Why is such an obvious possible biological cause of homosexuality being ignored?
It has perplexed me for a number of years now that the scientific community has not come to the conclusion that homosexuality is predominately genetically based. It doesn’t require an advanced degree in reproductive genetics to connect the dots and come to a conclusion which would be relatively simple with today’s technology to confirm.
I first became aware of the possibility of proving a genetic basis for sexual orientation in 1991, after reading the work of Dr. Simon LaVey; a Cambridge and Harvard educated neuroscientist who had shown anatomical differences in the hypothalami of deceased homosexual men who had succumbed to A.I.D.S.. His findings demonstrated that the hypothalami of the gay men studied were consistently the same size of a female. The study had a small sample group, because of course there just aren’t that many gay men offering up their corpses for necropsies on a daily basis. The study was derided by many in the scientific community and not a tremendous amount of attention was given to it as the years went by. About a decade ago though I had my own eureka moment when I learned more about genetics and the by FlashMall” href=”#30996573″> existence of chimerism, mosaicism, vanishing twins and the occurrence of microchimerism between mothers, their children and transplant recipients. It didn’t take long after learning about these naturally occurring phenomena to put 2 and 2 together.
The vast majority of homosexuality is likely the result of chimerism.
I will try to break it down in as few words as possible how chimerism is likely the most common cause of non-traditional sexual orientation or sexual identity. Not everyone is running around with just one set of DNA. Nope, many of us unknowingly carry blue prints from not just one plan but two and sometimes even more individuals. How does this happen? Well it’s pretty interesting. Many times women produce more than one egg during ovulation. As a matter of fact, many pregnancies are multiple gravid in the beginning, it’s just that not very many second or third eggs are viable and don’t make it to implantation. So when these other embryos break apart on their little trip down the fallopian tube, cells from the demised gamete can come in contact with a viable one. When this occurs, often times the viable blastocyst absorbs and incorporates the DNA of the non-viable twin into its own structure. It’s why you see people occasionally express these traits as an odd colored eye or a shock of blonde hair in a scalp dominated by brunette. Most times it’s not noticeable at all because where this DNA has been incorporated isn’t seen. There are cases of women whose reproductive organs are not their own but that of an unborn twin. Imagine going to have genetic testing to see if your children are a match for a kidney transplant only to find that you’re not a genetic match with your child. Then being told that they are only a close relative because the ovaries which produced them belonged to your unborn sister. This was the case for one 52-year-old woman suffering from renal failure. Read the case study here. There have been multiple cases discovered in recent years of mothers who have given birth to the children of their own unborn twin as in the case of Lydia Fairchild.
How to recognize a chimera? Most times you can’t.
Animals born in large litters are more chimeric than humans. Cats are a good example of this. Male calico cats and male tortoise colored cats are chimeras. They’re expressing the female coat patterns but retain the sex organs of the dominant male DNA. In humans sometimes you’ll see subtle things like dark patches of skin which tan differently than other body parts, elaborate mosaic patterns of different colored skin and even the occasional supernumerary nipple. Some of them are striking to look at.
What happens when your opposite sex fraternal twin is incorporated into your DNA?
