This focus on whether or not there's a gay gene is troubling because even if being gay WERE a choice, so what? It'd be a perfectly valid one. No matter why they're gay, homosexuals should be allowed to live their lives in peace, enjoying the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

That being said, I don't think it's a gene, per se; more like an issue of hormones during fetal development.

Anyway, I'd be interested to see if religious anti-choicers would change their tune if scientists could determine a fetus' orientation before birth.

I'm totally with you on this post Samhita.

I also worry that if a "gay gene" could ever be isolated people's focus would turn towards eliminated the gay gene. I think all we need to do is look at all the energy that used to be (and sometimes still is) put into "fixing" the "psychological reasons" ("over bearing mother, distant father," etc.) to see that investigations into the origins of being gay often turns into trying to stamp it out.

Samhita--

I honestly think this has more to do with the GL movement than it has to do with the bi and trans folk. The whole business abot it not being a choice is why it can be hard to be openly bi on both sides.

As long as we're looking for the "gay gene" can we also find the location of the "black gene?" How about the "Jew gene?" I'd abort a pregnancy if the baby had a "fat gene" or a "dumbass gene."

The fact that we're having this conversation, and that this kind of research is being done, says so much more about our culture than it does about biology. "Proving" that homosexuality is genetic will not sway the fundamentalists around the world anymore than the existence of carbon dating proves the earth is more than 6,000 years old.

Meanwhile, what happens when a child is born to a fundamentalist family and is discovered to have the "gay gene?" And will we raise gay children differently? How will society be affected when inevitably homosexuality is wiped out like a birth defect? Homosexuality exists for some reason we don't know. I'm afraid what will happen to our world without them. I simply can't see how this ends well.

"It is more likely there are several genes that interact with nongenetic factors, including psychological and social influences, to determine sexual orientation, said Sanders, a psychiatrist."

I think this is important to remember when discussing the posibility of a "gay gene." I don't think sexual orientation is a cut-and-dry issue and although it makes a good headline I don't think that any of the researchers who are looking into this issue are expecting to find a single gene that will determine sexual orientation completely.

I agree with you, Samhita, that this is uncharted water and that its important to ask these sorts of questions (re: the bigger cultural implication of what this research means). In the article it sounded like the researchers were trying hard not to be biased either way, which I think should alleviate some of our fears of a "Gattica"-esque future where we're choosing our baby's genes.

Anyways, I see this as hopeful sort of research. It's important to realize that sexual orientation and sexuality are a part of who we are, way down in the smallest parts of us beneath our skin. Proving that (again, in yet another way) might help to change the moral righteousness that we hear from some groups surrounding sexual issues. Of course it is equally important to recognize an individuals CHOICE in sexuality above all else (the what and who and when and how) and realize that love isn't a gene. But I think recognizing both can be beneficial and hopeful.

I read a horrifying comment on this earlier today (and I wish I could remember where I read it, but I can't - I believe on a local news site, but if that was the place, the moderator deleted the comment) where a person stated they hoped they could find the gay gene so that when they decide to have children they could terminate the pregnancy if genetic testing showed their child would be homosexual. I kid you not. Someone actually said that and added that they believed there are few legitimate reasons for abortion, but that would be one of them. What the fuck???

I honestly believe there is something genetic going on though. I think of a good friend of mine who was adopted when he was 3 weeks old. He's gay. His biological brother found him a few years back and is also gay. Not only were they reared in completely different environments, they were reared in different countries.

WORD, Samhita. I've been trying to make that argument for years. Nothing good can come of this, and I can think of dozens of better uses for all that funding...

Maybe I'm out of line or I'm getting this all wrong... but are genes for "black" and for "Jew" right? Those things are fluid, as well, and change over time... But there are genetics involved with someone's race and ethnicity. They are more or less present in certain people and are not the end-all of how a person sees themselves. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate, I'm honestly curious.

Why is all genetic research automatically linked to ideas of purification or eugenics? (Though, at the same time I ask this question I do think that Kaichester's fears and anger are not unfounded.)

I don't think this research is about changing the minds of the fundamentalists. I think it's about adding to the dialog among the rest of us. Maybe to help people with conservative religious beliefs (that are not fundamentalists) find a better way to think of homosexuality besides as a choice/sin.

Maybe I'm naively optimistic.

I read a horrifying comment on this earlier today (and I wish I could remember where I read it, but I can't - I believe on a local news site, but if that was the place, the moderator deleted the comment) where a person stated they hoped they could find the gay gene so that when they decide to have children they could terminate the pregnancy if genetic testing showed their child would be homosexual.

carolina girl, I just thought that argument was an amusing bumper sticker... I'm nauseous thinking some people actually feel that way.

Wow.
I am surprised that anyone would argue against information.
"Nothing good can come of this, and I can think of dozens of better uses for all that funding..."
We will never be able to guarantee that fundies or skinheads or whoever will stop fearing/hating gays, thats true. But how can ignorance be better? What about gay people, maybe they wantt to know? I think the idea is fascinating and frankly I have always believed that it is something inherent. After all, homosexuality occurs plenty in the animal kingdom.

"Maybe I'm out of line or I'm getting this all wrong... but are genes for "black" and for "Jew" right? Those things are fluid, as well, and change over time... But there are genetics involved with someone's race and ethnicity."

