Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
freedslave

Inborn Homosexuality Or Media Hype?

Recommended Posts

:sl: / Peace

 

Inborn Homosexuality or Media Hype?

 

By Aisha El-Awady

Islamonline(contact admin if its a beneficial link)

 

A new Swedish study about similarities between the brains of homosexual people and those of heterosexual people of the opposite sex has gained much media coverage since the study was first published. Most, if not all, media outlets came to the conclusion that this study is either proof or that it strongly suggests that homosexuality is inborn.

 

The study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, scanned the brains of 90 homosexual and heterosexual men and women to measure the two halves of each person's brain.

 

The sizes of the brain halves of each group, called hemispheres, were compared with those of people from the other groups. It was found by the study, performed at the Karolinska Institute, that the right half of the brains of the homosexual women and heterosexual men was larger than the left half. No difference was found in size between the two halves of the brain in the gay men and heterosexual women.

 

Scientists also studied the nerve connections that come out of a small almond-shaped structure, known as the amygdala, deep in the brain. In lesbians and heterosexual men, there were more nerve connections coming out of the right amygdala. In gay men and heterosexual women, more nerve connections came out of the left amygdala.

 

"An Open Question"

 

What is alarming about the way this story was covered is the fact that the media seem to be driven to report in a specific and quite biased direction. In fact, after taking a good look at the research involved, one can clearly see that the scientists who conducted the study, although making the suggestion that it is possible that neurobiological entities may be involved in a person's inclination to be homosexual, say that this is still an open question that has not been answered by their study,

 

The observations cannot be easily attributed to perception or behavior. Whether they may relate to processes laid down during the fetal or postnatal development is an open question.

 

In a report by the BBC on the study, they quote a certain Dr. Qazi Rahman, introduced as a lecturer in cognitive biology at Queen Mary, University of London, who went as far as to declare, "As far as I'm concerned, there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay." He also said, with no evidence given, that he believed that these brain differences were laid down early in fetal development.

 

One would expect a world-renowned media organization such as the BBC to take a less biased approach to reporting, especially with a study that did not claim to prove anything and one which is, in fact, the first study to find these differences and has yet to be replicated in order to confirm the results.

 

Neil E. Whitehead, Ph.D. scientific research consultant and coauthor of the book My Genes Made Me Do It!, explained to IslamOnline(contact admin if its a beneficial link) (IOL), "The Positron emission tomography (PET) and Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) methods are the most recent in attempts to find differences between SSA (same-sex attracted) and OSA (opposite-sex attracted) brains. Past attempts have not proved reproducible."

 

"So the question is: What is the probability the present study results will prove any more replicable?" he asked. "In this field, experience has shown it is very, very advisable to be cautious and wait for replication; often, it does not happen."

 

Behavior Causing the Change?

 

Perhaps the biggest argument one might have with this study is the fact that it was performed on adults. The brain size and neural connections within the brain were never measured before the study in these individuals; therefore, there is no record of the size of these parameters in these same individuals during early childhood.

 

The problem with this is that there was no baseline with which to compare the results. In the paper, the Karolinska team says that the brain continues to mature after puberty, especially in boys, which means that social and/or environmental factors may influence it.

 

How can it be decided then if the person’s brain changed due to their behavior or if their behavior was caused by the change in the brain without such a baseline? In other words, was the homosexuality caused by the difference in brain size and neural connections or were these differences caused by the homosexuality?

 

Dr. Whitehead said, "The brain, even as an adult, changes in response to experience. Thus, it was shown in an article published in Nature a few years ago, that a 3-month training in juggling produced measurable micro-structural changes in adult brains, and this could also be reversed."

 

"In other words, there is definite evidence that experience changes the structure and function of the brain."

 

Dr. Mamdouh El-Adl, a consultant psychiatrist in the U.K,with a special interest in psychosexual disorders, agrees. "The [study] findings do not put anyone in a position to conclude that these observed differences are unlikely to be directly affected by learned patterns and behavior," he told IOL.

 

"In my opinion, for drawing such a conclusion, there is a need to follow up a cohort of subjects since birth, expose them to the same environmental factors, and conduct the appropriate serial tests."

