NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: This discovery of the single-gene controlling sexual preference in fruit flies may provide evidence leading to similar findings in human beings.


For Fruit Flies, Gene Shift Tilts Sex Orientation (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03cell.html?th&emc=th)


By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL,
International Herald Tribune
Published: June 3, 2005

When the genetically altered fruit fly was released into the observation chamber, it did what these breeders par excellence tend to do. It pursued a waiting virgin female. It gently tapped the girl with its leg, played her a song (using wings as instruments) and, only then, dared to lick her - all part of standard fruit fly seduction.

The observing scientist looked with disbelief at the show, for the suitor in this case was not a male, but a female that researchers had artificially endowed with a single male-type gene.

That one gene, the researchers are announcing today in the journal Cell, is apparently by itself enough to create patterns of sexual behavior - a kind of master sexual gene that normally exists in two distinct male and female variants.

In a series of experiments, the researchers found that females given the male variant of the gene acted exactly like males in courtship, madly pursuing other females. Males that were artificially given the female version of the gene became more passive and turned their sexual attention to other males.

"We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behavior," said the paper's lead author, Dr. Barry Dickson, senior scientist at the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna. "It's very surprising.

"What it tells us is that instinctive behaviors can be specified by genetic programs, just like the morphologic development of an organ or a nose."

The results are certain to prove influential in debates about whether genes or environment determine who we are, how we act and, especially, our sexual orientation, although it is not clear now if there is a similar master sexual gene for humans.

Still, experts said they were both awed and shocked by the findings. "The results are so clean and compelling, the whole field of the genetic roots of behavior is moved forward tremendously by this work," said Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University. "Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."

He added: "I never chose to be heterosexual; it just happened. But humans are complicated. With the flies we can see in a simple and elegant way how a gene can influence and determine behavior."

The finding supports scientific evidence accumulating over the past decade that sexual orientation may be innately programmed into the brains of men and women. Equally intriguing, the researchers say, is the possibility that a number of behaviors - hitting back when feeling threatened, fleeing when scared or laughing when amused - may also be programmed into human brains, a product of genetic heritage.

"This is a first - a superb demonstration that a single gene can serve as a switch for complex behaviors," said Dr. Gero Miesenboeck, a professor of cell biology at Yale.

Dr. Dickson, the lead author, said he ran into the laboratory when an assistant called him on a Sunday night with the results. "This really makes you think about how much of our behavior, perhaps especially sexual behaviors, has a strong genetic component," he said.

All the researchers cautioned that any of these wired behaviors set by master genes will probably be modified by experience. Though male fruit flies are programmed to pursue females, Dr. Dickson said, those that are frequently rejected over time become less aggressive in their mating behavior.

When a normal male fruit fly is introduced to a virgin female, they almost immediately begin foreplay and then copulate for 20 minutes. In fact, Dr. Dickson and his co-author, Dr. Ebru Demir of the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, specifically chose to look for the genetic basis of fly sexual behavior precisely because it seemed so strong and instinctive and, therefore, predictable.

Scientists have known for several years that the master sexual gene, known as fru, was central to mating, coordinating a network of neurons that were involved in the male fly's courtship ritual. Last year, Dr. Bruce Baker of Stanford University discovered that the mating circuit controlled by the gene involved 60 nerve cells and that if any of these were damaged or destroyed by the scientists, the animal could not mate properly. Both male and female flies have the same genetic material as well as the neural circuitry required for the mating ritual, but different parts of the genes are turned on in the two sexes. But no one dreamed that simply activating the normally dormant male portion of the gene in a female fly could cause a genetic female to display the whole elaborate panoply of male fruit fly foreplay.

Interesting Article. It almost says gays are genetically deffective. (many will probably view it that way) (not my pov)

I'd be careful with such information as the article proposes. If it proves to be true, then gays will be treated as one born with a genetic disorder (like down syndrome). I can just see future scientist trying to cull the "gay gene" out of the gene pool. That will raise all sorts of ethics issues. :)

*steps back to await impending flame war*

Well, fact is fact. It can be interpreted all sorts of ways, of course, but once it's there you shouldn't shield the information.

Anyway I think that, like most things, we have a disposition to act in a certain way that is based on our genes, and our experiences and upbringing affect that to a large degree as well. So I'm not surprised by this, but I think if they did it to 100 flies it probably wouldn't work for all of them. But I could be wrong.

