A new UCLA study of chromosomes in 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers without gay sons shows a difference in the occurrence rate of the way certain cells behave.
The cells in women each have two X-chromosomes, one of which is activated, and one of which is not. Usually, these activations are random so that on average half of her cells have one active chromosome and half have the other. In rare instances, all of the cells will have activated the same chromosome.
This study looked at the mothers of no gay sons, one gay son, and two or more gay sons and found that there was a significant difference in the incidences of single-chromosome activation.
“When we looked at women who have gay kids, in those with more than one gay son, we saw a quarter of them inactivate the same X in virtually every cell we checked,” Bocklandt said. “That’s extremely unusual.”
Forty-four of the women had more than one gay son.
In contrast, 4 percent of mothers with no gay sons activated the chromosome and 13 percent of those with just one gay son did.
This study certainly does not identify “the gay gene” or even, on its own, conclusively prove that the sexual orientation of all gay men is determined genetically.
Still, there are caveats. Dr. Ionel Sandovici, a genetics researcher at The Babraham Institute in Cambridge, England, pointed out that most of the mothers of multiple gay sons didn’t share the unusual X-chromosome trait. And the study itself is small, which means more research will need to be done to confirm its findings, Sandovici said.
If further research confirms the findings, however, this research adds to the growing evidence that sexual orientation – in some men, at least – has a basis in genetics.
Anti-gay activists have attacked the results of other studies that have indicated a genetic or biological basis to orientation. One of their methods has been to suggest that the causal relation between orientation and (for example) brain chemistry is the opposite of what has been presented, that homosexual activity caused a biological change rather than the other way around.
However, here that that argument is more difficult to make. The anti-gay activist is in the unenviable position of having to claim that sexual activity on the part of children changed the chromosome activation in their mothers.
We may, however, fully expect Dr. Throckmorton or another pet NARTH scientist to expound that this report means nothing. They will focus on the 3/4 of the women who did not share the trait and completely ignore the huge disparity (six times as high) in rate of occurrence between those who did have multiple gay sons and those who had none.
We at exgaywatch make no claim as to the basis of sexual orientation. It may be some combination of genetic, biological, or environmental factors. And these factors may be different between individuals. However those ex-gay ministries who make the sweeping claim that “no one is born gay” seem to have less and less basis for their claim.
I make no claims to know either, but I am willing to make a prediction.It will be found that there are multiple genes that subtly interact to determine:level of sexual attraction per seSA to opposite sexSA to same sexmale gender-typical traitsfemale gender-typical traitsother traits ie companionship, altruism etcThe activation and ineraction of these genes will be influenced by environmental factors, in utero (eg hormones). Some of these may be controlled for (eg chemicals introduced into foods, pollutants) while others may/should not be (eg mothers body chemistry changing after each successive preganancy).These genes will also be found to be linked to other traits, some of them not seen as anything to do with sexuality as such. The “bad” genes may be linked to some other highly desireable traits. This will make alteration of them problematic eg (and I do mean, for example):
We will further understand that — individual genes notwithstanding — there are social, cultural and personal life-experience viewpoints around:appropriate/actual ways of behaving sociallyappropriate/actual ways of behaving sexuallygender appropriate behaviour
tolerance/intolerance levels around variance of the aboveappropriate/actual behaviour in response to intoleranceIn 20 or 30 years time I am willing to stand corrected :)Oh, and Exodus International will still be both wrong and anti-gay. And we will still be as gay as a “gay man on gay day in gay town”.
grantdale,
you may be right on all counts except one… by then Exodus International will be defunct. In a generation or so they’re going to find themselves less able to shame kids about being gay and less able to scare kids with lies that are increasingly obviously bogus.
Once Dobson dies, FOTF – which is basically a cult of personality – will wither away. Then the funding will stop. And once the money dries up, Alan and crew aren’t going to sell their soul for free. Maybe someone else will step in to fund the good fight against the evil homos but with each passing year they will find their brand of bigotry and bias harder to sell.
Timothy you may be right. Hope you are, and think you will be.But such things can turn on a dime. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time a society has become horridly anti-gay and repressive. I doubt the passing of any individual will change that while there is an authoritarian streak within a large chunk of society. Scapegoats are rapidly created, particularly if they are also part of a minority.
I have no idea how Prof. Throckmorton will respond. He has acknowledged biological factors, though he has also minimized them at times.