 

Whitehead said that the argument (i.e. that people are born with either SSA-type or OSA-type brains that do not change regardless of subsequent life experiences) is a very hypothetical one.

 

"Proving this would require doing brain scans on many thousand newborns and following them for 25 years in the hope of correlating birth structures with later sexual activity. The theory is inherently unlikely and experimentally a nightmare."

 

Good vs. Bad Science Journalism

 

Another problem with the interpretation of the results by the media is the fact that the scientists in the study say that they measured the size of the brain halves as a whole. As each brain half is made up of many different regions, each with a different function, it is of major importance in a study like this to find out which of these regions was causing the increase in size.

 

This would demonstrate whether the enlarged regions in the right half of the brains of the homosexual women were in fact the same regions, with the same function, as those that were enlarged in the right half of the brain of the heterosexual men.

 

As this is unknown, it is quite possible that the enlarged regions may be completely different with possibly opposing functions. This would lead to a completely different interpretation of the results obtained by the study.

 

"The best we can say about the Swedish study is that it may have shown differences in gay and straight [person's] brains, but the best evidence is that these differences arose through learning and experience, not innateness," concluded Dr. Whitehead.

 

"The authors kindly highlighted the points for and against the neurobiology of sexual orientation and made it very clear that their study does not allow narrowing the potential explanations or drawing a conclusion," explained Dr. Al-Edl, who is also a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

 

"However, the media picked up the study as a definite answer to the neurobiology of homosexuality and sexual orientation. Unfortunately, this has caused more confusion among the public, particularly among those who are unsure about their sexual orientation and preference."

 

"Those people are likely to be influenced by the media and its style of presenting the news rather than appreciating that these are initial non-conclusive results of a small research project published in a scientific journal," he continued.

 

In the book, A Field Guide for Science Writers, Shannon Brownlee, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, asks science journalists, "Are we supposed to simply cover the medical news: the new findings, the 'breakthroughs' that appear in medical journals?"

 

"Or are we supposed to serve as critics of medicine, uncovering corruption and wrongdoing like our colleagues who cover politics, the military, and business?"

 

This question has to be asked of science journalism when covering homosexuality as well. Has science journalism lost its perspective? Is the new trend to just go with the flow?

 

Have gay rights movements become so influential that science journalists and scientists alike are afraid to criticize anything that might brand them as being homophobic, which has become the politically incorrect thing to be?

 

Sources:

 

Blum, Deborah. “A Field Guide for Science Writers, second edition.” Oxford University Press. 2005.

 

"Scans See 'Gay Brain Differences' ." BBC News. 16 June 2008. Accessed 27 July 2008.

 

Savic, Ivanka and Lindstrom, Per. “PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105.27 (2008): 9403-8.

 

Aisha El-Awady is an editor in the Health and Science section of IslamOnline(contact admin if its a beneficial link). She has a bachelor’s degree in medicine and an MD in Parasitology from Cairo University and is currently working as Lecturer of Parasitology at the Faculty of Medicine there. She may be contacted at sciencetech[at]islamonline(contact admin if its a beneficial link)

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetislamonline(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1216208084883&pagename=Zone-English-HealthScience%2FHSELayout"]Source[/url]

 

:sl: / Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Homosexuality certainly seems to be as much nature as it is nurture.

But even if this is not the case, the fact remains: homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual.

So why should they be discriminated against for something which is out of their hands?

 

You wouldn't discriminate against a paraplegic. But what's the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

Homosexuality certainly seems to be as much nature as it is nurture.

 

The studies that seem to prove that homosexuality comes from nature, are inconclusive at best.

 

But even if this is not the case, the fact remains: homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual.

So why should they be discriminated against for something which is out of their hands?

 

Who said anything about discrimination?

 

The article above seeks to question what homosexuality is (i.e. is it a genetic predisposition or a nurtured behaviour), not to discriminate.

 

Whether they choose to be like that or not, depends on the individual. I would argue that some choose to be like that, just so that they can be different. While others, cannot control their behaviors in this respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether they choose to be like that or not, depends on the individual. I would argue that some choose to be like that, just so that they can be different. While others, cannot control their behaviors in this respect.

