Simple test, lots of info-- if it's true.

[INRM]

Study based on fingertip ridges:
J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kimura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada found a relationship between the number of fingertip ridges on men and their sexual orientation. 7 They compared the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the left hand with the number on the corresponding fingers of the right hand. They found that 30% of the homosexuals tested had a surplus of ridges on their left hand, whereas only 14% of the heterosexuals did. This is a particularly interesting finding, because fingerprints are fully determined in a fetus before the 17th week of pregnancy, and do not change thereafter, through birth, infancy, childhood, youth and adulthood. This would seem to prove that for at least some adult homosexuals, their sexual orientation was pre-determined before birth, perhaps at conception; certainly by the end of the 4th month of pregnancy.


Notice the key here, 14% of males ALSO had a surplus

Now why is this so?

My theory is that homosexuality is partially genetic, and the gene that affects it appears to affect the number of finger-ridges. BUT, what about those 14% of men that are straight, but have the surplus of ridges. Either, something else accounts for the surplus, or they have the "gay" gene too...

Why aren't they gay?

Easy. I believe homosexuality is like Schizophrenia (oh, no, I'm not saying homosexuals are CRAZY!), you can have twins and one gets it, and the other doesn't. The 30% of gays tested that HAD the ridges had the gay gene, the 14% of straights had the gay gene so it would seem, however stress, and certain experiences cause traits to surface. PTSD won't occur without traumatic-stress for example. Which menas that if those 14% of men were exposed to the wrong circumstances, they could have turned gay. At least if it occured during a certain part of their development.

Does what I'm saying make sense?

-INRM
P.S. Man, I got a headache.

 

[davidhorman]

Does what I'm saying make sense?

Yes. You're saying it's not entirely nature, and it's not entirely nurture, but both.

David

 

[Benguin]

They found that 30% of the homosexuals tested had a surplus of ridges on their left hand, whereas only 14% of the heterosexuals did.

Does a correlation like that have any practical application?

 

[pupdog]

Do you suppose the genetic component of sexual orientation is controlled by a single gene? Is it dominant or recessive?
Could it be a gene-regulation condition?

 

[Bjorn]

Which menas that if those 14% of men were exposed to the wrong circumstances, they could have turned gay.

Wrong?

 

[Benguin]

Do you suppose the genetic component of sexual orientation is controlled by a single gene? Is it dominant or recessive?
Could it be a gene-regulation condition?

You're not venturing to suggest homosexuality is hereditary are you? ...

 

[pupdog]

I'm not--that was implied in the original post. What I am suggesting, is that if there really is a genetic component, it may not be as straightforward as the original post suggested "or they have the "gay" gene too..."

I can see how the notion of "a gay gene" could stir up an awful lot of trouble., especially among those who posess the "fundementalist gene."

 

[Eos of the Eons]

There isn't a "gay gene". The genes that make up sexuality are more complex, and involves far more than one gene.

Another test is with pheremones. We have a VNO lobe in our noses that picks up on the colorless, odorless pheremones that others give off. There is a reason people get attracted physically to others. The pheremones cause us to have increased blood to areas of our bodies, and stimulates areas of the brain as well. Attraction is a whole complex bunch of things together, so to speak, but touched off by pheremones and sight, etc. Even some smells can get us going. But if you are not gay, then you don't want to have a physical interaction with the same gender because you are not attracted to them that way. Pheremones do a play a role in that, along with the other wirings in the brain.

So you can end up gay or bisexual when these systems aren't formed the same way as they are in a heterosexual. The system formations are caused by genetics.

How can you have identical twins that aren't both gay? That just shows that even identical twins aren't exact copies. That is how complex genetics is. Gene expression is fascinating, and you can't have any idea until you take a few courses in genetics.

When twins form, it is entirely possible to have one twin get a system of expression small enough in one to get one a mole that the other doesn't have, and even have a gay twin when the other is not.

