{"id":3282,"date":"2013-02-22T14:08:02","date_gmt":"2013-02-22T19:08:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=3282"},"modified":"2013-02-18T16:28:55","modified_gmt":"2013-02-18T21:28:55","slug":"homosexuality-its-in-the-epi-genes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=3282","title":{"rendered":"Homosexuality: It’s in the Epi-Genes?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Over the past few decades, America seems to be getting less homophobic and more accepting of gay life-styles. And that’s a good thing, obviously (well, I HOPE this is obvious!). Between 2001 and 2012, Gallup reports<\/a> that the percentage of Americans who feel that homosexual relationships are moral increased from 40% to 54%. I did not see any data before 2000, but I would have to imagine that this percentage down in the 30’s or upper 20’s back in the 1950’s. Some other gay acceptance factoids<\/a>: Public acceptance of gays in the military grew from 51% in a 1977 Gallup Poll to 80% in 2003; and approval of gays as elementary school teachers grew from 27% in 1977 to 61% in 2003.<\/p>\n

One of the key factors to increasing acceptance of homosexuality appears to be the notion that gayness is more a matter of nature than nurture. Over the past 25 years, there have been many articles citing scientific research showing links between intra-family traits, genes and homosexuality. The Gallup report cited above said that in 1977, 56% of people polled believed that being gay was caused by their upbringing and environment, while 13% said it was something that people are born with. In 2012, those numbers are 35% environment and 40% born-with. <\/p>\n

Obviously, there is still some resistance to fully accepting gay people; again, about one-third still feel that gayness is caused by one’s life experiences, and 42% still feel that gay relationships are immoral. Still, there is a clear trend favoring gay acceptance. The “gene meme” seems to have helped this cause. This is not to minimize the importance of gay liberation movements and gay political activism (along with growing corporate awareness of the discretionary income and buying power of a group that usually does not raise children). But the argument that “it’s the way they’re born, it’s not their fault” certainly has been a first step for many people who grew up in less understanding times and places.<\/p>\n

But what if this gene story were to change with increasing scientific understanding of human DNA and gene expression? Over the past decade or so, a new wrinkle to the overall gene story has evolved, in the growing scientific recognition of gene regulation mechanisms within DNA chains, along with epigenetics. Scientists have known for some time that only a small portion of the body’s DNA chains, perhaps less than 5%, actually are used to build the proteins that are assembled within and make up our bodies. At first the other 95% were just considered “junk”. But within recent years, more and more experiments show that this other 95% plays a very important role in determining how and when the active protein-building genes will do their work. As such, the body that our genes build and maintain is very sensitive to our environment. Put two people with the exact same genes in different environments, and you will see significant changes in their physical features and behaviors (this helps explain why identical twins can have such surprising differences).<\/p>\n

Epigenetics puts another layer of environmental response to gene activity, one that is more short-run. The “junk gene” areas still represent a fairly stable “computer program” that only changes according to evolutionary selection processes over many generations. Epigenetics are more responsive to actual environmental conditions within one’s own lifetime. Their “computer code” can and will change if, for example, a person moves from a warm environment with lots of food to a cold environment where food becomes occasionally scarce. There is much debate as to whether and how much influence a parent’s epigenetic programming will influence their children. Most articles I’ve read say that in some cases epigenetically developed traits at the time of conception are passed from parents to children, but for the most part, children get an epigenetically clean slate.<\/p>\n

So . . . what if the genetic influences on brain chemistry and mental operations that cause someone to “turn on” to others of their own sex are in fact triggered by discretionary environmental factors? In that case, the “born with it and can’t do anything about it anyway” argument would change. The idea that homosexuality can be “treated” and sexuality reformed is generally discredited today in the psychological profession . . . although there are instances of people who claim they successfully converted from homosexuality to heterosexual orientation because of some intervention. And what about all the bi-sexuals out there who appear to have their gay decades and their straight decades? <\/p>\n

There probably is no one “gay gene”, as there are for certain human conditions (e.g. Huntington disease, muscular dystrophy, and wet versus dry earwax). For most human traits (including intelligence, heart disease, autism and artistic talent), a large number of genes interact among themselves and the environment to determine how a person’s body and brain will respond. Still, there could be a spectrum here; some conditions are mostly locked-in by genes, others are mostly triggered by specific environmental factors, and most are a mix somewhere in between. Where would gayness fit on that spectrum?<\/p>\n

