Genetic Research on Homosexuality?

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

I'm not sure what to make of this article. It claims that gays are created in the womb when the "gay genes" block testosterone from crossing the brain/body barrier. The site does not seem to be an Onionesque parody site, and if it is not, the researchers do have credentials, but still....

It is also believed that the unabsorbed testosterone affects the body's extremities. This would explain, Dr Rahman said, why the finger lengths of adult gay men tended to be more male-like that those of heterosexual men, in that their index fingers are significantly shorter than their ring finger. (Women's index and ring fingers tend to be of equal length).

The hormone may also be responsible for increasing the size of the penis, another extremity. A number of studies have shown that gay men are better endowed than heterosexual men.

It all seems like the claims often made about black men: "They all have bigger hands and bigger ****s."

 

[Dymanic]

I don't believe anyone has been able to show a strong correlation between low testosterone levels and homosexuality in adults. Testosterone has been implicated as playing a significant role in cognitive development, especially prenatally, but I think the conclusions reached by these authors involve some enormous assumptive leaps. Of course, that needn't be an obstacle if the ideas are being packaged for consumption by a popular audience. Could that be the case here? Let's look at some other titles by Dr Glenn Wilson:

"Better Sex"

"Creative Loveplay Sensual Ways to Explore Your Erotic Fantasies"

"Psychology for Performing Artists"

 

[casebro]

In the book "the Left Handed Syndrome" the writer seemed to link non-inherited left-handedness with Lesbianism. Seems that 7% of the straight population are left-handed, but 43% of the lesbians are left handed.

After years of work looking into why some folks are left handed, he interviwed the mothers of lefties, who all said that the lefties had stressed births- long labor, pre-eclampsia, mild oxygen starvation, er stuff like that. I'd sum up his findings with "both Homosexuality and Sinistry are caused by birth conditions, NOT heredity". He did except the Scottish lefties, definite inhereitance. I don't know why he didn't call his book "the Lesbian sysndrome".....

Since reading that book, I've certainly noticed lots of left handed 'women' with buzz cut hair and plaid flannel shirts. And lots of leftie men who's last name stats with "Mc". How about you?

 

[Dagny]

Here's something to take into consideration....

If these researches had come across anything worthwhile why did they write a book instead of publishing a peer-reviewed article?
I'll all for pop-science book, but not if there isn't any kind of real documentation to back it up.

My index finger is shorter than my middle finger, and I'm left handed...does that mean I'm a lesbian?

 

[Dagny]

In the book "the Left Handed Syndrome" the writer seemed to link non-inherited left-handedness with Lesbianism. Seems that 7% of the straight population are left-handed, but 43% of the lesbians are left handed.

After years of work looking into why some folks are left handed, he interviwed the mothers of lefties, who all said that the lefties had stressed births- long labor, pre-eclampsia, mild oxygen starvation, er stuff like that. I'd sum up his findings with "both Homosexuality and Sinistry are caused by birth conditions, NOT heredity". He did except the Scottish lefties, definite inhereitance. I don't know why he didn't call his book "the Lesbian sysndrome".....

Since reading that book, I've certainly noticed lots of left handed 'women' with buzz cut hair and plaid flannel shirts. And lots of leftie men who's last name stats with "Mc". How about you?

There is evidence that left handedness is genetic (it fits a model that has has been observed in mice with situs inversus). The gene has not yet been located. But considering that in the study above the researcher didn't interview any right handed mothers, I'm inclined to believe the genetic model.

What do you mean by scottish lefties?

 

[casebro]

:"what did I mean by scottish lefties"?

Humans are default right handed. The only folks who are not are some scottish clans. The left handed/ lesbian lkink does NOT apply to the Scots.

Index/ring was mentioned, NOT index /middle....

 

[Mojo]

Humans are default right handed. The only folks who are not are some scottish clans. The left handed/ lesbian lkink does NOT apply to the Scots.

Do you have any evidence for any of these assertions?

 

[Dagny]

:"what did I mean by Scottish lefties"?

