Epigenetics - Nature, Nurture, and Gays

[PacMan]

I was recently introduced to James O'Keefe's TED talk regarding the epigenetics of homosexuality.  He argues that environmental conditions in the womb turn on certain genetic expressions that result in gay children.  He theorizes, without support, why that is, but the basics of the science is (generally) compelling.  From there, O'Keefe basically concludes that gay is who you are.

Looking into epigenetics, I learned that epigenetics isn't really about genetics.  There isn't a "gay gene."  Epigenetics is about about gene expression.  And those expressions can turn on or off throughout life.  Consequently, it appears that homosexuality is a factor of both nature and nurture--or at least environment.  That would be consistent with the fluidity of sexuality at various ages.  Consequently, it appears that O'Keefe simplifies how epigenetics works and confuses gene expression with the genes themselves.

It is difficult to ignore that difficulties of a church doctrine that tells a subset of people that they cannot have meaningful, intimate relationships with those they are attracted to.  It's a hard thing to convince someone that is gay that they have an equal place in the church.  It's just hard.

If homosexuality is epigenetic and the genetic expression can be turned on and off, what implications does that have from a doctrinal standpoint and the gay community as a whole?

If anyone has more information on this topic, please post it here.  Again, I'm just getting introduced to epigenetics.

Edited February 5, 2021 by PacMan

[Robert F. Smith]

Quote

. . . both the environment and individual lifestyle can also directly interact with the genome to influence epigenetic change. These changes may be reflected at various stages throughout a person’s life and even in later generations. For example, human epidemiological studies have provided evidence that prenatal and early postnatal environmental factors influence the adult risk of developing various chronic diseases and behavioral disorders..............

Although our epigenetic marks are more stable during adulthood, they are still thought to be dynamic and modifiable by lifestyle choices and environmental influence. It is becoming more apparent that epigenetic effects occur not just in the womb, but over the full course of a human life span, and that epigenetic changes could be reversed. There are numerous examples of epigenetics that show how different lifestyle choices and environmental exposures can alter marks on top of DNA and play a role in determining health outcomes.  https://www.whatisepigenetics.com/fundamentals/ .

 

Quote

...genetics does play a role, responsible for perhaps a third of the influence on whether someone has same-sex sex. The influence comes not from one gene but many, each with a tiny effect — and the rest of the explanation includes social or environmental factors — making it impossible to use genes to predict someone’s sexuality......

...all genetic effects likely account for about 32 percent of whether someone will have same-sex sex.  ....

...whether someone ever engaged in same-sex sexual behavior showed genetic correlations with mental health issues, like major depressive disorder or schizophrenia, and with traits like risk-taking, cannabis use, openness to experience and loneliness.

They emphasized that the study does not suggest that same-sex sexual behavior causes or is caused by these conditions or characteristics, and that depression or bipolar disorder could be fueled by prejudicial social experiences.

“We are particularly worried that people will misrepresent our findings about mental health,” Dr. Neale said.

“That right there is the big issue with looking for the genetics of sexual orientation — social context could be a big part of the expression of the trait,” said Jeremy Yoder, an assistant professor of biology at California State University, Northridge, who is gay and follows genetic research in the field.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/science/gay-gene-sex.html .

Edited February 5, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[rongo]

59 minutes ago, PacMan said:

It is difficult to ignore that difficulties of a church doctrine that tells a subset of people that they cannot have meaningful, intimate relationships with those they are attracted to.  It's a hard thing to convince someone that is gay that they have an equal place in the church.  It's just hard.

If homosexuality is epigenetic and the genetic expression can be turned on and off, what implications does that have from a doctrinal standpoint and the gay community as a whole?

If it is doctrinally true that "gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose," then I don't think the current science on the mutability/immutability of sexual orientation is the final answer. In other words, if that doctrine is true (regardless of how we feel about that), then it isn't simply the random fortunes of biology.

I agree that it is difficult to remain active and believing in the Church when one is gay and feels no attraction at all to the other sex. We don't have much that is helpful in the way of explaining this state of things, other than harking back to the pre-existence, God's overarching plan, and everyone having the trials and tests that he personally needs in mortality. All of this is in general, vague terms, absent clarifying revelation and doctrine on it. 

This is an area that I think a concrete, clear-cut revelation would be helpful and needed, but God gives these when He sees proper, not on our demand. 

I come down on the conservative, believing side when it comes to doctrine, history, etc., and I believe that things like homosexuality won't exist in the resurrection. As I have discussed this with gay members and ex-members, the best explanation I have heard (and I don't know how valid it is, but it makes sense in a general way in explaining how homosexuality still exists from an evolutionary perspective) is that the odds of having a gay son increase dramatically with each son that is born. That is, after four sons, hormones are produced that form the developing fetus along these lines to "tamp down" the sexual competition. I don't think this represents the real state of things, myself (I think it's much, much more a factor of environment and experiences), but it does offer a plausible explanation. Whether or not this theory is borne out by evidence is another question. 

