Exgaywatch is reporting an email exchange with geneticist Francis Collins of Human Genome Project fame. In it, Dr. Collins reacts to a NARTH article describing his views of on causes of homosexuality. You should read both the article on the NARTH website by Dr. Dean Byrd and then the response by Dr. Collins to get the context. I am going to reproduce Dr. Collins email to David Roberts at EGW:
It troubles me greatly to learn that anything I have written would cause anguish for you or others who are seeking answers to the basis of homosexuality. The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book “The Language of God†(pp. 260-263), but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.
The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.
Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.
This is a very clear picture of the current research that I agree with. This is what should be presented by all concerned when describing the research to clients, activist audiences, in churches and in the media.
Lynn & Tim
What I was trying to get at in my last post was that the number of people who say they aren’t getting any might be accurate to that sample.
Lynn & Tim
People who have time to answer a government survey probably don’t have the most active social lives. I can’t see David Hasselfhoff spending an hour on the phone with a government employee answering personal questions. 😎
OK, guys. This month is crazy for me so I don’t have the time to do a thorough analysis on the research. I’m a bit lost here. What is it that GSS is saying, if anything?
And I too am a bit suspect of anything that had 2/3 of participants reporting celibacy for the past year.
One thing I didn’t consider is that over two-thirds of the Respondents did not say what the gender of the person thy had sex with in 12 months or 5 years because they hadn’t had sex in those time periods – they were celibate!
Yeah…. sure. Not.
Maybe one should filter on the age of respondent.
Ya know, the older brother hypothesis kind of fits in with an urban hypothesis. Theoretically speaking the more male babies a mother has, the more chance she might have some sort of autoimmune response to testosterone. Urban environments are loaded with every kind of gunk. Maybe mothers that live in big cities have heightened immune systems and this contributes to the autoimmune effect?
My 2 cent theory
Right On!
Cool charts, I can see the general distribution pattern. I agree with your assesment. The data is interesting but how good is the data? I guess an invalid code is an error of some sort?
I hope a research team devotes some time and looks into this phenomenon. Is it real? Your data combined with the gay marriage study makes me GUESS that there is some sort of pattern.
I have included an analysis of RES16 vs SEXSEX (at 12 months) in that website:
http://members.vincennes.net/lyrecker/res16vsex-gss.html
Tim… GSS? That’s the General Social Survey that Drowssap inquired about.
There are various portals that I have found over the last year on the web.
Read about it here:
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/about/gss/about.htm
The (or rather A) Codebook for the questions is here:
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/
Subject headings here:
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/rnd1998/merged/indx-sub/indexa.htm
The codes are nmeonic, so SEX is for gender of the ‘R’ (Respondant) while SEXSEX is who (males only, males&females, or females only) ‘R sexed up in the last 12 months and SEXSEX5 is who ‘R’ had sex with in the last 5 years. Thus RES16 is the RESidence of ‘R’ at age 16. I think that one is best.
The site that has the greatest power to analyze this data (that power is primarily that to analyze over time, I think!) is the ICPSR site at UMichigan:
https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/ticketlogin
However, access to that power is limited to registered users (I think anybody) but downloads of some data are limited to ICPSR member institutions. I haven’t “probed” into this Website any further than that first page above.
At the SDA Web Application of UC-Berkeley:
http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04
One may online create charts and bar graphs on the entire data set (compare two variables filtered on another variable, etc..) – however there is no way to filter the data’s timeset, at least as far as I have learned the interface – it does state “cumulative dataset.”
Thus I did an analysis filtering for all men and charting RESidence @ age 16 vs who one had sex with over the last 5 years (SEXSEX5). You can see that analysis at:
http://members.vincennes.net/lyrecker/res16vsex-gss.html
There appear to be problems in the dataset which make it worrisome to me.
. . .
Comment by Lynn David
May 31, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
GSS? From what I know of it…..
You lost me. What are you referencing? I’m pretty sure this isn’t the Danish study but I don’t know what it is.
Lynn David
AWESOME FIND!
Do you have a link? Do we need special software to filter through it?
Kinda sucks about the 1988 thing. Funny, the late 80s is when homosexuality began to be more socially accepted. I guess that is why they started asking.
GSS? From what I know of it…..
SEX – one’s gender
SEXSEX & SEXSEX5 – who you had sex over last 12 months & 5 years
SIZE – size of town
RES16 – residence, type of place, at your age 16.