A person more versed in genetics can correct me, but from my perspective...race is more a social construct as it exists in the United States than a matter of genetics. While we all differ to some extent with our genes, if you're looking at "black", as the OP said (and I question why these two categories were chosen as examples), I see this as being related to melanin. There is a gene that has been found to control the amount of melanin in a person's skin, but research done around genetics and race are very controversial. I keep thinking of those people around the turn of the century who turned to Eugenics as science to explain why the white (man) race was superior to all others and fear that trying to find a "gay" gene (I'm bisexual so would finding a "gay" and "straight" gene rule out who I am?) is more trouble than it's worth. Others have already stated that this is probably going to lead down a path we don't want to follow.

We'll see what the research says, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a "gay gene." How long before IVF treatments will eliminate the embryos with the gay gene, before kids start being forced to undergo gene therapy (no idea how that works). I've always thought about it as an inherent personality trait. It can't be changed, but it's more complicated than turning a gene on or off.

As far as I know, the research to date has shown that prenatal hormone levels are the primary influence on sexual orientation (as SarahMC mentioned).

It's outside my field of study, but from what I know, the search for a "gay gene" doesn't make much scientific sense. All people have DNA that codes for most male and female traits, but the genes are selectively activated in the womb based on hormone levels (usually as a result of X/Y chromosomes). There's an excellent discussion of this in Lucy's Legacy by Alison Jolly.

Raney,
I don't think asking "why are we trying to figure out this question and not other questions?" or asking "what are we going to use this information for?" is the same as being "against information."

Does anyone recall the GLBT depates this past August? Do you remember Bill Richardson?

I saw them at the dyke bar in town, and when Bill Richardson was asked whether homosexuality was a choice--he said yes (he was the only candidate asked that, by the way). The whole room booed. I was actually angered by this. This man was standing up for glbt rights more than other democratic candidates (in my humble opinion), he was more radical, and I believe, more genuine. But he was booed.

You know, sometimes, I think for me it was a choice. And then I think of the lesbian separatist movement in the '60s and '70s, and I think of the idea of the political lesbian, and the personal being political. And I think, well, for many feminists, this may very well have been a conscious decision. And I think this shocks people, even people "for" glbt rights.

And although I think transgender is in a completely different category than sexuality issues (seeing it's gender), I do think bisexuality is seriously at stake here. Don't bi people already have enough trouble from both communities. "You're really just gay....come out"...."Oh, honey it's just a phase, just wait the right man will come along"... do any of those sound familiar? I do, want to say, however, I do think for many people (and sometimes, I think this about myself) that it was not a choice at all.

Anyhow. Whether sexuality is a choice or "genetic" is completely irrelevant. Whether or not someone gets health insurance should have NOTHING to do with being in any monogamous relationship with any gender. We need to stop glorifying patriarchal oppressive systems of power--period, and work to liberate everyone.

What would happen if, instead of finding a gene that would control whether the bearer of that gene is Gay, Lesbian, Bi or Trans, the research finds a gene that, when present in a woman, makes her more likely to produce certain hormone combinations during pregnancy that tend to affect the fetus in a way that may result in the resulting child being GLBT rather than straight.

I know - tortured syntax - but stay with me. Sure, the social uber-conservatives will crow "see, we told you it was the mother's fault!" But how many of those women would, upon discovering herself to be a GLBT carrier, forgo carrying her own offspring in order to wipe out the GLBT population? How many would submit to testing - where they come from a cultural perspective that praises them for their genetic/racial/religious superiority? Worst of all - how many would subsidize healthcare for poor and working class women so that they could get tested (and avoid bearing GLBT kids). Not bloody likely.

Anyway, I think it's interesting to ponder.

Right on Samhita and Jaclyn! My settled view is that when we discuss "homosexuality," we're not talking about one phenomonon but conflating several related ones; first, sexual partner preference and affectional orientation, while the same for most people, can vary. I've known lesbians, for example, who only feel romantic love for women but can have a hot time playing with men.

So, more than one thing almost certainly means more than one cause, some mix of nature and nurture. And neither settles anything: homophobes can call a genetic predisposition a "disease" and a choice a sin. It's really simple, not a debate but a political scrum where the "discussion" is just verbiage over core preferences: fer'em or agin'em. I'm for.

A friend of mine runs a whole site dedicated to people who have chosen to be Queer.

And besides, what I do with my body is my own damn business. If I want to sleep with someone black, white, purple, Jew, Nazi or of my own gender, it's NOT anyone else's business. This is what we should be focusing on.
If this threatens someone else's way of life, then I don't think they are very secure in themselves. Becuase, what they do with their bodies doesn't affect me one bit.

There's research that shows that the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay, and that is due to testosterone exposure in the womb. Puts a new spin on the Quiverfull movement, doesn't it? Except that they wouldn't really care, since they think being gay is a choice anyway. But regardless of whether the Quiverfull parents believe in science, how funny will it be in a few years when sons 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in their Christian army all end up preferring leaving their wives (whom they married at 18 or 20) for the sons of the other Quiverfull families?

Ok lets say that being homosexual was a inherited trait like blue eye or black hair. Then wouldn't 25% of the population be hetero, 50% bi and 25% gay or lesbian?

I think of a good friend of mine who was adopted when he was 3 weeks old. He's gay. His biological brother found him a few years back and is also gay.

Well, fine. I used to work with a punky butch dyke who had an identical twin sister--a happily married heterosexual lawyer who wore pearls all the time.

Like most complicated things, I think that gayness has to do with how various socio-cultural experiences interact with the palate of characterological options that you're born with. But that doesn't make a punchy headline.

I think that it is a symptom of our times that popular opinion holds that if something is genetic, it cannot be altered, but if it isn't, it's a "choice." Height is genetic, but it is also highly dependent on socioeconomic factors like whether you get enough to eat as a kid. Whether or not one knows one's times tables up to 12x12 is completely about education, but it would be near impossible for me to now forget that 7x8=56.