Interesting Article. It almost says gays are genetically deffective. (many will probably view it that way) (not my pov)

I'd be careful with such information as the article proposes. If it proves to be true, then gays will be treated as one born with a genetic disorder (like down syndrome). I can just see future scientist trying to cull the "gay gene" out of the gene pool. That will raise all sorts of ethics issues. :)

*steps back to await impending flame war*

'genetically deffective' is one interpretation. But if you look at some of our cousins, the bonobo's, you'll see that they are almost without exception 'genetically deffective'. So it probably has a function in their society and since we are relatively closely related to them, it can be interpreted as something that has a function in our society.

Fruit fly.....human.....fuit fly.....human........fruit fly........human


Not convinced here

It may spawn the feelings that gays and lesbians are "genetically effective", but this research may help quell the idea that homosexuality is somehow "chosen" rather than heterosexuality which is commonly seen to be genetic. Which, in my opinion, is a good assumption to change. Let's just hope one of these days it won't even be an issue any more, and we can all live together more peacefully. :)

Fruit fly.....human.....fuit fly.....human........fruit fly........human


Not convinced here

A joke?

I think it goes against the religious argument that you make a mental "choice" to do homosexual acts vs the body responding to certain stimuli.

A joke?

I think it goes against the religious argument that you make a mental "choice" to do homosexual acts vs the body responding to certain stimuli.
No joke at all. I'm just saying that we are quite genetically different from a fruit fly

No, cuz humans have choice as a major component of their behavior (unlike fruit flies). Even if there was a genetic component, that has nothing to do with the culturally expanding and diminishing (depending on the times) population of homosexuals in humans, which you could hardly say is the result of a bunch of "female that researchers had artificially endowed with a single male-type gene."

It's too easy, too convinient for everyone to find a "homosexuality gene," or a "democratic party" gene, a gene for everything humans do. People always try to do that, and although 'blue' eyes versus 'brown' makes it seem like you could similarly divide sexuality into not only male and female but 'homosexual' versus 'heterosexual.' But then what about 'bisexuals,' do they have a gene? What about furries - or is it somehow less "genetic" when you put your unit into a guy wearing a bear suit, then it is to put it into a guy not wearing one? How about people who like to have sex in front of the mirror, a gene for that too? Let's go test fruit flies for that one.

No, cuz humans have choice as a major component of their behavior (unlike fruit flies). Even if there was a genetic component, that has nothing to do with the culturally expanding and diminishing (depending on the times) population of homosexuals in humans, which you could hardly say is the result of a bunch of "female that researchers had artificially endowed with a single male-type gene."

It's too easy, too convinient for everyone to find a "homosexuality gene," or a "democratic party" gene, a gene for everything humans do. People always try to do that, and although 'blue' eyes versus 'brown' makes it seem like you could similarly divide sexuality into not only male and female but 'homosexual' versus 'heterosexual.' But then what about 'bisexuals,' do they have a gene? What about furries - or is it somehow less "genetic" when you put your unit into a guy wearing a bear suit, then it is to put it into a guy not wearing one? How about people who like to have sex in front of the mirror, a gene for that too? Let's go test fruit flies for that one.

Ok so whats your point? Are you in the camp that says a person does homosexual acts vs a person being a homosexual?

If so what religion do you follow?

No joke at all. I'm just saying that we are quite genetically different from a fruit fly
Not really. Most scientific and medical testing is done on fruit flies or mice or some other creature. We really share almost all of our DNA. Out of billions and billions of bases, it's a few million which seperate us.

Ok so whats your point? Are you in the camp that says a person does homosexual acts vs a person being a homosexual?

If so what religion do you follow?

Er homosexual people do homosexual acts. But I'm saying they are not homosexual or doing homosexual acts because of simple genetics.

Er homosexual people do homosexual acts.
hehehe...they aren't the only ones, hon. :eek:

No joke at all. I'm just saying that we are quite genetically different from a fruit fly
It'd be nice if that were so...and much more flattering... :p

hehehe...they aren't the only ones, hon. :eek:

Nah. If you do homosexual acts you're being homosexual.

If you were a fruit fly, and they were observing you having sex with other male fruit flies (apart from this experiment) they would assume homosexuality. Why not with humans?

Besides, homosexual is defined by the dictionary as...

"adj.

Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex."

Clearly, homosexual intercourse "relates to" having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

Not really. Most scientific and medical testing is done on fruit flies or mice or some other creature. We really share almost all of our DNA. Out of billions and billions of bases, it's a few million which seperate us.
True, cell characteristics are widely the same. But sexuality isn't made up in a single cell.

Nah. If you do homosexual acts you're being homosexual.