Most of the time it’s not going to cause anything obviously different. The cells are going to be incorporated into places that have no real effect on how you live or function. You may have a few cells here, some skin patches there, a kidney with opposite sex DNA etc. However if those opposite sex DNA cells happen to form a significant portion of a gland or say the hypothalamus, which is the brain’s link to the endocrine and pituitary system (the drivers of sexual arousal and orientation), then you’re going to have to expect there to be some differences in behavior and drives. This is the most likely place for twin DNA to induce a sexual preference or inclination inconsistent with phenotype. Remember, phenotype is not necessarily the same as genotype. You may appear to be one thing but genetically you may have many more things hidden inside which are unobservable. So with many homosexuals what you have is a predominate gender being overridden by a hypothalamus of an opposite sex twin driving the endocrine system. It’s pretty elementary. Let’s face it, gay people, the majority of them have physical appearance, mannerisms and interests which mimic the opposite sex. Sure not all of them do. Occasionally you’ll see über masculine males or very feminine women whom you cannot distinguish on sight as being gay, but most of them you can pick out of a crowd as being not like the others. It’s pretty obvious. Surely you have also observed the oddball effeminate straight males and the super masculine females who are not homosexual but sure as heck look and behave as if they should be. It’s just that they’re expressing secondary sex characteristics and behaviors of underlying opposite sex DNA, but the brain centers which determine sexual orientation are not involved. Think of the “swishy” guy who loves antiques, interior decorating and dapper clothes, drinks his tea with his pinky in the air but is a voracious womanizer. How about Amelia Earhart or the 1930’s golf phenom Mildred Ella “Babe” Didrikson Zaharias. Both of those women were so butch it hurt, but they were straight as arrows. They as many others are expressing secondary sex characteristics and mannerisms of their hidden opposite sex DNA without having that same DNA involvement in the centers which control sexual desire and preference. You are going to find people who possess language and reasoning skills of the opposite sex probably far more often than nontraditional sexual preference in people with chimeric DNA. Whole regions of the brain could be peppered with or even completely that of an opposite sex twin. Hence we see males who are much more like a woman in their emotional responses, artistic expression and writing or women who express the traits common to males such as high mathematical ability or visual spatial acuity. It’s all in where that opposite sex DNA comes to rest. We are not off an assembly line. The idea of “normal” is not normal at all. We humans come in tremendous variety and without it, we would be a homogenous species incapable of great creativity. This mixing of DNA is vital and a reason we have been so creative and successful over time. One of the highest estimates I’ve read is that up to 40% of us carry chimeric DNA. Not only do we carry it from picking it up during gestation but this DNA can be transferred to subsequent generations and pass those traits on long after the first chimera. This is most likely the reason that you will see homosexuality run in families and skip generations. Of course chimerism with opposite sex twins is not going to produce homosexuals every single time. Not even close to it. With up to 40% of us having chimeric DNA, finding somewhere between 2%-5% of the population having opposite sex DNA residing in just the right parts of the brain to produce homosexual tendencies is a fairly reasonable percentage of occurance. The 40% estimate may even be conservative; “Far more common than large-scale chimerism is microchimerism,chimerism on a tiny scale. Microchimerism can result from bone-marrow transplants, poorly prepared blood transfusions, and twins exchanging cells in utero; there’s also evidence that breast-feeding might pass cells from mother to child, and some scientists speculate that unprotected sex might be a contributor. But by far the most common cause of microchimerism is pregnancy. …. Overall, the placenta allows for a lot of two-way traffic, with fetal cells stealing into Mom, and maternal cells slipping into Child.”
Sure there are some people out there who choose to be gay but it’s a very small percentage and most of them end up going straight at some point in their life when it is truly a choice. That stuff doesn’t stick if it’s not really who you are. I’ve met gay men in horribly repressive societies in other parts of the world. They don’t wish they were that way because it’s not fun being different in those places and can actually get you killed. No one “chooses” that orientation for fun in those types of societies. When it is a choice, it is a small percentage and found in Western societies where homosexuality has become “cool” because it’s been promoted in the media and for political purposes for decades. As far as people who have gender dysphoria, my guess is that they have far more opposite sex DNA as the blue print for their brain. Dissect a few of these males who say they are female postmortem and you’d probably find a much larger corpus callosum and a larger hippocampus. If you’d test these men while still living, you’d find they’re much more verbal than males and that their verbal activity in the brain is on both sides of the brain instead of being almost exclusively on the right as is the way almost all men verbalize, from a single area. The same goes for women who truly believe that they are male. My guess is that you will find many anatomical and functional differences in their brains as well.
So why hasn’t this all been proven?