If it turns out that there is a biological foundation or component to it, I think it will be found in the in utero development of children. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, PacMan said:

If homosexuality is epigenetic and the genetic expression can be turned on and off, what implications does that have from a doctrinal standpoint and the gay community as a whole?

I think it supports the idea that the design of marriage between a man and a woman is not driven by sexuality but by God's long-term vision for His spirit children, male and female.

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, PacMan said:

If homosexuality is epigenetic and the genetic expression can be turned on and off, what implications does that have from a doctrinal standpoint

My thoughts usually drift in two directions:

1) What do we mean when we say that "God created" someone? Do we believe that God was intimately involved in all of these little genetic and epigenetic processes, or does God allow these and similar processes to operate with minimal to no interference? Ultimately, this boils down to, does God choose which children are born homosexual, asexual, intersex, transgender, deaf, blind, tall, short, male, female, athletic, intelligent, musical, [continue your list of inborn tendencies that we so often attribute to God]? If God actively chooses/creates people to be [insert trait here that we don't like], do we have a right and/or responsibility to "fix" God's creation (I understand there are groups in the deaf community that claim that, if God made you deaf, doctors should not try to fix it)?

2) In the Church's response to Obergefell, it mentioned that homosexual behavior violated the purposes of human sexuality. What are those purposes? How does knowing that something about homosexuality is inborn/inherited change or influence our understanding of those purposes? Are these purposes the same or different for different sexual minorities and the cis-hetero majority?

[MrShorty]

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it supports the idea that the design of marriage between a man and a woman is not driven by sexuality but by God's long-term vision for His spirit children, male and female.

Perhaps, but I cannot help but question what the appropriate role of sexuality is in the design of marriage and God's long-term vision(s). I've studied enough about how sexual compatibility (for lack of a better word) problems intersect with general marriage problems to know that they tend to correlate well (even Pres. Kimball once noted that "most" divorces were caused by sexual incompatibility without supporting data). I can probably agree that sexuality is not supposed to be the lone driver behind marriage, but it also seems to be one of many significant drivers behind marriage. It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion in the LDS world and the broader Christian world about how sexuality and marriage should and do intersect.

[katherine the great]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

If it turns out that there is a biological foundation or component to it, I think it will be found in the in utero development of children.

I’m convinced that it is biological (although there also seems to be a social benefit to kids these days to experiment with homosexuality and it often leads to their confusion). But I agree with you that same-sex attraction likely originates from hormones in utero and not through genetics or epigenetics. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

I’m convinced that it is biological (although there also seems to be a social benefit to kids these days to experiment with homosexuality and it often leads to their confusion).

Boy, is this true in spades --- and you're really not allowed to talk about it because of outrage. I've seen a literal explosion of students in the last four years identifying as this or that along the LGBT spectrum (what they're doing is experimenting, and as you said, there are actually a lot of social benefits in identifying). My wife asked me how many gay or trans students I had (this was at a former school), and out of the total number, it was between 10 and 15 percent. Much, much higher than what social scientists think the actual rate of homosexuality is, and all of these kids seemed to "come out" at once (within the same semester). Most of the students were "lost soul" types who were experimenting and really latching onto an instant support and friend network (upon identifying). Many reverted after a year or two (part of the experimentation). I'm convinced that the massive proliferation in recent years of people identifying as LGBT is due to a) social lionization of it, and b) social phenomena. I think it's much more a social thing than a biological thing.

There are people who are simply gay; I'm not denying that. We all know and have friends and family in that boat. But most of these experimenting youth really aren't, and they figure it out. We had a girl in our ward whose friend came out as lesbian, had a girlfriend, lots of PDA at school, etc. She started investigating the Church at this time, accepted everything, and disclosed to the district leader in her baptismal interview that she was pregnant. I have the article on my laptop, so I can't look it up right now, but it discussed how the teenage pregnancy rate among gay teens (boys and girls; both girls getting pregnant and boys getting them pregnant, all self-identified gay) is off the charts. Many are simply confused, looking for acceptance and companionship, and following social trends and social conditioning, and experimenting with homosexuality is only part of the larger promiscuousness they are dealing with. 

My daughter is having a wonderful time in her freshman year. She said that she was the only girl in her honors college seminar who identified as cisgender (straight). Every single other girl identified as some form of LGBT (most designated themselves as "queer," which means whatever they want it to mean and is vague and undefined and can be changed situationally). It was **the** popular thing to be in her honors college seminar. 

[OGHoosier]

I'm no expert in this (and I wouldn't even say that I have a particularly strong interest), but what I want to see more of is research on sexual fluidity throughout life. If attractions actually change throughout life that would provide absolutely crucial data to the question of causation. 

