A few weeks back I wrote a little post about Chimeras. A Chimera is a person who is born with two different sets of DNA. The DNA may be split up throughout different parts of the body and can result in patches of different colored skin, internal organs with entirely different DNA, or even in some cases can result in hermaphrodites (people born with both male and female sex organs). In a conversation I had with my wife last week I got to thinking about this.
If a person has split DNA, one of a male, and one of a female, I had to wonder if this is what could lead to homosexuality. If the part of the brain that determines sexual orientation had the DNA of a Woman, but the rest of the person had the DNA of a man, would this make the man gay?
People who have two sets of DNA (Chimeras) are a relatively recent discovery, and because the different set of DNA can be hidden pretty much anywhere, it would be very difficult to prove. They suspect this phenomenon to be rare, but seeing as how so few people go through DNA testing, and that it would be virtually impossible to test every part of ones body and internal organs this is something that could be far more common than we could ever know.
Political Correctness
For the record, I am not sure if the word “homosexuality” is politically correct, and for that matter I am not even sure if we are supposed to say “gay” any more. All I know is that what I have written here is not meant to be offensive in any way. Let’s face it, homosexuality is not “normal”, at least at the most basic levels of nature. The meaning of life as I see it is about reproduction and a same sex relationship does not result in the spawn of offspring. As a result, in order for someone to be gay would there not have to be something different about the inner workings of their brain? The whole “Chimera” thing, at least to me, seems like a plausible answer as to what makes a person gay.
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with women dating women, and men dating men – if that’s your preference, all the power to you, I support same-sex marriage etc – everyone is equal and should have the same equal rights. I am just saying that when it comes to the fundamentals of life, being attracted to the same sex is not “normal” and as such there must be some answer as to why this happens.
(If you are offended by anything I have said here, drop me a comment on this post and let me know your view – I am curious to see how other people feel about this)
Loading ...
I think what you wrote above is a possible explanation of where the idea of being ‘gay’ originated from. Having sexual organs of one sex and your brain thinking as the other sex. I’m not sure how hormones play into that because a lot of what we feel has to do with the jumps of our hormone levels which are directly related to the sexual organs, yet impulses are sent to the brain. So not sure how that all works, but something to think about. I don’t know how brain activity plays into our physical interpretations and whether it is possible to test which “twin”‘s brain the person inherited. The problem with finding out if homosexuality came from having this condition is that there is no way to test from the past, and now it seems that it is almost popular to be gay. So i’m sure that the majority of the people have normal dna inheritance. It would be very interesting to find a gay person that is in fact a chimera whose dna differs in the sexual organs from the brain. And I think eventually we will because as it turns out, there could be many many people that are chimeras that didn’t have any means of finding out about it before.
I’d like to assert that being gay is not “normal” exactly as being black is not “normal”. Most people aren’t gay and most people aren’t black (in america at least, and in the world i think you could say white people aren’t normal). So by deffintion this is true. Yet its ok to say gay people aren’t normal with all the loaded conotations thereof but not that black people aren’t normal. We could go with another analogy. Lefthandedness is not normal at a biological level. It is genetically determined and not the common phenotype. I don’t think anyone would ever publically call left-handed people abnormal, even though from a technical point of view it is correct. Finally, sterile people are not normal, most of us, for the productive periods of our lives at least, are in possession of working genatalia and functional gametes. So why is it we can say gay people are not “normal” yet we all at least internally cringe at saying that black people are not normal, lefthanded people are not normal, or sterile people are not normal. Think about it, there must be a reason.
Hi Justin, I appreciate your comment. Here are my thoughts on it:
Assuming that the meaning of life is to reproduce (which makes sense, as without reproduction, life would not exist), then being gay would, by definition not be “normal”.
It is impossible for two humans of the same gender to reproduce resulting in an offspring with a mixture of the DNA from the two parents. As a result, a human male and human male can not reproduce, this goes against what nature has set forth, and hence would not be “normal”.
Comparing this to people of other races is like the whole apples to oranges thing. It is nothing alike.
