Scientists create lesbian mice: has the 'Gay Gene' been found?
- Thread starter Jovlo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Heh, I can see this having potentially hilarious implications for religious nut-jobs as they'll no-doubt want their children 'screened' for the 'gay gene' but doing so would require them to accept that they were wrong and science was right about genetics playing a major role. Not just that, but if they want the genes to be removed before birth they'll also have to reverse their stance on designer babies!
Sadly, as has already been said, they'll probably just label homosexuality as a genetic defect to be cured and pretend their previous views never existed. . .but it should still confuse the hell out of them for a while as they try to decide whether they should admit their error and revise their views for a chance to get rid of homosexuals or just jam their fingers in their ears and ignore science as usual. XD
Still, even if people demand a 'cure for homosexuality' then at least it should also mean more funding for genentic research in general, so at least some good will come of it. . .maybe.
Sadly, as has already been said, they'll probably just label homosexuality as a genetic defect to be cured and pretend their previous views never existed. . .but it should still confuse the hell out of them for a while as they try to decide whether they should admit their error and revise their views for a chance to get rid of homosexuals or just jam their fingers in their ears and ignore science as usual. XD
Still, even if people demand a 'cure for homosexuality' then at least it should also mean more funding for genentic research in general, so at least some good will come of it. . .maybe.
Honestly I think human sexuality, and psychology in general is way to complicated to pin to just genes. Social factors and experiences play in to things way too much for it just to be because of a gene.
That's not to say genetics doesn't play a role in it, I imagine that having the 'Gay Gene' only makes you strongly predisposed towards homosexuality. There are way too many other factors at play for it to only be determined by genetics.
That's not to say genetics doesn't play a role in it, I imagine that having the 'Gay Gene' only makes you strongly predisposed towards homosexuality. There are way too many other factors at play for it to only be determined by genetics.
There have been studies done which suggest that genetic factors may play some role in pedophilia.Kagim said:
Of course not. Society has an interest in protecting children from sexual exploitation. It doesn't matter if you're genetically inclined to molest children or murder people or commit any other crime, you're still held responsible for it.Kagim said:
Sexuality is not a choice. Nobody "chooses" to get off to pee. I never chose to be a sadomasochist. (a mild one. that high heel to balls thing you mentioned sounds HORRIBLE.)Kagim said:
A lack of genetic influence doesn't make it a "choice", anymore than the presence of a genetic influence makes it impossible to resist.
No, because i don't really think anything IS a deviation. Which is why i never wrote that any fetish is a deviation. I use the word fetish, but i also questioned its usage as such.Keava said:
I made a statement basically asking why things like S&M and Charlie brown porn is a fetish and homosexuality is a genetic disposition.
In truth, i don't think any of it is a deviation or a fetish. The only time sexual exploration is wrong is when it involves death or children. When there are participants who are unwilling or being taken advantage of.
So no, i don't.
Then again i don't honestly define anything as a fetish, its just hard to get my point across clearly without using it.
While this is certainly a topic that can be discussed in good length, I merely want to bring in a tiny bit of my viewpoint: genes aren't everything. (I kinda have to say that as a sociology-student.)
Typically, in such online discussions, I find that there's an almost alarming reliance on hard sciences such as biology, physics or medicine while the only science that will ever be purely logical and completely true is mathematics.
Just how many more "smallest elements" does physics have to define or how often do we have to repaint the illustration of the atom? Why didn't the expensive western-medicine pills that I swallowed for 6 weeks not cure my haemmorhoids and why did the acupressure and homeopathy help?
Science are social fields. There are social fights between actors in the fields to determine what school or what paradigm gets the monopole over the legitimate views that will dominate the field. Those fights more often than not are "dirty", completely dislodged from the apparent "truth" and merely are about cold money such as grants and social status (scientific capital) which we may call scientific reputation or whatever.
Now, what does that have to do with genes? For a researcher researching in the biological field of genetics, of course the cause for everything, the ONLY cause for everything, are the genes. Any other science that has something to say about the topic doesn't matter. The problem is that the hard sciences, with their dynamic of "paradigm-monopoly" and strict rules of scientific approval, often claim to tell "truth" and nothing but and this claim is almost always not questioned by the broader society, largely due to reproduction of the paradigms in schools. In elementary school you learn a small degree of biology, but you hear nothing of sociology, for example, that has a lot of "truths" too. From my perspective, the soft sciences are much more honest than the hard sciences, as in the soft sciences, multiple paradigms are allowed and no one would ever go so far as to claim that their theory should be the only theory allowed in their science. Whereas in physics, for example, there is only one paradigm allowed, paradigms that so far almost always have been either proven wrong or expanded. The problem is that the current paradigms are named "truth" and spread throughout mankind as such and when they are proven wrong, that means that the science lied to everyone for several years. Philosophy, for example, would never be that arrogant.
