Comments on: Episcopal Bishop still the only “Gay Gene” http://blog.catholicsphere.com/2006/02/22/episcopal-bishop-still-the-only-gay-gene.html Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:46:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Matt http://blog.catholicsphere.com/2006/02/22/episcopal-bishop-still-the-only-gay-gene.html#comment-171 Matt Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:18:46 +0000 http://blog.catholicsphere.com/?p=507#comment-171 I did include the statistics for mothers of more than one gay son ... noting 11 women in this category inactivating the chromosome. (The abstract you link to actually says 10 -- I arrived at 11 by taking the percentage of the 44 and rounding up.) When percentages are used, it appears to be more significant: 4% vs 13% vs 23%. But, the actual numbers are less significant: 4 (103 * 0.04) vs 7 (53 * 0.13) vs 10 (44 * 0.23). The study really is not as significant as its being reported. I think what a study with such an insignificant sample size may do is actually create more divisiveness and contention in the issue, as well as a bias in future research because of such contention. I did include the statistics for mothers of more than one gay son … noting 11 women in this category inactivating the chromosome. (The abstract you link to actually says 10 — I arrived at 11 by taking the percentage of the 44 and rounding up.)

When percentages are used, it appears to be more significant: 4% vs 13% vs 23%. But, the actual numbers are less significant: 4 (103 * 0.04) vs 7 (53 * 0.13) vs 10 (44 * 0.23).

The study really is not as significant as its being reported. I think what a study with such an insignificant sample size may do is actually create more divisiveness and contention in the issue, as well as a bias in future research because of such contention.

]]> By: JayBee http://blog.catholicsphere.com/2006/02/22/episcopal-bishop-still-the-only-gay-gene.html#comment-170 JayBee Sat, 25 Feb 2006 07:12:08 +0000 http://blog.catholicsphere.com/?p=507#comment-170 Matt, while I agree that this study does not prove anything, the difference of 4% of mothers in the one sample (no gay sons) and 13% (one gay son) in the other is statistically significantant. Also in the group of mothers that had two or more gay sons this factor went up to 23%. Why did you leave that part out? While this data alone is by no means conclusive proof that homosexuality is caused by purely genetic factors, it is does suggest that there may be genetic factors involved in homosexuality. The abstract to the article in question can be found at http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=p2365262023tkn31 Matt, while I agree that this study does not prove anything, the difference of 4% of mothers in the one sample (no gay sons) and 13% (one gay son) in the other is statistically significantant. Also in the group of mothers that had two or more gay sons this factor went up to 23%. Why did you leave that part out?

While this data alone is by no means conclusive proof that homosexuality is caused by purely genetic factors, it is does suggest that there may be genetic factors involved in homosexuality.

The abstract to the article in question can be found at http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=p2365262023tkn31

]]>