Posted on 04/01/2013 12:23:05 PM PDT by abigailsmybaby
ABSTRACT Male and female homosexuality have substantial prevalence in humans. Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has substantial heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers. This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for homosexuality. reduced androgen sensitivity in XX fetuses and enhanced sensitivity in XY fetuses, and that this difference is most feasibly caused by numerous sex-specific epigenetic modifications (“epi-marks”) originating in embryonic stem cells. These epi-marks buffer XX fetuses from masculinization due to excess fetal androgen exposure and similarly buffer XY fetuses from androgen underexposure. Extant data indicates that individual epi-marks influence some but not other sexually dimorphic traits, vary in strength across individuals, and are produced during ontogeny and erased between generations. Those that escape erasure will steer development of the sexual phenotypes they influence in a gonad-discordant direction in opposite sex offspring, mosaically feminizing XY offspring and masculinizing XX offspring. Such sex-specific epi-marks are sexually antagonistic (SA-epi-marks) because they canalize sexual development in the parent that produced them, but contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex offspring when unerased. In this model, homosexuality occurs when stronger-than-average SA-epi-marks (influencing sexual preference) from an opposite-sex parent escape erasure and are then paired with a weaker-than-average de novo sex-specific epi-marks produced in opposite-sex offspring. Our model predicts that homosexuality is part of a wider phenomenon in which recently evolved androgen-influenced traits commonly display gonad-trait discordances at substantial frequency, and that the molecular feature underlying most homosexuality is not DNA polymorphism(s), but epi-marks that evolved to canalize sexual dimorphic development that sometimes carryover across generations and contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex descendants.
(Excerpt) Read more at jstor.org ...
Liberals will write anything or create study results that support their ideals....I for one, find this study had to believe....
Would somebody with a biology/genetics education please read this in hopes you can answer my question. I get the overall gist, but are they also suggesting that some type of therapy/manipulation/treatment during the gestation period could stop the phenomenon of homosexuality from even happening?
It was a long time ago, so I have lost the reference.
In a study, pregnant lab rats, when exposed to marijuana, had higher numbers of male offspring who showed sexual interest only in other males.
If that proved true in humans, it could explain a lot.
So, if there’s a way to fix it, prevent in the future, the homosexual crowd would be okay with that, right? I mean, they “didn’t ask” to be born that way. So, if we eliminate the problem in the first place, it’d be alright, right? ;)
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”
There’s your explanation.
Didn’t I know that a lot of Chicagoans had been Genetically Analised.
Obama explained.
I’ve read that stress, during the pregnancy, can cause the mother to flood the womb with testosterone, which can influence the sexual choices of the child.
I have to wonder what effect soybeans in our diets have been having on this sorta thing....
Molestation drives most homosexuality.
If one twin is molested, what are the chances the other is also?
Oh...about the same as this study found!
I’m not sure but I think that was dirty.
TRANSLATION: “Ever-elusive “gay” gene still not found.”
If we learned how to control it we’d have nut balls deliberately gestating homosex babies.
Perfessor Rice, George Orwell had your number over 60 years ago:
“Politics and the English Language.”
We know they are made, not born.
“...have substantial prevalence in humans...”
I do not thin’ it means what they thin’ it means.
But, then again, math has consistently demonstrated that it is not a friend of progressives.
That is, it's not part of your genes ~ rather it's just part of an epigenetic signal.
Which means it can probably be fixed someday.
The study of epigenetics is NEW so it's possible to look up and read about all of it on the internet.
It doesn’t support their ideal and you didn’t read the whole thing. It’s a long read and can’t be done in 3 mins.
Honestly, I’m just a retired 30 year army veteran and I am to dumb to figure out what the hell this writer is talking about.
There is also the possibility that the chemicals in contraceptives remain in the body of women who use it. Instead of one in a hundred or two hundred being born deviant, it is two or three times as many, up to 6 in 100 gone wrong.
Thus the rise in the number of homosexuals may be a result of the rise of contraceptive birth control in the early 60s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.