The Ultimate Experiment in Homo/Hetero-Sexuality - Surrogate Experiment (legal, controversial, education)

[cachibatches]

I am not sure if anyone has got to this yet, but as far as scientists can tell, homosexuality is not genetic, but epigentic. A brain is default female, and needs to be exposed to hormones to take on male characteristics. Too few hormones on a male's brain means a proclivity towards male homosexuality. To much hormones on a female's brain means a proclivity towards lesbianism.

So the experiment would not work.

[PoppySead]

Originally Posted by ocnjgirl

There are many men born with not only feminine preferences and personality features, but even physical features...and vice versa...in my work, I once had a 4 year old child for a client who I would bet $20,000 is gay...neither of his parents are, and they are religious as well,,,but I know, I could see it in him, and I do believe 100% he was born that way.

I think the issue of men who feel they were supposed to be women and vice versa is also due to some dysfunction when the egg was fertilized. Maybe we don't know enough now but to me it makes the most sense given the evidence that exists in the form of kids who exhibit so many traits of the opposite gender even as tiny children.

I've noticed this as well. This is a great TED lecture and it's along the same lines.
He's a pediatric endocrinologist.
Nobody can tell if someone is homosexual or gender until the child is older. Whether they see themselves as male or female regardless of their genitalia. At the time puberty begins, you can then start to tell who is gay and who is not. Who is transgender or not.
https://www.ted.com/talks/norman_spa...be?language=en

This lecture concentrates on transgender but I think it's the same concept.

[Meyerland]

Originally Posted by cachibatches

I am not sure if anyone has got to this yet, but as far as scientists can tell, homosexuality is not genetic, but epigentic. A brain is default female, and needs to be exposed to hormones to take on male characteristics. Too few hormones on a male's brain means a proclivity towards male homosexuality. To much hormones on a female's brain means a proclivity towards lesbianism.

So the experiment would not work.

Yes, this. Just because someone is born a certain way, does not automatically make it a genetic thing. They spend 9+ months in utero.

[stan4]

Originally Posted by LuckyGem

Imagine for a moment.

The science and technology exists today to make this happen.

Take sperm from a homosexual man, and combine it with an egg from a lesbian woman.

Incubate it in a female surrogate until she gives birth.

This is the way to find out if homosexuality is genetic.

__________________________________________________ ___________

I wonder if such an experiment can be done.

After the child is born raise it in a "neutral" home absent of religious dogma and outside social pressures for gender identification until age 5 (when they start kindergarden), and see if a natural born male child gravitates toward female gender associated things, or if a female child gravitates toward male typical gender association.

========================================

Your thoughts?

My thoughts?

That's not how genetics work.

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by dr.strangelove

You do know that this is not how genetics work. Even if we assume there is a gene marker for homosexuality, which I doubt. A couple with brown eyes can have three kids, one with blue eyes, one with green eyes and another with brown eyes.

Yes, this. Especially since there are brothers and sisters from the same parents, who may be a mix of homosexual or heterosexual.

What will be interesting, is what happens when and if geneticists become able to identify and then "turn off" the genes that cause (or contribute to) homosexuality while in the womb. How many parents will choose to have a homosexual child if they have the choice? My guess is, not many. And then, will this cause the gay community to cry, "Genocide"?

As genetics continues to evolve, there will be no end to the debates surrounding "Eugenics", except this time, there will be real, measurable consequences. I don't think too many people will complain if scientists can eliminate things like Muscular Dystrophy or PKD. But baldness? Eye Color? Racial appearance? Gonna be a Brave New World.

[silibran]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epig..._homosexuality

If you are truly interested in this, and are not simply interested in uninformed speculation, here is a straightforward explanation of what is thought to be the way homosexuality happens.

It is not a long read.

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by silibran

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epig..._homosexuality
If you are truly interested in this, and are not simply interested in uninformed speculation, here is a straightforward explanation of what is thought to be the way homosexuality happens.
It is not a long read.