 

Just because something is caused by environment rather than genes doesn't mean it's a choice, nor that it can be changed (even if you wanted to change it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Human sexuality is quite varied and has its basis in our biology, and the environment shapes it. This explains why different men are attracted to different women. One man will find a certain woman very attractive, while another man will find her not attractive at all. There are also different ways of having sexual relations between a man and a woman and every person has his or her sexual preferences in this as well. Therefore, it is logical to assume that homosexuality has its basis in biology and is also shaped by the environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because something is caused by environment rather than genes doesn't mean it's a choice, nor that it can be changed (even if you wanted to change it).

 

I think some homosexuals do make a conscientous choice to be in that lifestyle.

 

Its true that others cannot control this part of their behaviour, and it seems like that they don't have a choice. But there have been cases of homosexuals who changed themselves and rejected the lifestyle completely.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Ex-gay"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Ex-gay[/url]

 

So why does Islam oppose homosexuality so vehemently?

 

I'm not sure if brother cefarix is condoning that homosexuality comes from nature. What I understood was attraction between man and woman comes from both biology and environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think some homosexuals do make a conscientous choice to be in that lifestyle.

 

Some might, but I think that most don't, any more than heterosexuals make a choice to be in their lifestyle.

 

Its true that others cannot control this part of their behaviour, and it seems like that they don't have a choice. But there have been cases of homosexuals who changed themselves and rejected the lifestyle completely.

 

Same with heterosexuals - nuns, for example - but I agree with Cefarix that human sexuality is unique to individuals. Gay/straight isn't black and white. It has been described as a continuum, with people at different points along it. Many people experiment with homosexuality (although it's mainly women who are prepared to talk about it, oddly enough).

 

You use the word 'lifestyle' several times. Are you just referring to being a homosexual, or are you referring to something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same with heterosexuals - nuns, for example - but I agree with Cefarix that human sexuality is unique to individuals. Gay/straight isn't black and white. It has been described as a continuum, with people at different points along it. Many people experiment with homosexuality (although it's mainly women who are prepared to talk about it, oddly enough).

 

Yes, agreed, we can't paint all homosexuals and heterosexuals with the same brush. I think I have been quite clear that we can't treat all homosexuals as the same. For those who continuously have gay relationships (I'm concentrating on this group for the purpose of the thread), some make a choice to be gay and they are well aware of their choice, while for others it seems like that they do not have a choice.

 

It is the 2nd group that the article above talks more about. I acknowledge that biology has a part to play in this behaviour. However, as we all know, our biology is influenced by our environment, and our experiences. For example, when we learn cycling or riding a bicycle at a young age, we have difficulty in doing so because our motor functions are not used to this new habit. But after continued attempts at this, we get better at this. Scientists attribute this to our brain having new neural pathways in the part of the brain that deals with motor functions. This is an example where environment has influenced biology.

 

The point I'm making is - homosexuality is influenced by both environment and biology. Certain life experiences can cause a person, gradually to become homosexual, and this is could be an example where environment induces some biological and mental changes in the human body and brain. There's no evidence to show that people are born gay.

 

You use the word 'lifestyle' several times. Are you just referring to being a homosexual, or are you referring to something else?

 

I'm referring to all people who are homosexual. Maybe I shouldn't use the word 'lifestyle', considering that they're some who seem that they can't control who they're attracted to. I'll just call it, their orientation. Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point I'm making is - homosexuality is influenced by both environment and biology. Certain life experiences can cause a person, gradually to become homosexual, and this is could be an example where environment induces some biological and mental changes in the human body and brain.

 

Probably, but those environmental effects often occur well before puberty (and less often after it, I think) - even in the womb, according to some research. If your concern is to lower the number of homosexuals in society, you aren't going to do it by closing gay bars or whatever.

 

There's no evidence to show that people are born gay.

 

AFAIK there's no evidence they they aren't born gay, either.

