Thursday, October 29, 2015

China to End One-Child Policy, Allowing Families Two Children

Photo
The Chinese government eased its one-child policy in 2013, but the state news media reported on Thursday that Beijing was abandoning the policy completely. CreditAdam Dean for The New York Times
BEIJING — China’s Communist Party brought to an end the decades-old “one-child” policy on Thursday, when leaders announced that all married couples would be allowed to have two children in a bid to reverse the rapid aging of the labor force.
The announcement came after the party’s Central Committee concluded a four-day meeting in a heavily guarded hotel in western Beijing where the committee approved proposals for China’s next five-year development plan, which starts next year.
Improve the demographic development strategy,” said the official communiqué, or summary, of the meeting issued through the Xinhua news agency. “Comprehensively implement a policy that couples can have two children, actively taking steps to counter the aging of the population.”

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Not Enough Women in China? Let Men Share a Wife, an Economist Suggests

  

Photo
Men playing checkers in Beijing. By 2020, China will have an estimated 30 million bachelors.Credit Ed Jones/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

One wife, many husbands.
Read in Chinese | 点击查看本文中文版
That’s the solution to China’s huge surplus of single men, says Xie Zuoshi, an economics professor at the Zhejing University of Finance and Economics, whose recent proposal to allow polyandry has gone viral.
Legalizing marriage between two men would also be a good idea, Mr. Xie wrote in a post that has since been removed from his blogs. (He has at least three blogs, and his Sina blog alone has more than 2.6 million followers.)
By 2020, China will have an estimated 30 million bachelors — called guanggun, or “bare branches.” Birth control policies that since 1979 have limited many families to one child, a cultural preference for boys and the widespread, if illegal, practice of sex-selective abortion have contributed to a gender imbalance that hovers around 117 boys born for every 100 girls.
Though some could perhaps detect a touch of Jonathan Swift in the proposal, Mr. Xie wrote that he was approaching the problem from a purely economic point of view.
Many men, especially poor ones, he noted, are unable to find a wife and have children, and are condemned to living and dying without offspring to support them in old age, as children are required to do by law in China. But he believes there is a solution.
A shortage raises the price of goods — in this case, women, he explained. Rich men can afford them, but poor men are priced out. This can be solved by having two men share the same woman.
article

Man Fails Paternity Test Because Unborn Twin Is The Biological Father Of His Son


October 26, 2015 | by Justine Alford

photo credit: isak55/Shutterstock
Prepare to have your mind blown. This is the fascinating case study of a man who failed a paternity test because part of his genome actually belongs to his unborn twin. This means that the genetic father of the child is actually the man in question’s brother, who never made it past a few cells in the womb.
Yes, this sounds completely crazy and like a headline you might read in a trashy magazine. But before you write it off as that, let’s go into some more details.
It all starts off with a couple in the U.S. who were having trouble conceiving their second child. They decided to seek help and went to a fertility clinic, where eventually intrauterine insemination was performed. This involves washing and concentrating sperm before inserting it directly into the uterus of a woman around the time of ovulation to boost the chances of fertilization.
The assisted conception worked, and nine months later the happy couple welcomed a baby boy into the world. But then things started to take a turn for the weird. Testing revealed that the child’s blood type didn’t match up with his parents’.
“Both parents are A, but the child is AB,” Barry Starr from the Department of Genetics at Stanford University told IFLScience. “There are rare cases where that can happen, but their first thought was that the clinic had mixed up sperm samples.”
The couple therefore decided to take a standard paternity test, which to their dismay revealed that the man was not the child’s father. So they took another test, but the results were the same. At this point, mixing up samples didn’t seem too far-fetched, but the clinic had only dealt with one other intrauterine insemination at the same time as this couple, which involved an African-American man, and given the child’s appearance this didn’t match up.
This was when Starr was contacted by the couple’s lawyer, who suggested that they take a more powerful test: the over-the-counter 23andMe genetic service. This was because this particular test is good at looking at family relationships. The results that came back were pretty surprising, suggesting that the child’s father was actually his uncle, the man’s brother.
At this point, Starr’s team decided to delve a little deeper, with the idea that the man could possibly be a “human chimera,” i.e. an individual with different genomes. It’s actually not uncommon for multiple fertilizations to happen in the womb even when only one child is born. What can sometimes happen is two independent early embryos, at this stage just clumps of cells, actually fuse together and go on to develop normally as a single individual.
To test this theory, DNA samples were taken from both the cheek of the father, which was used for the original paternity tests, and also his sperm. Once again, the cheek cells didn’t match up with the child, but the sperm sample told a different story.
Supporting the human chimera idea, what they found was a “major” genome, accounting for roughly 90% of the sperm cells, and a “minor” genome that only represented about 10%, Starr explained. The major genome matched up with the cheek cells, but the minor genome was consistent with the child’s DNA.
“So the father is the fusion of two people, both the child’s father and uncle. That’s wicked cool,” said Starr. 
Article found by Dani

