Epigenetics

It was pretty good, although it didn't really ever *say* anything. It presented a reasonable theory about the (de)activation of some genes which affects prenatal hormone levels and uptake. That kind of goes along with what I think the causes of homosexuality are, neither nature nor nurture but both. But part of me wonders that if science ever fully discovers the causes of homosexuality, will it tempt people to try to... de-gay their unborn children?

 

This is what I'm always afraid of, whenever anyone talks about trying to identify the causes of sexual orientation. Now I'm no scientist, but based on this video it seems like it would be quite plausible to use some sort of medicinal treatment, to increase the amount of testosterone, or ability to absorb testosterone in the fetus. If lack of testosterone absorption in-utero is valid cause of homosexuality in men, then this hypothetical prenatal hormone treatment could essentially guarantee that your son will be straight. Though I imagine in the early stages of development, this treatment might also make one's son excessively sexual, aggressive, and even cause an early onset of puberty.

I think there are certain areas of science that should not be explored, because of the huge social consequences that can come from that knowledge. It is nearly impossible to get scientists to agree, but I think this might be one of those areas.

 

This was incredibly interesting and had lots of flashy images to keep my short attention, but I wonder...

What about the other 50% of the gay population? You know, the... the women?

 

Edit: ^There are gay... women? :O Who knew?

Exactly. And the thing is, it doesn't really matter what causes people to be homosexual. It's not a problem, it's not a disease, it's not something that needs to be cured. Thus, trying to "fix" something that isn't broken will never be worth the possible negative consequences. Really, the only good that could ever come of this is for the ultra-conservatives and fundamentalists to not be able to claim being gay is a choice (or the result of a possession).

 

Once again, not a scientist, but I imagine that it is the same concept, only with estrogen instead of testosterone.

 

^ My guess would be an over-abundance of testosterone, if we're going with the theory in the video.

 

An interesting video. That might also explain why some of us prefer dressing one gender over another as well. Although every study I read always has to do with men. Can they not possibly study gay women or lesbians as well??

Still... if I somehow recieved too much testosterone (which is funny because the dr initially thought I was a male in the ultrasound), enough to make me want females, but not enough to make me male, that might explain some things... *shrug* Something to definately favourite and show friends.

 

While it doesn't matter why were are homosexual, this should not dissuade the scientific community from discovering the cause. Science isn't always about finding the cure; often times it is about understanding.

And negative consequences? I do not see an issue with parents choosing the sexuality of their children. Who exactly does this harm? It doesn't harm the parents, as they can then have a child that is aligned with their world views (no matter how skewed they may be). It certainly doesn't harm the children who, as a fetus, would never have any sort of recollection of this happening and would be perfectly content to live their lives the way they feel. (This is provided that the treatment is safe and wouldn't cause undue harm to a baby in order to change its sexual orientation). In fact if this technology became possible, it would become likely that if we found a genetic or prenatal cause of transgenderism, it would be able to treated within the womb, thereby allowing the child to develop according to their mentally aligned sex. I can imagine that this would save loads of heartache and confusion for those who have to deal with being left in a body that doesn't match who they are. So who loses? Really?

 

Is it bad that during the part where it explained the epigenome all I could think about is how the methyl-groups were cartooned to big?

Also, it's worth mentioning that once the fetus recieves too much testosterone and the brain develops gay, it'd be too late to change anything about it. (I don't really know much about developmental biology, but this is my understanding.)

 

I agree that changing the baby's sexuality wouldn't hurt anybody, but there's a huge ethical problem with changing any component of a baby's personality in the womb, seeing as they never had a choice in the say. Not to mention other problems that this could raise with parents wanting more masculine or feminine babies.

Not to mention that we could lose artistic geniuses like da Vinci or Proust with this kind of procedure.

I think that any kind of tampering with the baby's personality is fraught with moral problems and should not be attempted.

 

I'm skeptical of those exclusively biological explanations of human sexuality (which oftentimes have heterosexist undertones behind the apparent 'objectivity'). I think the issue should be approached with an anthropological perspective, that is, one that comprises both biology and culture. Take Ancient Greece, where it was common that young boys had their first sexual experiences with older men and later engage with women. Does it mean they all had 'teh gay gene'? Or the bisexual one (as though that actually existed)? No, it shows a different conception of what is considered a 'normal' sexual behavior and therefore a sexual activity that is constructed on that basis, one that differs from those deemed natural in modern societies.

 

I agree with this and with Pseudojim. And when I mentioned "possible negative consequences," I was referring to side effects harming the fetus directly, ie dangerous hormone imbalances and the like. All medicine has side effects, and this would be no exception.

Quite frankly, I do have a problem with changing a fetus's sexual orientation in utero. Doing so changes the future personality of the child, and I believe children should be allowed to develop their natural temperament without overwhelming outside influence (with the exception of, for example, getting kleptomaniacs not to steal). And like others have said, there has been a great deal of culture from historical gay figures.

 

I think you mean to say that you have ethical problems with changing the sexual orientation of a child. Some people do not share this belief. While I personally would not consider changing my child's sexual orientation, provided that the risk factor was not too large (perhaps the same as have genetic work done on a fetus), I see no issues where the law is concerned. Laws shouldn't be based on ethics or morals as they are so radically different from one person to the next. Instead, they should be based on preserving the rights of individuals.

And artistic genius is not reserved for those of differing sexual orientations so it's a null point.

Future personality? I would strongly argue that personality is driven primarily from nurture and not nature. Yes, some aspects of ourselves are predetermined genetically, but the vast majority of interests are driven by what we are exposed to.

And further more, that is just coming back to another argument from ethics. If a child is born with an altered 'genetic personality', they will not care. Because it is who they are. This is just more 'what ifing'.

If you want to make an argument against alteration of a child, it has to come from a 'Does this harm the child/the parents?' perspective. Morals mean nothing. Even trying to argue from the diversity angle is difficult since so much suffering has to be dealt with in order to achieve that 'diversity'.

 

No I did not. I meant that there are ethical problems with changing the sexual orientation of a child.

No, laws are always and will always be based on ethics, like that it is wrong to murder and rape. In order to form some sort of a coherent society, it is necessary to restrict the rights of individual in certain causes. Otherwise we call that anarchy. The ethical question is extremely pertinent, far more than the "will it hurt the mother/child", because it has much more far reaching effects.

Your basic argument seems to be that the baby would never experience being gay and therefore never miss it. For this, I'd like to bring up the issue of male circumcision activists. Following your train of logic, these activists should not really care that they were circumcised when they were little babies. They probably didn't even notice the difference until they were far older. But now we have seen people begin to protest this action. It is evident that it does matter; primarily in the issue of consent.

Did I say sexual orientation? Do you really think we'd have Shakespeare if someone had washed his embryo in testosterone? You said that you are more inclined to believe that nurture plays a greater role than nature, but it is undeniable that bombarding a baby with androgens in the uterus would change its personality.

 

Of course laws are based on morals. It is the job of the law to take a moral stance. It is immoral to kill someone, therefore it is illegal.

Changing the sexuality, or anything about the child is not something that I think is moral. Unfortunately, like many of my beliefs I can't argue it logically. It's just something that I believe. Altering your child, especially psychologically, makes me very uncomfortable. I don't know why, but I feel it isn't right.