Regarding Dobson: While I (and former acquaintances) have observed first-hand that Exodus and FOTF employees do treat Dobson much like a cult leader, I also see that the organizations have a battery of friendly faces and malicious back-room operatives ready to take over when Dobson dies. Dobson has been in wobbly health for years, no doubt due to his lifestyle, and there’s no reason to believe Exodus, FRC and Focus aren’t prepared to move on without him.
However, there might be a bit of a power struggle between the friendly faces (such as Glenn Stanton) and the powerful players that bring in Focus’ $100-million-plus in annual revenues.
Coming for this as an ex-gay (yes there are still a few of us around) can I begin by saying that this is pretty good research and much, much better than the Hamer Xq28 malarkey from a decade ago.
As a statistician (in a former occupation) I’d want to ask the following questions:
i) Where there is more than one son and where this chromosome was activated, does the evidence of activation show in any “heterosexual” sons.
ii) Where there are daughters, is there any link to the activation of the chromosome and any behaviour pattern in the daughters?
iii) Where there are twins where one has homosexual attraction and one doesn’t, does the chromosome activate in both sons (we would expect it to as, roughly, twins tend to share their genetic basis.
iv) Does the presence of the activated chromosome directly lead to homosexuality or to a personality trait that could expose the son to homosexual “nurture” (for want of a better word).
v) What about those homosexual sons where the mother does not activate the chromosome?
Don’t get me wrong – I personally hold to the view that genetic makeup can pre-dispose the person to the emotional and relational factors that lead to a homosexual orientation. I think this research is fascinating and possibly the closest we’ve ever been to proving that hypothesis. It’s just that my background as a statistical analyst makes me ask umpteen questions so that the evidence is proved to be robust.
So far all we actually have is “Some mothers of homosexuals activate a particular chromosome which is handed down to their sons, and they activate that chromosome far more often then mothers who don’t have homosexual sons. That said, some mothers who have homosexual sons DON’T activate the chromosome”. And while that’s a pretty good start, it’s not the final answer.
Thoughts?
Off topic- this is just pathetic:
https://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/2/212006a.asp
Peter as I understand it there will be no examples of this unusual chromosomal activation in any of the sons as only females have the XX pattern that can show it.
Randi,
So the X chromosome is active in the mother, but is not necessarily passed onto the child? From my limited understanding of genetics I guess that makes sense.
The mother has two X chromosomes but only one is active in each of her cells. Normally which one is activated varies from cell to cell but in some mothers it doesn’t and that is highly unusual. She passes one X chromosome to the child and the father either passes an additional X (from his mother) or a Y resulting in an XX female or an XY male. In males both the X and Y chromosomes are active, there is no XX pattern to show the alternating (or non-alternating) XX chromosome activation.
Actually I probably shouldn’t talk much more about genetics, I’m just starting to get a grasp of some of the basics myself.
Randi,
Fascinating. What you’re saying is that it’s a chromosome in the mother that seems to indicate homosexuality in the son. Could we find our whether the active chromosome (which the researchers are getting excited about) had been passed onto the son? If it hadn’t, how do we explain how the homosexuality is caused? If the chromosome isn’t passed onto the son, what’s going on?
The thick plottens.
Peter,
Some good questions, but also some misunderstandings. Let me give it a try:
[Peter O] i) Where there is more than one son and where this chromosome was activated, does the evidence of activation show in any “heterosexual” sons.
The activation/inactivation incidence only occurs in women thus this question does not apply.
[Peter O] ii) Where there are daughters, is there any link to the activation of the chromosome and any behaviour pattern in the daughters?
Good question. I don’t think the study looked into that, but it would be interesting to know. It could be relevant to previous studies that suggest that male homosexuality seems to demonstrate higher occurance in female based relatives,i.e. if you are gay, your mother’s sister’s son is more likely to also be gay than your father’s brother’s son.
[Peter O] iii) Where there are twins where one has homosexual attraction and one doesn’t, does the chromosome activate in both sons (we would expect it to as, roughly, twins tend to share their genetic basis.
As with i) this does not apply
[Peter O] iv) Does the presence of the activated chromosome directly lead to homosexuality or to a personality trait that could expose the son to homosexual “nurture” (for want of a better word).
Also a good question. But this would suggest a biological impulse to direct the actions of the mother which would result in a environmentally based impulse on the son.
While it could be possible that some genetic factor encouraged some particular mothering instinct that in turn resulted in the creation of some environment that nurtured same-sex attraction, that’s really quite a stretch. I think that the six-fold increase in incidence suggests a much closer link.
[Peter O] v) What about those homosexual sons where the mother does not activate the chromosome?