To me, the hard sciences are merely a basis, an important basis, of course, and, in the creation of science itself, even more important. However, trying to explain or influence such an extremely complicated and complex (social, psychological, theological, philosophical, anthropological, historical, ...) phenomenon as human sexuality with hard sciences alone, in this case biology, is simply negligence. As many of you pointed out already, such a "discovery" could create great social and human problems if the soft sciences don't have a say in the matter. Because, in the end, it is easy to prove that women are inferior to men if the entire scientific field is populated by men (something that in many ways is (still) actual fact). That is of course true for any science, no matter how hard or soft, but with the hard sciences this becomes an actual trouble as they, as mentioned above, claim to know the absolute "truth" while the soft sciences can merely try to convince the rest of the scientific field and the "general population" of a certain paradigm that developed in the science. Example: If philosopyh says that homosexuality is a choice, then philosophy itself will never completely agree on it, as the "other camp" is allowed in the field and the non-philosophers will simply have to check if they believe the paradigm or not. If biology finds out that homosexuality is a choice and the paradigm becomes the dominating one in the field of biology (which is easy to do if biology is full of heterosexuals (something that too in many ways is (still) actual fact) then everyone else will just have to suck it up and believe it, otherwise they are brandmarked as religious fanatics, esoterics, ignorant or whatever. Now you might think that biological scientific discoveries have to undergo a series of criteria involving testing it against "reality" to be named "truth". But as I said before. All sciences are social fields and if Harvard or Oxford or Cambridge finds out that lighting a candle every day makes you gay, then no one will question it. But the discovery that lighting a candle every day makes you gay could just as well be bullcrap, just like the molecule as the smallest element was bollocks.
I guess my point is that you should not overestimate the powers of hard sciences. They very seldomly contribute anything to explain complex phenomenons (such as human sexuality, war, rape, slavery, torment, love, overpopulation, loyalty, trust etc.) and more often than not, the soft sciences have very good answers or explanations for those, but as mentioned twice already, these answers dont claim to be the absolute "truth" but merely are a certain viewpoint derived from a theory by certain individuals, that are named, and not from a theory by certain individuals that are not named but anonymously spread their answers throughout society and history (often with the element of education) in the name of their science.
To put it shorty: Genes? Sure. But can genes really explain why Adam Urtra from Nairobi, who now lives in Barcelona, did not divorce his wife that his parents chose for him even though he knew all these years he was homosexual and, now in Barcelona, with the liberty to divorce and slightly act on his homosexuality, has a secret affair with one of his male co-workers that, under all circumstances, has to remain secret so to not get fired by his boss who regularly attents mass at the local catholic church? I doubt it. But sociology, psychology, theology and (of course as always) philosophy sure can get you quite nice and believable answers to that without trying to break it all down to cold hard scientific "facts" and leave a little dosage of humanity in these answers.
Does the starving 8 year old African boy have the choice to become a software developer?
Did the 18 year old male Russian son of a farmer have any kind of choice when he was conscripted into the Red Army in 1943? (A.) Get shot by Germans. B.) Get shot by Russians. C.) Take the 0,001% chance to survive by fighting the war. D.) Take the 0,00001% chance to survive by deserting.)
Did the middle-aged white American male with 2 sons, a daughter and a handicapped wife have any choices when he lost his underpayed job in 2008?
Does a 23 year old woman have the choice to go climbing in the Himalayas after being diagnosed with Scoliosis?
Choice is a luxury. And it's never, ever rational (imo).
Typically, in such online discussions, I find that there's an almost alarming reliance on hard sciences such as biology, physics or medicine while the only science that will ever be purely logical and completely true is mathematics.
Just how many more "smallest elements" does physics have to define or how often do we have to repaint the illustration of the atom? Why didn't the expensive western-medicine pills that I swallowed for 6 weeks not cure my haemmorhoids and why did the acupressure and homeopathy help?
