Re: What is this nonsense about the gay gene?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Thomas Clarke: "Re: more on tautology"
• Previous message: Paul Crowley: "Re: Alex's gibbon-like CA"
• Maybe in reply to: Angelique Skiman: "What is this nonsense about the gay gene?"
• Next in thread: dIGITS: "Re: What is this nonsense about the gay gene?"

Angelique Skiman (ang42@sfsu.edu) wrote:
: If such a gene exists, wouldn't it make
: sense that women would not be gay? If they have two X chromosomes, wouldn't
: the "normal" X mask the effects of the gay gene? However, there obviously
: are a lot of gay women out there.
Sean replied,
No. It would mean that feamle homosexuals would be
homozygous for the "gay gene". Ie. both there X-chromosomes
would have to express the gay gene. Of course it would imply
that every lesbian out there has a gay father. Now that is
interesting! It would also mean that every son of a lesbian
would be gay.
I doubt that this "gay gene" is the only genetic
factor involved, I strongly suspect that it is a combination
of genes which results in the phenotype of being gay. Just
as there is no one gene which contributes entirely to being
male, but rather a combination of genes and the autosomal
genes activated by those genes.

• Next message: Thomas Clarke: "Re: more on tautology"
• Previous message: Paul Crowley: "Re: Alex's gibbon-like CA"
• Maybe in reply to: Angelique Skiman: "What is this nonsense about the gay gene?"
• Next in thread: dIGITS: "Re: What is this nonsense about the gay gene?"