Again good question. While I think this study may highlight a genetic factor within the equation, I don’t think it is the only genetic factor. There may also be other biological factors and possibly even environmental factors.
Let me add one more question to your list:
vi) In mothers that demonstrate single-chromosome activation, is there any correlation with the X chromosome passed to their gay sons?
[Peter O] It’s just that my background as a statistical analyst makes me ask umpteen questions so that the evidence is proved to be robust.
I like that way of thinking (but of course I also apply it to the ex-gay ministry claims). I try not to accept claims or “findings” or “studies” that haven’t been confirmed or are overreaching. So while I find this study interesting and (assuming it can be confirmed) it seems statistically relevant, I don’t think it is by any means the end of the question.
[Peter O] So far all we actually have is “Some mothers of homosexuals activate a particular chromosome which is handed down to their sons, and they activate that chromosome far more often then mothers who don’t have homosexual sons. That said, some mothers who have homosexual sons DON’T activate the chromosome”. And while that’s a pretty good start, it’s not the final answer.
I think your conclusion goes too far. The study (as best I can tell) did not address whether the chromosome was passed to the son. And I don’t think the term “particular chromosome” can accurately apply. I don’t know that the study determined any commonality among the chromosomes accross the sample but rather in the manner in which their body applied the activation within cells.
Let’s simply say that based on this single study it appears that “Mothers of homosexual sons demonstrate an incidence rate of single-chromosome activation far higher than the rate of mothers who don’t have homosexual sons. That said, some mothers who have homosexual sons do not demonstrate single-chromosome activation.”
Peter,
“Could we find our whether the active chromosome (which the researchers are getting excited about) had been passed onto the son? If it hadn’t, how do we explain how the homosexuality is caused?”
We don’t. Only the anti-gay crowd claims to be able to do that. 🙂
I don’t think the researchers are excited about “the active chromosome” but rather about the incidence rate of the occurance.
“If the chromosome isn’t passed onto the son,
what’s going on?
What’s going on is nothing more than yet another study which suggest – as you and I both suspect – that there is some genetic factor at play in what determines the orientation of at least some gay men.
Some day maybe we’ll have answers – though I suspect they will be of the “generally when this occurs” type. Til then we’re just stuck with wondering and extrapolating.
Thanks Timothy – you helped to clarify exactly what was going on.
I’d love to see whether this activated chromosome was statistically linked to any other behaviour pattern in either the mother or the son. I think that would be fascinating and help point us on our way here.
I agree that it would be fascinating to determine linkage. However, I’m not particularly interested in “behaviour patterns”.
I don’t view homosexuality as a behavior, but rather as an orientation, i.e. that which directs the sex to whom a person is attracted emotionally and sexually. Although in an unresticted environment orientation may influence behavior, it is quite distinct from what one does, as I’m sure you agree.
For example in unusual settings, such as prison, sexual actions occur which may not be a reflection on orientation. Conversely, social pressures may also cause the inverse to occur. I believe most successful (and honest) ex-gays demonstrate this point, their orientation may remain toward the same sex but it is not observable in their actions.
I’m not sure much relevance could be determined by comparing chromosomes to actions, as too many variables can come into play. I think the researchers correctly focused on orientation.
However, this method can be faulty and difficult to measure. While it is rather unlikely that any of the 97 “mothers of gay sons” actually are incorrectly identified, it may well be that some or all of the 4 women who were identified as having no gay sons and who had single-chromosome activation were misclassified. In other words, they might indeed have gay sons in the closet or could at some future point have gay sons.
I guess we’ll all just have to wait and see as time goes by and more studies are performed.
Urgh, Peter O,The study didn’t look for any sequences in the son — only the mother. They took one trait in the sons, and went looking for a single attribute in the mother.Logically, it would suggest that there would be “something” found in the sons — inherited via the mother, as other studies have suggested — but this study didn’t look for it. As I originally predicted, I don’t imagine a single gene will explain human sexuality (of any stripe).The most solid part of the study is that because it looked for a genetic sequence in the mother it effectively begins to bypass any nonsense about different ways the child may have been raised. This could have been many and varied, no doubt, but cannot have altered the mother’s genes.I’ll also have to stop you asking after the “behaviour pattern”… you’ll confuse yourself 🙂 It examined for the son’s homosexuality — not his behaviour. It isn’t his behaviour that makes him homosexual, but his attractions.(Or are you suggesting that when a son goes exgay… his mother’s genes get changed???!!!)
I’m glad to see this study supports my long held contention that sexual orientation is related to X chromosome factors. In fact it follows the same hereditary pattern as handedness in both its complexity and its manifestations.