If you were a fruit fly, and they were observing you having sex with other male fruit flies (apart from this experiment) they would assume homosexuality. Why not with humans?

Besides, homosexual is defined by the dictionary as...

"adj.

Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex."

Clearly, homosexual intercourse "relates to" having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
So I can be hetero during the week, and homo on the weekend, purely defined by where I stick my digits and into whom?

No joke at all. I'm just saying that we are quite genetically different from a fruit fly

And yet amazingly similar. Most genetic testing starts out in creatures like Drosophila (fruit fly). The next step is generally to look for homologous genes in higher order species. Mechanisms in mammals are often more complex than those in Drosophila, but the core proteins are often very, very similar.

So I can be hetero during the week, and homo on the weekend, purely defined by where I stick my digits and into whom?

Behavior. Isn't it a bitch?

If you wanted to be told that you could have gay sex with ten thousand gay men and still earn the title "heterosexual," you were wrong, at least from me. I happen to think behavior counts a bit more than words, especially where something such as subjective as one's expressed "preferences" (and practically everyone lies about their preferences habitually, no matter their 'orientation') are concerned.

And then there is the baby argument. If homosexuality or heterosexuality is some genetic condition, well how do you tell the homosexual babies from the heterosexual ones? Babies aren't *sexual,* but if it was all genetic than they would indeed be. You could say aha! gay baby. Aha! Butch baby. Everyone would love that convinience, but it wouldn't be accurate, because Butch baby might decide to one day start having gay sex. Oops. Behavior! Choice!

Behavior. Isn't it a bitch?

If you wanted to be told that you could have gay sex with ten thousand gay men and still earn the title "heterosexual," you were wrong, at least from me. I happen to think behavior counts a bit more than words, especially where something such as subjective as one's expressed "preferences" (and practically everyone lies about their preferences habitually, no matter their 'orientation') are concerned.

And then there is the baby argument. If homosexuality or heterosexuality is some genetic condition, well how do you tell the homosexual babies from the heterosexual ones? Babies aren't *sexual,* but if it was all genetic than they would indeed be. You could say aha! gay baby. Aha! Butch baby. Everyone would love that convinience, but it wouldn't be accurate, because Butch baby might decide to one day start having gay sex. Oops. Behavior! Choice!
I don't think Sinuhue having sex with ten thousands of men would classify her gay

Behavior.
If you wanted to be told that you could have gay sex with ten thousand gay men and still earn the title "heterosexual," you were wrong, at least from me.


Sexual activity does not determine sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is determined by what gender(s) you are sexually attracted to.

If a gay man never has sex with another man (but he is still attracted to them), it doesn't make him any less of a homosexual.

If a straight girl gets drunk and starts making out with her friends, that doesn't make her any less straight, either.

If a straight girl gets drunk and starts making out with her friends, that doesn't make her any less straight, either.

Yeah, but it's pretty fucking cool though.

Fruit fly.....human.....fuit fly.....human........fruit fly........human


Not convinced here

Really? I suppose you've convinced yourself it's a choice on far less scientific grounds. Incidentally, fruitflies are routinely used in genetics studies.

Really? I suppose you've convinced yourself it's a choice on far less scientific grounds. Incidentally, fruitflies are routinely used in genetics studies.
True, cell characteristics are widely the same. But sexuality isn't made up in a single cell.

read the whole thread. It's not even 2 pages :rolleyes:

First of all, you can't trust everything you read or hear. You can't trust the article, cause it might be biased. You can't trust the scientific testing 'cause that might be biased as well. Let me give you an example. Just a couple of years ago there was a scientific research in which they gave rabbits the female hormone, I don't know the name in english, and they found out that the rabbits became tired and not as lively as before. And walla, the conclusion: The female hormone is the reason that females tend to get depressed more often than men. This conclusion was presented in newspapers and so forth without really a detailed description of the actual testings.

another example is one time when one had given a child whithout a sex (or with two sexes I think..) testestoron, and then the saw that the child got hyper active, and the conclusion was that testerstorone made men more active then women. The thing was just that this child wa also treated with cortison, with the side effect hyper activity.


so anyway, you have to be careful with what you read. So I totally agree with those who have said that there is a difference between a fruitfly and a human. there is even a difference between monkeys and humans. you can't apply things you've discovered on one spicie to another.

personally I think that it is not genetically based but a social construction.
sorry for my english, I am tired and it's not my native language.