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps, but I cannot help but question what the appropriate role of sexuality is in the design of marriage and God's long-term vision(s). I've studied enough about how sexual compatibility (for lack of a better word) problems intersect with general marriage problems to know that they tend to correlate well (even Pres. Kimball once noted that "most" divorces were caused by sexual incompatibility without supporting data). I can probably agree that sexuality is not supposed to be the lone driver behind marriage, but it also seems to be one of many significant drivers behind marriage. It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion in the LDS world and the broader Christian world about how sexuality and marriage should and do intersect.

I think all forms of compatibility (and confusion about it!  ) affect marriage, and any other covenant for that matter. I think the confusion is a function of people governing themselves, given the basic correct principles (e.g. those set forth in the Family Proclamation), any advantage they may have by virtue of the gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost, and the "sociality" in which we now find ourselves and can expect to find ourselves in the future (D&C 130:2).

[Ahab]

6 hours ago, PacMan said:

Looking into epigenetics, I learned that epigenetics isn't really about genetics.  There isn't a "gay gene."  Epigenetics is about about gene expression.  And those expressions can turn on or off throughout life.  Consequently, it appears that homosexuality is a factor of both nature and nurture--or at least environment.  That would be consistent with the fluidity of sexuality at various ages.  Consequently, it appears that O'Keefe simplifies how epigenetics works and confuses gene expression with the genes themselves.

It is difficult to ignore that difficulties of a church doctrine that tells a subset of people that they cannot have meaningful, intimate relationships with those they are attracted to.  It's a hard thing to convince someone that is gay that they have an equal place in the church.  It's just hard.

If homosexuality is epigenetic and the genetic expression can be turned on and off, what implications does that have from a doctrinal standpoint and the gay community as a whole?

If anyone has more information on this topic, please post it here.  Again, I'm just getting introduced to epigenetics.

As someone who experimented with sexual relations with people of both sexes I understand how genes can be turned on and turned off.  I see beauty in both sexes, some more or less than some others, and sexual relations with either one can be pleasurable.

So for me the "hard" part was choosing between intelligent vs carnal pleasures.  Sex can feel good either way, with a man or a woman, but I think everyone should use some intelligence when choosing who to have sex with.  And God knows what is best for us.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps, but I cannot help but question what the appropriate role of sexuality is in the design of marriage and God's long-term vision(s). I've studied enough about how sexual compatibility (for lack of a better word) problems intersect with general marriage problems to know that they tend to correlate well (even Pres. Kimball once noted that "most" divorces were caused by sexual incompatibility without supporting data). I can probably agree that sexuality is not supposed to be the lone driver behind marriage, but it also seems to be one of many significant drivers behind marriage. It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion in the LDS world and the broader Christian world about how sexuality and marriage should and do intersect.

I have always heard that it is financial problems or disagreements which are the primary cause of dissension and divorce in marriage.

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have always heard that it is financial problems or disagreements which are the primary cause of dissension and divorce in marriage.

I’ve heard that too. I imagine in President Kimball’s situation though, he probably heard a lot of personal stories from people he counseled who blamed their unhappiness on sexual incompatibility.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have always heard that it is financial problems or disagreements which are the primary cause of dissension and divorce in marriage.

Because when both partners can agree with each other or at least work things out, and they have enough money for whatever they need, they will usually stay together than get divorced.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

As someone who experimented with sexual relations with people of both sexes I understand how genes can be turned on and turned off.  I see beauty in both sexes, some more or less than some others, and sexual relations with either one can be pleasurable.

So for me the "hard" part was choosing between intelligent vs carnal pleasures.  Sex can feel good either way, with a man or a woman, but I think everyone should use some intelligence when choosing who to have sex with.  And God knows what is best for us.

You can’t consciously turn them on or off. That is not how epigenetics works.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You can’t consciously turn them on or off. That is not how epigenetics works.

If that were true then how could homosexuality be "a factor of both nature and nurture"--or "environment"?

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

If that were true then how could homosexuality be "a factor of both nature and nurture"--or "environment"?

Magic.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Magic.

Great.  So not only do homosexuals get associated with rainbows more than most other people.  Now, according to you, they are also more magical.  Maybe even magically delicious?

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Ahab said:

If that were true then how could homosexuality be "a factor of both nature and nurture"--or "environment"?

Can you turn your language on and off?

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can you turn your language on and off?

Yes, just as you can.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Yes, just as you can.

Right....

[carbon dioxide]

If there is a biological basis for homosexuality, then it is possible through gene therapy, drugs, or some other medical means it can be changed.  So perhaps 20 years from now, gays can become straight.  

[katherine the great]

32 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

So perhaps 20 years from now, gays can become straight.  

Most gay people I know don’t want to be straight. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Most gay people I know don’t want to be straight. 

Exactly.

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Ahab said:

Great.  So not only do homosexuals get associated with rainbows more than most other people.  Now, according to you, they are also more magical.  Maybe even magically delicious?

It was easier to do that rather than type up multiple paragraphs about epigenetics.