At the same time, the study provides no insights as to the existence of a single “gay gene.” If anything, it attests to the complexity of the genetic factors which contribute to sexual orientation determination.
People who still argue that a person becomes gay due to environmental factors would sure find it hard to explain how a child’s upbringing could retroactively go back and change the mother’s X chromosome inactivation propensity.
More extensive comments on this studyhere.
Hey folks, an interesting concept to ponder.
Suppose you were a conservative Christian who believed homosexuality (both abstractly and in action) to be sin and also believed abortion to be sin.
Now suppose that it was determined that you were pregnant with a male fetus and also were among the small percentage of women who’s cells evidenced same-chromosome activation.
Knowing that the odds were six to one that your child would be born with a gay sexual orientation, and knowing that the world into which your child was being born would encourage him to live in concord with – rather than contrary to – his orientation, what would you do?
Would you:
i) abort the child and pray for forgiveness;
ii) have the child and hope that your child was the exception;
iii) have the child and try to force a masculine behavior pattern, involving the father and lots of gender specific activity, and heaps of anti-gay early indoctrination – hoping that Dr. Dobson is right; or
iv) rethink the type of religion you observe?
Would it matter if you had difficulty getting pregnant and this was a much-wanted child?
Would it matter if you knew from statistical studies that choice iii) could result in extreme phychological trauma that could negatively impact your child’s happiness through life?
Tim, I wouldn’t make choices based on other’s irrational prejudices.
Timothy,I don’t see much care given to iii) in any case from those who are the strongest supporters of it. That “type” prefer to slip into denial, or gross rationalisation, rather than simply agree that they think the “risk of harm” is worth the “hope of change”. That would at least be honest, and the dishonesty is not helped by “No-one is born gay” and the “Any gay can completely change” messages coming of of the religious/exgay industries.As regards abortion, for those not entirely sucked into iii), I imagine we’d see a similar outcomes to as is the case for downs syndrome today (for which there is strong testing available).Some will decide not to have the test in the first place. Others will test and decide to abort. Others will test and decide to carry to term. We personally know at least one couple in all three categories.The iv) viewpoint before and during the decision makes a considerable difference, but the actual birth (and the years ahead) can marked alter that viewpoint. Some take on a martyr complex, others loose their faith completely.
Posted by: Timothy Kincaid at February 22, 2006 03:42 PM
Something about that hypothetical makes me very uncomfortable, and I have to admit that it find it rather absurd. At least I certainly hope it is.
David
David, Timothy’s hypothetical seems reasonable to me. It’d be nice if you’d elaborate a litte as to how you find it illogical.
David, Timothy’s hypothetical seems reasonable to me. It’d be nice if you’d elaborate a litte as to how you find it illogical.
Actually I didn’t say it was illogical, I said I found it (the premise) absurd. If you will allow me, I would prefer not to elaborate as my reaction to it isn’t all that well defined in my own mind. Knowing Timothy, I’m sure he was sincere in his request, it just hit me wrong and I probably shouldn’t have responded. Perhaps I could use one of my “get out of an awkward thread free” cards on this one. (do we have those?)
To be candid, I’ve been reading over a large volume of really hateful stuff and it has left me edgy and looking for a fight. I don’t like feeling that way and it distorts my perspective. I need to get my mind off it some before I do anymore posting. Thanks for understanding.
David
David — go do something mindlessly domestic :)Put some music on. Sort the socks. Clean out that cupboard. Dig a big hole in the garden. Wax the floor. Polish your shoes. Nothing like domestic tedium to bring evrything back into perspective. Come on.. there’s prob’ly a thousand horrid little tasks you’ve been putting off!Personally I cook. Work has been v. mind-bending this week, so I’ve been on a rampage. We ended up with 10kgs of chutneys and sauces… not that anyone seems to have minded!(I’ve got a fairly thick skin, but even I have my limit when it comes to reading the opinions of “those people”.)
…Sort the socks. Clean out that cupboard. Dig a big hole in the garden. Wax the floor. Polish your shoes. Nothing like domestic tedium to bring evrything back into perspective.
A lot of those things can stand to be done at my house.
Posted by: ReasonAble at February 23, 2006 03:04 AM
Fair enough, sorry for pushing you when you had already indicated your discomfort. I had second thoughts about that post after I made it. I know how you feel when you say you’ve read a large volume of hateful stuff and you feel edgy and looking for a fight – it is wearing to deal with the anti-gays too much. Some days their maliciousness and lies make me cry.