Interesting Article. It almost says gays are genetically deffective. (many will probably view it that way) (not my pov)

I'd be careful with such information as the article proposes. If it proves to be true, then gays will be treated as one born with a genetic disorder (like down syndrome). I can just see future scientist trying to cull the "gay gene" out of the gene pool. That will raise all sorts of ethics issues. :)

*steps back to await impending flame war*
What about bi-sexuals then? Are they just partially defective? I have a couple of questions,is it generally accepted that the homosexual percentage of the general population is about 10 percent , and whatever the answer who and how was that percentage formulated?

read the whole thread. It's not even 2 pages :rolleyes:

Umm.. read the whole article. It's less than 300 words. The gists of it are that behavior can be altered by genetic manipulation.

So anyway, you have to be careful with what you read. So I totally agree with those who have said that there is a difference between a fruitfly and a human. there is even a difference between monkeys and humans. you can't apply things you've discovered on one spicie to another.

You have to be careful with what you read, yes.

Of course, your comment here has just done away with all medical progress. Congratulations.

Of course there are differences, but you certainly can apply something you discover or test in one species to another, so long as it still fits.

You have to be careful with what you read, yes.

Of course, your comment here has just done away with all medical progress. Congratulations.

Of course there are differences, but you certainly can apply something you discover or test in one species to another, so long as it still fits.

Mendel did his genetics studies using pea plants so I guess it doesn't apply to humans. :confused:

This is very interesting material!

However, I think everyone is missing a large portion of the argument. So far, I've heard that it's either genetic, or a choice, and both sides are fighting to the death. We act both off of genetic coding and use the unique human ability of choice. So therefore, everyone here is right. Homosexuality is not only genetic, but a choice as well. People with the gene can supress the instinct (that's what it is), while those without it can choose to act that way. It's not either or, it's both.

However, I personally feel that the genetic urge is stronger than human choice. People tend to act more from instinct and urge than choice. It's just a stronger message in the mind. People tend to follow their "subconcious" than their own choices. So, I hope I've made a semi-clear stance on this, and that my words have helped to clear some confusion.

What about bi-sexuals then? Are they just partially defective? I have a couple of questions,is it generally accepted that the homosexual percentage of the general population is about 10 percent , and whatever the answer who and how was that percentage formulated?


Actually, I read somewhere that it was no higher than 1%
and then somewhere else that is was between 1% and 2%

This is of the US population, I'll go and try to find the sources.

And then there is the baby argument. If homosexuality or heterosexuality is some genetic condition, well how do you tell the homosexual babies from the heterosexual ones? Babies aren't *sexual,* but if it was all genetic than they would indeed be. You could say aha! gay baby. Aha! Butch baby. Everyone would love that convinience, but it wouldn't be accurate, because Butch baby might decide to one day start having gay sex. Oops. Behavior! Choice!

How do you determine if a baby has downs, CF, etc.?

You have to have a marker.

Since research into homosexuality tends to be discouraged it will be awhile before one is identified or shown not to exist.

I'm simply being the devil's advocate here, but humans are considerably more advanced then fruit-flies. The results may be different in humans.

Nevertheless, it is a good first step to proving what many have believed for some time.

Mendel did his genetics studies using pea plants so I guess it doesn't apply to humans. :confused:

That's not what she said.

In the case of Mendal and say disease.

25% free of the disease
50% carriers
25% have the disease.

So it applies to humans.

That's not what she said.

In the case of Mendal and say disease.

25% free of the disease
50% carriers
25% have the disease.

So it applies to humans.

I honestly don't understand what your point is here though, and since there seems to be a switcheroo game being played here, had this article reported a change in the specimens' locomotion for example instead of reproductive behavior would it still solicit the same suspicions? ;)

Nah. If you do homosexual acts you're being homosexual.

If you were a fruit fly, and they were observing you having sex with other male fruit flies (apart from this experiment) they would assume homosexuality. Why not with humans?

Besides, homosexual is defined by the dictionary as...

"adj.

Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex."

Clearly, homosexual intercourse "relates to" having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

Could you please clarify this for me?

Is someone who has not been involved in a sexual act a heterosexual or homosexual?

If someone refrains from acting on their sexual urges heterosexual or homosexual?

Can't one be heterosexual homosexual without having sex? Or must one engage in a sexual act before they have a sexuality?

Thanks

I have a question for all you "instinct" people:

What is the difference between sentient and non-sentient life?

It is commonly accepted that humans are sentient and animals are not. Rather, humans can act upon their environment and make abstract decisions while animals act off of instinct or off of behavior built from instinct. In fact, as the article itself points out, fruit flies were used because of their absolute reliance upon instinct.

