No, the only thing I’ve done is question evidence that’s been offered on a central question: What causes sexual differentiation in the brain, hormones or direct genetic influences?
There appears to be little evidence that prenatal hormonal exposure is the complete answer, just using the sources that you and the other posters cited.
You seem to be adopting the tactic of confusing some hypothesis you’re partial to with verified fact, not considering alternative possible explanations for observations, and resorting to ad hominem’s when challenged. (Tactics nicely summarized by Feynman and the NYT articles.)
That’s true, but doesn’t rule out environmental issues. Again, this seems possibly like a case of ignoring alternative hypotheses for one that researchers are emotionally invested in.
Let’s make sure we are on the same page here because your use of terms leads me to believe that we aren’t. The article I gave outlined the basic processes involved in brain sexual differentiation and only some of it was about sexual preference. There is both a phenotypical (body) and brain sex that is differentiated through the sex hormones and that part is incontrovertible. Some obvious differences in brain sex include the wiring necessary to support the menstrual cycle in females with female specific patterns in the hypothalamus and pituitary for example but there are many others involved in many functions other than sexual preference.
That part is just basic biology. The role of brain sexual differentiation on later sexual preference is a more complicated subject. I just want make sure you reading everything within that context because your use of ‘sexual differentiation in the brain’ in the quote above is using the wrong term if you really meant sexual preference.
The reason this is so important is you have to understand the basics of how the brains sexually differentiates at all before you can move on to the evidence that sexual preference is also biologically determined through the same mechanisms.
And you seem to be see a statement such as “Thus we have shown that X is an extremely large factor but it is still possible that Y has some as yet unproven affect” as meaning “Y is just as likely to be as big a factor as X”.
I understand that that point’s been made, but haven’t seen the evidence for how anyone could possibly know prenatal hormonal exposure is x% of the issue. That seems a bit presumptuous at this stage of knowledge (especially given that we’re talking about the brain, where everything is essentially speculative).
Maybe you should start by going back and acknowledging Shagnasty’s post. Not everything about the brain is speculative and even if some things are speculative that doesn’t mean that all possibilities are equally likely.
Not everywhere. When the idea was first aired over here (France) it was received with a distinct lack of enthusiasm. Basically, the reasonning was “not only they dislike us because we’re different, but now, they’re going to tell we are genetically different”? (imagine the same argument being made for black people, for instance) Even as late as last year, I had an argument while discussing this idea with someone who told me I was homophobic for advancing the idea that homosexuals could be born that way.
I suspect it has to do with what appeared to homosexuals to be the best argument to “win the debate” in their respective culture. I suspect that “we’re born that way, there’s no way to “reeducate” us” appeared a good argument in the USA and a not so good one in France for some reason.
Disclaimer : I don’t know what’s the most widespread opinion in French homo circles currently. I’m just reporting what I read originally and what I’ve been told recently.
Apart from that it obviously can’t be “100% genetic” because in this case identical twins would always have the same orientation, and it’s not the case.
I do believe it’s somewhat fluid for two reasons : what happened in other cultures, like the obvious example of classical where bisexuality was kind of the norm and also my own example. I define myself as 99% hetero but I’ve a strong suspicion that it might have turned differently had my first experiences been with boys rather than girls (as a teen, I was attracted to both genders, but missed a couple opportunities. Nowadays, it’s extremely rare for me to feel the slightest attraction for a male).
That’s the usual argument, but personnally, I’d rather fantasize and masturbate than have sex with a really unappealing partner (and very unappealing would certainly apply to a male for an heterosexual man), even in case of very long abstinence. And I guess I’m not the only one. Most certainly, not all inmates or sailors have sex with their buddies. So, I’m not sure that even in this case there isn’t some element of “fluidity” of sexual attraction.
You’re probably right, in that I was using “sexual differentiation” in a loose way (based on your initial introduction of the concept). Probably applies more to discussions of transgendered people, but was relevant to the case study of David Reimer.
So, what is the evidence that prenatal hormone make up most of sexual differentiation. Does anyone have any idea what accounts for people “feeling” to be one gender or another? And then there are differences in cognitive abilities, which I had always read were due to genetic, not hormonal, influences.
Since we don’t even have a good basic model of what consciousness is, it’s hard to imagine how detailed current knowledge really can be…
I agree with this, and it certainly accords with things like the “Lesbian Until Graduation” phenomenon, or the accounts of people like Christopher Hitchens or Cynthia Nixon (i.e., something along the lines of we all have the capacity to go either way.)
Oh yes. I had forgotten, but I heard his argument from a woman. She overtly told me it was bullshit and besides would indeed be used to blame women. This doesn’t make any sense to me (how could a woman be responsible for whatever hormones are in her uterus???) but here you go.
Not completely. Modern theories also include hormone levels. IMHO the important issue is that it is innate and not a choice, and there’s no good reason to label it as a sin, or perversion, or deviant behaviour.
100% nah. I think it’s a complex mix of several factors. Personally I think some sort of phenomenon similar to imprinting is a major factor. It will certainly be interesting to find out.
In my mind, the jury is out on the issue of kinky genes of every description. Maybe overwhelming evidence will come along some day, but in the meantime, I advocate tolerance and kindness. Seems to work out well in lieu of certainty.
There are a lot of factors that can affect human sexuality. Cultural , emotional, biological. I think the evidence is pretty stong that for many indviduals which gender they are attracted to is not affected in any sugnificant way by family dynamics. Culturally in our society homosexuality has been branded as a perversion of the natural order to such an extent that people have denied or hidden thier own nature, sometimes even from themselves, in order to avoid the label and the rejection that goes with it.
I don’t believe there is one answer that applies to every individual. IMO the issue is the lie that has persisted for generations that homosexuality is a choice or some sort of evil perversion m rather than just a normal , natural variation that occurs in humanity. If people are saying ," it’s genetic" they are inaccurate in thier choice of terms. Correct the term to innate to address the issue.
I will not go so far as to call the OP a straw man argument, but it is seriously flawed.
The OP has provided no evidence that anyone considers sexual orientation to be “100% genetic.” (I am sure that there are a few folks who may believe that, but it is hardly a common theme.) Rather, there is a significant amount of evidence that sexual orientation is set by a number of factors that interact. These could include various genetic alleles, but also hormones, various other chemical interactions, and, potentially, social environmental triggers. The important point is not that there is a “gay gene,” but that the determination of sexual orientation is not something chosen by a person.
Arguing against a “100% genetic” argument that has not actually been put forth appears to come close to being simply a way to dismiss the actual envirnomental possibilities in order to fall back on a claim that orientation is a “lifestyle choice.” I realize that the OP has not (yet) advanced that proposition, but given the rather wide divergence between the OP’s claim and reality, I would be curious to know just what was the OP’s intention.
Is it simply a genuine confusion regarding the actual science involved, or was there a different intent to the OP?