Filtering on all men (SEX [1]) who had sex with just men or men and women (SEXSEX [1,2 since 1988], SEXSEX5 [1,2 since 1988]) and then comparing where they live (SIZE) and where they came from (RES16) and then comparing those gay/bisexuals to all men (SEX [1]) and their prevalence in the SIZE of their commuity and where they came from (RES16) would show you if homosexuality a trend which is differing from the general population.
But they only asked who you had sex with since 1988.
If I didn’t know anything about that study I would still guess that people in the city are less likely to marry than people in the country.
Urban/Rural should be a little different in all social things. Because of mass communication, and now the Internet I would ASSUME that these areas are more alike than they were 100 years ago.
I think it depends on what they actually tested.They looked at the location of birth for those who “married homosexually” and those who “married heterosexually”.
Their perspective was odd. It was almost as though the person had to choose someone to marry and those from the country chose women to a higher extent while those from the city had a higher incidence of choosing men.
They overlooked the obvious fact that no one made the choice to marry a man over a woman – that wasn’t the decision that anyone made at all. The decision was whether or not to marry the person they were with. Without any comparison of who didn’t marry at all, it says nothing at all about birth location as a factor in orientation.
It may possibly tell us, however, something about how birth location impacts the decision to marry. It may tell us that it has an opposite effect on gay couples than on straight ones.
It may say that rural origens are more likely to incourage heterosexual couples to make a formal public and community-based commitment. And it may say that rural areas are more likely to discourage gay couples from making a formal public and community-based commitment.
And that, I think, should surprise no one.
Timothy Kincaid
I think it depends on what they actually tested. Hopefully Dr. Throckmorton will be able to get back to us on that when he has time. If it compared cities under 10,000 with cities over 100,000 some or all of that effect is definately cultural. If their study measured particular cities against themselves based on population density that doesn’t sound like culture. Culture would zig-zag around in different densities, it probably wouldn’t follow a straight line from least to most dense.
Timothy Kincaid
Thats one for Dr. Throckmorton. I think it does contain that info but I don’t know for sure. Homosexuality has gained much more acceptance over the last 30 years. It might be interesting to see if that has effected GSS data.
It might be necessary to test a midwestern city with little or no population growth to keep city size factored out. Salt Lake City might be another good test. The city has grown exponentially but the opinions on homosexuality might not have changed much. Did the percent of gays increase faster than acceptance rates? That might indicate the effect of urbanicity. It wouldn’t be definitive but it might be interesting.
“Physically speaking Denmark is tiny and the land masses are only about 50 miles wide. Being in “the country†doesn’t have the same meaning as it does in the USA. The city I live in is wider than most of Denmark.”
True. But it is not homogenously populated. While 85% of the population is urban, the 6th largest city has a population of 56,000. It ranges from 254/km to 91/km.
Unfortunately I wasn’t able to determine whether political or cultural ideologies vary much from urban to rural. However, if they do not it would be the only place I’ve heard of in which they do not.
http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/pageinfo_pays.php3?Pays=DNK&Opt=population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark
“I believe the US General Social Survey contains info like this for every year. However this data would only suggest an answer like the gay marriage study, it wouldn’t be absolutely definitive. ”
And I believe that it lacks the Danish information about place of birth, doesn’t it?
“Well, that’s how a closet is built.”
well said
Timothy Kincaid
I’ve thought about this for a few days and there are a ton of relatively inexpensive ways to determine if gays or more likely to be born in varying degrees of urbanicity. I believe the US General Social Survey contains info like this for every year. However this data would only suggest an answer like the gay marriage study, it wouldn’t be absolutely definitive.
A bulletproof answer requires some form of direct analysis of random people. Maybe a demographic study from the General Social Survey would convince someone to undertake the next step. Maybe the Gay Marriage study already did, I dunno.
Timothy Kincaid wrote:
Add another one to your list. And it’s not just that you can’t see yourself as getting married, the whole idea of making a life with another gay man has at times [unfortunately, the best of my times] been anethema or alien to me.
It’s not like there weren’t some good examples out there for me to model my thinking upon. Except that one of the first with which I had any contact, a university music professor of the organ who was in a committed relationship, was degraded in my mind [I was 16] by my mother and even my prior organ teacher [who while lauding his skill at the organ, denigrated him as perhaps a pedophile – “watch out for him”]. At that age in a smallish town and in the confusion of those years (1960s), you just get the idea that isn’t you, that can’t be you.
Well, that’s how a closet is built.