Friday, October 23, 2015

Does Frequent Sex Prime the Immune System for Pregnancy?


Photo
CreditIllustration by Eiko Ojala

For decades, doctors have recom­mended that couples trying to conceive should have intercourse as often as possible, not only during ovulation (obviously) but at other times as well. Doing so is known to improve the odds of success, though the reasons have remained a puzzle. Now two new studies suggest, somewhat radically, that sex alters a woman’s immune system in ways that affect her chances of conceiving.
This column appears in the October 25, 2015 issue of The New York Times Magazine
The data for the studies come from the Kinsey Institute for Research on Sex, Gender and Reproduction and the Center for the Integrative Study of Animal Behavior, both at Indiana University, where researchers recruited 30 healthy, premenopausal women, all of whom were heterosexual and not trying to become pregnant. About half of them were sexually active, using condoms or intrauterine devices as birth control, while the others were abstinent. The volunteers provided blood, saliva and other samples throughout several menstrual cycles. Apart from their sex lives, women in both groups were broadly similar in terms of health and lifestyle.
They soon revealed distinctly different immune-system responses over the course of a menstrual cycle. According to one of the new studies, published in September in the journal Fertility and Sterility, the sexually active women displayed heightened levels of a certain immune cell when their reproductive systems were preparing to release an egg but before they were able to become pregnant. Later in the menstrual cycle, when conception was possible, these women developed higher levels of a different type of immune cell — one known to help a body recognize and ignore nonhazardous foreign cells, like those in a fetus. There were no similar changes in the immune systems of the abstinent women.
The other study, published in Physiology and Behavior, found other immunological differences. Sexually active women early in their cycles developed more antibodies of a type that lives in the mucus lining the reproductive tract and represents a threat to sperm and fetuses. Levels of these antibodies dropped later in the cycle, while the numbers of a different germ-fighting antibody in the blood but not in the reproductive tract grew.
Together, these findings indicate that ‘‘the more frequently a woman engages in sexual activity, the more often her immune system gets the message that it’s time to reproduce,’’ says Tierney Lorenz, the research scientist at the Kinsey Institute who was the lead author of both studies. The research did not examine conception or rates of illness and infection, so the real-life implications of the differences in immunity remain uncertain. It’s also not clear how the immune system knows someone is having sex. There may be messages from the brain or extra changes in hormones, Lorenz says. Sexual partners may even exchange elements of their microbiome, prompting changes in each other’s immunity. For now, the primary lesson Lorenz takes away from these studies, she says, is ‘‘awe for the elegance of our flexible, powerful, socially aware immune system.’’
Fertility and Sterility article
Physiology and Behavior article