It has puzzled me how neuroscientists and geneticists have overlooked something which is so incredibly obvious. Even Simon LeVey who is obviously quite accomplished in his field and still living today has yet to connect the dots. I suppose it is sometimes difficult to see the forest for the trees. However I do think there is something at work in the greater scientific community preventing such research from being conducted. That is funding. For years now science has been focused on finding the elusive “gay gene”. In my opinion it simply does not exist and the only funding ever given goes to research geared toward the goal of discovering that and only that. Why? Because the probability of discovering what does not exist is zero. It’s a safe investment for the powers that be. They don’t want the organic cause of homosexuality to be found. The same people who bring you the media and politics are the same folks who provide research funding. Universities are granted monies to conduct research which benefits corporate and government interests; and quite frankly a genetic basis for homosexuality does not fit the current social nor political agenda of the West. The gay agenda has been a very popular and useful political tool in not only the U.S. but Europe as well for decades. It’s something they are able to pull out of the hat and have people on both sides of the aisle up in arms over any time they need a good distraction from much more important economic or social problems. Oh and you can almost bet on it that if some gay issue is being run on the news feeds every hour on the hour, that somewhere, some country is being bombed back into the Stone Age. It’s been used as a social engineering tool for a very long time. Not only does it pit people against one another along religious lines but it also as it has been presented, has added to the breakdown of normal societal expectations of family. Family has existed since the beginning of time but how we function as a society today, the idea of family has been reduced to basically the nuclear family unit and in half the cases in the West has resulted in single parent households. This is not a healthy way to live. The media though keeps a goodly portion of the populace living in fear that somehow “gay” is going to infect everyone, cease reproduction and end life on this planet as we know it. Fear is a control mechanism; fear of poverty in old age, fear of other races, fear of immigrants, fear of war, fear of other religions and of course fear of gays among other things. The distraction and division has a been at a nauseating pitch for a very long time. Homosexuality has just been used as an additional tool in the trick bag of the oligarchs. I am not insinuating that the gay agenda and its almost ubiquitous presence in entertainment and the greater media is the cause of the demise of traditional family values and expectations at all. I am though pointing out that it has been a contributing factor in a very long list of assaults on family by the powers that be over the previous century and then some. The thrust of all this social engineering, its true goal was always to break down the family unit, leaving a large portion of the population without the support systems which extended families provide. This has also been done on the community scale as well. The idea of community now does not include neighbors who help and rely upon one another as they did a century ago. We hardly know our neighbors because our lives in modern society are primarily taken up with working an inordinate number of hours to support lifestyles only possible by incurring massive amounts of debt. That is an idea which has also been engineered into society over the past 70 years or so. The ultimate goal of all this has been to produce a society heavily reliant upon the state for personal safety and security. It has been an exceedingly successful campaign. Homosexuals have always had a place in society. They may not have always had a easy go of it but through their struggles many have been incredible contributors to humanity. Using homosexuality as a social engineering tool though is only effective as long as it is viewed as a choice. If its genetic basis were proven then it wouldn’t be the titillating hot-button issue that it still remains to this day. No, everyone would have to basically just chalk it up to nature and deal with it as they have to deal with people who have different color eyes, skin, hair, height and weight. Propaganda only works if it is something people appear to choose being. I’m sure within the next 20 or so years it’s going to come to light that the majority of homosexuality and trengenderism is DNA based, but not until after they’ve squeezed every bit of political juice they can out of the LBGT rights agenda much of it to the detriment of greater humanity. We must recognize that humanity is a mosaic and that we all have vital parts to play in it. It’s time to realize the science behind our differences, embrace them and move on together as a species. We must recognize when divide and conquer techniques are being used upon the populace for nefarious purposes. Ignoring or suppressing the genetic basis of homosexuality is just that.