Therefore, it is folly to apply such experiments to mankind. We are taking observations of a non-sentient and instinct-reliant species and applying them to sentient man, who does not rely solely upon instinct.

And regarding the number of homosexuals, the number is actually surprisingly low, around 1% or less. The 10% figures were derived by obviously biased researchers, prominently among them Kinsley, who used abusive techniques and the removal of unsatisfactory responses from his studies to skew the results and justify his own behavior.

That's not what she said.

Actually, it's exactly what she said:

you can't apply things you've discovered on one spicie to another.

By this logic, Mendel's work would only relate to, say, disease in peas. In fact, it would only relate to the particular species of pea plant he was working with. It could not be applied to any other species, because it was discovered in the pea plant.

I have a question for all you "instinct" people:

What is the difference between sentient and non-sentient life?

It is commonly accepted that humans are sentient and animals are not. Rather, humans can act upon their environment and make abstract decisions while animals act off of instinct or off of behavior built from instinct. In fact, as the article itself points out, fruit flies were used because of their absolute reliance upon instinct.

Therefore, it is folly to apply such experiments to mankind. We are taking observations of a non-sentient and instinct-reliant species and applying them to sentient man, who does not rely solely upon instinct.

And regarding the number of homosexuals, the number is actually surprisingly low, around 1% or less. The 10% figures were derived by obviously biased researchers, prominently among them Kinsley, who used abusive techniques and the removal of unsatisfactory responses from his studies to skew the results and justify his own behavior.

Better to first ask what are the commonatlities between sentient and non-sentient life. ;)

Better to first ask what are the commonatlities between sentient and non-sentient life. ;)

In response to others pointing out how much DNA is held in common:

The commonalities can be found just as commonalities can be found among different styles of architecture. Every building is built from the ground up, has some sort of support, etc. They look different and serve different purposes, but they have fundamental building blocks.

Now, what are the commonalities between sentient and non-sentient life? Common DNA building blocks. However, that is where the commonality ends. Then, we enter the domain of sophisticated language, complex and abstract problem solving, and the ability to act beyond the influence of instinct. Sentient life is defined and behaves remarkably different from non-sentient life.

In response to others pointing out how much DNA is held in common:

The commonalities can be found just as commonalities can be found among different styles of architecture. Every building is built from the ground up, has some sort of support, etc. They look different and serve different purposes, but they have fundamental building blocks.

Now, what are the commonalities between sentient and non-sentient life? Common DNA building blocks. However, that is where the commonality ends. Then, we enter the domain of sophisticated language, complex and abstract problem solving, and the ability to act beyond the influence of instinct. Sentient life is defined and behaves remarkably different from non-sentient life.


I agree.

I also think the more we try to "prove" things are genetic the more we are really trying to justify our own actions and say we are not responsible because "I'm genetically inclined to [X]"

In response to others pointing out how much DNA is held in common:

The commonalities can be found just as commonalities can be found among different styles of architecture. Every building is built from the ground up, has some sort of support, etc. They look different and serve different purposes, but they have fundamental building blocks.

Now, what are the commonalities between sentient and non-sentient life? Common DNA building blocks. However, that is where the commonality ends. Then, we enter the domain of sophisticated language, complex and abstract problem solving, and the ability to act beyond the influence of instinct. Sentient life is defined and behaves remarkably different from non-sentient life.
Umm instinct and sentience are not mutually exclusive nor inedependent of each other.

Actually, it's exactly what she said:



By this logic, Mendel's work would only relate to, say, disease in peas. In fact, it would only relate to the particular species of pea plant he was working with. It could not be applied to any other species, because it was discovered in the pea plant.

Maybe I should learn to read. ;)

I will shutup now!

Nah. If you do homosexual acts you're being homosexual.

If you were a fruit fly, and they were observing you having sex with other male fruit flies (apart from this experiment) they would assume homosexuality. Why not with humans?

Besides, homosexual is defined by the dictionary as...

"adj.

Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex."

Clearly, homosexual intercourse "relates to" having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
There is more to sexual orientation than intercourse, however. As someone pointed out rather quickly, humans are different from fruit flies... we can only observe the male fruit fly attempting intercourse (or whatever it is fruit flies do) with other male fruit flies to determine their sexual orientation... however, with humans, you can ask. A virgin can be homosexual or heteroseuxal or bisexual... they haven't engaged in sexual behaviour, but they still have a sexual orientation, whether it manifests itself in fantasy or perhaps even just simple attraction and crushes.

Actually, I read somewhere that it was no higher than 1%
and then somewhere else that is was between 1% and 2%

This is of the US population, I'll go and try to find the sources.