To say that being gay and black are equally as “abnormal” is ludicrous. Being black is not an abnormality, as nothing about it goes against the laws of nature.
(infact, just the opposite. Skin color is a result of geographic location. Black skin is less effected by ultra violet light, and less prone to skin cancer, and considering that originally black people came from countries with high heat, this makes sense that their skin color is actually perfectly normal. This is a little off-topic however, so I will stop here, but you can check out wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people)
The point is, while I see no problem with it, of have any issues about people who are gay, the general acceptance does not make it “normal”. Being gay goes against the laws of nature, there for, it is simply not “normal”.
Are you really saying that the one and only purpose of our life is reproduction?
There are a lot of things you can say are ‘not normal’ then.
Why do we not kill off our elderly parents or our children born with birth defects? In nature, there are specific mechanisms designed to ensure the survival of the offspring. And often it means the demise of the parent or the unfit siblings. Why do we not eat our dead? It is quite a common occurrence in nature as well. They are protein and as long as they did not die from a contagious disease, it should be ‘natural’ that we use it as such. Why do we use birth control? Why do we kill each other over religion based on books written by fellowmen (which does not exist in nature)? Why are some people infertile? Why do we wait until we are 18 before even being allowed to have sex when reproductive organs mature almost as soon as you begin your teens? And the most important: Why are we sentient? Why do we have monogamous marriages?
What I’m saying is simple: Not everything in nature is good. Just because it’s prevalent in “nature” does not mean it is the ‘normal’.
Nature, despite being touted as the ‘law of god’ and whatnot is far from that. It is the most selfish system ever. Every beautiful flower you see, every brilliant color in the markings of a highly poisonous frog, every iridiscent hue in the eye of an ichneumon wasp are instruments of one simple mechanism: The propagation of the one and only book of life – The DNA.
Everything else is secondary to that. The DNA doesn’t care if you love your mother. It doesn’t care if you helped your neighbor with her groceries yesterday. It doesn’t care if you showed mercy to the man who stole your money because his wife was dying of cancer. It only cares for one thing: That it survives into the next offspring long enough to be replicated in the next. Cold and ruthless. If you have grown up watching Disney and have never touched more than the very basics of Biology you probably have no idea just how cold and beautiful nature can be. I suggest reading about it from here:
http://www.bogleech.com/
(I am not affiliated to that site in any way whatsoever, but it illustrates my point on a well known fact for us biologists that most people are usually unaware of.)
We’re human. We’re the ONLY species that have gained freedom from the tyranny of DNA. We already have the basics of steering our own evolution. But even before that, we had the mind, something no other creature ever had before. While it is true that the human brain benefited our DNA enormously and made us the dominant lifeform on our planet, it’s a double-edged sword. Because in order for the DNA to become superior it had to let go of one thing: instinct. We are now masters of our own thoughts. And THAT is exceedingly unnatural. Humans (and perhaps some presapient species like whales, dolphins, elephants, and simians) are capable of emotion and thought patterns that goes AGAINST the law of nature.
That said, again as I mentioned earlier. We have never existed simply to reproduce. In fact other species have built in suicide mechanisms that ensure that individuals must die for the survival of the rest. Did you even realize that human natural death is caused by a preprogrammed code in our genes? Senescence and death are actually builtin mechanisms, if it wasnt for our DNA we’d be immortals that only die when our organs finally run down. And yes, even cancer.
There have already been numerous theories on the role of homosexuality in social animals. The most compelling is that woman who are most fertile are also the ones who are most likely to produce homosexual offspring. Homosexuals are in a way a non-competing male. They are still equipped to help their siblings and their parents to survive, but they are ‘female-safe’ in that they do not compete with the other males for reproductive rights.
An example. Imagine a tribe/pack/herd whatever with two females, ten children/juveniles below childbearing age, and three males. If all the males are heterosexuals the most likely result is that one of them must kill the other in order to gain reproductive rights to one of the two females. An even likelier scenario is that one male kills all the other males and thus becomes the exclusive male. His genes will then be the only one that will get to the next generation. Don’t think it’s likely? Think again. It already happens in hundreds of animal species. A male will kill another male and all the offspring of the previous male in order to ensure that only his DNA will be replicated in the next generation.