Timothy Kincaid
The Danish study wasn’t comparing New York City with rural Alabama. If that was the case you’d have a point. The study compared Copenhagen with Copenhagen based on population density. Comparing a neighborhood with 10,000 people per square mile as opposed to 9,000 people per square mile shouldn’t be culture shock. Physically speaking Denmark is tiny and the land masses are only about 50 miles wide. Being in “the country” doesn’t have the same meaning as it does in the USA. The city I live in is wider than most of Denmark.
Dr. Throckmorton might be able to help us out on this one because he reviewed the study. The conclusion called it “significant” and “first of it’s kind” but they never listed how much the rates of gay marriage increased as population density increased. Is it something you can post?
Hmmm, urban vs. rural – there are many factors that occur in cities that do not exist in “the country”. Many women who are divorced/separated will move into a commmunity that has more resources – ie: the city. And then once you have a single parent household there are some studies (not suggesting that the methodology/ stats are correct or any of that) that suggest that children are more likely to have homosexual feelings.
But the point is that it may not be exposure to homosexuality as valid as much as it brings children from the rural areas into an environment that accentuates homosexual feelings that might not otherwise have been given an expression.
Their study found that men born in cities were “significantly†more likely to marry gay than men born in the country.
I marvel that this is an observation worth noting. I assure you the same is probably true here in America. And I suspect it has nothing to do with incidences of homosexuality and everything to do with cultural attitudes about marriage.
A gay kid growing up in rural Alabama is raised with certain expectations and understanding of what marriage is and what it means. And those are not the understandings of a kid raised in westside LA. There is a far greater emphasis on tradition and religion in rural settings and far fewer models of same-sex relationships.
I’ve met many gay guys who were raised in conservative areas who, though they support the idea of marriage equality, just can’t quite picture themselves getting married. I’ve not seen this from guys raised in more liberal areas to the same extent.
The problem with the marriages study is that it only compared two things – marrying heterosexually v. marrying homosexually as though one is selecting what color shirt to wear – and did not include those who did not marry at all.
The question is not what gender each man selected for his spouse (ummm, let see, I think I’ll pick a guy, no woman… no, a guy, final answer). The question is what did each person do. Did the guy stay unattached, form an unmarried attachment, or marry? And then with whom?
I suspect – and it’s based only on my observations – that it will turn out that rurally raised gay men were less likely to marry and urbanly raised gay men were more likely to marry.
I do think that the incidence rates of homosexuality will still lean towards urban environment. But I suspect that is most easily understood as cultural acceptance. In other words, gay men are going to be more accepting of themselves and their orientation if raised in an urban v. rural setting. But I doubt that SSA – were there some way to track it – would not vary much at all by region.
Maybe some day we’ll know.
Drowssap said:
I should note that even though his family is very Catholic he is accepted and I personally like him a lot. Nobody EVER brings up the fact he is gay.
Sounds more like he is tolerated, not accepted. There is a huge difference between the two. I think this was the point Timothy was making in his response.
Timothy Kincaid
The dad is about 80 years old and strict Catholic. He doesn’t even believe in birth control which explains the 10 kids. Believe me, following a don’t ask don’t tell policy is huge progress for my friend’s brother. 😎
One more note on the origins of homosexuality
The debate on Environment vs. Gene expression will ultimately go on until one of our sides comes up with some solid evidence. Right now all we have is theory. I believe that will change, maybe sooner than later.
The 2006 study, Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes contained a very interesting finding. Their study found that men born in cities were “significantly†more likely to marry gay than men born in the country. The relationship was linear, the denser the area of birth the more likely a man would marry gay. The researchers were quick to point out that their study only measured gay marriage, not the prevalence of homosexuality in the general population. Rates of gay marriage and homosexuality probably aren’t too divergent in Denmark but their work wasn’t designed to find out. You can bet the original authors and many other researchers around the world are working hard to find out right now. Any solid evidence that an urban birth correlates significantly with adult homosexuality would fundamentally alter the debate. The urban environment would suddenly get a lot of attention.
Fast forward 6 months to a scene of grim faced government employees walking around NYC in bunny suits with Geiger counters.
“Nobody EVER brings up the fact he is gay.”
And while I guess that’s not horrible, how much happier he would be if it were just a part of his family, if he felt his partner would be welcomed, or that Dad would say “so are you seeing anyone, when do we meet him”. Sigh. But I guess silence is better than animosity.