Further, I never see any acknowledgment in these studies that "gay" is a social grouping. There have always been men who like to have sex with men and women who like to have sex with women, but only in the past couple hundred years did people start thinking of them as a separate group of people. Similarly, the amount of melanin in your skin is determined genetically, but cultural norms about race vary in time and place--the US "one-drop" rule for blackness is hardly universal. You might be able to find a genetic component to same-sex desire, but to gayness?

dhsredhead, that's a wildly oversimplified model of genetics. In fact, blue and black hair are not neatly distributed in 25% blocks, either. Rather, supposing that there was one gene, the mutation would occur on its own at a certain frequency, and only then be inherited. So a rare mutation will propogate into a population slowly, while a common one will get around much more quickly. Non-fatal genetic conditions vary in frequency from just a few families in the world, to things like cycstic fibrosis. For CF, carrier frequencies in much of Europe are one in twenty-something or so; in Scotland the frequency tops out in the teens. If and only if two carriers concieve, the gene will be passed on according to Mendelian rules of inheritance ...

There is a formula for the equilibrium that predicts population frequencies -- the Hardy-Weinberg Principle, which is named in part for the brilliant and rather nutty British mathematician G.H. Hardy (who, Samhita, notably was the mentor of Srivasa Ramanujan, from Tamil Nadu, possibly the greatest pure mathematical mind of all time).

Er, I mean Srinivasa Ramanujan. Poor proofreading on my part.

All these comments on a feminist blog, and not one word of protest about this comment?

I'd abort a pregnancy if the baby had a "fat gene" or a "dumbass gene."

Right. Because no fat person ever did anything worthwhile for anybody or anything, ever. Because fat equals stupid and morally bankrupt and ugly and essentially worthless. On a feminist blog. A feminist blog. How far we haven't come.

Oh, and on topic: Fundies will NOT leave LGBTQs alone if a "gay gene" is found. They will decide that a gay gene, if it exists, is much like an alcoholism gene, that if you have it, you simply don't take the first...(complete the elliptical statement here)

Okay I gotta throw in my two cents here.

1st: It doesn't matter on a social/political level if it's physiological or a choice. Either way I (and everyone else) shouldn't be discriminated against.

2nd: If you read the researcher's stuff you'll see that they aren't really expecting to find one and only one gene to AFFECT sexual orientation. They're thinking they'll find multiple genes that interact to contribute the genetic component. So mult genes (let's pick a random reasonable number like 5 or 6) would allow for significant wiggle room when it comes down to where a person fits on the Kinsley scale.

3rd: Phenotypes are almost always a mix btwn genetic and environmental factors. So even if there are gay markers in the human and animal genomes, it will probably not be the be all end all of sexuality. Based on twin studies, we've already got evidence of that.

4th: Just bc there might be evidence found for a 'gay gene' that doesn't mean that there aren't other genetic factors at work in bi ppl, etc, etc. We are already pretty sure that lesbians have seperate genetic factors contributing than gay men, based off of family histories I believe.

5th: More information is never bad, it is neutral. Frankly I'm excited that this is getting more attention in the science community. If only they'd do a study on lesbians. I wanna know if my kids (hypothetical yes) will be as lucky (IMO) as I was...

"And suppose we can prove that there is a gay gene, does that mean that people that choose to be gay are inherently immoral."

Choose to be gay? All right, I don't know if there's a specific homosexual gene, or if homosexuality is linked with the pattern of a few codons (the sequences of amino acids that make up a gene), or a genetic mutation that occurs during pregnancy, but I'm a little annoyed that anyone here is saying that people can CHOOSE to be homosexual. People can choose to TAKE PART in homosexual activity or homosexual relationships, but that does not make them homosexual. We need to distinguish between sexual orientation and behaving, physically and romantically, homosexually. Otherwise this sounds like you do think that homosexuality is a choice. The way someone is raised will probably affect how that person acts on their sexual orientation - meaning how socially open they are about it, etc., but it can't actually make anyone "more gay" or "more heterosexual" (or bi or trans, not trying to be exclusive here - I'm bisexual myself) than anyone else. Sexual orientation cannot be changed, only behavior can.

EG - According to Kinsey, there is a 10% chance of a person being gay. Studies have shown that when one identical twin is gay, there is a 52% chance that the other twin is gay too. This difference strongly suggest that there is some genetic aspect to homosexuality, but since it is not 100%, I'm guessing that homosexuality is not based on any one particular gene because twins are clones of each other. But genetics is more complicated that plain old genes - there are such things as mutations which can vary between twins. If homosexuality is a mutation (or something along those lines), that means it's still biological and thus not a choice.

Kaichester - As for finding a "black" or "Jew" gene, well, race is genetic (as well as a social construct). Black people have genes for their dark skin, coarser hair and (usually) wider noses. Jews generally have genes for characteristics such as dark curly hair. That's why children look like their biological parents.
Also, genetic tests are not routinely done when a child is born, so most non-heterosexual children born into fundamentalist families will most likely not be raised any differently than heterosexual children because the families won't know until the child is older and has a sense of self.

My only worry about finding biological reasons behind non-heterosexuality is exactly what secondhandsally said.

I wish homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, or transgenderism was a choice. I would choose to be gay or straight in a second, just because it would make life easier. But I can't (believe me, I've tried), and I'm not going to choose to act strictly gay or straight because I'm not going to suppress natural feelings of attraction that I have towards a whole group of people.

Meowser: I assumed that was sarcastic.

