Born This Way

[Pjen]

Maybe this should go in to Great Debates but I will keep it here as I am looking for a scientific answer.

There is a claim that homosexuality is caused only by genetic and in utero causes and nothing post partum can affect the expression of homosexual human behaviour.

Has any scientifically valid experiment sought to prove or disprove this.

Note- I am not suggesting that homosexuality is 'curable' but I am interested in the facts about whether infant and childhood experience could affect the expression of a genetically affected tendency.

[Lemur866]

I don't think anyone is justified in saying that homosexuality has only genetic causes. In fact, we can reject this hypothesis conclusively by identical twin studies. It turns out that if a person is homosexual, and has an identical twin, that twin is only about 50% likely to also be homosexual. If homosexuality had an exclusive genetic cause, then that correlation would be 100%.

It's also much too strong to say that "nothing post-partum can affect the expression of homosexual human behaviour." Of course all sorts of things can affect the expression of homosexual behavior. If, for instance, you make homoseuxal behavior a crime, you'll get a lot less homosexual behavior. People with a homosexual orientation are perfectly capable of refraining from homosexual behavior, just like people with a heterosexual orientation are capable of refraining from heterosexual behavior. I was able to do so for years at a time.

What has never been shown is a way to change homsexual orientation. You can convince gays to stop having gay sex in a variety of ways. It's a lot harder to stop them from wanting to have gay sex, even if they want to stop wanting to have gay sex. Just like for years I was able to not have heterosexual sex, but I wasn't able to stop wanting to have heterosexual sex. And it's too strong to say that nothing can change homosexual orientation, it's just that there's no treatment or therapy that we know of, and there may never be. Even most "pray away the gay" organizations like Exodus International won't claim to be able to change homosexual orientation, just to stop homosexual behavior.

[TriPolar]

There is no scientific proof that human homosexual behavior only has genetic or in utero causes. Obviously humans have control over their behavior, so I assume you are talking about the vaguely defined concept of homosexuality. It is extremely difficult to attribute any complex human behavior solely to genetic and in utero causes, or rule out later environmental factors.

[Pjen]

I don't think anyone is justified in saying that homosexuality has only genetic causes. In fact, we can reject this hypothesis conclusively by identical twin studies. It turns out that if a person is homosexual, and has an identical twin, that twin is only about 50% likely to also be homosexual. If homosexuality had an exclusive genetic cause, then that correlation would be 100%.

It's also much too strong to say that "nothing post-partum can affect the expression of homosexual human behaviour." Of course all sorts of things can affect the expression of homosexual behavior. If, for instance, you make homoseuxal behavior a crime, you'll get a lot less homosexual behavior. People with a homosexual orientation are perfectly capable of refraining from homosexual behavior, just like people with a heterosexual orientation are capable of refraining from heterosexual behavior. I was able to do so for years at a time.

What has never been shown is a way to change homsexual orientation. You can convince gays to stop having gay sex in a variety of ways. It's a lot harder to stop them from wanting to have gay sex, even if they want to stop wanting to have gay sex. Just like for years I was able to not have heterosexual sex, but I wasn't able to stop wanting to have heterosexual sex. And it's too strong to say that nothing can change homosexual orientation, it's just that there's no treatment or therapy that we know of, and there may never be. Even most "pray away the gay" organizations like Exodus International won't claim to be able to change homosexual orientation, just to stop homosexual behavior.

Thanks for that.

I am looking for a study that has looked at expression and non-expression of homosexual orientation.

I do not believe that homosexual orientation is a simple on/off switch.

I cannot even think how one would seek to prove that experience did or did not affect the expression of homosexual tendency to the point where a potentially Gay person would actually happily settle in to a straight or bisexual lifestyle.

[Pjen]

There is no scientific proof that human homosexual behavior only has genetic or in utero causes. Obviously humans have control over their behavior, so I assume you are talking about the vaguely defined concept of homosexuality. It is extremely difficult to attribute any complex human behavior solely to genetic and in utero causes, or rule out later environmental factors.

I too believe that.

I am disagreeing with someone who insists that homosexuality is entirely genetic/in utero caused and once born someone is determined to be either GAy or not.