Lynn,
You are correct, that isn’t factored but it isn’t needed. If you put 1000 normal moms up against 10 super moms it still works out the same. The super moms do a genetic Blitzkrieg on the regular moms in just a few hundred years. The fitness increase Camperio-Ciani described was unprecedented. In nature the margins are usually razor thin. When fitness is out of balance by a wide margin you’ve got a Borg situation until the forces even out. The gene or gene cluster he described is such a supernova that it would already be ubiquitous in the human species. Our current gay/straight percents snapshot wouldn’t be relevant in that world.
As for your own family experience it would be easy to call that anecdotal. However who knows, it is interesting. I’ve read more than a few times that homosexuality runs in families and I believe it. I’m not sure how relevant the increased number of girls in your family is. The first gay guy I knew came from a family where he was one of 6 brothers plus 4 sisters. One of his straight brothers had 5 sons and no daughters. The other kids also tended to have more boys than girls. He was my best friend’s older brother. One time we got to see old home movies of Christmas time at his house. Even at 7 or 8 years old you could tell this guy was destined to be gay. I should note that even though his family is very Catholic he is accepted and I personally like him a lot. Nobody EVER brings up the fact he is gay. Obviously I don’t say a word.
Well Drowssap you said you don’t quite understand the math and I can see from your interpretation of the Camperio-Ciani data that you will use junk math to prove your supposed point. You forgot that a factor based upon the relative proportion of gay to straight men should be placed upon the data. Thus while the mothers or aunts of gay men have a greater fertility, their relative existence is only about 0.04 times that of the mothers and auts of straight men.
So in words similar to your own. In other words, for every 4 (not 100) children that mothers of gay men have, mothers of straight men have a whopping (not only) ~86 children. As for aunts on the gay side you have 4 children and the straight side makes out with ~76.
The gene need not be dominant, perhaps recessive, and may have to do with the birth of more femaies in a family. In my own families, as an anecdotal case, my mother and her sisters outnumbered her brothers by 6-2; my father and uncle were outnumbered 5-2. And if you go back in my family tree, the men in most families are really sparse (but there when necessary!). And a good percentage (compared to a 4% norm for gay men) of the excess men on my mother’s side were unmarried (some of which I know from family stories are homosexual, including a few suspected females).
It should also be noted that there may be a fertility aspect associated with the birth of males, or concerning males. In my sideline as a geneologist i have come across some large families of mostly males, all of which are productive in succeeding generations. With opposing and competing aspects at gaining fertility in the species, there would perhaps be a parity reached. Also for any species, having two ways to increased fertility is advantageous, there may be times or environments which favor one or the other.
MichaelBussee
Let me concur with you and Dr. Throckmorton. It makes good sense that there are multiple pathways to homosexuality.
Dr. Warren Throckmorton, thank you so much for sharing and discussing exgaywatch’s summary of Dr. Francis Collins’ response to Dr. Dean Byrd’s NARTH article. As one who for reasons of faith abstains from sexual relationships with other women and leads a support group for others who believe similarly, it is refreshing to see such a balanced and sensible rendering of the indicators on both sides of the question of how much and for whom same-sex attractions appear to be “hard-wired”. In my experience with such ministries since 1987 and a considerable range of paths and outcomes, I have observed that for many people, sexual attractions don’t seem to shift very much over time.
I tend to agree with this: “I suspect there are multiple homosexualities which have different causal trajectories.” I suspect this is also true of “heterosexualities”, don’t you?
Gay gene survives because it boosts fertility in females?
Since it gets thrown around every once in a while I did a little research on this one. Dr Camperio-Ciani claims that after interviewing 198 men (98 gay, 100 straight) he has found strong evidence that a gene that increases fertility in women also has the side effect of homosexuality in men. He claims this solves the Darwinian mystery on why a gay gene could survive.
Mothers of gay men were more fertile than the mothers of straight men. The differences were startling, 2.69 children as compared with 2.32 children. The aunts of gay men also showed more fertility than the aunts of straight men. 1.98 compared to 1.51.
In other words, for every 100 children that mothers of gay men have, mothers of straight men only have 86 children. As for aunts on the gay side you have 100 children and the straight side is only 76.
On one side you’ve got a MASSIVE increase in fertility. 100 to 86? Holy cow! Those genes should have taken over like the Borg in just a few hundred years. The force that is supposed to balance those genes out is an occasional gay male? Holy junk science, that is ludicrous. It would need to be something like 100 to 99.95 for that to make sense.
