No single gene associated with being gay
"The Harvard and MIT researchers concluded genetics could account for between 8-25% of same-sex behaviour across the population, when the whole genome is considered."
I read this, and thought, that is interesting, so it supports psychosocial factors or developmental ones being the primary cause in most cases. But the article concludes:
"Fah Sathirapongsasuti, senior scientist at 23andMe, added; "This is a natural and normal part of the variation in our species and that should also support precisely the position that we shouldn't try and develop gay 'curism'. That's not in anyone's interest."
--
Okay, but that doesn't follow from your study, which concluded as low as 8% of same sex behaviours could be construed as genetic variants. If anything, it supports Psychosocial factors at play therefore, so theoretically Cognitive Behavioural Therapy should be able to alter the behaviours if someone so wishes, in most of the population in question.
Further:
"David Curtis, honorary professor at the UCL Genetics Institute, University College London, said: "This study clearly shows that there is no such thing as a 'gay gene'.
There is no genetic variant in the population which has any substantial effect on sexual orientation.
Even if homosexuality is not genetically determined, as this study shows, that does not mean that it is not in some way an innate and indispensable part of an individual's personality."
--
Yes, true. However it argues against an innate developmental natural variance, usually allied to genetic expression or epigentics, and more towards the personality having been formed by society or upbringing. Personalities are forged by your circumstance, your 'nurture' too.
Finally:
"Zeke Stokes, from the LGBT media advocacy organisation GLAAD, said: "This new research re-confirms the long-established understanding that there is no conclusive degree to which nature or nurture influence how a gay or lesbian person behaves."
--
Yes. No conclusive manner, though it argues far more strongly for Nurture than Nature, but the entire article was written in such a way to muddy that simple fact. This study frankly says nothing about Nurture, so why does it 'reconfirm' that we don' t know its influence? If we must have a cause, if not genetic in at least 75%, then it must be Psychosocial or Developmental ie Nurture or factors around it. If sexual attraction and gender is merely a construct, as many on the left seem to argue, why are they so reticent when it comes to same sex attraction?
Here is the original study:
Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior | Science
It has just under a half million participants, with fairly good confidence intervals.
.
