• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sexuality Is Written in the Genes?

hopefully this isn't a repost... just an interesting article I came across while checking rss feeds this morning. thought it was worth a post 🙂

Pas de Deux of Sexuality Is Written in the Genes

By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: April 10, 2007

When it comes to the matter of desire, evolution leaves little to chance. Human sexual behavior is not a free-form performance, biologists are finding, but is guided at every turn by genetic programs.

Desire between the sexes is not a matter of choice. Straight men, it seems, have neural circuits that prompt them to seek out women; gay men have those prompting them to seek other men. Women?s brains may be organized to select men who seem likely to provide for them and their children. The deal is sealed with other neural programs that induce a burst of romantic love, followed by long-term attachment.

So much fuss, so intricate a dance, all to achieve success on the simple scale that is all evolution cares about, that of raisingthe greatest number of children to adulthood. Desire may seem the core of human sexual behavior, but it is just the central act in a long drama whose script is written quite substantially in the genes.

In the womb, the body of a developing fetus is female by default and becomes male if the male-determining gene known as SRY is present. This dominant gene, the Y chromosome?s proudest and almost only possession, sidetracks the reproductive tissue from its ovarian fate and switches it into becoming testes. Hormones from the testes, chiefly testosterone, mold the body into male form.

In puberty, the reproductive systems are primed for action by the brain. Amazing electrical machine that it may be, the brain can also behave like a humble gland. In the hypothalamus, at the central base of the brain, lie a cluster of about 2,000 neurons that ignite puberty when they start to secrete pulses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone, which sets off a cascade of other hormones.

The trigger that stirs these neurons is still unknown, but probably the brain monitors internal signals as to whether the body is ready to reproduce and external cues as to whether circumstances are propitious for yielding to desire.

Several advances in the last decade have underlined the bizarre fact that the brain is a full-fledged sexual organ, in that the two sexes have profoundly different versions of it. This is the handiwork of testosterone, which masculinizes the brain as thoroughly as it does the rest of the body.

It is a misconception that the differences between men?s and women?s brains are small or erratic or found only in a few extreme cases, Dr. Larry Cahill of the University of California, Irvine, wrote last year in Nature Reviews Neuroscience. Widespread regions of the cortex, the brain?s outer layer that performs much of its higher-level processing, are thicker in women. The hippocampus, where initial memories are formed, occupies a larger fraction of the female brain.

Techniques for imaging the brain have begun to show that men and women use their brains in different ways even when doing the same thing. In the case of the amygdala, a pair of organs that helps prioritize memories according to their emotional strength, women use the left amygdala for this purpose but men tend to use the right.

It is no surprise that the male and female versions of the human brain operate in distinct patterns, despite the heavy influence of culture. The male brain is sexually oriented toward women as an object of desire. The most direct evidence comes from a handful of cases, some of them circumcision accidents, in which boy babies have lost their penises and been reared as female. Despite every social inducement to the opposite, they grow up desiring women as partners, not men.

?If you can?t make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis, how strong could any psychosocial effect be?? said J. Michael Bailey, an expert on sexual orientation at Northwestern University.

Presumably the masculinization of the brain shapes some neural circuit that makes women desirable. If so, this circuitry is wired differently in gay men. In experiments in which subjects are shown photographs of desirable men or women, straight men are aroused by women, gay men by men.

Such experiments do not show the same clear divide with women. Whether women describe themselves as straight or lesbian, ?Their sexual arousal seems to be relatively indiscriminate ? they get aroused by both male and female images,? Dr. Bailey said. ?I?m not even sure females have a sexual orientation. But they have sexual preferences. Women are very picky, and most choose to have sex with men.?

Dr. Bailey believes that the systems for sexual orientation and arousal make men go out and find people to have sex with, whereas women are more focused on accepting or rejecting those who seek sex with them.

Similar differences between the sexes are seen by Marc Breedlove, a neuroscientist at Michigan State University. ?Most males are quite stubborn in their ideas about which sex they want to pursue, while women seem more flexible,? he said.