Interesting hypothesis. Biology isn't my forte; although the article isn't very long, it's a little over my head. What competing hypotheses are out there on the subject?

[2x3x29x41]

Originally Posted by LuckyGem

Imagine for a moment.

The science and technology exists today to make this happen.

Take sperm from a homosexual man, and combine it with an egg from a lesbian woman.

Incubate it in a female surrogate until she gives birth.

This is the way to find out if homosexuality is genetic.

__________________________________________________ ___________

I wonder if such an experiment can be done.

After the child is born raise it in a "neutral" home absent of religious dogma and outside social pressures for gender identification until age 5 (when they start kindergarden), and see if a natural born male child gravitates toward female gender associated things, or if a female child gravitates toward male typical gender association.

========================================

Your thoughts?

First, it would be highly unethical to create a human being as nothing more than a test subject.

Beyond that, this idea that homosexuality either is genetic or isn't genetic is a simplistic notion with no basis in reality.

There clearly is a genetic component to homosexuality. Studies have shown that identical twins to a gay person are more likely to be gay than non-identical twins to a gay person. But the genetic component of sexual orientation is certainly a product of many genetic variables. People who know nothing about genetics often think there's a single gene for everything: you either have it or you don't. That's not true. There's not a single gene for height, or for skin color, or for physical capabilities. And there's not a 'gay gene'.

It is also worth bearing in mind that a lot of inherent attributes are non-genetic. People are shaped in part by in utero development, such as variable exposure to prenatal hormones. Also, birth order has been identified as a possible factor, with older brothers being an indicator of an increased chance of a person being gay. possibly as immunological responses on the part of a mother's body in response to the Y chromosome(s) of those older brothers.

A simplistic pairing of a gay man with a gay woman is going to demonstrate precisely nothing.

[silibran]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

Interesting hypothesis. Biology isn't my forte; although the article isn't very long, it's a little over my head. What competing hypotheses are out there on the subject?

Actually, it is theory, rather than hypothesis. A theory is based on observed data. At least that is my understanding.

I don’t understand the biologic processes either. But I got the general idea. Being homosexual is neither inherited nor a choice made after birth. It happens because of certain hormonal events in utero.

[2x3x29x41]

Originally Posted by Julian658

Homosexuality is not likely to be inherited. Homosexuals reproduce very little when compared to the heterosexual population. Just look at evolution, traits that are not passed down tend to die out. And yet the rate of homosexuality is rather constant.

Your understanding of genetic inheritance is shallow.

In short, one of the evolutionary drivers of protection based on degrees of kinship is that identical copies of one's genes are carried in one's kin. The closer the kin, the more such genetic commonality. Thus J.B.S. Haldane's quip that he was 'prepared to lay down his life for eight cousins, or for two brothers' (a cousin sharing roughly 12.5% of your genetics, a brother roughly 50%).

This is the reason that workers bees are not selected against. Queen bees mate only with drones. The workers do not specifically pass on their genes. Yet their functions serve to enhance the survivability of the queen (usually, their mother) and the drones (usually, their brothers).

Then, as the following article notes, there is the fact that genes typically have numerous effects - and there is some correlation between male homosexuality and increased fertility rates among female relatives. If that increased fertility rate is sufficient to overcome - or even merely to equal - the negative impact that male homosexuality has on reproductive rates, the genetic component behind it will not be selected out. It is quite possible that genes that contribute to homosexuality have other positive side effects that remain as-yet unknown. So, not, just because gays do not reproduce at the rate of straights does not mean that genetic components of homosexuality will inevitably be selected against.
BBC NEWS | Health | How homosexuality is 'inherited'

As I previously noted, it is clear that there is not a single 'gay gene' and it is clear that there are factors other than genetics which contribute to homosexuality. It appears to be a combination of genetic and in utero environmental factors.