The only problem is – in his lust to be the sole male progenitor, he eliminated two contributors to his tribe. Which means, his tribe is now less likely to survive because it doesn’t anymore have the necessary number of protectors/hunters/providers for the females and the offspring.
But what if one of those three males is homosexual. The end results are better because the extra male wouldn’t even feel the need to reproduce with the females. He will still continue to provide assistance to the females AND the males without demanding that they carry on his genes as well. There is no sexual competition and even if the heterosexual males do end up killing each other, the homosexual male will still remain to care for the females and the offspring which gives the tribe a better chance of recovering.
That’s an extremely simplified version. There are far more complex scenarios of how homosexuality can actually benefit the species despite the fact that they don’t reproduce. The simple fact is that they exist. The question would then be why? The answer is that if they are recurring within the human species at a rate of 5-10% of the population even if they rarely have their own children means that they MUST have a beneficial effect we do not know about. Or at least if not, they are the side effect of a beneficial effect (like increased fertility in women). Otherwise, why does it exist at a regular rate at all?
And yes they exist in other species as well despite people claiming that it only exists in humans. Including in some forms that are very weird indeed. Whiptail lizards for example are composed purely of females that reproduce by parthenogenesis, a form of natural cloning. Lesbian lizards. LOL Then there is the fact that most fishes change gender as they grow up or as the situation demands. In more complex subsentient animals, homosexuality is an extension of sexual instinct and social emotions – dolphins and monkeys have been well documented to exhibit homosexuality in some individuals.
Back to another example:
Again the question: How would a non-reproducing individual benefit the species? They don’t reproduce!
Two words: Ants, Bees.
The ants and bees we often see are ALL infertile females. They don’t have children but they sacrifice their life in the hundreds to protect the life of the lazy queen and the idiot male drones. Not to mention, they do ALL the work. Doesn’t that go against the laws of nature? Why would any organism do that? But it’s exists. There’s the paradox. Seeing it at an individual level you would think ‘It doesn’t make sense! Therefore it’s not normal’. But zoom out and you realize that it is this unnatural turn in their evolution that have made them one of the most successful animals in nature.
In ending: Stop thinking of ‘natural’ in the individual level. Nature doesn’t operate that way. Think in populations and you will begin to understand better. Because what doesn’t make sense in the individual level will more often than not make perfect sense when applied to the species/population as a whole. Everything that happens in nature is natural and normal, including genetic deformities. It may be unknown to you, but if they happen, there is a reason. The concept of ‘normal’ is a human invention.
And besides even if it serves no purpose at all homosexuality does no harm to anyone else. It doesn’t hinder their ability to contribute to society and most importantly it mitigates even a tiny bit the most pressing problem facing our species today: overpopulation.
Wow, not sure how to reply to all that!
I will say that much of your examples as to “why we don’t have sex till we’re 18″ and “why we don’t kill those born with birth defects” etc etc, are not driven by nature, they are driving by society’s rules. There is a difference.
Being Gay or Straight is not something driven by the rules of society. While the way people perceive homosexuality, or those who act on their true feelings may be influenced that way, the actual reality of being gay, is something caused entirely by nature.
Your example of a man being born gay in order to not compete with his tribe members for women etc, but to still be a contributing member to the group is interesting, and one I don’t really have an argument against.
Lets say that I agree with everything you said (I don’t, but lets pretend). Even if you are correct, there is still the underlying factor of what makes someone gay, and the dual-DNA (Chimera) theory still fits. It could explain what causes a person to be attracted to the opposite sex, just not why it occurs at all.
When it comes down to it, I still believe the “meaning of life” is more less to reproduce. If it wasn’t a focus, we wouldn’t be here. Anything drawn from nature directly that stands in the way of reproduction is, at least in my mind “not normal”.