 

I'm referring to all people who are homosexual. Maybe I shouldn't use the word 'lifestyle', considering that they're some who seem that they can't control who they're attracted to. I'll just call it, their orientation. Simple.

 

Fair enough.

 

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably, but those environmental effects often occur well before puberty (and less often after it, I think) - even in the womb, according to some research. If your concern is to lower the number of homosexuals in society, you aren't going to do it by closing gay bars or whatever.

 

Probably therapy might help reduce the numbers.

 

And changes due to environment that occur during puberty, are not irreversible. They can be treated, though it would take more effort.

 

AFAIK there's no evidence they they aren't born gay, either.

 

Ask any a unbiased genetics scientist who knows his stuff, and he'll tell you that genes do not directly influence behaviours, or sexual orientation. There's no such thing as a 'gay' gene.

Ask any neuroscientist, and they'll tell you the relative size of the brain and its structures are the roughly same for average newborn babies. Gay babies are not born.

 

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make in this thread.

 

I already mentioned it. It's also implied in the article - there's no such thing as the inborn homosexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably therapy might help reduce the numbers.

 

If, as some research has suggested, (no idea if its still current) sexual orientation is influenced by chemical balances in the womb, therapy won't change anything. And if orientation is 'set' in childhood, therapy won't change anything. That leaves the miniscule number of people who have deliberately decided to change their orientation from hetero to homo. And therapy won't change them, because they obviously want to be homosexual and therapy requires co-operation.

 

And changes due to environment that occur during puberty, are not irreversible. They can be treated, though it would take more effort.

 

As I said, I think the evidence says that most peple's sexual orientation is decided in childhood, if not before.

 

Gay babies are not born.

 

As I said, there's evidence that chemistry in utero can decide sexual orientation. That isn't genetic but it means that gay babies can be born. Also, if there's no gay gene there isn't a straight gene either, and that all sexuality is a matter of environment.

 

In reality the situation is, I imagine, the usual blurry one. Some people are 100% straight, some peple are 100% gay but most are somewhere in between.

 

I already mentioned it. It's also implied in the article - there's no such thing as the inborn homosexual.

 

Yes, but so what?

 

edit - BTW, the article doesn't imply that. The article merely criticises journaists reporting a study incorrectly. No evidence is advanced that homosexuality isn't genetic.

Edited by packham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If, as some research has suggested, (no idea if its still current) sexual orientation is influenced by chemical balances in the womb, therapy won't change anything.

 

You keep mentioning about this. I would be interested if you could quote the relevant study.

 

And if orientation is 'set' in childhood, therapy won't change anything. That leaves the miniscule number of people who have deliberately decided to change their orientation from hetero to homo. And therapy won't change them, because they obviously want to be homosexual and therapy requires co-operation.

 

I believe therapy has not reached its full potential yet. If psychiatrists put in more research into therapy, with an openness to all available and tested methods, I believe therapy can treat virtually anything.

 

edit - BTW, the article doesn't imply that. The article merely criticises journaists reporting a study incorrectly. No evidence is advanced that homosexuality isn't genetic.

 

From what I get from the article, yes the main point was to criticize journalism, but it also criticizes scientific study about homosexuality by quoting opposing views that gays are inborn.

 

You keep saying there is no evidence that homosexuality is not inborn. That's not the way scientists work. If scientists propose a certain trait to be genetic, they have to prove it by finding the relevant gene or genetic sequence. At present, after the study of the entire human gene, if there is no evidence, a trait can be automatically deduced to be not genetic, or have close to zero probability that it is genetic.

 

Scientists don't prove their hypothesis by saying that since there is no evidence to say a trait is genetic, the trait isn't genetic. That's backward science.

The basis of the evidence is genetic. You prove something by finding evidence.

 

I think that to prove that homosexuality is genetic, a gene or genetic sequence which gives rise to homosexuality has to be found. Absence of any evidence, means that the notion that homosexuality is genetic can be rejected. Furthermore, no social or human behaviour is derived from our genes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You keep mentioning about this. I would be interested if you could quote the relevant study.

 

I'll have a look.