This does not accord with how I see every other complex human behaviour which are universally seen as genetic/experience inter-reaction.

I believe the Gay community is so frightened and angry about the 'we can cure homosexuality' therapists, that they are forced into denial of what I see as a basic human trait- plasticity in the face of the environment.

[Lemur866]

I believe the Gay community is so frightened and angry about the 'we can cure homosexuality' therapists, that they are forced into denial of what I see as a basic human trait- plasticity in the face of the environment.

Do you believe there exists a treatment or therapy that could turn you gay? Not just to engage in homosexual behavior, anyone with a gun could do that, but to stop you from being sexually and romantically attracted to women, and cause you to be sexually and romantically attracted to men?

Note that even castration doesn't stop all sexual or romantic impulses.

[Pjen]

Do you believe there exists a treatment or therapy that could turn you gay? Not just to engage in homosexual behavior, anyone with a gun could do that, but to stop you from being sexually and romantically attracted to women, and cause you to be sexually and romantically attracted to men?

Note that even castration doesn't stop all sexual or romantic impulses.

Don't get me wrong.

I believe that adult humans are firmly fixed in enduring patterns of behaviour and conduct which are extremely difficult to change.

I believe that infants, children and younger adolescents are more open to changing underlying behaviour patterns in response to social pressures.

I just do not see why homosexuality is the only complex human behaviour to fail to be affected by social conditioning in childhood when we believe that such social conditioning affects almost (?all) other human behaviours.

[Napier]

These statements are symmetric with respect to homosexuality and heterosexuality, right?

[Pjen]

These statements are symmetric with respect to homosexuality and heterosexuality, right?

Symmetric in respect of all sexuality being conditioned by some experience. Obviously there is a bias in favour of heterosexuality as shown by expressed behaviour in society.

[Imago]

Lifelong lesbian chiming in here:

With the possible exception of wanting to breathe, pretty much nothing we think or do is going to be entirely environmental, but conversely pretty much none of it will be entirely genetic/prenatal either. What's innate and what's not will always be a matter of degrees, not absolutes. I don't see how a man being attracted only to men is any different, biologically and psychologically, from a man who is attracted only to brunettes, or only to blondes, or only to people of a particular race or even with a particular facial feature.

Claiming that sexual orientation is not set in stone from birth is, however, a far cry from claiming that gays can be converted over to heterosexuality or vice versa. For one, the environmental factors that have the most impact might happen long before memory and identity are definably established, or they might be physical or chemical rather than social.

And since from an objective standpoint the only thing homosexuality impacts negatively is the ability to reproduce, classifying it as a "disease" would be iffy even if it were purely preventable, and thus many gays wouldn't necessarily want to be "cured" or advocate prevention of future homosexual development; a significant chunk of cases of wanting to want to have sex with only the opposite sex would then be purely the result of pressure from the religious right and a desire to make their own lives easier. So if the question you're asking is for future use regarding the moral aspects, I think most gays and our allies would agree that even if it were purely a matter of upbringing it would still not be wrong.

I do recall reading of a study somewhere that concluded there are certain chemicals in male sweat that straight women and gay men are both physiologically aroused by, and chemicals in female urine (bleh!) and ovulation-juice with the same effect on straight men and lesbian women. I'll look for a cite tomorrow morning, but I remember also being insulted by the article because it claimed these results were evidence of gays being an as-yet-nameless distinct gender from their hetero counterparts with the same genitalia. That, however, is a whole new can of worms :p .

[Pjen]

Lifelong lesbian chiming in here:

With the possible exception of wanting to breathe, pretty much nothing we think or do is going to be entirely environmental, but conversely pretty much none of it will be entirely genetic/prenatal either. What's innate and what's not will always be a matter of degrees, not absolutes. I don't see how a man being attracted only to men is any different, biologically and psychologically, from a man who is attracted only to brunettes, or only to blondes, or only to people of a particular race or even with a particular facial feature.

Claiming that sexual orientation is not set in stone from birth is, however, a far cry from claiming that gays can be converted over to heterosexuality or vice versa. For one, the environmental factors that have the most impact might happen long before memory and identity are definably established, or they might be physical or chemical rather than social.