I don’t always agree with something, but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect it. I give that 4 stinkweeds, not just because the sample is so tiny but because the conclusion is so mathematically ridiculous. Because that tiny study was broadcast around the world like it was gospel earns the media a bonus stinkweed. There is no possibility on God’s green earth that study was peer reviewed by anything higher than Junior High students. This is the kind of thing that must make real scientists shake their heads and wonder why garbage studies get press and other good studies don’t. I need to take a cold shower. 😎
Lynn David
I’m glad you posted those links, I saved them in my favorites. The second link contained a relevant point, “No predisposing gene for homosexual behaviour has been identified.” That doesn’t mean one won’t be found but so far they’ve come up blank and this is theory.
The mathematical equations in the first article were a little over my head but I understood what they were getting at. Under certain mathematical circumstances a gay gene (actually any gene) could survive if you can find a way to balance out the positive and the negative. At the end of the first link is the following text, “it is of course theory only. Tasks for the future are to establish more precisely the costs and benefits of such behaviour in natural populations.” In other words, these equations are mathematical formulas. The true fitness costs and benefits remain unknown. Interesting? Of course. Saved in my favorites? Of course. Evidence that scientists twice as smart as me know algebra? Yes. Proof or even evidence that a gay gene could survive in the wild? No. Those are simple mathematical models and with slight adjustments they could apply to any gene concept.
BTW I should note that simple mathematical models are still way over my head without somebody to walk me through them. 😎
Warren
“I do not think it is clear that prevalence rates are the same. Furthermore, what is considered homosexuality varies from age to age and culture to culture. Exclusive homosexuality may be what you are referring to but I doubt our measurements of this state are extensive enough to permit much certainty about that.”
You are correct I was referring to people with an exclusive homosexual orientation under the modern definition. True, the numbers could be shifting around one way or the other and we probably wouldn’t notice. A massive shift might be picked up by somebody. I’m guessing the percents are reasonably stable, but it is just a guess.
BTW, Do you mind if I ask how you get the blue line next to the previous quote to show that the text was from a previous message? I’m just using quotes but everyone else seems up to speed.
Here, here to the ….multiple homosexualities which have different causal trajectories.
We need better definitions of homosexuality, sexuality, gentic traits vs. predispostions, sociobiology etc…
Complicating the X-Chromosome linkage is the mixed findings regarding the location of linkage. As Dr. Collins said the Hamer findings have been replicated in only one sample of gay men via a couple of different methods. More broadly Xq28 has not held up. I speculate that some gay men owe their brain organization to the X and some do not. I don’t think we are (should be?) looking for factors related to a single trait. I suspect there are multiple homosexualities which have different causal trajectories.
Drowssap said:
I do not think it is clear that prevalence rates are the same. Furthermore, what is considered homosexuality varies from age to age and culture to culture. Exclusive homosexuality may be what you are referring to but I doubt our measurements of this state are extensive enough to permit much certainty about that.
Lynn David asked:
No, as Dr. Collins said, predisposition perhaps, predetermination, no.
Drowssap wrote:
Oh now that”s really logical, haven’t found the gene, so it can’t exist.
Actually, it may be only the effect of the gene to increase fertility. The gene likely does not actually increase fertility directly; but works on an attribute which does, such as orientation or attractions.
And if the gene is X-linked then again it has the appearance of being a susceptibility gene or one caused environmentall in vitro and not working in every case in any man as it is not defined by genetic writing but defined by the genetic process (gene expression).
Not at all necessarily. I suggest you read Gavrilets & Rice’s article. It is availablee on th Net in PDF format [see: http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/PAPS/h.pdf%5D.
Even Savolainen & Lehmann [see: http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/PAPS/Savolainen_Lehmann.pdf%5D agree that, “…if a gene influencing homosexuality is linked to the X chromosome, then it would support the sexual-antagonism hypothesis rather than overdominance. The framework will be used to guide research on the genetic basis of male and female homosexuality, and will help in resolving the ‘Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality.’“
Lynn David
I am answering a question from Lynn from the thread on the APA. This thread seems more apropriate. Thank you Dr. Throck for not throwing us out of the other thread. 😎
Why is the hypothesis that a gene that causes increased fertility in men and homosexuality in men illogical?
For starters the gene hasn’t been found and independently confirmed. Second off I’ve read about the claimed gene and the vast majority of men who have it are straight. It would be some sort of susceptability gene. All this one theoretically does is raise or lower percents a few points either way in response to something in the environment. That is certainly possible, we’ll see if it gets confirmed.
For arguments sake I’ll assume a gene did make men gay and women more fertile and it was confirmed.
1) The more fertile women would quickly overtake the less fertile women regardless of the side effect in men.
