Genetic? Just my crazy theory.

I read somewhere that it wasn't due to genetics but to epigenetics. It was complicated for me to understand though. :/

 

If you have a look at the brain link, you'll see differences in the brain.
Theory has it its not genetics directly. Otherwise twins orientation would be the same.
According to an undisproved thesis of 2012, its Epi-marks. Those tell the dna what to do.
They are usually not hereditary, but, like marks on a copy, might be partially passed down to children.

From the link above:
" For example, specific epi-marks can help protect a female fetus from becoming excessively masculine if there is a rush of testosterone later in the pregnancy. They can affect the genitals, sexual identity, and even sexual partner preference. ...
Normally, they are erased after a single generation. However, sometimes "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks can carry over across generations, passed on from father to daughter or from mother to son, causing homosexuality in children. ...
The theory also explains why homosexuality runs in families."

 

I love guys, and my uncle is probably gay(he's always single). He does have feminine traits, but that may be misleading.My cousin appears bisexual. The X chromosome theory is validated in my case. Don't know much about my father's side.

 

My biochemistry teacher would say "most theories are just fantasies."

 

I literally just wrote a paper about this. Twin studies have determined that the more closely related two people are the more likely they are to have the same gay/straight tendencies, supporting a genetic cause. Another scientist thought he had found a 'gay gene' when he studied 40 gay men and found they all had 5 genetic markers on their X chromosomes - a one in one hundred thousand statistic probability. And an X chromosome is always passed down from the mother. Food for thought...

 

Here's the link: Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture | AllPsych
There's a lot of interesting stuff in there.

 

It's very unlikely that sexuality is determined solely genetically, nor do I think it was an evolutionary advantage. The thing to remember is that from a biological standpoint, those who don't reproduce or desire to are not functioning correctly. The theory that homosexual s would take car of orphaned offspring of others also seems unlikely. The goal in any primitive species (we've developed past that) is to continue one's genetic line. If homosexuality was solely genetic, those who would be most likely to produce homosexual offspring would be homosexuals themselves and since they wouldn't be breeding there's a good chance the gene would die out.
However, it is still possible that genetics plays a role, but it is probably not the only factor. To put it as simply as possible, some genes are expressed at different rates based on the unraveling of the DNA containing it. The more tightly coiled a gene is, the less it is expressed. This can be seen in organisms like Serratia, a bacteria that under certain temperatures, has a gene which uncoils and produces a red pigment. Studies conducted showed that rats who received affection in the form of licking from their mother soon after birth became more social and normally behaved than neglected rats due to genes that uncoiled during that time. However, that gene in rats ONLY uncoiled at that time shortly after birth.
It is possible that homosexuality is something akin to the rat socialization. Genetics plays a role, but outside influence is the ultimate decider. This would also explain the existence of bisexuality by the same way. We can make a scale, on one end is homosexuality, on the other is heterosexuality. The middle is different "levels" of bisexuality so to speak. Those who have the DNA coding for sexuality partially unraveled are bisexual. Then the people with completely uncoiled DNA coding for sexuality would either be homo or heterosexual and those with the DNA tightly coiled would be homo (if hetero is uncoiled) or hetero (if homo is uncoiled). Of course, this is just my ramblings. I'm probably going to write a paper on this for my science research class. The only problem with getting solid results is that people who aren't straight may still identify as straight even if they have whatever caused their different sexuality which could throw off the analysis.

 

From the time we were younger, my mom always told my brother and I that she didn't mind or care if we turned out to be gay as it ran in my father's family. She said she always knew there was a possibility one of us might be gay because we have a few aunts/uncles who are likely gay and Yada Yada Yada.... lol


She always said it so matter-of-fact-edly...like there was no wiggle room. We might inherent these traits, and she wanted us to know that it was OK.
lol

 

The hermaphroditic animals you mentioned are not related to us in a way significant enough to influence something like you stated. Very few fish are hermaphroditic and even less reptiles are. Transgender is a whole different thing, probably a combination of psychological effects, environment, and genes. Due to the rarity, its possible that it is solely genetic if transgender people have a gene mutation/disorder occurring during gametogenesis (the production of sperm and egg cells) in one or both parents. But that could be any number of errors ranging from deletion to substitution to who-knows-what.