And since from an objective standpoint the only thing homosexuality impacts negatively is the ability to reproduce, classifying it as a "disease" would be iffy even if it were purely preventable, and thus many gays wouldn't necessarily want to be "cured" or advocate prevention of future homosexual development; a significant chunk of cases of wanting to want to have sex with only the opposite sex would then be purely the result of pressure from the religious right and a desire to make their own lives easier. So if the question you're asking is for future use regarding the moral aspects, I think most gays and our allies would agree that even if it were purely a matter of upbringing it would still not be wrong.

I do recall reading of a study somewhere that concluded there are certain chemicals in male sweat that straight women and gay men are both physiologically aroused by, and chemicals in female urine (bleh!) and ovulation-juice with the same effect on straight men and lesbian women. I'll look for a cite tomorrow morning, but I remember also being insulted by the article because it claimed these results were evidence of gays being an as-yet-nameless distinct gender from their hetero counterparts with the same genitalia. That, however, is a whole new can of worms :p .

Thanks.

I am having a particularly difficult argument with someone who insists that once a baby is popped out it is either gay or not gay. I find this difficult to believe with what I know of other human traits.

I do know of unsuccessful attempts at gender re-orientation with people with indeterminate sexuality being doubtful, but one cite does not make a complex theory.

I believe that Gay people are that way not because of choice but as a natural result of their heritage-genetic, in utero environment and possibly social in early life (not training, but experience).

I cannot see why homosexuality should be the sole exception in human behaviour that has no social conditioning input.

[marshmallow]

Since heterosexuals and homosexuals display differences in brain anatomy (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/06/13/0801566105.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=%2522Ivanka+Savic%2522&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT) any cure for homosexuality would require a bit more than some psychoanalysis. Any hypothetical environmental trigger that causes homosexuality in humans would have to apply to animals as well. Homosexuality appears to be a core character trait, with people often reporting they knew they were gay as early as 5 or 6. If a kid can be shy or smart or creative I don't see why they can't be gay.

It'd be trivially easy to stop homosexual behavior, as mentioned. Good luck stopping homosexual desire.

[Profound Gibberish]

My opinion only, not backed up by any study but only what I have read and observed over the years:

Human sexual orientation (SO) is a spectrum, like so many other behaviors. There is no on/off, black/white, gay/straight. There are many, many shades of gray from one end of the spectrum to the other. Part of SO is no doubt genetic, part is no doubt social, part is no doubt some other thing we know not. Some gays may have more of a genetic influence, some a more social influence, some more of we know not.

What I do observe in my own heterosexual identity and those of homosexuals I know is that this "shade of grey" becomes a very distinct and unchangeable part of you at an early age. I knew I liked females in the first grade. I just knew. Many of my gay friends knew they liked the same sex very early in their lives, too. They just knew. Some, however, took longer to understand their orientation due to family or other social issues, possibly late genetic expression, or some other factor that we know not.

So how is that for a non-answer? There are too many factors involved, and too little we know about this subject, for anyone to claim it is one thing or another. My experience has taught me that SO is a spectrum of genetic/social/other factors that we will likely never fully calculate or understand, and that it becomes a very integral and unchangeable part of self, usually at an early age. At this time, anyone that claims to know how SO occurs or, ominously, have a "fix" for it is full of shit.

[simster]

IMHO (wrong forum, but I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express lately) -

Human sexuality is a broad spectrum - there is also little doubt that ones own expression of it changes over time - thru both external experiences as well as matuation of ones own feelings and desires. (compare the willingness to explore of a youngster, vs a teenager vs a middleaged adult, etc).

There is undoubtedly a component of it that is 'pre-determined' in the womb and young development (amount of certain hormones during pregancy I think I read somewhere), while other components of it will change over time due to external factors. To call the "pre-determination" of it 'genetic' (as in the idea that you could test DNA for the GAY GENE) is not likely.

Being "born this way" is way to simplified an approach to a complex subject, and I am also sure that many people feel that they are "born this way" use it more as a counter argument against those that are so close minded as to assume that they are "broken" or just "choose" to be gay (not that they aren't perfectly valid in stating/feeling that they are 'born this way', its just without the anti-gay arguments/fights, they wouldn't have to make such a statement, they would just 'be').

eta = dbx20 - quit copying off my test! :D

[YogSosoth]

My take: it's both, but mostly nature and not nurture

The difficult thing when talking about human sexuality is that unlike other characteristics, it can be easily faked and not easily disproved.

