing that Patrick Stewart had been cast as Captain Picard:


So they had a press conference announcing that fact 2 years after the show premiered?
 
2012-12-11 04:48:22 PM

lennavan: misanthropologist: The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors.

That's an amazingly poor definition of the word epigenetic. DNA (and thus a gene) is made up of A, T, C and G. One way to change gene expression is to change that DNA sequence, to change an A, T, C or G (or more than one). Epigenetics is the study of anything heritable that alters gene expression that is not altering the A, T, C or G sequence. Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.


Though there is that neat study in...Finland? Maybe? where in small villages where there were periods of starvation and periods of overabundance there were more negative epigenetic effects passed on to the offspring from those who came of age during overabundant times and over ate. So that cookie could very well be methylating your DNA right now.

/well, if you ate a bunch of cookies constantly
//the cookie monster is going to have some horribly ill children
///who would the cookie monster even do?
 
2012-12-11 04:48:24 PM

SarahDiddle: lennavan: Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay. That is not true. Right there, I have disproven their hypothesis. I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.

Yeah but fraternal twins usually do not share a placenta (it can happen, but it's rare). They may share the same area but they're encased in their own bubbles so to speak and can then get differing levels of hormones, antibodies, nutrition, etc. So they may share the womb but womb conditions may vary for them,.


That might be a fair point, I honestly don't know enough medically to agree or disagree. I find it difficult to believe the levels of hormones, antibodies, nutrition etc would vary between fraternal twins to any relevant amount. For instance with hormones, there are regulation and feedback mechanisms to fine tune. Will that vary ever so slightly? Sure why not but I sincerely doubt whether you become gay or not is that finicky.
 
2012-12-11 04:48:47 PM

Cythraul: DROxINxTHExWIND: Why is this even still a debate? Come on, we ALL knew a gay kid. He'd play Barbie with the girls when you needed him to play football so that the teams would be even. He'd suck his teeth to express disappointment. He had "mannerisms" that his Dad/Uncles would try to break him out of ("Boy, stop holding your wrist limp like that" "Boy, stop talking like that. You been around your mama too long"). When I was in 4th grade the gay kids name was Erin. He hung with the popular girls but he never had a girlfriend. He jumped rope...We all knew he was gay, he just didn't have anyone to be gay with him.

I'm gay. I played with 'the boys.' Our favorite games were to go out camping, playing 'war' where we'd 'shoot' each other with plastic guns (later BB guns) and tackle your opponent if they tried to cheat and run away. I played with G.I. Joes, Transformers, and did other 'boy' things.

Not that this matters, since you're just trolling.


Naw, I'm not trolling and believe it or not I'm not trying to be as insensitive and dickish as my comment suggested. I'm speaking of anecdotal experience and trying to be humorous, while making the point that most gay people do not "choose" to be gay.
 
2012-12-11 04:49:07 PM

lennavan: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

A "gay gene" was found in Drosophila over 15 years ago. They named it "fruity" because mutations in that gene made the flies ... well it made males chase other males instead of females.

I just want to be clear, this "study" is merely a model:

To reach this conclusion, Rice and Friberg created a biological and mathematical model that charted the role of epigenetics in homosexuality.

They generated a hypothesis and looked at some other results and decided the results were consistent with their hypothesis. They have not actually tested their hypothesis. What's more, their prediction contradicts other observations. Here is the key part:

This is the process where DNA expression is influenced by any number of external factors in the environment. And in the case of homosexuality, the researchers argue, the environment is the womb itself.

Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay. That is not true. Right there, I have disproven their hypothesis. I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.


Here's an article with discussion of twins

rnatalie: [img.gawkerassets.com image 640x360]
[media.syracuse.com image 380x246]


Nice!
 
2012-12-11 04:50:23 PM

lennavan: This is the process where DNA expression is influenced by any number of external factors in the environment. And in the case of homosexuality, the researchers argue, the environment is the womb itself.

Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay. That is not true. Right there, I have disproven their hypothesis. I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.


I doubt their hypothesis is "If you are in a womb with X conditions you are gay", it is much more likely something to the effect of "If you are in a womb with X conditions there is a y% chance that you will be gay". It is entirely possible that on a 1/6 chance of being gay that one kid rolls a 1, the other rolls one of the other five options.
 
2012-12-11 04:50:35 PM
LOL. I see I'm getting fried here, today. Probably deserved in this instance.
 
2012-12-11 04:51:11 PM
If this claim becomes popularized, expect someone to start marketing a "cure" that is supposed to protect your child against becoming gay-ized in the womb.
 