Anywhore, I've thought for some time that homosexuality was a natural anomalous response to overpopulation. I thank the quiverfull movement.

Laura D, you might want to check your references...

"...The pattern of a few codons (the sequences of amino acids that make up a gene)..."

Amino acids come in a little later than DNA in the central dogma. Genes (even codons) are made out of nucleotides. Proteins are made out of peptides which are made out of amino acids.

And IMO you're missing the point. You're letting the homophobes phrase the question. The question shouldn't be whether it's a choice or not. I don't care whether it is or isn't, and I imagine that that isn't a straight (oh, the pun) forward issue for anyone. I bet there are ppl out there who choose to be queer. Why not?

The question should be why they (the heterosexists) get to deny other people their basic rights. Liberty should embrace all choices, regardless of how other ppl not involved feel about it.

I have a basic discomfort with a scientific search for genetic markers for "gayness" as opposed to "straightness" for the same reason I have a basic discomfort with calling something "feminine" or "masculine" -- sex, sexuality and gender are rarely so neatly binary.

Discomfort on the right is more than with gay sex -- it's with any behavior that doesn't conform to rigid patriarchical norms. So what happens when they isolate the "gay gene" -- will they want to go looking for the "sissy boy gene" or the "tomboy gene"? Howsabout the "uppity woman gene"? Where does the search stop, and who gets to decide? I fail to see satisfactory answers to these questions on the right, which makes me think they'd treat all of the above as fair game if they could. So my preference would be to not let them get started, to quit promoting studies that they will then twist to suit their own political hegemonic ends. Information may be neutral, but our world is so very much not that trying to obtain specifically politically relevant information may not help.

Maybe there will be some people who will be swayed from the "it's a(n immoral) choice" position, and to that end I can see the interest in promoting such studies. But given the hostility of the right wing to science that contradicts their polemics, I feel sad to think about people putting a lot of hope for social change from a genetic explanation -- I fear those hopes would be dashed.

Well, exactly. These people don't believe in evolution--you think they believe in genetics? Let alone let it influence their "thinking"?

The problem I have with it is that it assumes that if being gay were a choice, then it would be an immoral one.

Not exactly. I think the idea behind the "gay gene" research (and research that has demonstrated that each successive son born to the same mother has a 33% higher chance of being gay) is to determine WHY people are that way.

Thing is, I don't think that my sexual orientation is a choice. I could no more be attracted to women than to inanimate objects. I sincerely believe that gays are the same way - that they do not choose to suppress heterosexual feelings and develop homosexual feelings that would not be there, but for their choice. (I am presuming a non-bisexual person.)

Face it - it's not really a choice to be gay. The real question is WHY people are that way. Is it genetic? Biological, non-genetic (i.e. womb environment or interaction of various environmental factors)?

I take the exact opposite inference from these studies: the assumption is that people do not choose their sexual orientation. Like skin colour, hair colour, height, and gender, it is an intrinsic part of one's person. We don't allow invidious discrimination. As such, it doesn't matter that people choose a gay lifestyle (as opposed to a repressed, heterosexual one that doesn't work); what matters is that their sexuality is an intrinsic part of their humanity.

---

On another note, I don't know of a single Christian pro-lifer who would abort a gay child.

But ekf, why should we deny ourselves knowledge bc of them?

I hate to say it, but by curtailing what science can and cannot examine/research/explore, I think you'd be going in a direction that they'd enjoy far more that we would.

Afterall, if we don't examine the effects of biology unon sexuality and sexual orientation out of some irrational fear that others might misuse it; what's to stop them from making the same argument against research furthering birth control? There's probably a million different areas of science that they would love to curtain research in. Stem research anyone? GMOs anyone?

Knowledge is knowledge. It is the only thing I can think of where more of it is always a good thing, and less of it is always bad.

I understand your concern about the right agenda. The difference is that I think more information, more understanding behind how sexuality, gender, sexual orientation, etc all works can only lead to more acceptance for everyone.

People fear what they don't understand. The solution IMO is filling in the missing information.

I'm a bit surprised to read horror against aborting a fetus because of any gene. If we are truly pro-choice we support a women's right to a legal abortion, not just a legal abortion for reasons we agree. I would never abort a fetus carrying a fat, gay, skinny, ect. gene, but I realize others feel differently. Why can't we just let women decide for themselves?

I think you're mistaken, Ava. Nobody here has suggested not supporting a woman's right to an abortion for any reason whatsoever, but that doesn't mean that every pro-choice activist has to agree with every possible reason, just that she or he acknowledges that the only agreement that should matter in the decision is the woman's.

oenophile--

my complaint about that type of argument is that it presupposes a binary straight/gay paradigm that I am convinced is just not valid. A search for a single gay gene is not going to work out, because people's sexual orientations are way more complicated than straight/gay.

I've been asking myself some of the same questions. I've seen quite a few articles about it being biological- even websites that had diagrams showing where it occurred in the brain and how the shape and length of fingers can determine someone's sexuality.

Part of me wants there to be proof it is biological (and I have no doubts part of it IS inherent) but then the fundies will treat it like a "disease" that needs to be cured.

The real point here is that gays, lesbians, and bis simply cannot win. Religion won't let them.

Honestly, this topic makes me kinda nervous. Sure, it'd be great to have definitive proof that homosexuality is determined by some genetic factor, that it's not a "choice" for most people. But, as someone else already mentioned, when has scientific proof really swayed religious fanatics? Did the fact that having black skin is genetically determined make people any less likely to believe that it wasn't wrong to be black? Those attitudes changed b/c of social pressure, not b/c someone said "Hey wait! They can't be behaving immorally if it's not their choice!"