2) As the gene spread and more men were born gay the remaining men would become polygamous. At first a few elite men would have 2 wives, as the percentages continued to shift every straight man would eventually have 2 wives. Men have an enormous sex drive and this would be probably be welcomed.
3) The shift would continue until there reached an upper limit on the number of wives each man could succesfully support. At some point, maybe 3, 4, 5 wives each the forces would balance out. As socities became wealthier the numbers would continue to shift in favor of the polygamists because dads could support more and more women.
Polygamy has been very common throughout history and it isn’t associated with slow population growth. Not far from where I live is a place called Colorado City. A lot of polygamists live there and the population is exploding. The males of any species have no problem impregnating lots of women if other men aren’t interested. 😎
If a gene increases fertility in women making men gay isn’t a strong enough counterballance to stop it. That might not be true in other species.
Lynn David
I wasn’t saying that their aren’t many hypothesis on why a gay gene could survive. Gay uncles providing extra help around the tribe and the increased fertility hypothesis are two that come to mind. There are many more and I believe I’ve read them all. The problem is they don’t make any logical sense IMHO. The other problem is they’ve never found a gay gene to form a hypothesis around in the first place. It’s kind of like speculating on how the Loch Ness Monster survived since the Jurassic age before we’ve found the Loch Ness Monster. Any gene (and there will be dozens or even hundreds) that will eventually be associated with homosexuality is going to be some sort of susceptability gene. A 20% identical twin concordence rate is very low.
BTW I am reading your link right now and it is fascinating, but I just don’t agree with its logic. I think the whole article can be summed up in one of its first sentences.
“I personally think that if a firm genetic foundation for homosexuality in humans were established, then many people would view this fascinating human phenotype more objectively”
That is probably true but it doesn’t change reality, whatever that turns out to be.
Drowssap (26914):
And yet as I pointed out in that other thread. Gavrilets and Rice in “Genetic models of homosexuality: generating testable predictions.†(Proceedings of the Royal Society B (2006) 273, 3031-3038) say you’re wrong. Rice has said, “I think that it is too early to decide which of our models (or one yet to be formulated) is most feasible. However, based on the abundance of sexually antagonistic variation found in fruit flies, the sexually antagonistic variation seems like a probable candidate process leading to polymorphism for homosexuality.†[see: http://www.physorg.com/news84720662.html%5D.
Sexually antagonistic traits are those that are advantageous in one sex, but may cause a nonadvantageous trait (such as homosexuality) in the other sex. Thus the advantageous increase in fertility in females vs homosexuality in males would qualify as those possible sexually antagonistic traits.
My point is that said genetic trait is not always operative in the male, that gene expression must take place from a normally shut-down chromosome, the X. Thus the genetic trait has the appearance of being caused by some environmental aspect. And indeed, it may be triggered by some environmental aspect, thus birth-order effects.
Thus fitness is not reduced in the overall population, likely moreso fitness is increased. Individual fitness is not in question. But if you want to consider individual fitness then consider this. Early tribal man as represented by American Indians did not socially outcast its homosexual members and made a place for them in their society. Small tribal structures do not have the luxury of ridding themselves of any member based in nature.
But along comes more highly civilized bronze/iron-age man, more settled, with established food sources. And now not every individual is necessary to the survival of the group. At that time then those whose nature doesn’t fit in with the norm is marginalized, both socially and religiously. 2000-3000 years later and maybe some societies are finally coming to understand that fitness has many meanings.
Drowssap (26914):
Drowssap (26914):
Drowssap (26914):
Hi Dr. Throckmorton,
I guess you summed it up better than I could. I must have been writing while you were posting.
Marty
Let me correct that. There are a lot of indicators that homosexuality is biologically determined. Finger lengths are sort of interesting, eye blink test is interesting, testimonies that people were gay since birth are believable. Gender Dysphoria is the #1 predictor of adult homosexuality. Nobody knows what causes it and most kids that don’t have a clinical level of dysphoria grow up straight (I think). In three out of four clinical cases the kid ends up gay, the other straight. La Vey claims he found a nucleus in the hypothalamus which is smaller in gays than straights. Roselli recently released a peer reviewed study claiming he found the same thing in gay sheep. Likelihood the hypothalamus is involved is high.
Nobody knows why any of this happens and there doesn’t appear to be strong genetic linkage. Any talk of causation is 100% speculation.
I recently learned that gender dysphoria is also more likely in kids with Autism. I can’t find the percent increase so I don’t know how interesting this is. If you google Aspergers syndrome and gender dysphoria it is certainly well known. You can find moms in chat rooms complaining about both together. Maybe there is a connection, I dunno.