Sexual orientation, at least for men, seems to be settled before birth. ?I think most of the scientists working on these questions are convinced that the antecedents of sexual orientation in males are happening early in life, probably before birth,? Dr. Breedlove said, ?whereas for females, some are probably born to become gay, but clearly some get there quite late in life.?

Sexual behavior includes a lot more than sex. Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University, argues that three primary brain systems have evolved to direct reproductive behavior. One is the sex drive that motivates people to seek partners. A second is a program for romantic attraction that makes people fixate on specific partners. Third is a mechanism for long-term attachment that induces people to stay together long enough to complete their parental duties.

Romantic love, which in its intense early stage ?can last 12-18 months,? is a universal human phenomenon, Dr. Fisher wrote last year in The Proceedings of the Royal Society, and is likely to be a built-in feature of the brain. Brain imaging studies show that a particular area of the brain, one associated with the reward system, is activated when subjects contemplate a photo of their lover.

The best evidence for a long-term attachment process in mammals comes from studies of voles, a small mouselike rodent. A hormone called vasopressin, which is active in the brain, leads some voles to stay pair-bonded for life. People possess the same hormone, suggesting a similar mechanism could be at work in humans, though this has yet to be proved.

Researchers have devoted considerable effort to understanding homosexuality in men and women, both for its intrinsic interest and for the light it could shed on the more usual channels of desire. Studies of twins show that homosexuality, especially among men, is quite heritable, meaning there is a genetic component to it. But since gay men have about one-fifth as many children as straight men, any gene favoring homosexuality should quickly disappear from the population.

Such genes could be retained if gay men were unusually effective protectors of their nephews and nieces, helping genes just like theirs get into future generations. But gay men make no better uncles than straight men, according to a study by Dr. Bailey. So that leaves the possibility that being gay is a byproduct of a gene that persists because it enhances fertility in other family members. Some studies have found that gay men have more relatives than straight men, particularly on their mother?s side.

But Dr. Bailey believes the effect, if real, would be more clear-cut. ?Male homosexuality is evolutionarily maladaptive,? he said, noting that the phrase means only that genes favoring homosexuality cannot be favored by evolution if fewer such genes reach the next generation.

A somewhat more straightforward clue to the origin of homosexuality is the fraternal birth order effect. Two Canadian researchers, Ray Blanchard and Anthony F. Bogaert, have shown that having older brothers substantially increases the chances that a man will be gay. Older sisters don?t count, nor does it matter whether the brothers are in the house when the boy is reared.

The finding suggests that male homosexuality in these cases is caused by some event in the womb, such as ?a maternal immune response to succeeding male pregnancies,? Dr. Bogaert wrote last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Antimale antibodies could perhaps interfere with the usual masculinization of the brain that occurs before birth, though no such antibodies have yet been detected.

The fraternal birth order effect is quite substantial. Some 15 percent of gay men can attribute their homosexuality to it, based on the assumption that 1 percent to 4 percent of men are gay, and each additional older brother increases the odds of same-sex attraction by 33 percent.

The effect supports the idea that the levels of circulating testosterone before birth are critical in determining sexual orientation. But testosterone in the fetus cannot be measured, and as adults, gay and straight men have the same levels of the hormone, giving no clue to prenatal exposure. So the hypothesis, though plausible, has not been proved.

A significant recent advance in understanding the basis of sexuality and desire has been the discovery that genes may have a direct effect on the sexual differentiation of the brain. Researchers had long assumed that steroid hormones like testosterone and estrogen did all the heavy lifting of shaping the male and female brains. But Arthur Arnold of the University of California, Los Angeles, has found that male and female neurons behave somewhat differently when kept in laboratory glassware. And last year Eric Vilain, also of U.C.L.A., made the surprising finding that the SRY gene is active in certain cells of the brain, at least in mice. Its brain role is quite different from its testosterone-related activities, and women?s neurons presumably perform that role by other means.

It so happens that an unusually large number of brain-related genes are situated on the X chromosome. The sudden emergence of the X and Y chromosomes in brain function has caught the attention of evolutionary biologists. Since men have only one X chromosome, natural selection can speedily promote any advantageous mutation that arises in one of the X?s genes. So if those picky women should be looking for smartness in prospective male partners, that might explain why so many brain-related genes ended up on the X.