This would also open up the discussion to how homosexuals, since they can't help their urgings, should instead be celibate, b/c homosexual actions are still "immoral." And let's not even get into the Gattaca-like scenarios of isolating this "gay gene" and doing everything possible not to pass it down to the next generations.

It may be useful science to know which factors are involved in sexual orientation, but it's going to do little to change people's minds about the morality of homosexuality or make it more acceptable in any way.

Laura D-- Actually, pregnant women can and do get genetics testing as part of prenatal care. An amnioscentesis will show the genetic info for the unborn fetus, and I'm sure families who felt strongly enough about this would ask to check for a "gay gene" (were it to exist and be that easy to isolate) just as they check for Down Syndrome, or many other genetic abnormalities that may be present.

Gattaca is the future actualy. If in an IFV you have to choose between several embrios and one has the gay gene would you pick it knowing of the discrimination and hatred in society even if you find it abhorent. Unjust persecution is stil persecution and it still causes sufering.

Mother Jones did an interesting piece on this same topic in their last issue. While they raised some good questions about the nature/nuture complexity of sexual identity and orientation, I was really irritated that they made it seem like NEWS that (gasp!) our sexuality and sexual attraction is complex and may shift over time and in different contexts.

I understand the fear of giving up a biology-based civil rights argument, but I think it's essential that progressives feel comfortable making the argument that sexual expression, as long as it does no harm, is morally acceptable and should be politically protected, whether it's rooted in biology or culture or (probably) both. We can't get stuck in a simplistic formula that relies on the existence of one "gay gene" as the basis for a civil rights argument. It leaves us really vulnerable to scientific discoveries, whereas, if we were making the argument that peoples' sexual orientation and identity per se was protected, whether it was biologically rooted or not would be beside the point.

So what is the result here? If we can prove there is a "gay gene" can we also prove there is a lesbian gene, a trans gene, a bi gene?

That's a really important point, because my understanding is that virtually all genetic, evolutionary and anthropological theories about homosexuality are relevant only to male homosexuals. If this study too is starting out with the basic premise that gayness is what's important and the rest doesn't matter...well, I think I'm back to 'none of us without all of us', thanks.

Also, are we going to start checking to see if our babies have gay genes?

Oh yeah. The good news is that the people who'd be bothered by it are, largely, the same people who'd refuse to abort. It would be interesting to imagine a world where queer identity is something that people would be aware of in childhood, rather than something we fumble into in adolescence; a world where kids with the 'gay gene' can be told that the fairy story endings where the prince wakes the princess with a kiss are not their only option. Would we rewrite the children's books to make room for them? Would it affect schooling - more intelligent sex-ed, maybe?

Ava:

I'm a bit surprised to read horror against aborting a fetus because of any gene. If we are truly pro-choice we support a women's right to a legal abortion, not just a legal abortion for reasons we agree. I would never abort a fetus carrying a fat, gay, skinny, ect. gene, but I realize others feel differently. Why can't we just let women decide for themselves?

This reminds me of the missing female births in India and China. I wonder if, should there be widespread abortion of 'gay gened' babies, we'd do what India did concerning gender and ban that form of screening? Maybe not; the gender imbalance was considered a problem not because it was the result of systematic devaluing of women's existences, but because men might run out of places to put their cocks; the loss of queer communities has no such repercussions for the privileged community.

I'm a bit surprised to read horror against aborting a fetus because of any gene. If we are truly pro-choice we support a women's right to a legal abortion, not just a legal abortion for reasons we agree. I would never abort a fetus carrying a fat, gay, skinny, ect. gene, but I realize others feel differently. Why can't we just let women decide for themselves?

I'm going to echo EGs sentiments here- just because I support a woman's right to choose doesn't mean that I have to think every choice is a good one. I think that people have a right to choose whom they are friends with, but I find it repugnant that people would choose to end friendships because their friend came out of the closet, and I find it infuriating that some people will refuse to associate with and become friends with people because of the color of their skin. That's their choice... doesn't make it a good one.

Choices made because of bigoted beliefs tend to make me really uncomfortable, and even as I support the right to make the choice, the reasoning behind it can make me really uncomfortable.

Faerylore, my post expressed discomfort and concern, and a hesitant feeling about promoting/supporting this kind of research -- not a wish to censor.

The difference is that I think more information, more understanding behind how sexuality, gender, sexual orientation, etc all works can only lead to more acceptance for everyone.

Right. But these scientists aren't studying sexuality. They're not studying why people are straight. They're not looking for genetic clues into genderized behavior. They're not looking for all sorts of interesting information. They're looking at gayness and trying to find an explanation. Such a situation gives me a lot of cause for concern, because, while the studies do not explicitly (or necessarily implicitly) note as such, studying the root causes for something that is so politically charged runs the very real risk of pathologizing what is being studied.

If the way that this study were framed was as a way to try to find a genetic explanation for sexual orientation, I might have more support for it. But when they want to try to find an explanation for gayness, it sets off my radar. Doctors research diseases, problems -- putting gayness in there sets off my red flags.

And I couldn't disagree more than finding more scientific explanations will lead to more acceptance. They've done on the "masculine brain" and the "feminine brain," where if your ring finger is longer than your forefinger you have a more masculine (i.e., spacial, analytical, etc.) brain and if the opposite is true you have a more feminine (i.e., relational, intuitive, verbal, etc.) brain. Has that led to people accepting men who are more "feminine" or women who are more "masculine"? Not to this aggressive female lawyer with a long-ass ring finger, it hasn't, and it hasn't changed a damned thing about the norms in our culture.

