At the end of August this year, an article was published in the journal Science, which stated that no specific homosexuality gene exists. And that there is only a vanishingly small correlation between some combinations of specific genes and the experience of same-sex contacts. However, people who consider themselves homosexuals are at least an order of magnitude larger.
Strictly speaking, there is nothing new in this statement. Back in 1993, geneticist Dean Haymer announced the discovery of mutations associated with homosexuality. About the same area where color blindness and hemophilia came from. But Haymer (with all the antediluvian genetic research of that time) stated: this explains only a tenth of the cases of homosexuality. And nine others does not explain.
Since then, many studies have been published, each of which, in general, repeated roughly the same thing: yes, certain mutations correlate with homosexual experience (mind you, not homosexuality as such, because the devil knows how to determine it in a laboratory, namely, with the experience of same-sex relationships of the person being studied, which, of course, could be random), but with such correlations, the vast majority of cases of homosexuality are not explained by any genetic predisposition. It is interesting, by the way, that every other study found genetic characteristics in different places of DNA.
That is, there is no scientific sensation. But there are some media changes.
Prior to the current study in Science, reports of all such studies were published in the press with the headline: “The homosexuality gene has been discovered.” And the fact that this gene was found in an overwhelming minority of homosexuals was somehow carefully ignored. Now, while the study claims the same thing as before, the headings are different. Namely: "There is no homosexuality gene."
There are practically no actual differences. Yes, only a year ago, at the annual conference of the American Society of Human Genetics, a report was presented on the results of a study on an array of half a million people. Research in the journal Science is based on an array of data of the same volume. But last year's study sensationally decided that genetic prerequisites for homosexuality exist. This year’s study also sensationally decides that such premises do not exist. Although the statistics in both studies are approximately the same.
There are many possible explanations for such a sudden turn. I even read one interesting conspiracy thesis, which stated that the liberal (sic) journal Science published material on the absence of the homosexuality gene specifically, as the concept has changed. And thus, the conditional homosexual lobby institutionalizes the social preconditions for homosexuality, as if to say to society: “Well, are you already used to the fact that homosexual sounds proudly? We pass from theory to practice. ”
Like any other conspiracy thesis, this particular one sins in the absence of the most important thing - a strategic goal. Even if we assume that the main scientific journal of the planet suddenly succumbed to public sentiment (the assumption, by the way, is not without reason: we remember how feminists obtained an article from Mathematical Intelligencer that statistically substantiated variability of different sexes), so if we even suppose that a rainbow flag was suddenly hung out on the Science editorial building, it’s still not very clear why.
Hollywood stars already dress their boys and girls in girls to “help them realize their identity.”
The task of institutionalizing the social context, in general, is solved. But the problem is that conventionality is not for sale. Exclusivity is on sale. And if the conditional homosexual lobby wins no less conditionally, then there will no longer be any lobby. Because there will be nothing to lobby. And there will be no lobbying - there will be no income.
Not to mention the fact that nature, no matter how it is desired, cannot be deceived. So Greta Tunberg will tell you the same thing. Sky News reports that there are growing numbers of people in the UK who are disappointed with their gender change. People who would like to regain their old floor. The one with whom they were born. Moreover, it affects both the age of the disappointed and the scale of the phenomenon. Age (attention!) - 19-20 years. This is the age of those who have not only changed sex, but also become disappointed. What, you see, takes some time. And the scale is as follows: in Newcastle alone (population less than 7.5 thousand people) there are three dozen disappointed. And throughout the country - hundreds of only those who have asked for help.
So let's reject conspiracy thesis. Perhaps we are seeing the first signs of a radical change in discourse. In a society of total tolerance, revolutionary moods are ripening. And they do not mature at all because ordinary people are against those who want to be unusual. Namely, because unusual people are against those who are ordinary.
And the worst thing about all this is that the Russian law banning the promotion of homosexuality seems to be fair. Because, as we see, homosexuality in the world is spreading precisely through propaganda.
It is proved by scientists. Published in Science.
Congratulations, we are back in the most advanced country in the world.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.