?It?s popular among male academics to say that females preferred smarter guys,? Dr. Arnold said. ?Such genes will be quickly selected in males because new beneficial mutations will be quickly apparent.?

Several profound consequences follow from the fact that men have only one copy of the many X-related brain genes and women two. One is that many neurological diseases are more common in men because women are unlikely to suffer mutations in both copies of a gene.

Another is that men, as a group, ?will have more variable brain phenotypes,? Dr. Arnold writes, because women?s second copy of every gene dampens the effects of mutations that arise in the other.

Greater male variance means that although average IQ is identical in men and women, there are fewer average men and more at both extremes. Women?s care in selecting mates, combined with the fast selection made possible by men?s lack of backup copies of X-related genes, may have driven the divergence between male and female brains. The same factors could explain, some researchers believe, why the human brain has tripled in volume over just the last 2.5 million years.

Who can doubt it? It is indeed desire that makes the world go round.

from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/health/10gene.html
 
Interesting.

I have always been convinced that sexual preference is biologically determined (be it genetics, hormonal, or some combination) just that the mechanism(s) are thus far somewhat elusive to medical science.



 
So. what happens if they can prove this, test for this, and then have parents abort children because of it?

I can guarantee that if it is genetic and can be detected it will be used in numerous countries other than the US and those children will be aborted. Hell they might even try to cure it.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
So. what happens if they can prove this, test for this, and then have parents abort children because of it?

I can guarantee that if it is genetic and can be detected it will be used in numerous countries other than the US and those children will be aborted. Hell they might even try to cure it.

Are you kidding...?

First of all, the day that religious fundamentalist nut-jobs start SUPPORTING abortion to get rid of their homosexual unborn children is the day everyone else will finally realize they're nuts and should be stopped, by any means necessary.

Also, what is there to "cure"? It's not a disease. There isn't anything "wrong" with gays.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
So. what happens if they can prove this, test for this, and then have parents abort children because of it?

I can guarantee that if it is genetic and can be detected it will be used in numerous countries other than the US and those children will be aborted. Hell they might even try to cure it.
OMG you used the 'cure' word in reference to homosexuality...

For many gays the idea that they can be ?cured? is highly offensive because you are in essence suggesting that something is wrong with them.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Shivetya
So. what happens if they can prove this, test for this, and then have parents abort children because of it?

I can guarantee that if it is genetic and can be detected it will be used in numerous countries other than the US and those children will be aborted. Hell they might even try to cure it.
OMG you used the 'cure' word in reference to homosexuality...

For many gays the idea that they can be ?cured? is highly offensive because you are in essence suggesting that something is wrong with them.

Before any debate on if using a medical procedure to alter the sexual orientation can begin, the mechanism(s) must be well known and understood. We are nowhere close to such an understanding to even begin the ethical debate IMO.

Currently "curing" homosexuality, in most circles, boils down to religious/behavioral solutions which I consider to be ineffective at best (more often being extremely harmful psychologically for the person). I do personally find that offensive.
 
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Shivetya
So. what happens if they can prove this, test for this, and then have parents abort children because of it?

I can guarantee that if it is genetic and can be detected it will be used in numerous countries other than the US and those children will be aborted. Hell they might even try to cure it.
Are you kidding...?

First of all, the day that religious fundamentalist nut-jobs start SUPPORTING abortion to get rid of their homosexual unborn children is the day everyone else will finally realize they're nuts and should be stopped, by any means necessary.

Also, what is there to "cure"? It's not a disease. There isn't anything "wrong" with gays.
There are already abortions being preformed in England because the babies are being diagnosed with Down syndrome or worse birth defects like clubbed feet, things that can be 100% treated.
How much of a stretch is it to think that parents hearing that their child will grow up to be gay will decide to abort the baby and try again?

True religious fundamentalists believe that babies conceived during rape or incest should not be aborted because their life still has worth. Learning that their child will grow up to be gay may be a challenge for them, but I doubt many of them are going to throw away their religious beliefs because of that.
 
