Skip to comments."Gay Genes" May Be Good for Women
Posted on 06/22/2008 11:19:03 PM PDT by neverdem
As gay couples race to the altar in California this week, scientists may have found an answer to the so-called gay paradox. Studies suggest that homosexuality is at least partly genetic. And although homosexuals have far fewer children than heterosexuals, so-called gay genes apparently survive in the population. A new study bolsters support for an intriguing idea: These same genes may increase fertility in women. Despite some tantalizing leads over the past 2 decades, researchers have yet to isolate any genes directly linked to homosexuality. Nevertheless, a number of studies have shown that male homosexuals have more gay male relatives on their maternal lines than on their paternal lines, leading some scientists to suggest that gay genes might be found on the X chromosome. And in 2004, a team led by evolutionary psychologist Andrea Camperio Ciani of the University of Padua in Italy reported that women related to gay men had more children than women related to heterosexual men. The differences were striking: The mothers of gay men, for example, had an average of 2.7 children, compared with 2.3 children for the mothers of heterosexual men. A similar trend held for maternal aunts.
In new work, reported online this week in PLoS ONE, Camperio Ciani and his colleagues used mathematical modeling to see what kinds of genetic scenarios could explain these results. The team looked at more than two dozen possibilities, such as the number of "gay genes" (one or two), how much of a reproductive advantage the genes provided, and whether the genes were located on the X chromosome or other, nonsex (autosomal) chromosomes. The model that best explained the data consisted of two "gay genes," with at least one on the X chromosome. These genes increased the fertility of women but decreased it in men--a phenomenon previously studied in insects and mammals called "sexual antagonism."
Camperio Ciani's team suggests that these gay genes may actually increase how attracted both men and women are to men rather than making gay men more "feminine," as some researchers had earlier proposed. Although this is bad for male fertility, it is good for female fertility and allows such genes to survive at low but stable rates in a population, the authors say.
Dean Hamer, a behavioral geneticist at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, who pioneered the search for gay genes, calls the study "an elegant mathematical analysis." He adds that the team has come up with a "simple solution" to the Darwinian paradox posed by homosexuality: "What is a 'gay gene' in a man is a 'superstraight gene' in a woman," he says.
PLoS stands for public library of science. The articles are FReebies.
The key problem with a genetic source for homosexuality is the inevitable fact any gene that adversely affects reproduction - males sexually attracted to males or females sexually attracted to females - will eventually disappear from the gene pool.
Tney’re good for women on Skinemax, anyway.
In other words, there is no scientific basis for the article. The rest is statistical analysis based on preconceptions with no basis in actual genetics.
What minimal results are here can be explained by sociological factors;.
I have to agree. There are a variety of factors tht can be attributed to society or environment that are merely coincidental.
For example, we could say that the amounnt of sexual partners could be a sub-consciously driven behavior to reproduce. Then we could look at the population of Sweden and find out that blue-eyed people have much more pre-marital sex than brown-eyed people. We could create a whole lot of biological hypothesis on that except that the actual reason would be that the blue-eyed people are generally ethnic Swedes who have far fewer morals in regards to sex than the Muslim immigrants who are primarily brown-eyed.
Unless homosexuals have mated with heterosexuals. Remember, this open gay culture is quite new, to human society. Until now, it was all hidden and rarely revealed openly.
In a discussion on a BBS some years ago, it was postulated that:
(1) There was more of a genetic basis for male homosexuality than there was female homosexuality... that is, that it was more “hard-wired” into men than women;
(2) Even if there were homosexual genes and it kept most gay men from reproducing, those same genes would be carried by the women in their families, most or many of whom presumably would not be gay and would therefore reproduce. So... it would still be passed on.
In other words, if you’re a gay guy and your sister is not gay, if she reproduces she’s passing on those genes (she’s a “carrier”).
Now, whether or not stuff like this will ever be proved, one way or another, is an open question.
‘Remember, this open gay culture is quite new, to human society. Until now, it was all hidden and rarely revealed openly.”
ummmmmmmmmmm The Greeks? errrrrrr The Romans?
Gay marriage is new though. Previously the gays didn’t care about destroying a fundamental part of the culture.
Greeks, Romans, yes. They were more like bisexuals, than just homosexuals. They had households too.
Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers
52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters
48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
2. In a polygamist society where birth control was not available to boot, the best women were taken by wealthier men, necessitating an outlet for sexual urges, which often led to homosexual activity. This persists among peoples such as the Pashtun, who face the same issues.
Thanks for the numbers & link.
Seems like all those people would have had the same environment as well as the same genes. ( aside from adoptive)
all said and done, gays make up about 2.5% of the population but are making about 90% of the noise.
Naturally, families that perpetuate a climate which fosters neurotic, ego-centric, co-dependent women will fall victim to this "phenomenon". It is these neurotic women who are more likely to "pass on" their hyper-effeminate, dependent behavior (i.e. nuture, not nature) to their children. No big mystery there. Where is the "lisping gene" or the "gossip gene" or the "without a man to abuse me my life is imcomplete" gene?
GAY scientists who loosely use science to promote GAY AGENDA have CLAIMED that their study SUGGESTS that being GAY is innate like being white or black or Asian is innate.
They are WRONG once again,but hope the weak-minded and the gay sympathizers promote their pseudoscience.
Homosexuality is nothing new. Ever heard of the sodomites mentioned in the Old Testament?
It is behavior - pure and simple. Pure genetic driven homosexuality doesn’t exist.
Now, could there be a biologic, post-conception cause for some homosexuality? Possible but rare.
I believe, however, that a biologic cause is not the case for the majority of homosexuals or bisexuals today. Practicing psychologists and psychiatrists say that sex is 98% in the brain: IMHO, that is more likely what is driving the homosexual culture craze today.
It has become a subconcious lifestyle choice.
Exactly...which is the problem addressed by this article. What they are saying is that “gay genes” (postulated ones at this point) adversely affect male reproduction, but increase female reproduction, so there is a positive as well as a negative pressure on the gene to stay in the pool.
Of course, this doesn’t explain female homosexuality.