[echoreply]

Thanks.

I am having a particularly difficult argument with someone who insists that once a baby is popped out it is either gay or not gay. I find this difficult to believe with what I know of other human traits.


As dbx820 says, sexual orientation appears to be a continuum, but people aren't evenly distributed along the continuum. For men, imagine two peaks, one over heterosexual, and a smaller one over homosexual, with the tails of those curves meeting in the middle. So most men are mostly heterosexual and a smaller number of men are mostly homosexual. Some men are really heterosexual, some are really homosexual, and some are in between---from truly bisexual to having definite inclinations towards one or the other, but not completely committed to it. It's similar for women, but probably with more falling towards the middle than for men. See bimodal distribution (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bimodal_distribution) for an example of these types of curves. Sorry, no cite today.

Some people are probably born completely one way or another. In that, no environmental influence is going to push them to the other side. By this, I mean their "true" orientation, because as others have stated it's very possible to not participate in a behavior. But has been noted, there is not a 100% concordance for sexuality with identical twins. That means there must be some environmental factors that play a role.

This study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986) suggests that the environmental factors are so called "non-shared environment." The way to think about that is that some things in the environment make them more similar, "shared environment" (both growing up in the same house, both eating the same breakfast, etc.) and some environmental things make them different, "non-shared" (having different home room teachers, different private life experiences, etc.)

The conclusion of that article is that whatever the environment is which has an effect on sexual orientation, it is things which work to make the twins less similar to each other.

[Roderick Femm]

Don't get me wrong.

I believe that adult humans are firmly fixed in enduring patterns of behaviour and conduct which are extremely difficult to change.

I believe that infants, children and younger adolescents are more open to changing underlying behaviour patterns in response to social pressures.

I just do not see why homosexuality is the only complex human behaviour to fail to be affected by social conditioning in childhood when we believe that such social conditioning affects almost (?all) other human behaviours.You keep talking about behavior rather than orientation, i.e. acts rather than desire. Are you really talking about desire?

I can only offer one anecdote, about myself. I believed at an early age (7) that I was not then and never would be interested in females, but only in males. This was a horrifying realization to me, and I did my best to pretend it wasn't true. But when I reached puberty, all of my sexual fantasies were about males. I still did my best (the rest of the time) to deny this to myself. I thought I would be celibate, but when I reached the age where it was legal to hang out in places where men hooked up, I did so and started having actual sex. I hid this behavior obsessively from friends and family. By the late 70's, though, as gay lib progressed and society became more accepting, I began to relax my fear and self-loathing. Over time I mostly don't feel any of that any more.

So yes, social conditioning greatly affected my activities and my feelings. But all of that negativity could not affect my desire.

Where that desire comes from I don't know. Whether there were any influences in my first 7 years that might have changed that desire, I also don't know. If someone were to ask me "Why are you gay?" I would just ask them back "Why do you have the desires you have?" Who among us can answer that question?


Roddy

[Rachellelogram]

When gays say they are "born this way," they do NOT mean that there is a "gay gene" that made them like people of the same sex--that's a huge oversimplification. Children cannot choose their environments, though, and many (if not most) gays KNEW they were gay long before puberty set in. They mayn't have been allowed to express it at the time, but that doesn't change the fact that they knew.

Nobody really knows what causes gayness or heterosexuality. It could be being raised by blonde women who don't have a vehicle, with 2 cats, having exactly one older brother and one older sister. It doesn't matter. Because once established, it's not something that can or should be changed. That is the whole point of the "born this way" meme (and song). To think that people are talking about a "gay gene" is missing the point entirely.

[Chronos]

Note also that twins separated at birth show a significantly higher than chance correlation of sexuality. So there's certainly at least some component of predisposition to homosexuality that is inborn. And once you grant that, it's a small step to conclude that in at least some people, those inborn predispositions would be so strong as to be essentially impossible to overcome via environmental pressures. Such people really would, then, have been "born this way".