2012-12-11 04:52:11 PM

SarahDiddle: lennavan: misanthropologist: The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors.

That's an amazingly poor definition of the word epigenetic. DNA (and thus a gene) is made up of A, T, C and G. One way to change gene expression is to change that DNA sequence, to change an A, T, C or G (or more than one). Epigenetics is the study of anything heritable that alters gene expression that is not altering the A, T, C or G sequence. Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.

Though there is that neat study in...Finland? Maybe? where in small villages where there were periods of starvation and periods of overabundance there were more negative epigenetic effects passed on to the offspring from those who came of age during overabundant times and over ate. So that cookie could very well be methylating your DNA right now.

/well, if you ate a bunch of cookies constantly
//the cookie monster is going to have some horribly ill children
///who would the cookie monster even do?


So for giggles I pubmed'd cookie and cookies have acrylamide in them? WTF Link
 
2012-12-11 04:52:59 PM

burndtdan: lennavan: Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.

I don't know, I'm pretty sure I ate a cookie one time that made me gay.


Was it a fig screwton?
 
2012-12-11 04:53:09 PM
I love the smell of homophobia in the morning mid-afternoon.
 
2012-12-11 04:54:02 PM

HailRobonia: burndtdan: lennavan: Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.

I don't know, I'm pretty sure I ate a cookie one time that made me gay.

Was it a fig screwton?


Nutter Butter
 
2012-12-11 04:54:44 PM

pciszek: If this claim becomes popularized, expect someone to start marketing a "cure" that is supposed to protect your child against becoming gay-ized in the womb.


It would no more be a "cure" than choosing to have a daughter is a "cure" for being male. I think it is inevitable that many traits of children will be chosen. I don't see that sexual orientation will be sacrosanct.
 
2012-12-11 04:54:46 PM

Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

At a press conference in 1989 announcing that Patrick Stewart had been cast as Captain Picard:

Reporter: Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century.
Gene Roddenberry: In the 24th century, they wouldn't care.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.

I wasn't implying there were gay people in TNG... just pointing out that Roddenberry's comments apply just as well to gayness (gaiety?) as baldness. Gay people weren't on TNG because being gay was still awful taboo when the show was made. More modern sci-fi has lots of gay characters: that chick in Stargate: Universe, Adama's brother in Caprica, Vincent in Eureka... hell, even BSG's gay character was named Gaeta.

How does that phrase apply, when there were no gay people in TNG? That's almost like saying, 'in the future, no one will care what race you are,' while having absolutely nothing but white people on the show.

The phrase applies to your statement that in the future they would have been cured.

/that whooshing sound was the point flying over your head


Okay, so let me get this straight.

I make a claim that the lack of gay characters in pre-2000 science fiction might point to a theory that they somehow 'cure' homosexuality.

I use Star Trek: The Next Generation as an example.

You come in and quote Gene Roddenberry on his representation of bald men in the future and how no one will care if someone is bald, obviously trying to make some sort of connection about what he said about bald people with gay people, even though those two are a little bit different.

This does not change the fact that there were no freaking gay people in TNG.

If being gay was so cool with other people and no one cared, why were there no farking gay people in TNG? Where are all the gay people that everyone is supposed to be so cool with? Sure, there were probably no Australian aborigines either. But homosexuality was a bit more common than Australian aborigines in the cultures that made up the Enterprise crew. One would think you'd run into at least one throughout the series.

But somehow, I'm missing the point?
 
2012-12-11 04:54:52 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


Somehow, I cannot see gay people taking that option with anything resembling 'willingly taking it to be accepted'. The third X-Man movie springs to mind.

/Also, TFA has a major flaw, because bisexuality and 'sometimes but not always' are good indicators that this is not Mandelian genetics (however you spell that), and thus is not an on-off switch like TFA is assuming it is. It's a gradient, and it looks like they failed to account for that.
 
2012-12-11 04:54:58 PM

fracto: DROxINxTHExWIND: He'd play Barbie with the girls when you needed him to play football so that the teams would be even.


Obviously playing with girls denotes homosexuality and climbing all over sweaty boys is the height of hetero behavior. I had this conversation with a buddy after gym class, when myself and one other guy opted to do step aerobics instead of wrestling.

"Seriously man, you just spent the last 45 minutes rolling on the floor with sweaty dudes, I was standing at the back of a room full of girls in tight shorts."


This is why I'm going to encourage my nephew to go out for ballet when he's old enough. Whether he's gay or straight, he's going to be surrounded by nubile playmates.
 
