Scientists create lesbian mice: has the 'Gay Gene' been found?

[Keava]

I'm alright with gays, I just believe that it's not genetic. In the same way that being a psychopath is often influenced by upbringing, but being generally a very angry person is genetic.

Oh, and by the by, there's a reason that many public schoolboys come out later in life.

No.No.And No.
Upbringing and social environment are only partially responsible for psychopathology. Mostly for the actual outburst of it, rather than the condition itself. Most of mental conditions are due to either too high or too low level of enzymes produced by brain, it is a clinical condition and further exposure to stress can just trigger the actions.

Homosexuality however has no real connection to upbringing. Plenty of homosexual people come from straight, catholic sometimes even very conservative families. It is however a fact that among all generations over the course of mankind about 7 to 10% of population is homosexual. Nature itself upkeeps such state. If by any way homosexuality was a weakness im pretty sure the evolution would get rid of it.

 

[Delicious Anathema]

Though I believe gayness comes from the psychology, experiences and upbringing, if this is true then more power to them, who says parents don't want to predict sexual orientation or in fact, an adult change it as well? I see nothing wrong in it, it's choices, nobody is forcing anyone to become straight.

 

[Seydaman]

I'm pretty sure scientists have never found a "shyness" gene.

I remember reading about a study that claimed being extrovert or introvert was at least partially genetically determined.
Even a mother's love is genetic in mice. My biology text book had a piece about how female mice with a certain mutated gene would neglect their offspring. Of course it's mice again, compared to us more complicated humans.

Because we test on mice in labs.

Testing on people is unethical.


And everything is genetics eventually, since it's how your body is built up. Your capacity to feel certain emotions can probably be influenced by genes too.

Definity of unethical-contrary to conscience or morality or law; "it is wrong for the rich to take advantage of the poor"; "cheating is wrong"; "it is wrong to lie".
It is only wrong because society says it is wrong.
I mean we use to eat people but then society went all different.
If you haven't read A Brave New World I would really suggest you read that.

 

[Circleseer]

You're right, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone by that choice of words, that's not what I meant.
Nature is cold and uncaring. There is no right or wrong, and genetics are nothing more than the lottery.

No need to appologize. But why cold and uncaring?
Nature doesn't feel or think. Life isn't cruel, nor is it great and sweet. It merely is.

This makes me think of the 'meaning of life' argument.
People assign meaning to things. The whole concept of meaning is a human tought, nothing more. The whole of existance doesn't need to have any meaning. That's just what we want.

 

[TheSuperiorXemnas]

Are you telling me that Scientists have nothing better to do than to try and discover the gay-gene, thus trying to possibly create a cure for homosexuality? Shouldn't they try to solve world hunger, or create a cure for extremely harmful diseases like Cancer or something else?

 

[tomtom94]

Can they prove that it had nothing to do with the upbringing of the mice? Until then, I refuse to believe in a "gay gene".

I'm assuming you are anti-homosexuality, as if it were nurture, that would mean that the people morons saying that it's a choice are right.

I'm alright with gays, I just believe that it's not genetic. In the same way that being a psychopath is often influenced by upbringing, but being generally a very angry person is genetic.

Oh, and by the by, there's a reason that many public schoolboys come out later in life.

That's just it, not every psychopath had a bad life. There are plenty of well off nutjobs out there. Some people are just born insane, some are born retarded, some are born intelligent, some are born other things.

Sanity and intelligence are...not quantifiable but...they're more set in stone, if you catch my drift.

How you interact with other people, what you think of them, and who you are sexually attracted to, is developed over time, and dependent on past interactions. I'm pretty sure scientists have never found a "shyness" gene.

Really? Because all those child prodigies had to somehow be able to understand that stuff early. Sanity is easily figured out. Do you hear voices in your head? Do you think everyone is out to get you? Do you think your dreamworld is real? If so, you're insane. Do you feel the need to kill people? You're insane. Also, there's plenty of genes they haven't identified yet. The JUST found the ageing gene.