Science are social fields. There are social fights between actors in the fields to determine what school or what paradigm gets the monopole over the legitimate views that will dominate the field. Those fights more often than not are "dirty", completely dislodged from the apparent "truth" and merely are about cold money such as grants and social status (scientific capital) which we may call scientific reputation or whatever.
Now, what does that have to do with genes? For a researcher researching in the biological field of genetics, of course the cause for everything, the ONLY cause for everything, are the genes. Any other science that has something to say about the topic doesn't matter. The problem is that the hard sciences, with their dynamic of "paradigm-monopoly" and strict rules of scientific approval, often claim to tell "truth" and nothing but and this claim is almost always not questioned by the broader society, largely due to reproduction of the paradigms in schools. In elementary school you learn a small degree of biology, but you hear nothing of sociology, for example, that has a lot of "truths" too. From my perspective, the soft sciences are much more honest than the hard sciences, as in the soft sciences, multiple paradigms are allowed and no one would ever go so far as to claim that their theory should be the only theory allowed in their science. Whereas in physics, for example, there is only one paradigm allowed, paradigms that so far almost always have been either proven wrong or expanded. The problem is that the current paradigms are named "truth" and spread throughout mankind as such and when they are proven wrong, that means that the science lied to everyone for several years. Philosophy, for example, would never be that arrogant.
To me, the hard sciences are merely a basis, an important basis, of course, and, in the creation of science itself, even more important. However, trying to explain or influence such an extremely complicated and complex (social, psychological, theological, philosophical, anthropological, historical, ...) phenomenon as human sexuality with hard sciences alone, in this case biology, is simply negligence. As many of you pointed out already, such a "discovery" could create great social and human problems if the soft sciences don't have a say in the matter. Because, in the end, it is easy to prove that women are inferior to men if the entire scientific field is populated by men (something that in many ways is (still) actual fact). That is of course true for any science, no matter how hard or soft, but with the hard sciences this becomes an actual trouble as they, as mentioned above, claim to know the absolute "truth" while the soft sciences can merely try to convince the rest of the scientific field and the "general population" of a certain paradigm that developed in the science. Example: If philosopyh says that homosexuality is a choice, then philosophy itself will never completely agree on it, as the "other camp" is allowed in the field and the non-philosophers will simply have to check if they believe the paradigm or not. If biology finds out that homosexuality is a choice and the paradigm becomes the dominating one in the field of biology (which is easy to do if biology is full of heterosexuals (something that too in many ways is (still) actual fact) then everyone else will just have to suck it up and believe it, otherwise they are brandmarked as religious fanatics, esoterics, ignorant or whatever. Now you might think that biological scientific discoveries have to undergo a series of criteria involving testing it against "reality" to be named "truth". But as I said before. All sciences are social fields and if Harvard or Oxford or Cambridge finds out that lighting a candle every day makes you gay, then no one will question it. But the discovery that lighting a candle every day makes you gay could just as well be bullcrap, just like the molecule as the smallest element was bollocks.
I guess my point is that you should not overestimate the powers of hard sciences. They very seldomly contribute anything to explain complex phenomenons (such as human sexuality, war, rape, slavery, torment, love, overpopulation, loyalty, trust etc.) and more often than not, the soft sciences have very good answers or explanations for those, but as mentioned twice already, these answers dont claim to be the absolute "truth" but merely are a certain viewpoint derived from a theory by certain individuals, that are named, and not from a theory by certain individuals that are not named but anonymously spread their answers throughout society and history (often with the element of education) in the name of their science.
To put it shorty: Genes? Sure. But can genes really explain why Adam Urtra from Nairobi, who now lives in Barcelona, did not divorce his wife that his parents chose for him even though he knew all these years he was homosexual and, now in Barcelona, with the liberty to divorce and slightly act on his homosexuality, has a secret affair with one of his male co-workers that, under all circumstances, has to remain secret so to not get fired by his boss who regularly attents mass at the local catholic church? I doubt it. But sociology, psychology, theology and (of course as always) philosophy sure can get you quite nice and believable answers to that without trying to break it all down to cold hard scientific "facts" and leave a little dosage of humanity in these answers.
I'm sorry, I just had to pick that one out.Kagim said:
Does the starving 8 year old African boy have the choice to become a software developer?
Did the 18 year old male Russian son of a farmer have any kind of choice when he was conscripted into the Red Army in 1943? (A.) Get shot by Germans. B.) Get shot by Russians. C.) Take the 0,001% chance to survive by fighting the war. D.) Take the 0,00001% chance to survive by deserting.)