2012-12-11 04:56:14 PM

letrole: Prey4reign No lesbian couple can be called "completely acceptable" unless unclothed, well oiled and in 69 mode.

Lesbians are not hot. Lesbians are a fetish for involuntarily abstinent young men who have been desensitised to normal sexual imagery.


or for those who don't find other guys having sex to be a turn on.
 
2012-12-11 04:56:18 PM

Buttknuckle: Cythraul: Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.

I have two older brothers, one older sister.

Yeah, I have one of each. The only one who goes against this that I know of is my SO. He's the oldest of three boys.


That you know of....
 
2012-12-11 04:56:48 PM

Cythraul: Pro Zack: How long until straight parents get treatment to keep from having gay kids?

How long until gay parents get treatment to have gay kids.

You really think gay parents would prefer to have gay children?


if they plan on having sex with their children that's a bad
 
2012-12-11 04:57:04 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


Sci-fi where heterosexuality becomes abnormal
 
2012-12-11 04:57:08 PM

Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.


Are you saying that people who want gender-preference reassignment treatment are less deserving than people who want gender reassignment surgery?

You are a bigot.
 
2012-12-11 04:57:37 PM

lennavan: SarahDiddle: lennavan: Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay. That is not true. Right there, I have disproven their hypothesis. I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.

Yeah but fraternal twins usually do not share a placenta (it can happen, but it's rare). They may share the same area but they're encased in their own bubbles so to speak and can then get differing levels of hormones, antibodies, nutrition, etc. So they may share the womb but womb conditions may vary for them,.

That might be a fair point, I honestly don't know enough medically to agree or disagree. I find it difficult to believe the levels of hormones, antibodies, nutrition etc would vary between fraternal twins to any relevant amount. For instance with hormones, there are regulation and feedback mechanisms to fine tune. Will that vary ever so slightly? Sure why not but I sincerely doubt whether you become gay or not is that finicky.


There's also a phenomena where one twin can become "dominant" in the womb and receive more hormones, nutrition, etc than the other twin. I know this occurs with identical twins, I'm not sure about fraternal. Also if it's really epigenetic, that slight variation can be all it takes to make one twin gay and the other straight. If the DNA happens to get methylated or epigenetically altered in one specific spot due to a fluctuation in hormones that the other twin didn't get then apparently it's entirely possible for that to happen according to this study. I'm trying to find more than the abstract now but this is a twin study where one twin is gay. Again, it's the abstract and I haven't read the entire paper but it seems interesting at least. Keep in mind though that there may be a self-selecting bias in twin studies so that may have altered the outcome (again, unable to find the conditions of the study).
 
2012-12-11 04:57:51 PM

Cythraul: Pro Zack: How long until straight parents get treatment to keep from having gay kids?

How long until gay parents get treatment to have gay kids.

You really think gay parents would prefer to have gay children?


if not, teh gay will be rare as hen's teeth before long.
 
2012-12-11 04:58:40 PM

Hot Carl To Go: Here's an article with discussion of twins


Eh, it doesn't really address it. Honestly by far the best way to get the author's opinion on the matter is to read their paper. Recall the lesson you're supposed to learn from playing "telephone" when you were in 2nd grade. Now we're playing telephone with a complex scientific subject going Scientist - Journalist - Article - Me. That message almost always gets garbled and many times gets completely reversed because the journalist is stupid or a dick. Also, from your article:

Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce.

That's just fundamentally false. This journalist clearly has no idea how genetics or evolution works.
 
2012-12-11 04:58:50 PM

gingerjet: Cythraul: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.

Considering how awful TNG was - I don't consider the absence of a major gay character a bad thing.

/I also don't care


You mean Wesley Crusher was not gay?!
 
2012-12-11 04:58:57 PM

Pro Zack: Cythraul: Pro Zack: How long until straight parents get treatment to keep from having gay kids?

How long until gay parents get treatment to have gay kids.

You really think gay parents would prefer to have gay children?

if not, teh gay will be rare as hen's teeth before long.


You should talk to some gay parents about your theory.
 
2012-12-11 04:59:06 PM
Since they are people at conception then this proves that being gay is a choice.

I'm blinding you with science. Boop-Boop-Boop
 
2012-12-11 04:59:47 PM
So, it should be fairly obvious to most people that trying to "cure" a person who is gay is offensive. That's just who they are, it's clearly not a disease, and doesn't need a cure. However, if we were to pinpoint what conditions cause it during pregnancy and were able to prevent it without altering their genetic makeup, would that be equally offensive? I'm torn on the issue since a fetus plainly can't identify as gay so it's not like you're taking away who they are, but perhaps changing who they will be is no better?
 