Thursday, October 22, 2015

California Is First State to Adopt Sex Reassignment Surgery Policy for Prisoners

California has become the first state with a policy of providing sex reassignment surgery for some prison inmates, adopting a set of specific guidelines on what services it will provide to transgender prisoners, state officials and advocates for transgender people said.
The policy, which took effect this week, grew out of a pair of successful lawsuits filed by inmates. In one, a federal court in April ordered the state to provide surgery to a prisoner, which transgender advocates hailed as a landmark victory, but the inmate was paroled while that ruling was on appeal, making the point moot.
Then, after years of fighting such requests, the state settled the other case in August, agreeing to surgery for Shiloh Quine, a convicted murderer formerly known as Rodney J. Quine, who is serving a life sentence. California’s prisons already provided hormone therapy to transgender inmates, but experts said the Quine settlement was the first time any statehad agreed to taxpayer-funded surgical reassignment for an inmate.
The new guidelines grew out of that settlement.
“California has set a model for the country,” said Kris Hayashi, executive director of the Transgender Law Center, a San Francisco-based group that represented the inmates in both cases. “This is care that, for too long, people have been denied simply because of who they are. It’s especially important because transgender people are incarcerated at six times the rate of the general population.”
Under the new policy, the state will cover mastectomies as well as operations to remove and reconstruct reproductive organs. But it will not cover services the state considers cosmetic, including breast implants or procedures or drugs for hair removal or hair growth.
A review committee of doctors and psychologists will decide whether to allow surgery, based on a prisoner’s physical and mental condition. And a request will be granted only if an inmate has more than two years left to serve before parole is expected; “has continuously manifested a desire to live and be accepted” with a particular sexual identity, including a desire for surgery, for two years; and has lived as a member of that sex, with hormone therapy, for a year.
“They’re pretty conservative criteria — the inmate doesn’t just request surgery and then get it,” said Joyce Hayhoe, legislative and communications director for the independent agency that oversees prison medical care.
The agency, California Correctional Health Care Services, is run by a court-appointed receiver who reports to a federal judge, under a 2002 court finding that medical services in the state’s prisons were inadequate. The new policy was drafted by that agency and the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which still controls prison mental healthcare.
It is not clear how many people will take advantage of the new policy. Most transgender people opt not to have surgery, while many others have breast surgery but not genital operations.
Out of 125,000 inmates in the California system, 400 are being treated for gender dysphoria, the condition of not identifying as the sex indicated by bodily organs, Ms. Hayhoe said. She said that gender reassignment operations and related care for one inmate could cost $50,000 to $100,000, compared with $500 to $3,000 a year for hormone therapy alone.
A string of lawsuits around the country has tried to push prison systems into recognizing gender dysphoria as a medical condition requiring particular accommodations, and in one case chronicled in The New York Times, the Justice Department weighed in, siding with the prisoner. Virginia and Georgia have both paroled inmates seeking surgery before their cases could be resolved in the courts.
Whether to provide surgery is not the only issue in such cases, nor is it the most basic. Some states have provided hormone therapy to transgender inmates, but others have not. And some house transgender prisoners according to the sex they identify as or make special arrangements for them, while others do not, which advocates say puts them at grave risk of being victimized.
article

Friday, October 16, 2015

3 Reasons to Doubt the Most Widely Believed Biology-Based Gender Myths

When a behavior feels like second nature to us, it’s hard to imagine that it could have been learned.

That’s why so many people intuitively feel that gender roles must be biological – and it seems like every day, there’s a new study to support that claim. But how conclusive is the evidence, really?

It turns out a lot of tendencies that seem almost reflexive are actually learned. But because they’re so deeply engrained in us from the time we’re born, they affect the way our brains develop, and it feels as if we were born that way.

I’ll go through some of these myths about gender one by one, but here’s a problem that applies to all of them: Claims about evolutionary gender differences, especially those citing the animal kingdom, equate males with men and females with women, when in reality men can be biologically female and women can be biologically male.

While I will debunk some of these theories by citing research specific to male and female animals and bodies, it’s important to keep in mind that this research doesn’t translate directly to men and women. In fact, the difference between sex and gender further challenges any claim that men and women behave as they do because of X and Y chromosomes.

Here are a few gender stereotypes that are not as biologically rooted as many think.

1. Men Are Better at Math and Science
2. Women Are More Emotional
3. Men Have Higher Sex Drives

In 2005, former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers came under fire for suggesting that women were underrepresented in scientific fields due to “issues of intrinsic aptitude.”

While Summers ended up apologizing, many thought he didn’t have to. After all, isn’t it the duty of universities to consider all possible theories rather than let politics influence their search for objective truth?