Originally posted by: manowar821Also, what is there to "cure"? It's not a disease. There isn't anything "wrong" with gays.
Isn't it a disease? They have a condition that causes them to not want to reproduce with the opposite sex. It could easily be argued that from an biological standpoint, such a condition is a bigger problem than Lou Gehrig's disease or Alzheimers since both of those diseases don't kick in until after a person is past the child bearing years. I don't want to politically discriminate against homosexuals but to ignore the obvious biological problem of homosexuality is to delude oneself.
 
As Shivetya quickly gets to all of the really rotten and conflicting questions by asking---So. what happens if they can prove this, test for this, and then have parents abort children because of it?

I can now see howling mobs of pro-lifers descending upon you for advocating abortion---as they apply post birth abortions by lynch mob---but quickly they too get conflicted because you hold out that brave new world where homosexuality is cured---which in terms conflicts that other group who fears Dr Frankenstiens playing with the building blocks of life like stem cells---with ignorance being bliss.---and the political correctness of human eugenics is a far greater sin than the plague of diseases mankind suffers from.----and better to live and die with pain than to allow such thoughts.

But still the questions to ask but way too premature----at our present state of social thinking we are not even ready to concede human and non-humam homosexuality has any genetic base at all. Even though statistics already existing cast grave doubts on that hypothesis with no genetic knowledge. But my read of the article leads me to the conclusion that the cause of homosexuality may likely be in a very complex interaction between many genes and is also influenced by behavior---so its both nature and nuture. Which leads me to conclude predicting homosexuality by genetic data alone is likely to be something that no one alive now will see come to fruition.

And if ever does come to fruition---let us hope its a wiser and more mature set of humans than the set we have now.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
So. what happens if they can prove this, test for this, and then have parents abort children because of it?

I can guarantee that if it is genetic and can be detected it will be used in numerous countries other than the US and those children will be aborted. Hell they might even try to cure it.
This is a very good point and is probably the single greatest reason why abortion will be outlawed within 15 years. It is a prime tool for weeding out the 'undesirables' before they're even born. Cases in this area have been coming up in Europe for quite a while due to their anti-eugenics laws.
 
I consider homosexuality to be a birth defect, simple as that. A human is to be born with 4 limbs, two hands, and two feet. Someone born with anything other than that is considered to have a birth defect. Similarly, a human is supposed to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex. Someone born with something other than that could be considered to have a birth defect.

I don't see why it should be considered offensive, but some would take it as such.
People with birth defects can still live fairly normal lives. I know someone who has no arm past her elbow. She was born that way. Her arm simply stops after her humerus. That would be a birth defect. But she had friends, and was treated normally. She never had a sense of loss, since she was born that way, and for her, "normal" was having only one hand. But it's also not as though she chose to be that way, it was how she was born.

Similarly, for someone born without the inherent (or rather, eventual) urge to mate with a member of the opposite sex, that is "normal" for them as well. It's not something they decided, any moreso than any of the "gay-bashers" out there could just decide to stop being heterosexual. (Or homosexual, for the few who are hypocritical gay-bashers.)

Concerning aborting fetuses that are determined to be genetically unfit, watch the movie Gattaca. There is already a pretty significant division of wealth of material goods in this world. There also exists a gap of education. This would add a gap of genetic wealth to the mix. Any genetic modifications would need to be distributed freely to everyone, and they should be very incremental. If the next generation is only 2% more intelligent than the previous, there won't be as much conflict revolving around, "We're better than you, we don't have to listen to you," as would happen if the increase was considerably more substantial.
But given our propensity for impatience and greed, I don't see that happening.
 
i thought this was already known...

i don't think this article is a repost, but i think it's old news...
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7
I consider homosexuality to be a birth defect, simple as that. A human is to be born with 4 limbs, two hands, and two feet. Someone born with anything other than that is considered to have a birth defect. Similarly, a human is supposed to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex. Someone born with something other than that could be considered to have a birth defect.

I don't see why it should be considered offensive, but some would take it as such.
People with birth defects can still live fairly normal lives. I know someone who has no arm past her elbow. She was born that way. Her arm simply stops after her humerus. That would be a birth defect. But she had friends, and was treated normally. She never had a sense of loss, since she was born that way, and for her, "normal" was having only one hand. But it's also not as though she chose to be that way, it was how she was born.