2012-12-11 05:03:02 PM
epigenetics is really cool.
 
2012-12-11 05:03:10 PM

PsiChick: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

Somehow, I cannot see gay people taking that option with anything resembling 'willingly taking it to be accepted'. The third X-Man movie springs to mind.

/Also, TFA has a major flaw, because bisexuality and 'sometimes but not always' are good indicators that this is not Mandelian genetics (however you spell that), and thus is not an on-off switch like TFA is assuming it is. It's a gradient, and it looks like they failed to account for that.


They're not claiming it to be Mendelian genetics. Epigenetics is a whole 'nother ball game which could account for the gradient. Say There are 10 genes that when epigenetically altered the person identifies as gay. 0-4 altered can keep them straight, 5-8 can make them bi, and 9-10 can make them gay. Their DNA (ATGC) isn't changed at all (Mendel) but could have various chemical groups (i.e. methyl) attached which would be epigenetics.
 
2012-12-11 05:03:31 PM

gingerjet: Cythraul: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.

Considering how awful TNG was - I don't consider the absence of a major gay character a bad thing.

/I also don't care


TNG. Hey, impossible magic assholes and obviously-and-totally-not-magic psychic ladies are most definitely "science fiction" if it happens in space
 
2012-12-11 05:04:10 PM

Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.


I don't see anybody putting up money for a "cure" for redheadedness, or not being able to curl your tongue.

And the right's aversion to human gene tinkering would probably win anyway.
 
2012-12-11 05:04:32 PM

Rezurok: So, it should be fairly obvious to most people that trying to "cure" a person who is gay is offensive. That's just who they are, it's clearly not a disease, and doesn't need a cure. However, if we were to pinpoint what conditions cause it during pregnancy and were able to prevent it without altering their genetic makeup, would that be equally offensive? I'm torn on the issue since a fetus plainly can't identify as gay so it's not like you're taking away who they are, but perhaps changing who they will be is no better?


Unless society changes greatly to where homosexuality is completely accepted, I don't think there will be many gay people in the future if they figure out how to engineer sexuality within unborn children. I think too many parents will make that choice to 'weed it out.' I'm not saying that's a good thing by the way.
 
2012-12-11 05:04:49 PM
Marcus Bachmann has some revolutionary Mouth-To-Penis based therapy to get rid of Teh Ghey. They run simulations on the holodeck all the time in Next Gen.
 
2012-12-11 05:05:22 PM

lennavan: SarahDiddle: lennavan: misanthropologist: The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors.

That's an amazingly poor definition of the word epigenetic. DNA (and thus a gene) is made up of A, T, C and G. One way to change gene expression is to change that DNA sequence, to change an A, T, C or G (or more than one). Epigenetics is the study of anything heritable that alters gene expression that is not altering the A, T, C or G sequence. Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.

Though there is that neat study in...Finland? Maybe? where in small villages where there were periods of starvation and periods of overabundance there were more negative epigenetic effects passed on to the offspring from those who came of age during overabundant times and over ate. So that cookie could very well be methylating your DNA right now.

/well, if you ate a bunch of cookies constantly
//the cookie monster is going to have some horribly ill children
///who would the cookie monster even do?

So for giggles I pubmed'd cookie and cookies have acrylamide in them? WTF Link


So would acai berry or green tea cookies just cancel it out? Where did the acrylamide come from?
 
2012-12-11 05:05:29 PM

SarahDiddle: lennavan: SarahDiddle: lennavan: Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay. That is not true. Right there, I have disproven their hypothesis. I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.

Yeah but fraternal twins usually do not share a placenta (it can happen, but it's rare). They may share the same area but they're encased in their own bubbles so to speak and can then get differing levels of hormones, antibodies, nutrition, etc. So they may share the womb but womb conditions may vary for them,.

That might be a fair point, I honestly don't know enough medically to agree or disagree. I find it difficult to believe the levels of hormones, antibodies, nutrition etc would vary between fraternal twins to any relevant amount. For instance with hormones, there are regulation and feedback mechanisms to fine tune. Will that vary ever so slightly? Sure why not but I sincerely doubt whether you become gay or not is that finicky.