Generally, yes – but if you’re going to make a statement so potentially harmful, your evidence had better be rock solid. And in this case, it’s not.

Claims like Summers’ contribute far more to the gap in STEM fields than differences in “intrinsic aptitude.”

Lately, more and more research is proving that socialization has a stronger influence on the STEM gap than we ever imagined. Differences in many measures of mathematical and scientific abilities evaporate when socialization is accounted for.

In one fascinating study, the performance gap on a mental rotation task –which shows people an object and asks them which of several pictures depicts the same object in a different position – disappeared when participants were instructed to picture themselves as stereotypical men beforehand.

Another phenomenon suggesting that self-stereotyping contributes to gender and racial gaps in STEM is stereotype threat: When women and people of color are reminded of their identities before taking math tests, their scores drop significantly due to the discouragement of knowing they’re not expected to do well and the pressure to prove that stereotype wrong.

Perhaps partially due to stereotype threat, the gender gap in math performance correlates negatively with the gender equality present in a culture. In countries where the least sexism exists, the gap disappears. In addition, the daughters of mothers who believe in gender stereotypes about math ability perceive themselves to be less good at math.

These studies all highlight the power of parents, teachers, and other authority figures to close the STEM gender gap by teaching children that boys are not, in fact, better at math and science.

The evidence is all over the place with this one, but it does unequivocally show that men are more likely to hide their emotions, so the differences in behavior we may observe probably have more to do with socialization than heredity.

A study from earlier this year, in which women reported stronger reactions and showed greater activation in motor regions of the brain speculated to correlate with emotional expression in response to emotional images, was presented by the media as a boon for gender stereotypes. But self-reports aren’t always the best indication of true feelings, and the fact that a trait appears on a brain scanner doesn’t make it innate.

Another study with different results showed men and women “blissful, funny, exciting, and heart-warming” videos and measured their skin conductance, a response of the sweat glands that correlates with emotional reactions to stimuli. Men demonstrated a greater physiological response to all four types of videos, especially the “heartwarming” ones. Yet, afterward, when asked to rate how the videos made them feel, women reported stronger reactions.

In a survey of over 2,000 men, 67% said they were more emotional than they appeared. Surprisingly, 40% of men ages 18-24 said they had cried in the last week.

Suppressing emotions can harm your health, strain your relationships, and even make you less likable. And the stereotype that women are more emotional isn’t particularly helpful either.

John McCain’s use of the term “emotional” to discredit Hillary Clinton is one of many instances when the perception that women are more emotional made people take them less seriously.

“Emotional” shouldn’t be an insult in the first place, but since it often is, we should be skeptical of a society that attributes this quality to women and make room for people of all gender identities to express emotions.

It only takes a quick glance at the sex subreddit, replete with questions from men with women partners who have higher sex drives than them, to realize this isn’t always the case.

“It is not uncommon for women to desire sex more often than their male partners,” Dr. Abraham Morgentaler, author of The Truth About Men and Sex, told Glamour in a recent interview. But is the stereotype true on average?

Western culture imposes disproportionate shame on women for expressing sexual desires. This is known as the sexual double-standard, and research has shown that Americans promote this standard by viewing men positively and women negatively for having many sexual partners.

It’s likely that this social norm is contributing at least in part to the finding that men often profess a greater interest in sex.

For example, while one study found that more men were interested in casual sex when no context was given, it also found that women were equally interested in a hypothetical scenario in which they would not be judged and their partner would be a “great lover.”

In addition, a study by the dating service Elite Singles found that women and men were on the same page regarding frequency of sex: 65% of women and 69% of men said a few days a week was ideal. A survey by fertility app Kindara similarly found that about three-quarters of women wanted to engage in sexual activity over three times a week, and over half wanted to have more sex than they were having.

The book What Do Women Want? Adventures in the Science of Female Desire debunked pretty much every stereotype under the sun regarding women’s sexuality a couple years ago.

In it, author Daniel Bergner used scientific research and evidence from the animal kingdom to argue that women want sex as much as men, and that these desires are “not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety,” as stereotype would have it.