For people who are antipathetic towards science, and such people are numerous, more information just buttresses their opinion that science is in the pocket of the gay agenda. It doesn't lead to more acceptance for anyone or any set of propositions.

WHY SEARCH FOR A GAY GENE?

One of my friends in the human genetics department at UCLA is actually studying this question. I think part of the motivation is that, as a gay man, he wants to understand what causes sexual orientation.

A second reason he studies this question is that by studying the less common cases, you can better understand how sexual orientation typically develops. For example, some of the giant leaps forward in our understanding of how the testes/ovaries and testosterone/estrogen masculinize or feminize the body came by studying individuals with intersex conditions.

In my friend's case, his theory is that there are genes on the X chromosome that usually make women attracted to men. These get switched on, however, in gay men. In his samples, gay men are much more likely to have these genes than heterosexual men.

Of course, there are many gay men without these genes, and straight men with these genes, so clearly there needs to be some sort of environmental stimuli or other set of genes that also regulate attraction to men. That is only one piece of the puzzle.

So putting aside the dangers involved in genetic screening for a moment, that is the story of why at least one person in that field is interested in the question.

"Ok lets say that being homosexual was a inherited trait like blue eye or black hair. Then wouldn't 25% of the population be hetero, 50% bi and 25% gay or lesbian?"

That would only be the case if you had a simple 2-allele system (Het-Het, Het-Gay, Gay-Gay). That set of alleles would rapidly be screened out of the population because individuals with the Gay-Gay alleles would have drastically lower reproductive success.

The situation is more akin to skin color, where you have a dozen genes controlling the process, so there are literally hundreds of different combinations that lead to different levels of melanin production (which are all stimulated in response to environmental input).

SARAHMC "That being said, I don't think it's a gene, per se; more like an issue of hormones during fetal development."

That certainly could be one mechanism. Certainly we know in rats that if you give male rats estrogen when they are embryos, they will develop lordosis (female mating posture) and increase their preference for males. And vice versa if you give testosterone to females.

Of course, what effects those hormones have likely depend on what set of genes you have and also what experiences you have growing up, so figuring out the exact relation between hormones, genes, and environmental input is quite confusing to me!

"That's a really important point, because my understanding is that virtually all genetic, evolutionary and anthropological theories about homosexuality are relevant only to male homosexuals. If this study too is starting out with the basic premise that gayness is what's important and the rest doesn't matter...well, I think I'm back to 'none of us without all of us', thanks."

I certainly agree that it is important to study the experiences of individuals from all backgrounds.

From a genetic perspective, however, it makes much more sense to start with men than with women. When you give men and women a Kinsey scale and ask them to rate whether they are more attracted to men or women, men cluster nicely at one extreme of the scale (exclusively homosexual) or the other (exclusively heterosexual), with only a small group in the middle. Women, on the other hand, are more diffused across the scale.

This raises the possibility that their is a simpler set of genes controlling male sexual orientation.

At least, that is the explanation that has been given to me by the human genetics folks who study genetics of sexual orientation.

""""And I couldn't disagree more than finding more scientific explanations will lead to more acceptance. They've done on the "masculine brain" and the "feminine brain," where if your ring finger is longer than your forefinger you have a more masculine (i.e., spacial, analytical, etc.) brain and if the opposite is true you have a more feminine (i.e., relational, intuitive, verbal, etc.) brain. Has that led to people accepting men who are more "feminine" or women who are more "masculine"? """

I agree that some research on how hormones control behavior and body development haven't led to more acceptance. On the other hand, we teach a lot of material in our classes about how hormones regulate the development of internal and external intersex gentalia. Across the board, I think this makes the students really understand how the categories "male" and "female" are not really clear natural categories - that society tries to force people into one of these two categories even though there are many shades in between.

Of course, from a biologists point of view, the question of whether or not this will improve society is not the relevant question. The question is whether or not this will deepen our understanding of how sexual attraction develops based on genetic, hormonal, and environmental stimuli. I think it is important for the sociologists to consider what impact this research might have and for biologists to be aware of these issues, but I don't think it should be the central issue driving their research.

"Honestly, this topic makes me kinda nervous. Sure, it'd be great to have definitive proof that homosexuality is determined by some genetic factor, that it's not a "choice" for most people."

Well, first I wouldn't dismiss the idea that for some people, it is a choice.

Of course what that means is a little confusing. For example, two heterosexual women might decide that they don't want to date men anymore. They decide to see if they would be comfortable dating women. One has a sexual preference system that is more malleable, and becomes exclusively attracted to women at this point. One has a rigid sexual preference system that has developed (either because of her biology and/or uprbringing) and isn't able to be attracted to women.

Was that a "choice" rather than "biology"? If a woman is able to switch preferences by choice once, does that mean that that she will always have that flexibility to switch back? Maybe not.

I'm just suggesting that choice is possible, but what choices you are able to make may depend on your biological make-up and also your experiences up to that point.

"Meanwhile, what happens when a child is born to a fundamentalist family and is discovered to have the "gay gene?" And will we raise gay children differently? How will society be affected when inevitably homosexuality is wiped out like a birth defect?"

In some ways I am not sure things would change that much.

Let's say some fundies make a baby with a gay gene. Let's say that people with gay genes have a 50% chance of being gay, depending on different environmental stimuli.

What is a fundie to do? Well, the fundies hate abortion, so maybe they would give the child up for adoption. That sounds pretty good to me - the child sounds better off.

Or, maybe the fundies will try to keep the child away from all other gay individuals, gay erotica, and stigmatizing gays so strongly they stay in closet. Well, they are doing that anyway.