There's also a phenomena where one twin can become "dominant" in the womb and receive more hormones, nutrition, etc than the other twin. I know this occurs with identical twins, I'm not sure about fraternal. Also if it's really epigenetic, that slight variation can be all it takes to make one twin gay and the other straight. If the DNA happens to get methylated or epigenetically altered in one specific spot due to a fluctuation in hormones that the other twin didn't get then apparently it's entirely possible for that to happen according to this study. I'm trying to find more than the abstract now but this is a twin study where one twin is gay. Again, it's the abstract and I haven't read the entire paper but it seems interesting at least. Keep in mind though that there may be a self-selecting bias in twin studies so that may have ...


His name is Dwight Shrute
 
2012-12-11 05:05:46 PM

Cythraul: Okay, so let me get this straight.

I make a claim that the lack of gay characters in pre-2000 science fiction might point to a theory that they somehow 'cure' homosexuality.

I use Star Trek: The Next Generation as an example.

You come in and quote Gene Roddenberry on his representation of bald men in the future and how no one will care if someone is bald, obviously trying to make some sort of connection about what he said about bald people with gay people, even though those two are a little bit different.

This does not change the fact that there were no freaking gay people in TNG.

If being gay was so cool with other people and no one cared, why were there no farking gay people in TNG? Where are all the gay people that everyone is supposed to be so cool with? Sure, there were probably no Australian aborigines either. But homosexuality was a bit more common than Australian aborigines in the cultures that made up the Enterprise crew. One would think you'd run into at least one throughout the series.

But somehow, I'm missing the point?


Yep.
 
2012-12-11 05:06:24 PM
To reach this conclusion, Rice and Friberg created a biological and mathematical model that charted the role of epigenetics in homosexuality. They did so by applying evolutionary theory to recent advances in the molecular regulation of gene expression and androgen-dependent sexual development. This data was integrated with recent findings from the epigenetic control of gene expression, especially in embryonic stem cells. This allowed the researchers to develop and empirically support a mathematical model of epigenetic-based canalization of sexual development, or the tendency of heredity to restrict the development of some characteristics to just one or a few traits. Their model successfully predicted the evolution of homosexuality in both sexes when canalizing epi-marks carry over across generations with nonzero probability. In their study, the team writes that they "tracked changes in chromatin structure that influence the transcription rate of genes (coding and noncoding, such as miRNAs), including nucleosome repositioning, DNA methylation, and/or modification of histone tails, but not including changes in DNA sequence." The resulting model predicted that homosexuality can be produced by transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.


P-farking-lease. They're just gay, okay - accept it and move the fark on.
 
2012-12-11 05:06:56 PM
DROxINxTHExWIND

Smartest
Funniest
2012-12-11 04:50:35 PM
LOL. I see I'm getting fried here, today. Probably deserved in this instance
.

Joking or not, it is ignorant as well as cliched.
 
2012-12-11 05:07:53 PM

SarahDiddle: They're not claiming it to be Mendelian genetics. Epigenetics is a whole 'nother ball game which could account for the gradient. Say There are 10 genes that when epigenetically altered the person identifies as gay. 0-4 altered can keep them straight, 5-8 can make them bi, and 9-10 can make them gay. Their DNA (ATGC) isn't changed at all (Mendel) but could have various chemical groups (i.e. methyl) attached which would be epigenetics.


That makes sense...TFA sucks ass at explaining that bit. You'd think they'd have put it in the first paragraph...
 
2012-12-11 05:08:30 PM

Cythraul: Rezurok: So, it should be fairly obvious to most people that trying to "cure" a person who is gay is offensive. That's just who they are, it's clearly not a disease, and doesn't need a cure. However, if we were to pinpoint what conditions cause it during pregnancy and were able to prevent it without altering their genetic makeup, would that be equally offensive? I'm torn on the issue since a fetus plainly can't identify as gay so it's not like you're taking away who they are, but perhaps changing who they will be is no better?

Unless society changes greatly to where homosexuality is completely accepted, I don't think there will be many gay people in the future if they figure out how to engineer sexuality within unborn children. I think too many parents will make that choice to 'weed it out.' I'm not saying that's a good thing by the way.


That would be awful. If we had the technology and I found out my fetus would probably be gay, I'd just go ahead and move to Seattle or Canada. Of course, the only genetic engineering I am in favor of is just for the eradication of genetic disease which I would totally opt for because I don't want a harlequin baby.

/seriously, that is my biggest fear
//really
 
2012-12-11 05:09:01 PM

dv-ous: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

I don't see anybody putting up money for a "cure" for redheadedness, or not being able to curl your tongue.

And the right's aversion to human gene tinkering would probably win anyway.


Nobody's trying to prevent red-headed people from marrying or adopting, either, or sending them away to Jesus camps to pray away the ginger.
 
Displayed 50 of 471 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report