Footnote August 5, 2015
Since the publication of this article there have been many questions and bones of contention with those who do have some understanding of biology. One of the major questions is, why is this a persistent occurrence in our species when it confers no benefit to survival? Natural selection generally, given enough time purges traits which do no provide advantages and increase the probability of survival of a species. Producing a product which is predisposed to not reproducing would seem to be not only self-defeating but possibly even dangerous to the continuation of a species if it ever caught on genetically. True most non-beneficial genetic traits seem to die out eventually. Homosexuality which is chimeric doesn’t really fit the definition of an inheritable trait. It is not the mutation of a single gene which can be passed down to subsequent generations. It’s not a single thing. It’s part of life’s ability to successfully incorporate more variety into a single organism than meiosis is able to do on its own. Chimerism is an extra added, unexpected bonus of the cycle of life which wasn’t even discovered until 1953 in humans. So what good does this do our species? As the sterile social drones of the honey bee puzzled Charles Darwin, so does homosexuality puzzle many biologists today. We do know that drone bees are absolutely vital to the survival of not only the queen bee but also the entire Genus Apis. How though can a theoretically non-producing individual add value to the species Homo sapiens? It can. There are two areas where we can recognize a benefit to humanity. Forget for a moment that in the last few decades that gay men and lesbians are now having families of their own utilizing various methods to achieve their goals of being parents and raising familiars. Let’s go back to the predominate model of homosexual behavior patterns in societies where marriage and child rearing were not absolutely enforced and many people were allowed to live out their lives as unmarried bachelors, old maids and spinsters. With these people we find a small segment of the population, primarily childless, not burdened with child-bearing and rearing. These individuals not saddled with those responsibilities are a great asset to extended families. They are the ones always available to care for the children of their siblings, the sick and the aged. They are those extra set of helping hands which would not be available if they had families of their own. Good help is hard to find and those families which possessed such would have an advantage over those in which every member’s time and efforts were completely consumed with the care of their immediate children. Not everyone needs to be a breeder to add value. Never in the history of mankind have we ever seen an organic decline in population from lack of breeding. This is the first generation of man who has consciously chosen to drop breeding below replacement levels. We now have artificial stressors on populations which are seriously not only curtailing procreation, but courting and marriage. Japan is a prime example of this reversal in normal behavior. It has become so expensive and burdensome in Japan to marry and raise children that a certain segment of the young population has just given up on it completely. Many young men now prefer to entertain themselves with relatively cheap or free video gaming, pornography or other electronic entertainment in lieu of dating and marriage. They have also figured out that it’s cheaper to hire a prostitute once a month that dealing with the courting necessary to find sex partners. In my opinion this is a far greater problem than the existence of homosexuals in society. If this continues on it would be a self-limiting extinction pattern of breeding. Debt and technology are proving to be a far greater prohibition to birth rates than the condom or pill ever could have been. This disturbing trend which starts in Japan in the late 1980’s after their economic collapse is now spreading to all of the Western nations. Birth rates in the U.S. and all over Europe are now well below replacement rates. Global population growth is about to peak and head in the opposite direction in the next few decades. That being said, the presence of homosexuals historically have never had any effect on population growth rates and it seems that the percentage of homosexuals has been rather consistent throughout mankind’s existence. They never took over and they’re never going to take over because it’s not a single gene causing it which can be passed down. If it were, I’d say that considering the successes of gays people throughout history would have made them tremendously sought after and their progeny would have created a whole slew of little gay offspring in far greater numbers than we see today. I say this because no matter how you slice it, there’s always a large percentage of people who are gay which do engage occasionally in heterosexual activity and yes, produce children. You know what they say, “Instant heterosexual, just add alcohol and flattery.” Did I say