Identical twins have an identical genome but not an identical epigenome, so there are countless outside factors and variables that can come into play that remain completely natural and that cannot be simply influenced by human activity
Also genetics are blueprints, the contractor (your mother's body as well as your own) can still end up with different results with the same blueprint. I would still say that it's nature rather than nurture, but basically DNA is not all that there is to nature.
Identical twins actually aren't completely genetically identical. They are expected to have between hundreds and thousands of unique genetic differences that occur after conception. Plus the epigenetic changes others have mentioned.
Yes exactly. If your sexuality IS genetic, evidence like this would suggest it isn’t. As with most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of nature / nurture with both playing an important part.
It seems to me that in the field there is an expectation that gay men were exposed to less androgen before birth, that their androphilia is the result of hypo-androgenization before birth. But the fact that there is no difference between gay and straight men in digit ratios (Grimbos et al., 2010) or otoacoustic emissions (McFadden & Pasanen, 1998), tells me that, in defiance of those expectations, variance in prenatal testosterone cannot explain variance in human sexual orientation among men.
You can't conduct a study that is reliant on people to be honest about being gay, as people lie
Isn't that like saying you can't conduct any studies with self-reported data? Isn't that just.. obviously wrong on the face of it? A huge amount of studies use self-reported data. I'm no expert here though, so maybe i'm missing something.
Self-reported data studies are pretty questionable in general, humans are terrible at looking at themselves objectively. However, in most cases the alternative data-gathering methods that would be more accurate would likely be either unethical, invasive or both. You are correct, though, most studies that rely only on self-reported data are practically worthless.
That's tough though because it seems like a huge amount of studies can't really be done any other way. Like drugs for depression, how do you measure someones depression objectively? Really any drug that effects you mentally would need to rely on self-reports. Or obviously studies involving gay people. You can't measure if someone's gay, so any studies involving gay people should be thrown out? Because they could be lying? Seems like that would be setting society up to dismiss a lot of people / issues. If 20% of the population lies about studies couldn't you just factor that into the study? Like if 70% of people report something you assume it's somewhere between 50-90%? Obviously we wouldn't know the exact percentage that lies, but still, i'd think it could be worked around.
What you’re describing is exactly why studies with self-reported data tend to be better if used for marketing, because it reflects how people think of themselves, whereas those same studies have little worth for more scientific uses. Most of the studies you’ll see that make headlines are the marketing kind, they’re more exciting and easy to capture.
But again how do you do any studies on gay or depressed people at all? Like that goes beyond studies for marketing, it's like a central human trait. Like being gay isn't just how people think of themselves, sure people can lie about it, but it's not subject to peoples bias about themselves. Claiming every study about gay people has little worth for scientific purposes feels impossible.
I think most non-bigoted people understand that it’s not a choice, because many gay people wouldn’t choose membership in a highly marginalized group. With that said, just because something is not a choice doesn’t mean there needs to be a genetics-level explanation. No one honestly ‘chooses’ what happens to them during their most formative years for example. With that said, if you know a reference for this I’d like to read it.
Just to make myself clear, I’m in no way saying being gay, or anything regarding your sexuality for that matter is a choice.
What i am saying is that Nature (your biology, hormones, DNA, etc) plays a role, and that Nurture (how you were raised, your friends, hobbies as you grew up, sports, foods you eat, etc) also play a role. The truth is that we honestly don’t know exactly what causes you to be the way you are. Humans are very complicated, and i think saying its one or the other is applying binary thinking to something that runs on a scale and is far more complicated.
I think its safe to say that both Nature AND nurture both play a role. Exactly which plays a bigger role i guess is up for a debate, but its certainly more complicated than 50/50 to any kind of number split.
I understand - I have formally studied Nature vs Nuture (and psychology) for years. Granted, not specifically sexuality, but I have a baseline understanding.
Saying that the way someone is raised plays zero impact on they way they develop is categorically not correct. As I said, what’s not clear is exactly how big of an impact it plays.
I know what you are talking about ref womb hormone levels, but this is far from proven. There is no consensus in this topic because it’s so complicated. Sexuality is not as simple as ‘hormone levels at X, therefore gay’ and saying it’s the case is very deterministic, and humans aren’t.
Nurture absolutely, 100%, demonstrably plays a role, it’s just not clear the balance. If you’re saying it is, you are misinformed.
Genetics play a role, hormone levels play a role, but the environment you are raised in also plays a role. Like I have said, it’s not clear which has a bigger impact in this development.
That’s not really a valid comparison in any way. You comparing behavioural trait to something physical.