Erm, that was EXACTLY my point - intelligence and some aspects of personality are genetic (though obviously they are nothing without sufficient stimulation), but more complex things like how you interact with people are developed via having those interactions. It's how we learn to speak, if you want a definite example - we don't know language genetically, we learn it by copying others.

We've gone way off topic I think so I'll add this and leave it - IF they find a gay gene in the future, then I'll change - but until then I'll believe that it's mostly down to psychological influences. Not influences that can necessarily be helped - I'm not saying it's a definite choice - but that's just what I believe, at least for now.

 

[Humble85]

That's just it, not every psychopath had a bad life. There are plenty of well off nutjobs out there. Some people are just born insane, some are born retarded, some are born intelligent, some are born other things.

Whom exactly are you refering to and how do you know these people are "well off"? A scarring childhood does not necessarily have to involve physical abuse, or any kind of abuse that is visible from the outside, or even visible to the one being abuse, or the one doing the abusing. Traumatisation can be very very subtle.

I'm assuming you are anti-homosexuality, as if it were nurture, that would mean that the people morons saying that it's a choice are right.

That is a false conclusion. Your upbringing is not your choice. If your uprbinging "made you gay" that was not your choice. This statement, as goodintentioned as it may be, actually infuriates me, because it implies children traumatized/influenced by their parents chose to be traumatized/influenced. I can see that this reading of your statement may not be the intented, but then I suggest you rethink the phrasing.

That said, I think their actually may be cases where people are just born gay...or whatever. I just find the psychological aspect is often neglected in its depth and subtelty and too many people say claim to be "born gay" in contrast to having "chosen to be gay", because they see no middle-ground between these two statements. I think both aspects have something two do with if you are homosexual...
I dont think a "gay gene" will make people anymore accepting of non-straight people. Today gay-bashers say "It was your choice to be evil, reject satan and accept jesus!" or something; with a gay-gene it will be "You were born evil, accept jesus and you may be saved from your taint"...or something along those lines. Bottom line: people will hate on gays wether they were "born that way", wether their upbringing "made them that way", wether mommy "made her son a ******", daddy "made his girl a dike" or wether lil Johnny enjoyed prison showers way too much. Wont change a thing...

 

[Jovlo]

1. Other than the brain and mating activities how do we know these were lesbian mice and not geneticly confused mice? Did someone ask them about their feelings?
2. How does the bi-sexual gene work? Is it like a 50-50 split?
3. If it turns out it is all genetic, and people don't really have a choice, how will the religious fanatics deny it?

1) We're talking about lab mice. These poor critters only live for a few weeks. They were put together with males and females and they could choose a partner freely. It's explained more in the article.

2) We people are so complex that it is very likely that there are several genes that make you gay or straight. How tall you are is determined by how many genes you have that will make you tall. The more you have, the taller you will be. There is not just one gene that will make you tall. This could explain all shades of bisexuality, but would make 100% straight people, and 100% gay people rather rare.

3) Just sit and watch. they'll think of something...

 

[tthor]

That leads to an interesting question: Is it ethical to try to 'cure' homosexuality if it were possible?
Or should we accept everyone as they are?

No, it isn't ethical. It's like trying to "cure" a dark skin tone: opressive, bigoted, and ultimately futile.

well actually, it would be beneficial to make a person darkskinned, as it would much better protect them from skin cancer
and heterosexuality would be beneficial, in a natural selection sense, as it would make it much easier to reproduce, but then again, modern society has pretty much kicked natural selection to the curb, so it wouldn't be a huge deal either way

 

[viranimus]

Hrm... Why do I suspect these "findings" will be used by some to say "See.. its genetic, its natural, its not a choice, you cant help to be gay if you are, thats just how you were born" as well as others who will say " See, its genetic, no different than any other congenital illness that needs to be corrected just like a defective heart. and we must begin research on how to use gene therapy to undo this horrible illness that has stricken millions, in order to save these people"

Scary, no?