(I have to note, that my use of “normal” is not something I use lightly. I am not trying to imply that those who are gay are “abnormal”, even though it kinda sounds like I am. Definitely not trying to be offensive here, but not sure how to put to words what I am trying to say – hopefully that is understood at lest.)
I believe you are correct about chimerism being at the root of poorly understood behaviors such as same sex attraction and gender identity confusion and it all occurs in the womb…
Please consider the following article from Dr Charles Bocklage entitled Embryogenesis of chimeras, twins and anterior midline asymmetries.
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/579
When Dr Boklage discusses anterior midline formations, he is referring to the face, brain, and heart. At 8-10 weeks — when the fusion of two embryos is likely to occur — the fetus is little more than a head and heart.
Same sex attraction and gender identity confusion arise in the case of a plural pregnancy (i.e. boy and girl) that ends up as one individual — a chimera comprised of male and female genetic material. So it follows that the brain of such and individual would be chimeric and contains aspects of both a male and female brain structure. It also could be female cells make the brain but male cells made the genitals or vice versa.
If clustered in the behavioral centers of the brain, the individual may display behaviors such as same sex attraction or gender confusion as has been documented in natural world with Tortie Tomcats:
http://www.messybeast.com/mosaicism6.htm
In sum I accept the following are true
a) that human chimeras are not rare and…
b) chimerism resulting from the fusion of male/female fetuses can produce behavior such as same sex attraction and gender confusion.
So in reality, Chimeras are part of the natural way of things and not abnormal at all. Indeed, chimeras are just as much a part of Gods plan as anything else.
“When it comes down to it, I still believe the “meaning of life” is more less to reproduce. If it wasn’t a focus, we wouldn’t be here. Anything drawn from nature directly that stands in the way of reproduction is, at least in my mind “not normal”.”
Exactly my point. You are focusing on reproduction in the individual level. But that’s not the case.
Reproduction doesn’t only rely on two individuals alone, in most species it relies on the entire population, the community, tribe, whatever. That’s the reason for sexual dimorphism (the existence of the male and female gender) in the first place. To ensure that we remain viable on a population level.
Sterility and the lack of desire to reproduce does not necessarily mean they are ‘hindrances’ to reproduction. As I’ve already pointed out in the ants and bees example. The majority of their population are non-reproducing worker and soldier classes. They may not directly reproduce themselves, but they help ensure that those that DO reproduce survive and carry on the species.
Human homosexuals already do this, an example is adoptive parenting and how they often help human females.
I have a friend who is a single mom. Her boyfriend ran out on her when he found out she was pregnant. Her brother who is gay is the one who helps her raise his niece, even going so far as to providing for them financially. The child may not be his, but he’s certainly not ‘standing in the way of reproduction’, is he?
I also know a gay couple and a lesbian couple who have two teenage children. They didn’t do it by IVF btw, hehe (this was before such things became common). They did it down and dirty but they still had children and they’re good, intelligent kids. Far more well-adjusted than most children of straight couples I know, and yes their children are both heterosexual. Anyway, it illustrates another point, just because they are not attracted to the opposite sex doesn’t mean they are infertile. They can still reproduce if they want to.
I’m a woman, btw, so I know this firsthand. Most men are unaware of the role gay men play in our lives. And personally I don’t quite understand why they are so threatened by gay men (considering how easily they accept lesbians and bisexual women in contrast).
Scott, my thoughts are the same.
I think you may be on to something, this happens to be exactly what I was looking up. I think I may be the result of such a thing. I was just reading about one twin being miscarried and the survivor being a Chimera, well I am the product of such a situation. My mother miscarried while carrying me, and (as you can tell) she continued to carry and give birth to me. I am a male and am attracted to males(not by choice). I think this may be why.
i have read that identical twins are often both gay or both straight but sometimes one gay/one straight. so, let us take the example of two gay men identical twins. did the one, male fertilized egg subsume a female fertilized egg and then split into two homosexual chimera? now let us take the example of one gay one straight. i’m trying to imagine just one twin (inside its sac) subsuming a female fertilized egg, but i’m having a hard time. so, perhaps when the split took place most of the female dna went into one twin?