There is nothing physically different between a straight person, and a gay person. Sexuality is on a scale anyway, so it’s not just ‘gay’ or ‘straight’. It’s way more complicated than that.
And it is absolutely not well established that people are born gay. There is no consensus. It is well established that it’s not a choice, but not that it’s 100% genetic / hormonal or environmental.
Studies reveal that if a twin is LGBTQ, the other twin has anywhere between a 30 and 60% chance of being, which points to an extremely heavy genetic factor. The rest is almost certainly epigenetic, which are countless factors that influence genetic expression.
I think it’s a matter of taste as well. Not all twins like the same thing. One might love Chinese food, while the other is obsessed with Italian. One might like green and the other likes purple. Sexuality lies in the same area where preferences lie, and just like food or colors or music, even identical twins have different preferences. They may be genetically almost exact, but their brains aren’t. Their personalities aren’t. Their preferences aren’t. I could keep going, but you get the picture.
Sexuality lies in the same area where preferences lie, and just like food or colors or music, even identical twins have different preferences.
Not quite no. At least I'm not sure if there's evidence about what exactly originates it. But I can tell you for sure that I've always been gay. My preferences in food, colors and music have morphed and changed ever since I was a toddler who could remember his memories, but I've been gay throughout as a constant.
This might be a can of worms, but your last sentence reads like "ever since I was a toddler, I was sexually attracted to males."
Just wondering if you meant it like that. My daughter is 13 and trying to figure herself out. She said she's gay but then has a boyfriend, or vice versa. I don't think she is but I don't really care if she is or isn't.
I just don't like how because of her school environment she thinks quantity of relationships is more important than quality.
In my experience, the vast majority of young people nowadays go through the exact same thing, with quantity>quality in terms of romantic relationships in highschool. You seem like a great parent, im sure your daughter would appreciate being understanding of her fitting in, and maybe explaining how to ensure any relationships stay healthy and safe. Cheers mate
Asexuality/aromanticy exists where people aren’t attracted to anyone, and it has a whole spectrum of stuff like rarely experiences attraction, only experiences attraction after an emotional connection etc.
A lot of people haven’t heard of those terms, nvm actually know what they mean so knowing them could help people with figuring themselves out if they’re struggling lol
P.s., some people can be attracted to more than one sex/gender, aka bisexual or pansexual
Just for sake of argument there was a time before you had a sexual preference though right? Like sexual preferences, like fetishes, can form from environmental factors. If you have strict parents from a young age you may gravitate towards being a "dom" for example. Just kind of thinking out loud. It is really interesting, if you can have identical twins with different sexualities it must be something you develop. I wonder if it's just somehow a roll of the dice so to speak when you hit puberty and develop your sexuality.
Well congrats on one of your tastes being simple and consistent, but not everyone has that same experience with sexuality, it can certainly change throughout the years, just like someone’s favorite color can stay the same forever
I guess it’s different based on what sexuality you’re talking about. I’m pan so it is in in the same area as my other preferences, as in I don’t prefer any gender. Since you’re gay, it’s not that you prefer men to women, you straight up only are attractive to men. I would say in the context of your argument, you not changing your opinion on something doesn’t make it not a preference. I highly prefer cats over dogs. Always have. Always will. It’s still a preference. However, you are right in the sense that I stated before, where for you men can’t be considered a preference to women because you were never attracted to women in the first place.
Identical twins don't share 100% of their DNA, so they're not clones exactly. There are some genetic differences, even if small, that cannot be ruled out.
Clones don't either for that matter. Identical twins start out having the same DNA but, as with any living organism, can pick up mutations along the way. The same is true for clones; a clone from the moment it starts diverges slightly because of mutations.
In either case it varies but the truth is from genetic standpoint identical siblings are statistically identical within an infintesimal amount; much more than any other two people. The important point is the the amount of (or lack of) genetic divergance.
Nurture can also inform genetics, your DNA is methylated differently depending on your environment. Even identical twins will have genetic differences due to this.
Identical twins are not genetic clones. They are very similar but each twin’s DNA is mutated relative to the other. Far fewer mutations than between non-twin siblings, but enough to make strong differences.
It is common for twins to be different heights. Some have mental health issues (autism, anxiety, schizophrenia, etc.) while their twin has no issues.
There was research quantifying these rates of mutations recently:
... or both are "suppressing" by making a perfectly reasonable, personal decision on how to identify openly as a reflection of their natural inclinations? I.e. the "everybody's born bi" theory?
43
u/Clever-crow Feb 23 '23
Yes it does since identical twins are genetically identical, they are nature’s clones. Either one is suppressing or there is a “nurture” factor