[gatorslap]

Homosexuality appears to be a core character trait, with people often reporting they knew they were gay as early as 5 or 6. If a kid can be shy or smart or creative I don't see why they can't be gay.

I was going to say this. If environmental factors play a role, they would have to be things that occur at preschool age or younger. I have a hard time imagining what sort of experience would have an influence here, especially considering people grow up gay everywhere, from the big cities to the most remote places, in every society, and all throughout history. I don't think we know enough to completely rule out the possibility that environment and early childhood experience play a role, but I consider it unlikely.

[Chronos]

Well, "environmental factor" doesn't necessarily mean something that most folks would call an "experience". As an extreme hypothetical example, it might be that there's some chemical in legumes that mimics some hormone, and that people who are exposed to too much of that chemical in their diet before some critical age become gay. Beans are ubiquitous in world cuisine that this would account for homosexuality being worldwide, and it's certainly environmental, but I don't think anyone would say that it's the experience of eating beans that matters.

[gatorslap]

Beans are ubiquitous in world cuisine

Not in Ireland. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2828/could-i-survive-on-nothing-but-potatoes-and-milk) :)

[Markxxx]

I can state as a gay male I have always been gay, from the moment I was born. But I am also of the opinion there are A LOT OF SHADES of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a self perception. If one sees himself as gay he is.

I've used these two examples before so I'll use them again. Daryl Hall in Rolling Stone said, he has had sex with men. But he is with a woman now and that he is basically straight. (The question was always asked if Hall and Oates were lovers. Hall states Oates is 100% straight).

Ben "The Dell Dude" Curtis, who rose to fame with Dell Computer commercials said his father came out as being gay and so he decided to try it. He said, he didn't care for it and he's straight.

OK now do you see how far times have come. Here is a guy (Curtis) who decides that since his father came out, he will try it "just to see." In my day NO MAN would ever have "tried just to see."

There is a huge difference between being homosexual and doing a homosexual act. Young people don't really seem to care. There more willing to say "I was horny and couldn't find a girl." But they have no intention of being gay. It's just convenient and there is much less stigma now.

The problem with studies on homosexuality is they only show patterns. And they aren't strong ones. For instance the classic pattern is the more kids a woman has the chances the latter ones will be gay goes way up.

And in my experience this seems to be the case, but I know of a gay man who has five siblings, all straight. So this clearly breaks the pattern.

So we wind up with a rule like "I before E except after C and about 100 other exceptions" :)

Environmental factors influence but the fail to explain a lot. For instance, I know of African Americans raised in the worst ghettos in Chicago by the same mother. One is doing great, the other is in prison. Why? Same parent, same approx time frame, but there was something in one child that allowed her to overcome her disadvantage, the other one didn't have

[echoreply]

Well, "environmental factor" doesn't necessarily mean something that most folks would call an "experience". As an extreme hypothetical example, it might be that there's some chemical in legumes that mimics some hormone, and that people who are exposed to too much of that chemical in their diet before some critical age become gay. Beans are ubiquitous in world cuisine that this would account for homosexuality being worldwide, and it's certainly environmental, but I don't think anyone would say that it's the experience of eating beans that matters.

Yes, it absolutely could be something like this. For simplicity just say "something in the water." So something in the water is more likely to make people who drink it as children turn gay. One would assume that identical twins, fraternal twins, and even siblings raised in the same house would all be more likely to be gay because they all drank the same magic water. So when doing a twin study researchers will see that fraternal twins (and possibly regular siblings) are more similar than would be expected based on how similar identical twins are. That discrepancy of being more similar becomes "shared environment" as I mentioned in my previous message. The article I cited in that same message suggest that this is not the case. That there is no magic water, or some such that turns people gay, as much as it would effect both twins in a family equally.

Now, that article could very well be wrong, and we might find that gayness in Sweden is not due to magic water, but in Finland it is. That's how science works, of course, you do what you can with what you have, and hopefully advance the state of human knowledge.


The problem with studies on homosexuality is they only show patterns. And they aren't strong ones. For instance the classic pattern is the more kids a woman has the chances the latter ones will be gay goes way up.