I take issue with ‘we got nothing.’ We don’t have clarity but we have some probable weak genetic component and thus we know that for gays as a group that genetics are probably not determinative. We have lots of weak environmental correlates and so, for some people, certain environments may have been quite relevant, for others not so much, if at all.
RE: twins reared together. The identical twins have slightly higher concordances than fraternal twins reared together so there is likelihood that the difference is due to genetics. However, genotype gets to phenotype, how? About that we don’t have much.
We also know that brains of gays and straights react differently to sexual cues and certain putative pheromones and even serotonin. How they get that way is where we are closer to nothin…
Marty
“So in a nutshell, we got nothin. Right?”
yes
So in a nutshell, we have no biological indicators identified, no proof of any genetic linkage, and no test that can determine from a biological standpoint what someone’s orientation is or will be.
As for the increased prevalence in twins, couldn’t that just as easily be attributed to the similar environmental factors? Chances are great that these boys were raised together as brothers, in the same house/family/school, right?
So in a nutshell, we got nothin. Right?
David Roberts
“I’m not finding much new or convincing in your arguments”
Fair enough. My hope is that I do a decent job at presenting a different opinion on the origins of homosexuality. The way I see it there are two major groups stuck in WWI style trench warfare with each other. On one side are the Narths trying to prove that 2% to 4% of men are gay because their dads didn’t take them to enough baseball games. On the other side are the Dean Hammers trying to prove that a heritable gene spread around the globe that encourages people to engage in behavior that doesn’t spread DNA. Stuck in the middle is a large group of people who think it is a combination of both. These people must have been middle kids growing up. 😎
My opinion is that the evidence is overwhelming that the environment is where the trigger lies. A 20% concordence rate is very low. That doesn’t even factor out all the other things that identical twins share including a womb. Even a 50% or 60% concordence rate means strongly environmental. Scientists will eventually discover dozens of susceptability genes for homosexuality. However most people with these genes will be completely straight. Eight or nine out of ten is a safe guess.
One last torpedo at the gay gene theory. If gay people have less kids than straight people why does their population stay roughly the same? If blue eyed people had half as many kids as brown eyed people but the populations stayed constant scientists would know pretty quickly that eye color wasn’t genetic. Something is going on in the evironment and someday we’ll know exactly what it is. That much we can count on.
MichaelBussee
I think you actually hit on what sticks out to me as well.
Just because genes don’t appear to make people gay doesn’t mean that homosexuality isn’t hardwired at birth. More sillyness from people with tremendous educational backgrounds and years working in science.
Lynn David
“In what manner of science are you speaking? Genetics?”
Fitness reducing in the sense that homosexuality reduces the chance of having children. Anything that reduces the chance of someone spreading their DNA is fitness reducing. When a gene is involved that is where natural selection comes into play. If a group of 1,000 people had a gene that cut their chances of having kids in half, that gene would not last long in the wild.
Lynn David
“My question is what do you mean by environment?”
Anything outside the realm of heritable genetics. Because SSA starts so young whatever happens must occur prenatally or shortly after birth. Pathogen, hormones, nutrition, anything. I highly doubt it has anything to do with child rearing techniques. I’d probably rule out demons as well. 😎
Here’ the phrase that really sturck me:
“But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.”
In other words, genetics almost certainly plays a role — along with “other undefined factors”. There are many suggestions as to what these other factors may be (bad parents, soy products, demons, etc) but no strrong science to definately establisgh these as conrtibuting factors.
Notice the last line: ” That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.” Other factors are involved — but that doesn’t prove these other factors are any more changeable that one’s hardwired DNA. Reparative therapists make the logical error of assserting that just because these “other factors” are not genetic, they CAN and even ought to be changed. Not so.
Drowssap wrote….
Well, as I have said before I don’t think there is such a thing as gene for homosexuality, though there could be a genetic signature which creates the susceptability, that is allows gene expression, but is otherwise associated with another functionality (ie homosexality being a by-product).
My question is what do you mean by environment? The environment of a stem-cell, the environment of a fetus/the in vitro environment, or the environment of a toddler? And therefore what process (es) in any particular environment are you considering? And the cause of said process?
Drowssap wrote….
In what manner of science are you speaking? Genetics?