Similarly, for someone born without the inherent (or rather, eventual) urge to mate with a member of the opposite sex, that is "normal" for them as well. It's not something they decided, any moreso than any of the "gay-bashers" out there could just decide to stop being heterosexual. (Or homosexual, for the few who are hypocritical gay-bashers.)

Concerning aborting fetuses that are determined to be genetically unfit, watch the movie Gattaca. There is already a pretty significant division of wealth of material goods in this world. There also exists a gap of education. This would add a gap of genetic wealth to the mix. Any genetic modifications would need to be distributed freely to everyone, and they should be very incremental. If the next generation is only 2% more intelligent than the previous, there won't be as much conflict revolving around, "We're better than you, we don't have to listen to you," as would happen if the increase was considerably more substantial.
But given our propensity for impatience and greed, I don't see that happening.

when you call it a birth defect, you're giving it a certain negative connotation... i'm not disagreeing with you, but i'm disagreeing with your choice of words. i don't blame you, though, because it's kinda hard to come up with a nice way of saying it that doesn't sound like they've got some sort of handicap or something...
 
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Shivetya
So. what happens if they can prove this, test for this, and then have parents abort children because of it?

I can guarantee that if it is genetic and can be detected it will be used in numerous countries other than the US and those children will be aborted. Hell they might even try to cure it.

Are you kidding...?

First of all, the day that religious fundamentalist nut-jobs start SUPPORTING abortion to get rid of their homosexual unborn children is the day everyone else will finally realize they're nuts and should be stopped, by any means necessary.

Also, what is there to "cure"? It's not a disease. There isn't anything "wrong" with gays.

No, it will be the end of abortion.
 
Originally posted by: eits


when you call it a birth defect, you're giving it a certain negative connotation... i'm not disagreeing with you, but i'm disagreeing with your choice of words. i don't blame you, though, because it's kinda hard to come up with a nice way of saying it that doesn't sound like they've got some sort of handicap or something...


Why should the truth be nice?

Thats been the problem in the US for a long time now, the truth isn't always nice, yet we strive to hide people from it and wonder why they cannot function.
 
This brings up the age old argument between the geneticist and the anthropologist.

If you are trying to say people can not overcome a genetic pre-disposition, then I say you are wrong. People are more than the total sum of their genetic parts. The Mind is capable of many things.

Still this is one of the oldest arguments in the world. People in our past have tried to convince others that Blacks were ignorant because it is just genetics. This is a similar argument. Maybe I did not use a good or very popular example, buy you can probably understand the thought I am trying to get accross.

When it comes to sexuality you are kind of stuck with the Equipment you were born with. Not every man can have a 10" Penis and not all women can have Blond Hair and large breasts. While plastic surgery is possible, you have to deal with what you have. Some Psychologists have tried to bring up the fact that most people have both a Gay side and a Straight side. Then there is the natural urge to procreate which can make animals and humans do the strangest things just to achieve an orgasm. In the end either the Animal instincts take over or we use our mind to control our actions and our bodies. It is all rather complicated. Why do you think there are so many people with Psychological problems?

This is a kind of difficult subject to discuss.
 
Lets also imagine that brace new world where life expectancy is greatly increased. And the average human is born and does not get consumed in a century or two. As a species we then better get serious about birth control---or we will reproduce past all resources.

What then better than homosexuality for the average human----and they can play all those forbidden carnal pleasures without fear of over populations----while I go as a normal red blooded male and can pick and choose my harem---only the best and brightest bimbo's----a male chauvinist pigs paradise.

But its more likely the females would take over---and only a few males would be allowed to live---and that for breed stock alone---and all would serve the queen. And the artificial insemination needle would become the method for passing on genes.

Such may be the science fiction writers glimpse into more orderly societies---lets just concede that the male on female wrestling we do now and call love making does indeed play dice with the universe.
 
Originally posted by: eits
when you call it a birth defect, you're giving it a certain negative connotation... i'm not disagreeing with you, but i'm disagreeing with your choice of words. i don't blame you, though, because it's kinda hard to come up with a nice way of saying it that doesn't sound like they've got some sort of handicap or something...
Yeah, it's kind of leaving the realm of the fuzzy-wuzzy PC language.