Another stereotype Bergner’s research discredited was that men are naturally the initiators of sex. At least that’s not how our closest animal relatives do things: Bergner told Salon he was struck by how female Rhesus monkeys were “relentlessly stalking” and “chasing” the males.

He also cited a study showing that blood flow to the vagina increases when people view a wide range of sexual images – even more types of images than penises reacted to, debunking the myth that women (conflated in the research with people who have vaginas) are less visual.

As to the reason for the wider range, he offered several explanations including: “We’ve very strongly eroticized women’s bodies and, of course, women are going to feel that as well as men.”

But sex drive is something so primal, you may think – can it really be learned? Well, cultural differences in sexuality suggest it can be learned to a great extent.

When studying two central African cultures, anthropologists Barry and Bonnie Hewlett were surprised to find that the men were not aware of masturbation. When another anthropologist, Robert Bailey, tried to obtain semen samples from men in the Ituri forest of the Congo, they also didn’t understand what masturbation was, and even after it was explained to them, many returned samples mixed with vaginal secretions.

Even in Western cultures, the belief that men are more sexual has not always held. In the Middle Ages, it was common knowledge that women had higher sex drives.

Saint Isidore of Seville called women “very passionate… more libidinous then men,” and St. Jerome similarly wrote, “women’s love in general is accused of ever being insatiable; put it out, it bursts into flame; give it plenty, it is again in need.” (Yes, sex was a topic that the saints addressed.)

In addition to simply not being true, the conventional wisdom that men are always interested in sex is dangerous because it implies that men cannot be sexually assaulted when they absolutely can.

Further, the belief that women are not very interested in sex and need to be talked into it is used both to justify pressuring women into sex and to sex-shame women who seek it out, when in reality, it’s totally normal to want and seek out sex regardless of gender.

***

I question these gender roles not to criticize those who happen to relate to them but to validate those who don’t – because although claims about the innateness of gender usually aim to be descriptive, they become prescriptive very quickly.

"It just seems to be clothes" - Tumblr post about gender essentialism

So I see that as of late, the newest variation on the “trans people reinforce gender stereotypes!” whining is that “genderfluid people aren’t real, wanting to wear a dress one day and a suit the next doesn’t make you a woman then a man, stupid teenage girls!”
I’ve also seen a lot of people in trans communities, trans discussion threads, etc. say that they just can’t get their head around why it’s a gender thing when it’s “just about clothes”, or how depressing it is that people feel like if they’re anything but totally feminine or totally masculine they can’t be a boy or a girl anymore.
I’m no authority, but I do use genderfluid as an adjective for myself. I’d call myself a genderfluid androgyne. I also consider myself both transgender and transsexual, as a person living as an androgyne full time and pursuing medical transition. I find myself tugged between trans NB communities and trans binary communities a lot because of that combination of, well, being NB and identifying so strongly with a need to medically transition.
But I’d also love if both “sides” of this discussion tried to breach the gap of understanding that always seems to be present.


