On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > > It did surprise me a little that no one offered to challenge the
> > > notion that sexual preferences are hardwired. If that is the case,
> > > it is a sure bet that these hardwir
> These numbers have been known for a long time, and many studies have
> been repeated to verify them. Sexual preference is has a very strong
> genetic component: In identical twins raised apart, if one is gay, there
> is a 50% chance the other will be gay. This is as opposed to a chance
> of about 2-3% in the general population.
> Any time the "genetics vs. environment" questions come up, it's really
> pointless to talk theory without looking at the many studies that have
> already been done and the many specific numbers that have been measured
> a long time ago. Actual measurements are infinitely superior to pretty
I'm fairly new to the list, so hopefully not too much of this has
been brought up before.
Actual measurements need to be checked more thoroughly though.
The original study which threw this into mainstream media was done by a
self-proclaimed obscure molecular genetecist named Dean Hamer. It was
also conveniently done at the same time that Bill Clinton was levying for
gays in the military (not that genetics should have had anything to do
with this issue). It was done over 40 gay brothers (I didn't read that
they were twins, but they could have been), which means 50% would only be
twenty cases. Some how he miraculously concluded from this that at the
tip of the X-chromosone there is Xq28 which causes homosexuality in males.
A follow-up study was supposedly done in 1999 which suggested a
much less correlation, but I unfortunately don't have any information on
Hamer failed to check to see if that same gene was in non-gay
brothers, or for that matter in other gay men. There's also the case that
if it were twins, they would have grown up in the same environment as
eachother. A better study would be twins separated at birth, one turns
out gay...check the other one. Not an easy study to do though.
Were the study correct, the gene still could be one of a more
effeminate emotional state as well. It gives no explanation for
bi-sexuals, different fetishes, and sexual deviants. Would you suggest
that someone who's into S&M is afected genetically? I'm assuming most
people wouldn't, in which case why would you suggest this for
homosexuality, or for that matter heterosexuality...other than purely
For more empirical data, a friend who watches loveline a lot, was
telling me that every time someone comes on and is gay, bi, or anything
slightly less ordinary, they ask them why they became this way. They
always seem to answer with some crazy event in their life.
It's fairly obvious that just like animals we're going to have
some genetic tendency to mate, hence survival of species through
reproduction. But as far as what attracts us to those we chose is so
easily trained into someone by their surroundings. An example: they
claim that each race when first introduced to a different one, tends to
look at the other in some disgust because, yes genetically, we're
prgrammed to not want to mix breed (This was in that same article
someone referred to about symmetry of faces...it was in Discover
magazine, February 2000 for those of you curious). History has plenty of
evidence of this. Yet every caucasian person I know who grew up near
african-american neighborhoods seems to be much more attracted to
african-americans. Genetics should in all theory be fighting this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:34 MDT