I suppose the real concern would be if identifying the gene would enable researchers to create some sort of drug that blocks the amino acids from that gene. The development of an anti-gay drug seems to be the most disturbing outcome.

You know, UCLA, I'd be far more accepting of such a reason for studying men instead of women, if not for the fact that scientific studies are constantly being done on males instead of females. All the research on anti-depressants? Initially done on male rats. Why? Their cycles "mess up" the results. (I know this for a fact--I have a cousin working on such things right now.)

Prior to the waves of feminist activism around breast cancer? All the breast cancer research was done on men.

If over half the population, as females make up over half the population, has a sexual orientation that doesn't fall at one end or another of the scale, perhaps a) the scale is not an accurate measurement for that half of the population b) men and women have drastically different roots for their sexuality.

Either way, focusing on men, yet again, perpetuates the idea that male sexuality is the norm, and female sexuality somehow a more complex deviation.

You know, UCLA, I'd be far more accepting of such a reason for studying men instead of women, if not for the fact that scientific studies are constantly being done on males instead of females. All the research on anti-depressants? Initially done on male rats. Why? Their cycles "mess up" the results. (I know this for a fact--I have a cousin working on such things right now.)

Prior to the waves of feminist activism around breast cancer? All the breast cancer research was done on men.

If over half the population, as females make up over half the population, has a sexual orientation that doesn't fall at one end or another of the scale, perhaps a) the scale is not an accurate measurement for that half of the population b) men and women have drastically different roots for their sexuality.

Either way, focusing on men, yet again, perpetuates the idea that male sexuality is the norm, and female sexuality somehow a more complex deviation.

(I'm sorry if this double-posts--the main page says I have a comment here, but it doesn't show up when I click on it, so I'm trying again.)

EG "Either way, focusing on men, yet again, perpetuates the idea that male sexuality is the norm, and female sexuality somehow a more complex deviation."

I agree with you completely that there has been a tremendous amount of work on men and neglecting work on women. I just wasn't sure that this specific instance was an example of that or if the researchers had good reason to start with males.

" Why? Their cycles "mess up" the results. (I know this for a fact--I have a cousin working on such things right now.)"

I see that as a good reason to do the studies on female rats. At least with the females, we have detailed information on exactly how their hormones change in very predictable ways in 4 day cycles. That way you can control for the effects of hormones. Hormonal cycling in male rats is worked out in less detail. I think that is a good example of how our stereotypes (women have cycles which might "mess up" the results) shows bias in science - we should care if hormones alter the operation of the drug b/c half the human population shows similar hormonal surges.

"a) the scale is not an accurate measurement for that half of the population b) men and women have drastically different roots for their sexuality."

I think the general belief among sex researchers is both a and b. The development of gay and lesbian attraction are seen as two very different things with different root causes.

But certainly any sex researcher would also say that the kinsey scale is insufficient - that ideally you would be measuring sexual orientation along 6-12 different dimensions (behavior, physiological arousal, attraction, social preference, etc.) to create a more accurate view of sexuality rather than just "gay vs. bisexual vs. straight". Alot of people (including myself) still use Kinsey's one continuum out of convenience - it provides rough categories that may be imprecise but do capture meaningful differences (e.g., people who score on the "gay" end of the scale show more penile arousal to images of men having sex than do people on the "heterosexual" end of the scale.

Actually, the main reason they are looking at male homosexuals is that there is, so far, no evidence that female homosexuality is genetic at all. The twin studies done on identical vs fraternal twins don't get the same results when the twins are lesbians and straight women.

which tells me one of two things:

1. female homosexuality has a completely separate mechanism from male homosexuality.

2. our culture is somehow managing to confound women's sexuality but not men's even in an area where we attempt to exert great control over men.

I lean toward 2.

For example, it may be possible that many straight women who were sexually abused by men turn to women for love and affection and sexual pleasure, not because they are attracted to them per se, but because they're horny, lonely and repulsed by men. On the other hand, girls taught to abhor their own sexuality and fear their own desires may find themselves mechanically following the social script "let boy date me, let boy marry me, let boy impregnate me" without ever managing to figure out that she doesn't love or in fact really desire sex with said boy. So it may be that many women who would otherwise be homosexual present as het because they really have had any exploration of their own sexuality crushed out of them, and many women who might otherwise be heterosexual may present as gay because they were terrorized by men and find it more comfortable to live their lives with women filling their needs. Given the small number of homosexuals in the population, such confounds could easily distort any results you get for genetic transmission of female homosexuality.

Then there's the role of bisexuality. No one's managed to find any evidence if that's genetic or not yet.

As for transgender issues, I actually think there is excellent evidence that transgendered persons may have brain structures at odds with their physical bodies -- a kind of intersex condition that affects the brain -- and are probably not on the same continuum as gays and lesbians at all. I am actually kind of surprised that there is such virulent prejudice against transsexuals -- I always thought of it as much more easily understandable and forgivable to the religious, ie, your soul was born in the wrong body. But I guess these people think God doesn't make mistakes (and that's why absolutely no babies are ever born with birth defects, right?)

But this is research I find fascinating, and yes, as a bisexual female with a gay brother, I absolutely do care whether or not there is a genetic complex that can increase the likelihood of homosexuality. I believe that there would be more acceptance of homosexuality if it was seen as a trait you're born with, like my husband's albinism, and I consider the likelihood that large number of people will abort based on a genetic test for "gayness" to be next to nil, because these tests are expensive and insurance won't cover them. At best only the filthy rich will go for it, and they're only 2% of the population.