 

I believe therapy has not reached its full potential yet. If psychiatrists put in more research into therapy, with an openness to all available and tested methods, I believe therapy can treat virtually anything.

 

If you're right, it could not only turn gays straight, it could turn straights gay. And Muslims Hindu. It could change anyone into anything. Not a nice thought.

 

From what I get from the article, yes the main point was to criticize journalism, but it also criticizes scientific study about homosexuality by quoting opposing views that gays are inborn.

 

Yes, but there's an implicit misrepresentation of the study. The study (which it doesn't actually cite, so I'm assuming here) was looking for brain differences between straights and gays. It found them. It's up to other studies to determine the cause and significance of this. The study does NOT imply that homosexuality is or isn't genetic.

 

You keep saying there is no evidence that homosexuality is not inborn. That's not the way scientists work. If scientists propose a certain trait to be genetic, they have to prove it by finding the relevant gene or genetic sequence. At present, after the study of the entire human gene, if there is no evidence, a trait can be automatically deduced to be not genetic, or have close to zero probability that it is genetic.

 

If that's correct, then sexual preference is not genetic, fair enough. But I would ask you to say 'homosexuality is not genetic' rather than 'homosexuality is not inborn', which is vague and misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're right, it could not only turn gays straight, it could turn straights gay. And Muslims Hindu. It could change anyone into anything. Not a nice thought.

 

As long as there's a code of ethics applying to therapy, I don't see any problem.

 

Yes, but there's an implicit misrepresentation of the study. The study (which it doesn't actually cite, so I'm assuming here) was looking for brain differences between straights and gays. It found them. It's up to other studies to determine the cause and significance of this. The study does NOT imply that homosexuality is or isn't genetic.

 

Yes I suppose you're right.

 

If that's correct, then sexual preference is not genetic, fair enough. But I would ask you to say 'homosexuality is not genetic' rather than 'homosexuality is not inborn', which is vague and misleading.

 

If you want to separate genetics and other inborn traits that seems fair to me. I still await the study on chemical balances affecting the sexual orientation of the fetus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as there's a code of ethics applying to therapy, I don't see any problem.

 

Well, it does rather depend on which code of ethics is used. Compulsion and all that; rights of children vs parental wishes, etc.

 

If you want to separate genetics and other inborn traits that seems fair to me. I still await the study on chemical balances affecting the sexual orientation of the fetus.

 

Still looking (I don't have access to a journal database, so it's a matter of looking for clues on the general web and - as your OP shows - trying to allow for biased reporting) but while I'm looking, read this - it shows some genetic involvement. Interestingly the study's author might be a Muslim, judging by his name. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetscientificblogging(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/news_releases/homosexuality_a_result_of_genetics_and_random_envionmental_factors_says_twins_study"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetscientificblogging(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/news_rel...ays_twins_study[/url]

 

If that URL is too long to display properly, here's a Tiny URL for it: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_tinyurl(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/6l9gaw"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_tinyurl(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/6l9gaw[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it does rather depend on which code of ethics is used. Compulsion and all that; rights of children vs parental wishes, etc.

 

Before the 1970s, in Western circles, homosexuals were treated in one way or another, as I believe even secular psychologists then believed it to be a mental disorder. So yes, it depends on which code of ethics is being used.

 

Still looking (I don't have access to a journal database, so it's a matter of looking for clues on the general web and - as your OP shows - trying to allow for biased reporting) but while I'm looking, read this - it shows some genetic involvement. Interestingly the study's author might be a Muslim, judging by his name.

 

The researcher's faith does not interest me.

 

I would be interested in more detailed findings of this study. I find its explanations about genetic disposition on behaviour to be inadequate.

 

I am still looking for a study that talks about homosexual behaviour being influenced by the environment in the womb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before the 1970s, in Western circles, homosexuals were treated in one way or another, as I believe even secular psychologists then believed it to be a mental disorder. So yes, it depends on which code of ethics is being used.

 

Yes. Now not even religious psychologists believe it to be a mental disorder. Science advances.

 

I would be interested in more detailed findings of this study. I find its explanations about genetic disposition on behaviour to be inadequate.