But really, what do you call it when someone is born without limbs? Or born with severe mental retardation due to abnormalities in brain formation? A birth defect. It is something that happened which is not "normal," which may also impair the function of that person.
So call it what you will, it's still the same idea, and that's what really matters. Words are just representations of ideas. If you want to say something nasty about someone, it doesn't really matter what words you use, so long as the meaning is the same. I can say, "go f--k yourself," or I can deliver an elaborate speech as to why I think you're utterly worthless. Either way, the intent of the message is quite clear, and is the same. Granted, one may be more detailed than the other, but the underlying message is the same.
NOTE: I am not saying any of this about you, it is simply there to illustrate my point about words and their use to represent thought.🙂


Originally posted by: piasabird
This brings up the age old argument between the geneticist and the anthropologist.

If you are trying to say people can not overcome a genetic pre-disposition, then I say you are wrong. People are more than the total sum of their genetic parts. The Mind is capable of many things.
Still this is one of the oldest arguments in the world. People in our past have tried to convince others that Blacks were ignorant because it is just genetics. This is a similar argument. Maybe I did not use a good or very popular example, buy you can probably understand the thought I am trying to get across.
To a degree. The girl I mentioned with only part of an arm can't just "think" another arm into place. She can compensate quite well with creative use of what she has, but she still only has one and a half full arms.
 
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Originally posted by: manowar821Also, what is there to "cure"? It's not a disease. There isn't anything "wrong" with gays.
Isn't it a disease? They have a condition that causes them to not want to reproduce with the opposite sex. It could easily be argued that from an biological standpoint, such a condition is a bigger problem than Lou Gehrig's disease or Alzheimers since both of those diseases don't kick in until after a person is past the child bearing years. I don't want to politically discriminate against homosexuals but to ignore the obvious biological problem of homosexuality is to delude oneself.

Why would you classify it as a disease when it's not hindering the persons quality of life, or functionality. Regardless of the fact that they don't want to have sex with the opposite sex. And no, the possibility that they're going to be prosecuted or ridiculed for being gay does not count, because that is the bigots fault, not the gays.

I also don't believe there is much of an under-population problem, do you...?

There is no biological "problem". There would be whats called a biological exception, I guess. But this does not condone dealing with it as if it were an issue that must be corrected.

Realistically for a moment... The only people who have a PROBLEM with gays are the people who find them offensive, or feel uncomfortable about their existence.

That is THEIR problem, and no-body else.

 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Shivetya
So. what happens if they can prove this, test for this, and then have parents abort children because of it?

I can guarantee that if it is genetic and can be detected it will be used in numerous countries other than the US and those children will be aborted. Hell they might even try to cure it.
This is a very good point and is probably the single greatest reason why abortion will be outlawed within 15 years. It is a prime tool for weeding out the 'undesirables' before they're even born. Cases in this area have been coming up in Europe for quite a while due to their anti-eugenics laws.

I highly doubt abortion will ever be permanently banned however I would not be surprised if abortions became restricted to only being allowed within the first few weeks of pregnancy. As technology advances it should be easy to detect severe deformities fairly soon after the start of a pregnancy.
 
This doesn't just worry me because of my support for the gay community. I'm also worried about the future of human kind. I would not like to see ourselves choosing what is acceptable for a normal human being to "be". When it comes to performance hindering or damaging diseases, yes, they must be corrected. But for something like homosexuality, or even bisexuality, just leave it alone! It very well could be a simple genetic DIFFERENCE, not a genetic mistake or problem. What happens when we start developing other non-damaging genetic changes? Are we going to shun those people, or try to change them so that our human essence or appearance is kept intact? Why must you fight natural genetic changes?

It's sickening, IMO.
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So how do they explain "switch hitters"?

Same as they explain those that are ambidextrous. 90% of the population favor a left or right handed approach to life and the other 10% is able to make do with either equally well. It is a matter of being able to use both hemispheres of your brain with the same level of results.
 
Back
Top