IT WOULD not come as a surprise if “Greg” or “Geraldo” a.k.a. “Gretchen” or “Geraldine” would be greatly disappointed that after all the noise and tantrums they created there is really no single “gay gene” in existence and that is a scientific fact based on a serious – not frivolous – lengthy study and research.
Of course the research/study was done by very serious and credible scientists and researchers over a long period involving almost a million subjects.
It turns out at best that the “gay gene” is just a figment of their imagination unsupported by empirical scientific data. But then again, there’s really nothing wrong with dreaming or imagining things.
As R&B singer Lou Rawls would sing, “Come with me to a world of pure imagination…”
***
So what is this study/research that rained on “Greg” and “Geraldo’s” parade?
Excerpts from an Aug. 29, 2019 article on https://www.scientificamerican.com written by Sara Reardon:
Massive study finds no single genetic cause of same-sex sexual behavior
Analysis of half a million people suggests genetics may have a limited contribution to sexual orientation.
Few aspects of human biology are as complex — or politically fraught — as sexual orientation. A clear genetic link would suggest that gay people are “born this way,” as opposed to having made a lifestyle choice. Yet some fear that such a finding could be misused as “cure” homosexuality, and most research teams have shied away from tackling the topic.
Now, a new study claims to dispel the notion that a single gene or handful of genes make a person prone to same-sex behavior. The analysis, which examined the genomes of nearly half a million men and women, found that although genetics are certainly involved in who people choose to have sex with, there are no specific genetic predictors. Yet some researchers question whether the analysis, which looked at genes associated with sexual activity rather than attraction, can draw any real conclusions about sexual orientation.
In the new study, a team led by Brendan Zietsch of the University of Queensland, Australia, mined several massive genome data banks, including that of 23andMe and the UK Biobank (23andMe did not fund the research). They asked more than 477,000 participants whether they had ever had sex with someone of the same sex, and also questions about sexual fantasies and the degree to which they identified as gay or straight.
The researchers found five single points in the genome that seemed to be common among people who had had at least one same-sex experience. Two of these genetic markers sit close to genes linked to sex hormones and to smell — both factors that may play a role in sexual attraction. But taken together, these five markers explained less than one percent of the differences in sexual activity among people in the study. When the researchers looked at the overall genetic similarity of individuals who had had a same-sex experience, genetics seemed to account for between eight and 25 percent of the behavior. The rest was presumably a result of environmental or other biological influences. The findings were published Thursday in Science.
Despite the associations, the authors say that the genetic similarities still cannot show whether a given individual is gay.
“It’s the end of the ’gay gene,’” says Eric Vilain, a geneticist at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study.
***
I would like to see Sen. Rissa Hontiveros also come out with her scientific research disputing this study that without much ado proclaims the end of the “gay gene”. After all, the good senator is prone to coming out with ridiculous statements i.e. “a transgender woman is a true woman.” Hello, the operative word there is “trans” from transform.
If we were to follow her line of thought, then it also goes without saying that Charice Pempengco is a “true man.”
Basically what the results of the study/research is saying is that no one is born gay; it’s not like being born a male or female as each sex has its own definite primary and secondary sexual characteristics and they are distinctly different from each other.
The study/research is also saying that “being gay” is more the result of environmental and biological influences and it is more of a lifestyle choice and sexual preferences.
A child is always born either male or female depending on what sexual organ the child has at birth i.e. a male child has a penis and testicles while a female child has vagina and ovaries and as the child grows up and develops the secondary sexual characteristics will manifest.
We are all products of our environment and how we were brought up whether we embrace or reject it.
A male child born to an all-female family with no male role model and grows up in a beauty parlor will certainly be confused about his sexuality or worse, emulates female characteristics resulting into an effeminate male.
At the end of the day it’s what is between your legs that determine if you’re male or female, not what you fancy yourself to be. And no amount of politically correct nonsense will change that. (brotherlouie16@gmail.com/PN)