homosexuals and successful? Yes. This not so unique occurrence of nature’s ability to combine even more diverse DNA into a single individual sometimes confers special gifts and abilities to those with chimeric DNA. It can produce an individual whose mind is capable of thinking and interacting in different ways from those who are divided more specifically into male and female modes of thought and behavior. It’s not just homosexuals though. It’s anyone who is carrying mixed sex DNA who can display many of the characteristics being described. You don’t have to be gay to benefit from two different blue prints. Imagine a world where everyone was controlled by the left hemisphere of the brain. Imagine a world where everyone was controlled by the right hemisphere. One would be dominated by a group of right-handed, rigid, wordy, mathematicians living in square building. The other a place of left-handed artists and musicians who could remember every face they ever met and lived in fabulously decorated mud huts. Just as we have variety in brain hemisphere dominance and variation in the connectivity between those hemispheres; mixed sex DNA can provide our species with even more creative thinking, balanced and expanded by different blue prints running different parts of the brain. Of course this isn’t always going to be the case. It’s only going to be the rare individual who displays really exceptional gifts. When it all comes together just right though the results can be pretty spectacular. Some of the most celebrated thinkers, inventors and artists throughout history have been homosexual. These individuals have had far more impact on humanity than the next 100 million people whose sole contribution to society was to produce more little consumer offspring. If you look at the works produced by some homosexuals down through the ages and erased them from history this would not be a place you would recognize. For a recent example, blot out Alan Turing and you wouldn’t be reading this blog right now. You’d be lucky if you owned a calculator at this point let alone a personal computer, or a cell phone. I could write volumes on the number of significant, paradigm shifting inventions and other contributions to society by homosexuals which have shaped today’s world. Not being a breeder does not negate one’s importance to a species which relies upon its wits for survival. Chimerism is not some useless anomaly which adds no value. Chimeric people have probably played some of the most incredibly vital roles in the advancement and survival of mankind. We should be grateful for them.
Update Sept. 20, 2015
I came upon a fairly recent study which showed that of 120 women who were studied, none of which had bore a male children, 21% of these women presented with Y chromosome microchimerism. Opposite sex DNA is not an uncommon occurrence in humans. It’s frequent. Even in this group, the portion which had never had a child a child at all presented with 10% those harboring Y chromosome DNA.
Male microchimerism in women without sons: quantitative assessment and correlation with pregnancy history.
“RESULTS: Male microchimerism was found in 21% of women overall. Healthy women and women with RA did not significantly differ (24% vs 18%). Results ranged from the DNA equivalent of 0 to 20.7 male cells per 100000 female cells. Women were categorized into 4 groups according to pregnancy history. Group A had only daughters (n = 26), Group B had spontaneous abortions (n = 23), Group C had induced abortions (n = 23), and Group D were nulligravid (n = 48). Male microchimerism prevalence was significantly greater in Group C than other groups (8%, 22%, 57%, 10%, respectively). Levels were also significantly higher in the induced abortion group.”
In another recent study it has been shown that of women who have given birth to male children, up to 63% of them are Y DNA micro chimeric.
A Pregnancy Souvenir: Cells That Are Not Your Own
“The new study suggests that women almost always acquire fetal cells each time they are pregnant. They have been detected as early as seven weeks into a pregnancy. In later years, the cells may disappear, but sometimes, the cells settle in for a lifetime. In a 2012 study, Dr. Nelson and her colleagues examined the brains of 59 deceased older women and found Y chromosomes in 63 percent of them. (Many studies on fetal microchimerism focus on the cells left behind by sons, because they are easier to distinguish from the cells of their mother.)
Experts now believe that microchimerism is far from rare. “Most of us think that it’s very common, if not universal,” Dr. Nelson said. But it remains quite mysterious.”
October 9th, 2015
Epigenetic Algorithm Accurately Predicts Male Sexual Orientation
Findings Reported at ASHG 2015 Annual Meeting
BETHESDA, MD – An algorithm using epigenetic information from just nine regions of the human genome can predict the sexual orientation of males with up to 70 percent accuracy, according to research presented at the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) 2015 Annual Meeting in Baltimore.
Oct. 17, 2017