Figures vary widely, ranging from about 1% to 10%. I'm personally inclined to believe the real figure is probably around 4%, as this is what the most credible studies have shown. Might be different in the US though?

It may spawn the feelings that gays and lesbians are "genetically effective", but this research may help quell the idea that homosexuality is somehow "chosen" rather than heterosexuality which is commonly seen to be genetic. Which, in my opinion, is a good assumption to change. Let's just hope one of these days it won't even be an issue any more, and we can all live together more peacefully. :)
One can only hope.

Although it's nothing more than a clue so far, it may drag the issue of homosexuality out of the relm of "morality" and into the relm of science, as one of the scientists mentioned in the article.

I have always suspected that a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality exists. I witnessed too much of the agony gays have had to endure to believe that anyone would willingly subject themselves to it.

Actually, the question becomes did they know of any gay fruit flies before they performed their little trick. If they didn't then they essentially introduced an abnormal component into the fruit fly's genetic makeup. If they had found gay fruit flies then they should find out if said fruit fly has the type of gene they used. Also, what about bisexuals? The probability that the genetic component of human sexuality is linked to just one or two genes is relatively low.

Actually, the question becomes did they know of any gay fruit flies before they performed their little trick. If they didn't then they essentially introduced an abnormal component into the fruit fly's genetic makeup. If they had found gay fruit flies then they should find out if said fruit fly has the type of gene they used. Also, what about bisexuals? The probability that the genetic component of human sexuality is linked to just one or two genes is relatively low.
But you will admit, will you not, that at least it's a start? :)

Sexual activity does not determine sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is determined by what gender(s) you are sexually attracted to.


Ah. And behavior in your opinion has nothing to do with that?

How do you telepathically determine whether non-speaking animals are homosexual or heterosexual? Ask them what they'd hypothetically prefer?

If a gay man never has sex with another man (but he is still attracted to them), it doesn't make him any less of a homosexual.

If a straight girl gets drunk and starts making out with her friends, that doesn't make her any less straight, either.

I'm sure that's what she'd love for you to tell her, nice and reassuring. Unfortunately I don't buy it, nor do I buy the excuse that drinking alcohol removes free will, robs one of volition, and erases one's own preferences and replaces them completely with external ambitions. That straight girl was just suppressing her bisexuality and it took alcohol for her to get over her inhibitions and act on them.

If I get drunk and hurt someone, am I not abusive? According to you I'm *really* not abusive, but the alcohol *makes* me act contrary to how I *really* am? Courts would disagree, however.

Ah. And behavior in your opinion has nothing to do with that?

How do you telepathically determine whether non-speaking animals are homosexual or heterosexual? Ask them what they'd hypothetically prefer?



I'm sure that's what she'd love for you to tell her, nice and reassuring. Unfortunately I don't buy it, nor do I buy the excuse that drinking alcohol removes free will, robs one of volition, and erases one's own preferences and replaces them completely with external ambitions. That straight girl was just suppressing her bisexuality and it took alcohol for her to get over her inhibitions and act on them.

If I get drunk and hurt someone, am I not abusive? According to you I'm *really* not abusive, but the alcohol *makes* me act contrary to how I *really* am? Courts would disagree, however.
Actually, I agree with Bauhas on this.

*Shudders.* Wow, never thought I'd be saying that.

How do you telepathically determine whether non-speaking animals are homosexual or heterosexual? Ask them what they'd hypothetically prefer?

In most animals, we can only watch to see which partners they pick. In higher order animals, such as apes, we can do things like show them suggestive pictures of other apes (yes, apes like ape porn - go figure). In human beings, we can ask who they are attracted to. Or, we can show them pictures, introduce pheremones and measure brain activity (something we could, if pheremones are known, do in animals as well).

I'm sure that's what she'd love for you to tell her, nice and reassuring. Unfortunately I don't buy it, nor do I buy the excuse that drinking alcohol removes free will, robs one of volition, and erases one's own preferences and replaces them completely with external ambitions. That straight girl was just suppressing her bisexuality and it took alcohol for her to get over her inhibitions and act on them.

I have known more than one girl who would kiss another without any sexual attraction between them. Why? Because it turns on the guys around them.

Now, if she wants to do it outside of that atmosphere, it most likely is an expression of bisexuality.

Ah. And behavior in your opinion has nothing to do with that?
well, man who has absolutely no attraction to woman, and is only attracted to men, who then goes and sleeps with a woman, is not straight. he is gay.

and vice versa

One can only hope.