Humans are default right handed. The only folks who are not are some Scottish clans. The left handed/ lesbian lkink does NOT apply to the Scots.

Index/ring was mentioned, NOT index /middle....

I actually looked up the Scottish Lefty and this is what I found, I imagine it's what you mentioned:

"The legend of the left-handed Kerrs and Carrs [Scottish surnames which mean left] seemed to be supported when, in 1974 the Research Unit of the Royal College of General Practioners published a report claiming that nearly thirty percent of modern Kerrs and Carrs were indeed left handed."

[Some talk about how recent studies have not supported the above claim] Then:

"What happened is an object lesson in how not to do research. The study was progressing slowly until a newspaper report described the study, upon which many Kerrs and Carrs immediately wrote to the college. Unfortunately, it was only the left-handed Kerrs or Carrs that bothered to get in touch."

(Research Unit (1974) Journal of the Royal College of General Practioners 24: 437-9; Shaw, D. and McManus, I.C. (1993) British Journal of Psychology, 84: 545-51)

So, members of these Scottish clans have the same percentage of left handed people as the rest of the world.

People are not "default right handed". Left handedness runs in families. Monozygotic twins are more likely to have the same handedness than dizygotic twins, which points toward a genetic basis. As I mentioned before, there is a model that fits the data about handedness, but the two genes believed to be involved have not been discovered (probably because no one is looking into it.)


Index/ring....my mistake. ;P

 

[Eos of the Eons]

When homosexuality is studied they have to study men and women in that group...not just try to correlate developmental differences in one or the other. The main developmental difference that makes them gay is rooted in attraction. Study those areas and come up with some real answers, I say. You can love anybody, but not just be attracted to anybody.

Just my layman's view on this subject.

 

[clarsct]

The real question is why the hell do we CARE? I mean, is the goal of this research to promote better understanding? Or to find a way that homosexuality can be 'cured'? If it is genetic, then does that give worried parents the right to say 'Oh, it's genetic. Well, then it's not really his/her fault..It's a DISEASE.'?

BS

Complete and utter BS. It sounds like some folks want to be assured they have NO homosexual traits. I may be a bit cynical here, but that's the way it comes across. For shame! Some people find women attractive. Some people find men attractive. Deal with it. Personally, if it comes to a choice, I prefer women. That is my preference, wether by genetics, choice or both. Does it matter?

And is there really a left-handed-lesbian link?
"the write SEEMED to link"
emphasis mine


Where are the numbers? Where are the figures? Where is the study?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Thing is, the people who feel "it is just a choice" think that homosexuality has nothing to do with attraction, just some crazy choice. Then comes the gay bashing for choosing "the wrong choice", blah blah blah.

That's ridiculous. If one could just "choose" who they were attracted to, then there would be no system for attraction...the pheremones, etc.

People would like to deny this hard wiring and put it all down to choice, then they don't feel morally bad for bashing those who "choose wrong".

Once you try to talk about genetics, anatomy, etc., then you address how it's not a "choice". That upsets homophobes. You can't bash someone if they "can't help it".

The real question is why the hell do we CARE?

Because the bible says...blah blah blah

I've sat in a church where there was a whole lot of "AIDS was sent by god to punish gays"...blah blah blah.

Until we accept our humanity, then there is a lot of mind numbing drivel being hounded into humans by other humans. The only way to prove them "wrong" is to find proof. Even then, as with evolution, it will be ignored...but it will be harder to ignore if it is definable.

It's undeniable what smells cause us to do...we end up getting hungry, drooling. It's hard to deny smells and their effect on us.

They've done studies on women who aren't taking bc. They find some men's smells more appealing during different times of the month...but is it their "smells"? Or something that doesn't smell? Pheremones aren't smelly. Or is there a hormone women can smell?

That's what is being discussed when it comes to attraction. What makes us attracted to the people we are attracted to? It's a whole system of biology, receptors, hormones, pheremones. Rather complex, and still under study.

The debate rages on with different studies.