Did something go "wrong"? No. Nothing you can 'prevent'. it does show that some families can have more gay people in them than others. Just like some families have more schizophrenics. You will find as a whole though, that there is a certain percentage of the population that is either gay or schizophrenic. 1% of the population has schizophrenia, and not one area has more or less pretty much. That just shows the genes or whatever causes that expression has been happening since the dawn of man.

We are starting to understand our bodies more and more, and until we can pinpoint what exactly happens, then we should use our common sense and know that people who are going to be gay or schizophrenic are going to be that way. Just like some people are going to get cancer because it runs in the family.

You can get schizophrenic type problems if you take too much acid. Can you get gay from something too? I don't think so. Schizophrenia is caused by imbalances in the brain chemistry. Gayness is not an imbalance in brain chemistry, just like inherited cancer is not caused by an imbalance in brain chemistry.

Can there be the rare case where a person under severe circumstances may become gay because they get turned off by the opposite sex due to abuse or whatever? If that were the case, then more abused people would just be gay. You can't just turn on attraction for the same gender and no longer be attracted to the opposite. You try it. Let me know how it goes. You can't just start reacting to pheremones you aren't wired to.

There are lots of studies on women and pheremones during their monthly 'cycles' I hope we can find on the net to illustrate some of my points. Otherwise, you can look things up elsewhere as well.

Ridges on fingers? 30% vs 15%. Doesn't say a lot to me, those aren't big numbers/differences. Just shows again how complex gene expression is. Did the more ridgy heteros have more gay relatives than the rest of the population?

Correlations rarely shows any causation. I learned that early on in statistics class in some examples we did.

 

[phildonnia]

Just because there's a correlation between a genetic factor and sexuality doesn't mean that it's a "gay gene".

For example, what if there were an "honesty gene" which caused gay people to declare that they were gay. It would seem that people with this gene would be more likely to be gay, but there need not be any relation at all.

Or perhaps there's a "social rebellion gene" which causes people to adopt behaviors contrary to normal social standards. Again, there would appear to be some correlation to being gay, without any causative relationship at all.

And so on. It is especially important that the distinction between correlation and causation be understood as scientific advances in genetic manipulation are made. Otherwise, we could have people removing various traits from their children without fully understanding their effect. Sounds like a good distopian sci-fi novel, eh? It's probably been done.

In any case, the idea that one bit of DNA could be exclusively responsible for one behavioral trait is absurd.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

How can you have identical twins that aren't both gay?

This is not a subject I've given much thought to, but is that true or a half-remembered factoid?

My subjective impression of gays I have known is that they were probably gay from the get-go. This impression would imply string heredity and would be contradicted by a difference between monozygotic twins.

I suppose the camp gays I know may be gay by both nature and nurture but, it seems to me, the campness then becomes part of the identity, a readymade role to fit into. Nonetheless, my opinion, based on little reading into this subject is that gays are born not made. In either case, bias against gays is not fair, but I see it as no more rational than bias against someone of a different blood type.

"My mother made me a gay"

"Lovely. If I gave her the wool, could she make me one as well?"

[HangsHeadInShame]I'll get me coat[/HangsHeadInShame]

 

[Rolfe]

My subjective impression of gays I have known is that they were probably gay from the get-go. This impression would imply string heredity ....

Not necessarily. Might be something to do with the hormonal influences the foetus was exposed to in utero. I saw some interesting stuff in a TV programme that suggested this might be the cause of trans-sexualism.

I'd just like to see this current finding confirmed in a much larger study before basing any conclusions on the findings.

Rolfe.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

This is not a subject I've given much thought to, but is that true or a half-remembered factoid?



[HangsHeadInShame]I'll get me coat[/HangsHeadInShame]

I did answer my own question. It can be shown why one twin is gay, and the other not.

Just because there's a correlation between a genetic factor and sexuality doesn't mean that it's a "gay gene".

It's not just a correlation, but the fact that there is physical evidence as well. I went over it in my post. Each individual that is gay does have physical differences, and not just some numbers of fingers ridges on some of them. Those particular physical differences are genetic. Can you change your brown eyes to blue, physically change your eye color from the inside? No.

It's the same with people that are bisexual.