So let’s make one thing clear. When talking about gender fluidity in the context of gender identity, it is not “about clothes”. It can include a lot of things. It can include a fluctuating sense of bodily and/or social dysphoria that leads to a fluctuating interpretation of someone’s gender. It can include a fluctuation in how someone instinctively perceives themselves and wishes to be perceived. It can include alterations in how somebody goes about their life.
“But why do so many genderfluid people talk about feeling more masculine or more feminine sometimes? That’s not gender, that’s just how you look!”
Well, good lord, it’s like not even trans people come out the womb up on the latest academic talk. Seriously, talking about being trans in a society that never wants to talk about us, let alone nicely, is hard. Talking about a non binary gender identity is hard. It is not language most people grow up being exposed to. It is not language we are typically taught. Sometimes people stumble over themselves in an attempt to explain how they feel, or fall back on concepts that cis people find easier to understand, or want terms that indicate closeness to being male/female but not a total commitment to the concept, or a million other things.
Some of us are sheltered fifteen year olds! Some of us grew up in isolated areas! Some of us are older, and used to “outdated” ways of talking about things!
“Some days I feel more masculine” does not have to mean “some days I fancy wearing men’s jeans”. It can mean “some days, I have dysphoria about my chest” or “some days, I feel no dysphoria about my facial hair”. It can mean “Some days, I feel closer to being a man, but I’m not going to use that word precisely”. It can mean, “some days I get confused for a second when people call me ‘ma’am’ and not ‘sir’“. It does not mean that every one of us figures that fancying a dress today “makes us” a girl, for heaven’s sake. (I dress the same no matter how my gender shifts over time. I wear all types of gendered clothing all the time. I don’t give a shit.)
“But then how come they all wear stereotypical clothes on boy days and girl days, huh?”
Why the fuck do you think? The same reason a lot of trans men and trans women swap out their wardrobes for more stereotypically masculine/feminine ones when they transition! Even though any gender can wear whatever they want! And the same reason nobody should give them shit about it applies here, too.
Because it increases the likelihood of being recognized for your gender in our society. Because if perhaps you can’t change your body, you can change your clothes. Because as a kid you heard “boys do this” and doing that thing makes you feel aligned with maleness even if you know that boys can wear skirts and girls can wear suits. Because you like to be able to make an implicit declaration of your gender and not feel invisible about it.
Those of us changing our wardrobes aren’t necessarily saying “I fancy a dress, must be a girl day”. Plenty of us are saying, “It’s a girl day- if I wear a dress, I’ll feel better about it”.
This isn’t even getting started on those people whose genderfluidity may instead be between, say, girl and genderqueer. Etc.
All this proves is that genderfluid people are as subject to the same kind of gender essentialism the rest of society is. We may opt out of binary identification, but we don’t get to just opt out of society. And not everyone is dedicating their very existence to tearing it down. Some people want to get on with their lives and deal with their shit with no fuss. Stop scapegoating genderfluid people for gender essentialism. There’s not some huge number of us saying that wearing trousers makes you a man on the national news.
Just because we don’t spout out super-accurate Trans Lingo TM that covers every nuance every time somebody asks for an explanation, or we split our wardrobes in half to calm our dysphoria down, or we oversimplify things to get cis people to stop asking us intrusive questions, doesn’t mean we’re fake. It just means we’re actual human beings.
(written by partially-stars on Tumblr)

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Gay or straight? Saliva test can predict male sexual orientation


GettyImages-200193490-010_v2


Gay or straight? A saliva test can predict the answer, and get it right 67 per cent of the time – for male identical twins at least.
The test, which uses clues from tiny modifications to a person’s genome, is the first that claims to detect sexual orientation. Many scientists have expressed caution over the results, while concerns over potential misuse of the test have led the study’s lead researcher to quit the project entirely.
“The scientific benefit to understanding [why people vary in sexual orientation] is obvious to anyone with an iota of curiosity,” says Michael Bailey at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. “The predictive test needs replication on larger samples in order to know how good it is, but in theory it’s quite interesting.”
Over the last two decades, several studies have suggested that sexual orientation is, in part, down to our genes. Perhaps the biggest splash was made in 1993 by Dean Hamer’s team at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, when they found that gay brothers tended to share a sequence of five genetic markers in a region of the X chromosome. The same region has been implicated in other studies of sexual orientation since, although researchers haven’t been able to single out “gay genes”.
Other observations also suggest a genetic basis for sexual orientation, such as the mysterious fraternal birth order effect. For every male pregnancy a woman has, a subsequent son has a 33 per cent higher chance of being homosexual, although no one knows why. The overall chance is still low, however, rising from around 2 per cent to just 6 per cent for a third son.
“It seems as though the mother’s body is remembering the sex of previous pregnancies,” says Tuck Ngun at the University of California Los Angeles. A male pregnancy might leave some sort of marker behind that affects subsequent pregnancies. This might be down to epigenetic changes – the addition or subtraction of a methyl group to genes, which switches them on or off.
To investigate a potential role for epigenetics, Ngun and his colleagues looked for epigenetic modifications made to the genes of 47 sets of male twins. Thirty-seven of the twin pairs were both gay, while 10 pairs differed, with one brother identifying as gay and the other as straight. They ended up with a giant spreadsheet showing the levels of methylation across the genome of each twin, says Ngun.
Next, Ngun and his colleagues looked at the genomes ofhomosexual and heterosexual volunteers. They used an algorithm to search out gene regions in which methylation patterns differed significantly between the two groups.
They found five sites– three in regions of “junk DNA”, the role of which is unclear, two in genes whose roles are relatively well established.
One of these genes is involved with the production of MHC II molecules. These are important for a healthy immune system, but are also thought to affect sexual attraction.
The other gene region implicated is responsible for making a protein that affects neuron function. “It could affect how neuronal circuits are patterned, and influence behaviour,” says Ngun, who presents the findings today at the American Society of Human Genetics annual meeting in Baltimore, Maryland.
The team then went a step further. Using the test results from 20 of the pairs, they developed a model to predict if a person is straight or gay based on the methylation patterns of their genes. When they tested their model on the remaining pairs of male twins, they found it correctly predicted sexual orientation 67 per cent of the time.