Although it's nothing more than a clue so far, it may drag the issue of homosexuality out of the relm of "morality" and into the relm of science, as one of the scientists mentioned in the article.

That itself would be a huge accomplishment. People rarely tend to mount huge ideological offensives, attempting to destroy people's lives, over differing scientific theories.

Sometimes they'll do it over economic and cultural issues masquerading as scientific issues (social darwinism, global warning), but until there's a branch of gengeneering that can rework a person's psychology to the point that they're happy to take up a completly different lifestyle, there won't be much that gay bashers can argue about.

On that note, I'd love to see a genetics firm that could honestly claim that they can pump you with a retrovirus coded to rewire your entire psychology. I can see the ads now.

One injection and you too can have
Confidence that borders on narcicism
Courage that borders on psychosis
Self determination that borders on sociopathy

At Chimera INC. tommorow's you can be here today

Is it just me or if this is true in humans, it will open up a Pandora's Box of all sorts?

The article is interesting, they may be onto something. Obviously as with all scientific studies a larger study must be carried out to get a decent set of results (not that hard with fruit flys at their rate of breeding, but maybe slightly more complex with different species).

As for the discussion... its an old one. "Nature vs Nurture".

I think that you have to be careful with your lanuage here. Stating (as people have above) that this may be taken to mean that homosexuals are "genetically defective" (in the manner of Downs syndrome and Cystic Fibrosis) is comparing a behaviour to a disablement. What im getting at is that unless not reproducing is going to kill you earlier than average, homosexuality is just a behaviour. It may be considered to be odd by the "genetically normal" of the species, but it isnt a problem that causes discomfort to the individual, nor is it a problem that is going to wipe out the species.

As such, i think it would be wrong to assume that if it is proven that homosexuality is genetic, we would try and screen out possibly homosexual individuals before birth. After all, we are sentient creatures, able to make "abstract" decisions. Because of that sentience we are perfectly capable of seeing that this is one of those genetic curiosities that has had a profound impact on social interactions over the years, and so is worth keeping. Just to make life more interesting.

Onto the genetic question... Could just one gene control sexual behaviour? In fruit flys, perhaps, but in humans unlikely. Showing that sexual behaviour in fruit flys is genetic (or rather can be controlled by messing with their genes) gives us a clue that this may be the case in other species. Humans being annoyingly complex, are probably going to have a more complex control over sexuality than a fruit fly.

Warning: skip ahead now if you really arnt that bothered about the science.

We can tell this from the figures. This is may not be a simple case of Mendelian genetics, with 1 gene (sequence of DNA within the whole strand), 2 genotypes (usually known as Dominant (X) and recessive (x) basically 2 different sequences that control the same thing, you inherit 1 sequence from each parent), and 3 phenotypes (XX, xx, or Xx - basically the combination of the 2 genes you have determines how you display that characteristic). If is was then, as said before, there would be a 1:2:1 ratio of phenotypes. Seeing as this would mean that either 25% or 50% of the population would exhibit homosexual behavour/tendancies. Seeing as at the most 10% do at the moment, either its not Mendelian genetics, or at least 15% of the population is lying. Plus you have the problem of that other 25%.... what are they? Lets take a look at that ratio of 1:2:1 for a moment. What would you say the phenotypes would be? Heterosexual, Homosexual, and Bisexual? Attracted to men, attracted to women, attracted to both? What of the growing number of people who state that they are Asexual?

This is the difficulty in researching this in humans, you dont quite know where to start.

If we assume that the figure of 10% homosexuality is accurate, then we must also assume that either more than one gene is involved, or there is a significant Nurture aspect involved. One interesting point in the article was that male fruit flys who are rejected more often become less agressive in their mating behaviour. This shows us that even fruit flys are capable of modifying their inbuilt behaviour due to social interactions. Human social interactions being as complex as we all know them to be (and also not something i have ever really studied) i dont think i should even try to start trying to explain how they would effect sexuality. It most likely still comes down to genetics though. Ultimately we are chemical machines, and our environment (and by that i mean all the things outside us, including other humans and how they behave) has an effect on the reactions in our body. In the same way as a high blood sugar level triggers the production of insulin, certain environmental factors may trigger the switching on of genes that lead to homosexual behaviour. What these factors are, and the genes that they work on is a matter for research.

Still all very interesting.
Sorry about the essay, its mainly for my own enjoyment that i wrote that all out, helps me get my head around things better. If you have taken the time to read it all, thank you. Any thoughts (or slightly fuller scientific knowledge) are welcome.


For the record, personally i am Bisexual. Hopefully im not too biased.