Did the middle-aged white American male with 2 sons, a daughter and a handicapped wife have any choices when he lost his underpayed job in 2008?
Does a 23 year old woman have the choice to go climbing in the Himalayas after being diagnosed with Scoliosis?
Choice is a luxury. And it's never, ever rational (imo).
I do, but I assume that is not what you are asking. wile the strong case can be made that things such as morality or love are not truly genetic, such a case cannot be made for sexuality. in the strictest sense, sexuality is merely reproductive process as interpreted by the brain.cobra_ky said:
Well lets wait to see for sure and if it is we can all wait for the homophobes to start their mandatory gay tests.
I was listening to an audio lecture series on biology and human behavior, and the lecturer was discussing something to this effect. It's not that a genetic change will cause any specific change in a person's behavior. Rather, genetic changes cause specific changes in a person's biochemistry. These kinds of changes coupled with experiential stimuli and other environmental factors like diet and stress will then lead to different types of behavioral changes over time.
In short, rather than finding a gene that causes homosexuality in humans, researchers are probably going to find genetic factors that can cause developmental changes which can, under the right circumstances, result in changes in a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
In short, rather than finding a gene that causes homosexuality in humans, researchers are probably going to find genetic factors that can cause developmental changes which can, under the right circumstances, result in changes in a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
I'm not a scientist, and I'm not entirely sure how exactly gay people are made, or whether the processes are the same or not (though it definitely has to do with extra estrogen in males), but it is absolutely not a choice. It probably is a gene though from all that I have read.
I think that this is probably a field of research that should be left to die.
If a gay gene IS found, then right wing nutjobs and religious fanatics will just start protesting and campaigning for a "cure" to homosexuality.
Then again... Some are already doing it now. Just with psychology instead of medicine.
If a gay gene IS found, then right wing nutjobs and religious fanatics will just start protesting and campaigning for a "cure" to homosexuality.
Then again... Some are already doing it now. Just with psychology instead of medicine.
As far as a gay gene being found, I doubt anything of true note will be discovered. To answer your question; no, it wouldn't make a difference. Those who are against homosexuality being genetic will probably just try to offer some counter-evidence.
So if Pedophilia is genetically determined would it be alright to terminate these people immediately. Or should they be forgiven because its genetic.cobra_ky said:
So its alright to persecute pedophilia for something you feel they can't control but its wrong to persecute someone for homosexuality because YOU think its immoral to do so?
If both people have no control over it what so ever why should they be treated differently? Should a mental handicapped person be given life in prison for killing someone even if they were in a situation where they could do nothing to prevent it due to there handicap?
Nobody 'chooses' to get off to pee but nobody FORCES you to indulge in it.
As well most healthy people with and open mind are not limited to a single desire. To be honest, anything out of straight vaginal sex from a biological standpoint can be seen as a technical 'deviation'(after all, you can't get a women pregnant through her mouth now can you?). I don't think that way however, and don't feel its a deviation, just a different appetite.
I never said genetics absolutely do not have an effect on future sexual wants and desires.(in fact i explicitly said the opposite) However i believe, environment, how your raised, and eventually, how you choose to live your life, have a MUCH greater impact. After all, I'm pretty sure my sexual desires are not genetically encoded into my DNA.
Finally, if there were a gay gene, or any form of sexual gene, that would involve it having to be part of one of the parents genetic makeup, unless it was a mutation in which case it WOULD be a bad thing, however i don't think its a mutation. As well most pedophiles do not come from a long line of pedophiles, just like homosexuals do not come from a long line of homosexuals.
In the end YOU choose what you do. Not genetics, not education, but self determination.
I have a buddy who comes from a devote christian family.
And he likes having his nuts stepped on and carving his girlfriend initials in his chest, this gets him off.
He does that with his girlfriend, however he doesn't NEED it to get off, he simply chooses to indulge in it because its fun for him. I would never dream of it, if jeans are to tight i feel woozy for Christ sakes. However i have my own sexual inclinations that i desire, however i can have sex just fine without indulging in any of them.
Hell, most perfectly straight men will find sliding a thumb up there ass will give them a hard on. Does that mean they are gay? No. It just means they don't have colon cancer and the sexual nerves that line the anal wall are working as intended(That's why taking a crap feels so good by the way)
This is also why when a man gets raped most people don't believe them because most people think men can't get erections if they don't want it. Which is bullshit.