False positives?

Other scientists are cautious about the results. “Studies that associate biomarkers with particular traits are notoriously prone to false positive results due to the tendency of these studies to find spurious associations that are down to sheer chance,” says Johnjoe McFadden, a molecular geneticist at the University of Surrey, UK.
Since the associations have not yet been tested in a completely independent study population, the results should be considered no more than suggestive. There needs to be verification before any firm conclusions can be drawn, he says.
While epigenetic patterns are showing promise as a biomarker for certain traits, it’s still difficult to infer causality. Gavin Kelsey, who studies epigenetics at the Babraham Institute in Cambridge, UK, says: “The nub of the problem with studies like these is that when you see methylation changes, you don’t know whether methylation is the prime event or if it’s reflecting some other event. Methylation might be reflecting a state rather than driving it.”
Ngun himself has concerns that the test has the potential to be used and abused. “I’m gay,” he says, “and I’ve always wondered why I am the way I am. But once you have this information, you can’t control how it’s used or disseminated.”
The study raises concerns that people could try to tinker with epigenetic modifications to change sexuality. Currently, we don’t have a way to selectively change epigenetic patterns on DNA, although the technology is being developed.
“Technically it might be possible to change DNA methylation in a targeted way in the near future,” says Stephan Beck at University College London.
This concern may be premature. Marc Breedlove at Michigan State University in East Lansing points out that in its current form, the test is not accurate enough to be used to predict whether someone in a new population of individuals is gay with any certainty, since the 67 per cent accuracy of the test is only relevant for the test population, who are themselves not reflective of the general population, in which a much lower proportion of people are gay.
Nevertheless, some researchers contacted by New Scientist raised concerns over the ethical implications of such research. For example, if the test were developed further, could it one day be used to screen for sexuality at an early age?
“Eugenics is always a possibility, but governments that regressive would rarely have enough money to spend on something like this,” says Alice Dreger an ethicist and historian of sexuality. “More likely it would be used by parents.”
Dreger recalls an anecdote from a researcher who studies the fraternal birth order effect. The researcher received a phone call from a man in the US who was looking to hire a surrogate mother – but because of the effect did not want someone who had already had several sons. “That’s not really what I want…” the man had said, “especially if I’m paying for it.”
Should epigenetic changes be shown to be partly responsible for sexual orientation, it would still be difficult to screen for them. First one would have to work out at what age the marks appeared and whether they were permanent.
“Assuming the marks were placed early enough in fetal development, the potential for a [screening] test is there,” says Ngun. But even so, it would be difficult to know which cells of an embryo to test, because epigenetic patterns vary between different types of cells in a single person. “Which embryo cells would correspond to adult saliva?” says Beck.
Ngun is concerned that his work could be misinterpreted by people who seek to identify and punish people for being gay. “I honestly don’t think it’s that far-fetched,” Ngun says. In some countries, homosexuality is punishable, sometimes by death.
The idea has troubled Ngun to the extent that he decided to abandon research in the field completely. “I just left the lab last week,” he says. “I don’t believe in the censoring of knowledge, but given the potential for misuse of the information, it just didn’t sit well with me.”
Article