On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 arash at riseup.net wrote:
> If being gay depends on a particular set of genes
> and an enviromental trigger, one could miss the enivronmental trigger and
> turn out straight. But the possibility of turning out gay hinges on
> having this particular set of genes, not any set of genes. And in this
> sense there is a biological prerequisite.
To provide clear evidence of this claim, you would have to show that a particular set of genes is found in all gay people. Twin studies don't help with that. In fact, there is no genetic mapping research that supports your claim; it's brazen speculation. More importantly, the prerequisite/trigger language misconstrues the relationship between genetics and the environment here. From the moment of conception, the expression of genes and environmental conditions are mutually determinative. Each are necessary prerequisites; each have triggering functions; and most importantly, they together produce emergent properties.
>> The quicker we get past this goofy nature/nurture debate, the
>> better.
>>
>> Miles
>
> This is not a case of nature or nature, my point here is that you can't
> nurture just any nature for this behavior, you need a particular nature
> (set of genes) to start with.
To be a bit perverse: the twin studies show you can't just give someone a set of genes to make them gay; you need particular environmental influences to start with! In any case, arguing for priority of genetics or the environment here is a waste of time.
Miles