 

I am still looking for a study that talks about homosexual behaviour being influenced by the environment in the womb.

 

The report about the study I linked to says:

 

Researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report in the Archives of Sexual Behavior that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behavior

 

edit - See following post for more.

Edited by packham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the Archives of Sexual Behaviour is available online, but not yet the issue in which the paper is published. The journal homepage is at (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetspringerlink(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/content/0004-0002"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetspringerlink(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/content/0004-0002[/url]

 

However there are lots of other interesting papers on the topic of homosexuality available online, including this one in the Feb 2008 issue. Here's the abstract - the full text is here (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetspringerlink(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/content/n518663m16636v1k/fulltext.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetspringerlink(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/content/n51866...k/fulltext.html[/url]

 

 

Sexual Orientation in Women with Classical or Non-classical Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia as a Function of Degree of Prenatal Androgen Excess

 

Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg1 , Curtis Dolezal1, Susan W. Baker2 and Maria I. New2(1) New York State Psychiatric Institute & Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, 1051 Riverside Drive, NYSPI Unit 15, New York, NY 10032, USA (2) Department of Pediatrics, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

 

Published online: 22 December 2007

Abstract 46,XX individuals with classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) due to deficiency of the enzyme, 21-hydroxylase, show variable degrees of masculinization of body and behavior due to excess adrenal androgen production. Increased bisexuality and homosexuality have also been reported. This article provides a review of existing reports of the latter and presents a new study aimed at replicating the previous findings with detailed assessments of sexual orientation on relatively large samples, and at extending the investigation to the mildest form, non-classical (NC) CAH. Also, this is the first study to relate sexual orientation to the specific molecular genotypes of CAH. In the present study, 40 salt-wasters (SW), 21 SV (simple-virilizing), 82 NC, and 24 non-CAH control women (sisters and female cousins of CAH women) were blindly administered the Sexual Behavior Assessment Schedule (SEBAS-A, 1983 ed.; H. F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg & A. A. Ehrhardt, Privately printed). Most women were heterosexual, but the rates of bisexual and homosexual orientation were increased above controls not only in women with classical CAH, but also in NC women, and correlated with the degree of prenatal androgenization. Classifying women by molecular genotypes did not further increase the correlation. Diverse aspects of sexual orientation were highly intercorrelated, and principal components analysis yielded one general factor. Bisexual/homosexual orientation was (modestly) correlated with global measures of masculinization of non-sexual behavior and predicted independently by the degree of both prenatal androgenization and masculinization of childhood behavior. We conclude that the findings support a sexual-differentiation perspective involving prenatal androgens on the development of sexual orientation.

Edited by packham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to throw my opinion in after skimming the previous posts....

 

I think that Homosexuals fall into three categories.

 

First are genetic. These people have no obvious signs of any influence on their social development that would explain it. Some reports I read lead me to believe that it could be related to autism in some ways in that the brain is not balance correctly to match their physical gender.

 

Second are the group who have influences in their life that has changed their orientation. This would be the classic dominating mother producing a gay son or sexual abuse leading to an inability to deal with the opposite gender.

 

Both of these are beyond the person's ability to control and have existed throughout history.

 

The third is the controversial group. They make a conscious decision to be homosexual for whatever reason. Some people believe all homosexuals fall into this category (such as right wing Christians in the US), but I have seen evidence of the other two groups that cannot be explained this way. I personally think this is the smallest portion and many are not truly homosexual but bisexual or omnisexual. Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones would fall into this category.

 

I have no idea if I am right in any way, but this has been my observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're right (although using 'genetic' rather than 'pre-natal' is controversial). However I also stick to my idea of a continuum of sexuality rather than a black/white dichotomy. It's common knowledge (and thus perhaps suspect :sl: ) that many men in prison engage in homosexual sex. AFAIK there's nothing in criminals that predisposes them to being gay or bi, so their choice was presumably one that a similar proportion of men would make in the same circumstances. I think this points to the fluidity of sexuality. Looking for a 'cause' of homo or hetero orientation is a worthwhile task, I suppose, but for many (I suspect most) people that orientation isn't rigid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×