If you read what I actually wrote down allele expression is INFLUENCED by the environment, regardless of what people want to think or want to believe the research supports the hypothesis that sexual identity is not simply a matter of genetic influence nor of just upbringing but a combination thereof.
At no point was heritability mentioned or posited.
Please read what people write and if you don’t understand what is being said you should ask questions instead of exhibiting a clearly sciolist position.
heritability is not mentioned nor even involved in this discussion.
Yep, my bad. Misunderstood the term, I should have said “genetic roots” or something.
allele expression is INFLUENCED by the environment
That claim is quite fair. Stating a relationship can exist is uncontroversial.
… you’ve a genetic predisposition towards the sexuality you grow into, it’s a nurture influences nature situation (i.e. how one is raised) that impacts what alleles become active or recessive and that impacts your sexuality (among a wide array of other things, physiological and psychological).
Frankly I see no other way, from cold context, to read this other than as a claim that there is a “gay gene,” followed by a bit of hedging against the influence of other factors.
Apologies if I’m misinterpreting you. It could be you’re just stringing together a bunch of broadly true claims about what types of relationships can exist between all these factors.
It’s a bit of a “shovel, lye, and a hacksaw in the shopping cart” type scenario. Too many broadly true and relatively unoffensive claims in a particular order start to look suspiciously like a particular argument.
If you read what I actually wrote down allele expression is INFLUENCED by the environment, regardless of what people want to think or want to believe the research supports the hypothesis that sexual identity is not simply a matter of genetic influence nor of just upbringing but a combination thereof.
At no point was heritability mentioned or posited.
Please read what people write and if you don’t understand what is being said you should ask questions instead of exhibiting a clearly sciolist position.
Here’s a couple of current research papers to get you started: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033347/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677266/
And here’s research on genetic expression and how the environment can impact such expression:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9248887/
Once again, and to be extremely clear, heritability is not mentioned nor even involved in this discussion.
Yep, my bad. Misunderstood the term, I should have said “genetic roots” or something.
That claim is quite fair. Stating a relationship can exist is uncontroversial.
Frankly I see no other way, from cold context, to read this other than as a claim that there is a “gay gene,” followed by a bit of hedging against the influence of other factors.
Apologies if I’m misinterpreting you. It could be you’re just stringing together a bunch of broadly true claims about what types of relationships can exist between all these factors.
It’s a bit of a “shovel, lye, and a hacksaw in the shopping cart” type scenario. Too many broadly true and relatively unoffensive claims in a particular order start to look suspiciously like a particular argument.