We are all born to sin just by being human. No one is immune from it. So I believe there is a "sin gene?" No. Neither are there those who are born to kill or born to run, etc. There are those who are more athletically predisposed to excel at running, but that does not necessarily mean they will. Just as someone born with a good singing voice has the talent, but if they do not develop that talent what good is it? But the concept of being born to sin is something different completely. All children are born innocent and are not accountable until age 8. During that time it is the responsibility of parents to teach them right from wrong and appropriate behaviors. Some parents do a better job of it than others.
What about someone that has more testerone or more hormones where they have greater urges to do certain things. A person like that could be more likely to sin. Maybe they can control it maybe they can't, not sure how you can judge something like that.
If that were the case then men would naturally sin more often than women. That is not necessarily the case. There are constructive ways to channel testosterone. We are born as innocent children. As we grow we learn right from wrong and make our choices based upon that knowledge. It comes down to character not genetics.
I don't believe men sin any more often. I just think their sins are more overt. There are so many kinds of sin, some less obvious than others and so we sometimes forget that they are sins still the same. Sins of omission can be just as aggrevious.
JenLuvsMp3 has a good point. In a study of criminals it was found that many of these, mostly males (based on Jb's point) had a biological imbalance that seemed to set them off to be the rebels of society. I often think about the maleness of Lucifer and possibly if the 1/3 that did not keep their first estate, were they mostly male? Maybe there is another reason for plural marriage.