[snip]
I think that you have to be careful with your lanuage here.
I had to quote that one.

The Gay Gene? by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover




Of course, everyone knows it’s true, right? It was reported on National Public Radio, in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, after all. “Research Points Toward a Gay Gene,” the Journal said. “Report Suggests Homosexuality Is Linked to Genes,” read the Times.






Can you believe everything you read in the paper? Is there such a thing as a gay gene?



They were all reporting the release of a study in Science magazine in July 1993 that purported to find a genetic cause for homosexuality. Though the necessary caveats were added to the news stories, most people would already have turned off the radio or turned the page, thinking that homosexuality is caused by a gene.

But can you believe everything you read in the paper? Is there such a thing as a gay gene?

In the study the media was trumpeting, molecular geneticist Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a new kind of behavioral genetics study now becoming widespread—the so-called "linkage study". Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family and is correlated to a chromosomal variant found in the genetic material of that family. Hamer’s study identified a link on the q28 region of the X chromosome in homosexual males.

Defining Terms

Even though a trait may have a chromosomal link, it does not necessarily mean it is genetic. Genetic traits are those, such as eye colors, that are coded for us by genes alone.

Each human gene can be thought of as a book that provides a complex set of instructions for the synthesis of a single protein. These proteins are then responsible for forming and operating everything else in the body.



Demonstrating that any behavioral state is not only biological but genetic is well beyond our present research capacity.

Behavioral traits, such as weight, are influenced by genetics, but unlike genetic traits, most behavioral traits are programmed by multiple genes and things such as the environment in the womb, the mother’s health habits or postnatal effects of a virus. All of these and more may combine and influence one another throughout a lifetime. Behavioral traits, as opposed to simple, single-gene physiologic traits such as eye color, always interact in this way.

Demonstrating that any behavioral state is not only biological but genetic is well beyond our present research capacity. This is especially true for something so complex and nuanced as homosexuality. One psychiatric researcher, Brian Suarez, calculated that at least 8,000 people would be required for a study to confirm a behavioral trait as genetic. No study of homosexuality has come remotely close to these requirements.
Contested Evidence

As it is, the Hamer study is seriously flawed. Four months after its publication in Science, a critical commentary appeared in the same publication. It took issue with the many assumptions and questionable use of statistics that underlie Hamer’s conclusions, but not with his research methods and raw data, which met acceptable standards for linkage studies.

Genetics researchers from Yale, Columbia and Louisiana State Universities noted that much of the Hamer report focused on social and political ramifications of genetic homosexuality rather than discussing scientific evidence. They also indicated that the results were not consistent with any genetic model and should be interpreted cautiously.

Hamer responded, indicating that his research was not conclusive that Xq28 underlies sexuality, only that it contributes to it in some families, and that its influence was statistically detectable in the population that he studied.

Hamer gave another report in a 1994 issue of Science devoted to behavioral genetics. He indicated that complex behavioral traits are the product of multiple genetic and environmental agents. He clarified that "environment" meant not only social environment but also the flux of hormones during development, whether you were lying on your right or left side in the womb and a number of other factors.

Science revisited the topic this year, publishing two articles questioning supposed links to a gay gene. Both articles reference an independent genetic study conducted in Canada in 1989 with research continuing today by four researchers from the University of Western Ontario and Stanford Medical School. This study used 52 pairs of gay siblings from 48 families æHamer’s research used 40 homosexual brother pairs. The study concluded, “It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28.”

In other words, any claim to have found a “gay gene” were overblown if not outright wrong.

Figuring It All Out

What can we conclude about the biology of homosexuality? Consider a comprehensive review article, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biological Theories Reappraised,” written by William Byne and Bruce Parsons from Columbia University in 1993.

The article reviews 135 research studies, prior reviews, academic summaries, books, and chapters of books—in essence the entire literature on homosexuality, of which only a small portion is actual research. The abstract summarized in its findings that there is no evidence at present to substantiate that biological factors are the primary basis for sexual orientation.

Whatever genetic contribution to homosexuality exists, it probably contributes not to homosexuality per se, but rather to some other trait that makes the homosexual “option” more readily available to some than others.

Most studies to date have many flaws. Some are caused by the intrusion of political agendas into what should be objective research, and some are due to the complex nature of the subject. These flaws must temper any conclusions we make. It is premature, and will almost certainly prove to be incorrect, to state that homosexuality is genetic.

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover is the author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. He is a former Fellow in Psychiatry and Child Psychiatry at Yale University. He holds degrees from MIT, the University of Texas and Harvard.