Right now, we have no idea. But some initial observations tend to suggest that homosexuality is clearly NOT on the far side of strict genetic determination. For example, even though homosexuality does seem to run in certain families, only 20 percent of identical twins are both gay. And then there are all those bi-sexuals who back and forth sexually according to the tides in their lives. It is also arguable that many “solid heterosexuals” experience a few gay twinges<\/a> in life. And there are plenty of stories of gay men who marry heterosexual women — was that entirely because of oppression? I’ve heard that most gay men who marry women feel some sexual attraction at some point; it seems unlikely that so many homosexuals could fake it long enough to get so many woman to the altar. <\/p>\n

So, waiting for some scientist to discuss epigenetics and homosexuality is like waiting for a second shoe to drop. Not long ago, an international team of genetic researchers published a paper<\/a> in the Quarterly Review of Biology suggesting a possible mechanism (POSSIBLE — they offered no empirical proof) by which epigenetic processes inherited from parents might act on a developing brain in a fetus so as to bias the child’s sexual responses towards homosexuality. So, perhaps that “second shoe drop” is now being heard.<\/p>\n

Actually, this paper is a rather timid “second shoe”. It tries to maintain political correctness by focusing only on fetal development — thus, it does not challenge the notion that by the time of birth, a person’s sexual orientation is locked-in. Even if the epigenetic process being proposed for further research were to exist, gays who are fighting for full political acceptance could still assert that “this is the way we are and always were, it can’t be changed” (recall that 40% or so that still think homosexuality is immoral and possibly a matter of choice). <\/p>\n

However, the mechanisms and degree to which epigenetics would occur at the fetal stage based on chemistry inherited from parents is still somewhat uncertain<\/a>. Epigenetic influences more often manifest themselves<\/a> during a person’s lifetime in response to external factors. The new gay epigenetics paper does not even touch the question of whether the more likely environmental epigenetic influences and “former junk gene” responses to one’s experiences could change the brain and minds’ sexual urges, during childhood and even adulthood. Given all the recent research regarding the incompleteness of brain development at birth and the plasticity of the adult brain, I would opine (as an interested non-professional) that environmental influences on sexual preference during childhood and even adulthood are reasonable candidates for discussion.<\/p>\n

But perhaps this timid first step towards a more nuanced notion of gay genetic determination would open the door to further scientific discussion. And that possibility appears to upset certain academics. For example, Margaret McCarthy, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland, commented that<\/a> this new theory <\/p>\n

“is not supported by any data.\u201d \u201cShould we test this? Is it important for us to know?\u201d asked McCarthy. \u201cHomosexuality is not a disease, it\u2019s part of natural human variation. I\u2019m not sure there\u2019s a good reason to delve this deeply into it. I think we\u2019ve reached the point that we have enough evidence that there\u2019s a biological basis for sexual orientation.\u201d It would be more helpful to people to get a better handle on the epigenetics of cancer or mental illness, she added. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Oh dear . . . scientists who are not willing to rock the political boat. Yes, gays have won deserved political power in recent years, and no person of good faith should wish that to be threatened. Unfortunately, this study, and any studies further delving into the environmental drivers of gay genetic manifestation will be twisted and distorted by the rabid conservative political factions, as to be used as ammo against those like President Obama who support progressive agendas. But to the degree that this fear keeps scientists from asking legitimate questions and pursing legitimate research . . . that is also VERY troubling. <\/p>\n

Perhaps one way for the scientists brave enough to proceed with this interesting and important topic would be to focus not on homosexuality in their public relations, but instead say that they want to test the “sexual plasticity” of all people under varying circumstances. Even if science shows that we all, to some degree, have some choices in our sexual feelings, genetics still make it easier for most to be heterosexual (we can depend on the evolutionary selection process to maintain that), but allows and encourages some people to express themselves homosexually in most circumstances. And as to the seldom discussed but certainly prevalent “confused middle” (i.e., bi-sexuals), perhaps science would offer them understanding and help in determining their own best pathways in life. <\/p>\n

Therefore, I would say that scientists should pursue the matter without regard to the political implications. Those interested in advocating for gay rights should not discourage this research, but should “stay close” to it and learn how to use it to best advantage. Ultimately, science cannot be suppressed; the choice is between good science and bad science, between being ready to understand and use good science for greater enlightenment, versus ceding a mostly bad science to the forces promoting oppression and regression.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Over the past few decades, America seems to be getting less homophobic and more accepting of gay life-styles. And that’s a good thing, obviously (well, I HOPE this is obvious!). Between 2001 and 2012, Gallup reports that the percentage of Americans who feel that homosexual relationships are moral increased from 40% to 54%. I did […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17,7,23],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3282"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3282"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3282\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3292,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3282\/revisions\/3292"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}