 

[conchshellthegeek7]

There will never in our lifetimes be a better opportunity to use the phrase "What has science done?".

 

[Kollega]

well actually, it would be beneficial to make a person darkskinned, as it would much better protect them from skin cancer

Heheheh. Now that's what i call "completely missing the point". I'm comparing homophobia to racism, and you're talking about how having a dark skin tone entails a minor benefit. That's the internet for ya =)

 

[Jovlo]

Are you telling me that Scientists have nothing better to do than to try and discover the gay-gene, thus trying to possibly create a cure for homosexuality? Shouldn't they try to solve world hunger, or create a cure for extremely harmful diseases like Cancer or something else?

Well this was a surprise find, they weren't looking for a gay gene.
They wanted to know what would have happened if they shut down this gene with an unknown function.
It could have doubled the mice's lifespan just as well, or cured cancer, instead it made them gay. anything is possible, but now they know.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

I have a feeling this is going to end well...

 

[RatRace123]

Wow, I'm not sure what I should be feeling, I'm not even gay but, I think I'm offended.

Or maybe this is a revolutionary breakthrough, scientists could find the "gay gene" and figure out a way to get rid of it. Or they could find a way to get rid of the "straight gene" either way would eliminate discrimination, however offensive the procedure may be.

Actually, that's a good question, would gay people eliminate the gay gene? I know that all the discrimination and feeling like you have to hide it from your family must suck. I can't imagine anyone who would willingly go through with that.

Or we could just find a way to make everyone bi. Then everyone would be happy, presumably.

 

[Mechsoap]

or maybe they just altered the vision the mice had about themself and others...

 

[Mcupobob]

I see this as a bad thing, people are now going to "cure" homosexuality. I've already seen a pamphlet about so christan scientist trying to do that a couple years ago.


EDIT: About the Nature vs nurture crowd. How many times have we seen uptight anti-gay christans in sex scandles with men? They were brought up anti-gay but in the end gentics got the best of them. Sometimes nurture can't even come close to nature.

 

[Yeq]

I'd be surprised if this gene - I'm going to assume that their work was good and that the gene has the effect they said it does - can explain homosexuality. It's worth exploring, but a lot of human activity simply doesn't fit into the model; there's a tribe (I've conveniently forgotten the name) where males in early adolescence give blowjobs to older youths until the older ones reach a socially defined state of adulthood. At that point, the new adult takes a wife and is, from a Western perspective, a practising heterosexual, with no sexual relations with men at all and no (apparent) desire to do so. The younger adolescents, when they reach (I think) 15 or so, take on the role of the older ones, and are similarly serviced by those younger than them.

If you want to call the new adults bisexuals who for some reason don't practice being gay anymore, I suppose you could, but I don't think the model is accurate. To me, sexuality, in humans if not in these mice, is extremely defined by cultural pressures. Different examples of seemingly aberrant behaviour - for example, in Ancient Greece - seem to say that a purely biological viewpoint is very unhelpful. I think what we can agree on is that sexuality, even considered purely biologically, is not totally defined by procreative impulses in humans. Humans are, so to speak, in "heat" all year round, which is extremely unusual (if not unique) in the animal world. I think human biology primes sexual desire in practically every individual, but the method of expression and identity of the desired object, if it takes any hint at all from biology, is almost wholly a function of cultural/personal identity.

 

[chaos order]

Can they prove that it had nothing to do with the upbringing of the mice? Until then, I refuse to believe in a "gay gene".

I'm getting a vision of female mice getting hit by their fathers and so never trusting men enough to be around them. It's funny in a ridiculous way but I'm pretty sure it's not something that should come to mind if you are an alright person... then again I've known plenty of normal people who are fuckers.

Didn't they "discover" the gay gene in humans about 10 years ago? It was called XQ29. I could be thinking of something else entirely so someone feel free to correct me.

i dont remember but i think Xq29 is for a blood clotting factor?