It seems to me we are just continuing to put words in Dr. Collins’ mouth much as NARTH did. Drowssap, I’m not finding much new or convincing in your arguments. I do have great respect for scientists such as Dr. Collins, and I’m content to let the cards fall where they may. Ultimately, however, I don’t think and never have thought that understanding the basis for homosexuality will alter much the fact that one tends not to be able to do much about it to any great degree, nor would I suggest that one should try if one can avoid it.
I see few people running around trying to figure out why some are more or less creative than others, more or less intelligent, adept as musicians or unable to play anything but the radio, and so on. Some people relate to and are attracted to the same sex as most are to the opposite – and some to a greater extent than others. If one is somewhere in the middle, I suspect there is some degree of choice over which attraction one favors – if there is sufficient motivation to make that decision. For those on either end of the scale, it does not appear likely much real change can be had deep down where it counts.
After all is said and done, this is where we keep finding ourselves in this debate. Expecting otherwise is beginning to seem like madness.
David Roberts
I don’t believe that homosexuality is a disease. I don’t believe gay people should be put down in any way, shape or form. Scientifically speaking it is a fitness reducing condition. I wish I had a few words I could use that don’t have a negative connotation so I could mix them up. Unfortunately all I’ve got is fitness reducing condition.
“There is a big difference between susceptibility to a viral attack and the tendency to exhibit this or that human characteristic”
An ear infection is a decent comparison even if homosexuality isn’t caused by a pathogen. What if it is caused by hormones and certain genes offer more or less absorption to these hormones? It could be any sort of resistance even if it is very indirect.
Lynn David
I believe the available evidence strongly suggests that there is an environmental trigger for homosexuality. Genes will CERTAINLY be found that raise and lower the likelihood of being homosexual. However these are susceptability genes. A 20% concordence rate indicates the cause sits squarely in the environment. Even in the case of gene expression an environmental factor is responsible for determining which genes are activated.
As an aside, when I was a kid growing up we were told that all gay people were molested and that is why they were gay. WRONG! Genes is another one that I think will ultimately end up in the wrong category. Between now and then I’m sure a half dozen gay genes will be discovered… and undiscovered. 😎
Michael Bussee
Yeah, I think the Reparative Therapists are wrong too. It seems to me that sons who grow up to be gay might on average be more feminine than straight sons. The fact that father and son are on different wavelengths is probably why some gay men report strained relationships with their fathers. The strained relationship had nothing to do with the cause, it is a side effect.
Hopefully Warren can explain better than I that you are dealing with apples and oranges in your analogy. There is a big difference between susceptibility to a viral attack and the tendency to exhibit this or that human characteristic, not to mention the complex combination of factors which contribute to the latter. It seems to me that one will always reach the wrong conclusion when the idea that homosexuality is a disease or even “condition” is the initial premise.
Wow…. Drowssap takes a stab at outdoing NARTH….
Francis Collins:
I would think that adding that word “anomolous” in that statement should create more clarity. I think most – including Francis Collins – would agree that non-anomolous sexual orientations are likely genetically defined and is hardwired by DNA.
Sexual orientation is perhaps a summation of several genetic attributes that are hardwired by DNA. An interruption in one of those due to gene expression of an anomolous gene set (such as gene expression of the X chromosome) could result in anomolous sexual orientation – homosexuality. Thus while heterosexuality is instructionally defined in genetics, the anomolous sexual orientation is likely process defined by genetics.
Warren Throckmorton:
So you would tell clients that it is a foregone conclusion that homosexuality is genetically caused [“it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years“], that all it takes is the research?
Fair comment, drowssap. One factor among many means just that–one factor among many.
I am curious about the other factors, though, and whether their identification will be immediately followed by methods to manipulate them.
Also check out “cum hoc ergo propter hoc”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation
Drowsap is right. Correlation is not causility. More people need to understand this, especially folks like Nicolosi who point out that many gay men have troubled family relationships — ignoring that this is also true for many straights. Nicolosi equates correlatation with cause all the time… An extremely common and very serious fallacy of reasoning. See “post hoc ergo propter hoc”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
“the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved.”
Genes effect susceptability to virtually everything. However susceptability is a lot different than causation. A simple analogy. Children with Gene A have a 10% chance to get an ear infection. Children with Gene B have a 50% chance to get an ear infection. In neither case does the ear infection come from the gene. If your kid doesn’t run into the germ he’ll never get an ear infection regardless of genetic predisposition. I think a lot of these health stories are reported in a way that infers that part of the “condtion” is stored in the genes.
A 20% concordence rate for monozygotic twins is a weak case for genetic causation and a strong case for susceptability.