Yes indeed, I think it is a good reason to work with female rats--so did my cousin and her advisor! Apparently, despite those wacky female hormones, it is still possible to do science...go figure.

I agree with pretty much everything you just said.

If being gay is indeed genetic, and personally I suspect womb environment and nurture play some role as well, I don't see why it would be wrong for parents to want kids of a particular orientation.

People try to choose characteristics that would enhance the eventual survival of their kids. There is a reason why you wouldn't mate with every random passerby. So when you choose the person who will be the other parent of your child you are looking at them consciously or unconsciously in terms of characteristics that you think will enhance survival.

Alara, why do you assume that it is women's sexuality that is confounded? Certainly, the general run of things is that patriarchy puts more limitations on women than men, but since patriarchal sexuality makes women property, it is possible that, at least in a period of historical development, women fall on the scale more or less how the fall, while men (whose sexuality in partriarchy is presumed to reflect agency) are comparatively more pressured to make a choice; either by excepting the dictat to be het, or by rejecting it and adopting a personal and political gay identity? I'm not saying that's what's happening, but that just because women and men scale out differently in sex partner choice we can't readily infer that one is a less socially constrained arrangement than the other.

The thought that actually comes to mind for me has more to do with after a given child is born.

I intend to have children later in my life, and I don't care where they end up on the Kinsey scale. Still, I'd like to know in advance. I don't want my kid to ever have to worry about coming out and all the attendent stresses, and I don't want my child to ever feel like the bed time stories about princes and princesses don't apply to him/her.

I'd read my child King and King if I knew he was thinking of Prince Charming.

More than that, I want to know which kid to keep an eye on when my 13 year old is out with a group of "friends." Is it Billy or Mandy I have to worry about?

Eh, read 'em King and King anyway. No straight kid's ever been harmed by learning that not everybody is like him or her.

Identifying a genetic basis for homosexuality will not eliminate homophobia. It will merely force the bigots to change their story. Homosexuality will go from "unnatural" to "sickness" in the blink of an eye, and various religious scripture will still ban it.

I've known bisexual guys. I truly believe they exist. I truly believe that in our culture men's identities is far more tightly wound up in their identities (for instance, some men say they are /sexually attracted/ to men and women, but love women more. other men say they have dated men who they liked very much to hang out with, but prefer sex w/ women). My personal experience as a woman saying "I'm sexually attracted to men and women, maybe a little moreso towards men. But I feel a little more emotionally comfortable towards women" and I have people questioning the heck out of me. Like people insisting the fact that physical appearance is a crucial component of attraction for me will dissipate as I get older, or telling me that if I met the right guy, my feelings about emotional intimacy would change.

I feel like with men, people are less likely to question them on how they identify themselves, b/c of this whole idea that male sexuality is "the real deal" and set in stone -almost sacred. So you wind up with a self-perpetuating myth.

I've also heard a lot of homophobic guys, like *cough* my father saying about bisexual guys "oh, well they're just experimenting". I suppose in a manner of speaking/thinking, that's true. But isn't most of sex about experimenting? Isn't most of life (at least for open-minded people) about experimenting? Why in the world wouldn't you consider bisexual women to be "experimenting"? And if an individual, at any point in their lives, can on any level be sexually attracted to members of both sexes, isn't that the definition of bisexual? umm duh...

I was at a 3 day doctors conference in the mountains one day, and the theme was sex on the snow. There was a trivia night and one of the questions was "True or False: 75% of people with (insert gene name here) are homosexual". The answer turned out to be true :S

Interesting. But unless we know how many people in the general population have that gene, and what percentage of gay people have that gene, as well as what percentage of people with that gene are gay, it doesn't really tell us anything.

Like saying 10% of people born with ten fingers are gay--it's true, but it's meaningless, because we know that almost everybody is born with ten fingers.

my complaint about that type of argument is that it presupposes a binary straight/gay paradigm that I am convinced is just not valid. A search for a single gay gene is not going to work out, because people's sexual orientations are way more complicated than straight/gay.

BitterGradStudent,

My problem with YOU is that I already addressed that issue. Re-read my post. I assumed a binary gay/straight paradigm in my analysis, because, otherwise, it would have taken ten freakin pages. So take a huge step back and lay off, k?

EG - I completely agree re: the cycle issue. What really irks me, as a scientist, is that they are going to sell these drugs to women when they don't know if it will work for them. I mean, it's not like you are testing this drug to determine whether or not you want to go beyond Phase I research. Fact is, this drug will have to work for women at all stages in their cycles, so it doesn't even make sense to exclude us.

---

Footnote 4 of Carolene Products stated that "discrete and insular" minorities would receive a heightened standard of review under the Constitution.

Now, reasonable minds may differ, but, if being gay (or even having the capacity for homosexual expression) is not a choice, then gays and lesbians will get extra protection under the Constitution. They will be an "insular" minority because they cannot switch back and forth, and other people (in the majority) cannot really ever be part of that minority.

A group whose identity is based on a choice (such as political affiliation, penchant for gardening, or the like) will receive MUCH less protection under the Constitution than a group whose identity is not based on a decision, especially if that group is a minority (i.e. lacks political clout). If you can change your affiliation, you aren't a discrete and insular minority.

If there is a "gay gene" (or rather, set of genes, hormones, and brain structure that make a person gay or lesbian), homosexuals have a really strong argument for heightened Constitutional protection. Effectively, being gay or lesbian would be like being black or Asian. (Sure, there's a spectrum with race, as there is with sexuality, but that doesn't matter: you still aren't allowed to discriminate against people at the far ranges of the spectrum, who haven't a choice, or those near the middle, who can "pass" as being different.)