The problem with anecdotes is they don't add up to data. Clearly you understand that, but human behavior is very complex. Strong findings which stand up to repeated testing and say a lot about a population, might be generally meaningless to an individual. (Inventing the numbers) fifth born boys are 1.2 times more likely to be gay than first born boys, but that doesn't tell you much about a particular fifth born boy. And knowing that lots of fifth born boys are not gay, doesn't invalidate the finding, because in fact, it's exactly what the finding suggests to be true.

Hopefully the advancement in the social acceptance of homosexuality will lead to more, good research on homosexuality and sexuality in general. It's such a fundamental part of being human, it's disappointing we don't have a greater understanding of it.

[Pjen]

When gays say they are "born this way," they do NOT mean that there is a "gay gene" that made them like people of the same sex--that's a huge oversimplification. Children cannot choose their environments, though, and many (if not most) gays KNEW they were gay long before puberty set in. They mayn't have been allowed to express it at the time, but that doesn't change the fact that they knew.

Nobody really knows what causes gayness or heterosexuality. It could be being raised by blonde women who don't have a vehicle, with 2 cats, having exactly one older brother and one older sister. It doesn't matter. Because once established, it's not something that can or should be changed. That is the whole point of the "born this way" meme (and song). To think that people are talking about a "gay gene" is missing the point entirely.

I agree.

I think that 'Born this way' s a political slogan rather than a scientific reality.

I suppose I am looking for arguments to counter an extreme advocate of 'Gay when you are born and nothing happens after that that can alter Gayness'. That may be the case but it remains to be proved scientifically- meantime we should say that events after birth may still effect Gayness.

This does not mean that I believe that social conditioning in adulthood could alter sexual orientation.

[Pjen]

Well, "environmental factor" doesn't necessarily mean something that most folks would call an "experience". As an extreme hypothetical example, it might be that there's some chemical in legumes that mimics some hormone, and that people who are exposed to too much of that chemical in their diet before some critical age become gay. Beans are ubiquitous in world cuisine that this would account for homosexuality being worldwide, and it's certainly environmental, but I don't think anyone would say that it's the experience of eating beans that matters.

Excellent argument. I am only looking for an argument to show that doubt still exists.

[Pjen]

The other component of the argument is 'What possible experiment could test for an environmental influence?'

Suppose some people enter this world with a tendency X to have gay tendencies (maybe as high as 90% or more even. What would show that this was actually 100%.

We know that some people (obviously) have gay internal experiences and exhibit gay behaviour - because they self identify as gay and are present in the world. How would we determine another group who are born with a high probability of being gay but for some environmental reason do not experience gay internal experiences or exhibit gay behaviour.

Another heresy (as far as this guy is concerned) that I believe is that sexual attraction is a continuum from definitely gay to definitely straight with many way stations- experimenters, adolescents, bisexuals, men who sleep with men when no woman is around, asexual people, people who find gay sex distasteful, people who find it disgusting etc. He sees things in a rather black and white terms; I tend to see everything in shades of grey.

[Hbns]

Well, "environmental factor" doesn't necessarily mean something that most folks would call an "experience"..

An interesting article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html)from a few years back that ties both your points together. As well as illustrating that identical twins with differing sexual orientation neither proves nor disproves a genetic or an environmental factor.

THE BOTTOM LINE
Identical twins apparently do not have identical DNA.

“When we started this study, people were expecting that only epigenetics would differ greatly between twins,” said Jan Dumanski, a professor of genetics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and an author of the study. “But what we found are changes on the genetic level, the DNA sequence itself.”

The specific changes that Dr. Dumanski and his colleagues identified are known as copy number variations, in which a gene exists in multiple copies, or a set of coding letters in DNA is missing. Not known, however, is whether these changes in identical twins occur at the embryonic level, as the twins age or both.

[boytyperanma]

Well, "environmental factor" doesn't necessarily mean something that most folks would call an "experience". As an extreme hypothetical example, it might be that there's some chemical in legumes that mimics some hormone, and that people who are exposed to too much of that chemical in their diet before some critical age become gay. Beans are ubiquitous in world cuisine that this would account for homosexuality being worldwide, and it's certainly environmental, but I don't think anyone would say that it's the experience of eating beans that matters.

Wait now it's all beans that make me gay!

I thought it was only soy (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327).