Why should we care? We need to care now to decrease ignorance on the issue. Until we know what is going on, then people are going to "care". Until the issue is settled, then people are going to care.

I don't care that people are gay. I care that homesexuality is viewed as deviant "behaviour" by the ignorant.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

The real debate: pheremones

many later research articles on the existence and structure of the VNO, which actually refer to Johnson's article. (Moran, 1991) examined 200 patients and found VNO openings in both nostrils of every one. Moran suggests that previous studies missed many VNO's because the studies were conducted without magnification; He found that VNO openings can be as small as 0.2mm, which is roughly the maximum resolution of the human eye. Other studies, involving 400 and 1000 patients respectively, found VNO openings in every patient without tissue damage near the VNO opening (Stensaas, 1991) (Garcia-Velasco,1991). Furthermore, following nasal surgery, the last study was able to find the VNO opening in about 90% of patients, as opposed to 80% before surgery. These studies do not address the issue of finding false VNO openings, but as they were all conducted with magnification, false VNO openings are unlikely.

These studies present a lot of evidence that the VNO exists in all normal humans, contains receptors that respond to pheromones, and conveys information to the hypothalamus.

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~bredelin/vno.html

 

[clarsct]

Thing is, the people who feel "it is just a choice" think that homosexuality has nothing to do with attraction, just some crazy choice. Then comes the gay bashing for choosing "the wrong choice", blah blah blah.

That's ridiculous. If one could just "choose" who they were attracted to, then there would be no system for attraction...the pheremones, etc.

People would like to deny this hard wiring and put it all down to choice, then they don't feel morally bad for bashing those who "choose wrong".

Once you try to talk about genetics, anatomy, etc., then you address how it's not a "choice". That upsets homophobes. You can't bash someone if they "can't help it".


I was taking the other view that if there is a genetic/chemical cause that these people need to be 'treated'. But I see your point there, too. *sigh* I guess whichever way the results end up, someone will have an agenda with it.





Because the bible says...blah blah blah

I've sat in a church where there was a whole lot of "AIDS was sent by god to punish gays"...blah blah blah.

Seriously? Damn. That's some church. I hope you left as quickly and quietly as possible. I would have. Even in the middle of a wedding or funeral. That's unreal.

Until we accept our humanity, then there is a lot of mind numbing drivel being hounded into humans by other humans. The only way to prove them "wrong" is to find proof. Even then, as with evolution, it will be ignored...but it will be harder to ignore if it is definable.

It's undeniable what smells cause us to do...we end up getting hungry, drooling. It's hard to deny smells and their effect on us.

They've done studies on women who aren't taking bc. They find some men's smells more appealing during different times of the month...but is it their "smells"? Or something that doesn't smell? Pheremones aren't smelly. Or is there a hormone women can smell?

That's what is being discussed when it comes to attraction. What makes us attracted to the people we are attracted to? It's a whole system of biology, receptors, hormones, pheremones. Rather complex, and still under study.

The debate rages on with different studies.

Why should we care? We need to care now to decrease ignorance on the issue. Until we know what is going on, then people are going to "care". Until the issue is settled, then people are going to care.

I don't care that people are gay. I care that homesexuality is viewed as deviant "behaviour" by the ignorant.

*nod* I feel the same. You've given me some to think on, as usual. I was being fairly cynical earlier, I suppose. Science is a good thing, and the more we know, the better. I was thinking more of the political angles people would try to use in this. And, well, it kinda ticked off my 'soapbox' response.

I do believe humans have pheremones, but I'll wait and see what the science says. I don't know why we wouldn't, when all other mammals do. But I also don't believe those people who sell 'love potions' claiming to have pheremones in them. What really bothers me is that it doesn't say how they HARVESTED the pheremones....(assuming there are any in there at all, that is.)

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I should be in bed, but wanted to give you thumbs up on your post. I've been trying to get my hands on any research in this area as it does fascinate me. I'm glad you have a similar interest. Research in these areas is not "high priority" when looking at the need for things like cancer or AIDS research, etc. So it's tough to watch the studies slog along at a sloth's pace. Sigh.