Sexuality decided at birth?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Is there a sexuality gene, or is it something chemical in the brain?

Gay guys are attracted to other guys, the same way straight women are attracted to guys. Do gay guys have the women’s “sexual attraction” gene at birth?

Then there is the issue of sexuality being a grey scale, not black and white. Is there a biological scroll bar which is set at birth?

As far as I know scientists and doctors haven’t been able to nail this issue down, hence the old nature vs nurture debate.

These are just some random thoughts, what do you think about it?

2

I believe it is multi-factorial. Genes and environment both play a role. Some individuals are probably hard-wired into their personal sexual preference strong enough at birth that environment won’t alter the basic orientation, while others are most likely more open to the influence of life-experiences. But I do believe that in 99.9% of cases, there is little ‘choice’ by the individual over which gender they are attracted to.

Just my two cents.

3

I read a few months ago in an article in either New Scientist or Scientific American that talked about the validity of using identical twins for nature verses nuture studies. From my fuzzy memory, sexual orientation was about 50% from both.

Would be very useful if someone with back issues from either magazine could cite/correct me on this…

4

Regardless of which standpoint you take, here, you’re gonna have people popping up, screaming, “BUT I’M GAY AND THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN WITH ME AND OMFG STOP CATEGORIZING MEEEEEEEE” and etc.

With that in mind, I’m of the opinion that it’s entirely environmental, and the product of either poor upbringing, random malimprinting, aberrant behaviour caused by captivity and overcrowding (a la Mr. Morris’ perception), or some or all of the above. Of course, this makes my opinion highly unpopular, because all three of those are negative influences, from a certain perspective.

5

Its strange because I have a really hard time believing that being gay can in any way be a product of a person’s environment or upbringing. I just don’t get how people can say that you can “turn gay”. I’m sorry, but some guys are so overtly flaming that you just know that is the way they are biologically made (I mean flaming in the nicest possible way!).

Erm, Panzerfaust you sound dangerously like you are tr-----g. If you aren’t then can you give me some clue as to why a poor upbrining could turn someone gay? I’m sure you have a fascinating theory. :rolleyes:

6

There have been a large number of Great Debates threads on this topic.

Most of us (myself included) feel we were born gay, and that this is an unchangeable aspect of our selves. Contrary to myths that suggest that it’s somehow a result of upbringing (sexual abuse, passive fathers, etc) we actually come from a remarkably diverse range of family, cultural, and religious backgrounds. The fact that ex-gay programs don’t seem to work lends credence to this intuitive understanding.

Science has tended to back us up, at least in the early research. The twins study suggested a strong genetic factor – about 50% of gay men with an identical twin had a gay twin, while the percentage was much lower for fraternal twins, and only about 1% for adoptive siblings of the same age. Contrary to what one poster said, though , the other 50% wasn’t necessarily nurture – hormones in the womb could also play a role, as could other factors. Another study found homosexuals were much more likely to have homosexual relatives on the mother’s side of the family than the father’s, suggesting something on the X chromosome.

Simon LaVey’s famous dissection-of-the-hypothalamus study found that that part of the brain (which is associated, among other things, with sexuality) was a different size between gay men’s brains and straight men’s brains. The gay hypothalamus was the same size as a woman’s. LaVey’s study was considered flawed because of its small sample size, and because all the gay men had died of AIDS.

More recently, researchers in Tokyo removed a gene from a kind of fly, and discovered that the fly ceased to recognize a difference between the sexes – flies with the gene were heterosexual, flies without it were bisexual.

Preliminary work, to be sure. But few people doubt that heterosexual sexual desires are inborn – I think most people assume that if a human being were sexless robots, it would still have a sense of sexual desire. And we also know a little bit of the stunning diversity of the human animal – hair colour, eye clour, height, shape, traits of all kinds. We even know that a genetic trait can lie dormant for generations, particularly of recessive one. Strangely, we as a civilization have trouble applying all this knowledge to homosexuality – centuries of conditioning saying it’s wrong have biased our interpretation, and we assume it’s upbringing – bad parenting.

The weight meanwhile of the first objective data reinforces the subjective experience of most of us – it’s how we were born.

That being said, I don’t think it’s relevant to the politics of the issue. I don’t see any value in playing for pity – “Puh-lease! Don’t hurt us! It’s not our fault!” This is a human rights issue for me, not a scientific one, and I approach it as an academic question.

7

That should read, “Gay rights is a human rights issue for me, not a scientific one, and I considered the nature/nurture debate academic”

8

With nobody at this point being able to defend a nature or nurture viewpoint to the satisfaction of a general consensus, I’d have to say that Qadgop’s summation pretty much reflects my view.

That view, of course, does not satisfy everyone (what view does?) because it posits that there are environmental influences. Given that, some in the nurture camp may well feel that, if those environmental influences can be identified, they can be altered and people can be developmentally steered away from (or towards - depends on who’s doing the steering) being homosexual.

Alternately, should consensus swing toward the view that homosexual orientation is purely a genetic product, it might ultimately become possible to perform DNA testing for the critical genetic component. In which case we’re faced with the uncomfortable position of having to advise someone that it doesn’t matter if he says he likes girls, he tests out gay, so get on over in that other corner and find one you can live with. And if we catch you messin’ with the girls…

9

BTW, as with Qadgop’s scenario, no situation described in my post implies any conscious choice of sexual orientationupon the part of an individual.

10

On further reflection, for the near term it’s probably going to have to remain in the same arena that ethnicity now occupies - you are what you say you are. Nobody can prove otherwise.

11

First off, I’d just like to make clear how much I absolutely love the fact that expressing an unpopular opinion is immediately regarded as “trolling”, or its ridiculous, hyphenated equivalent. I’m not a troll, I’m a loudmouth. And stop making that face, or it’ll freeze that way and you’ll be disfigured for life.

The primary basis for my argument is that a genetic disposition towards homosexuality makes no sense to me. Genes have one job - perpetuate. Homosexuality runs counter to that single imperative, for obvious reasons. Keep in mind that I’m referring to exclusive homosexuality, as opposed to, uh, broad sexual horizons (“I’m just slutty. Where’s my parade?”). While the latter is very possibly a genetic imperative (alternative outlet for sexual drives during overcrowding/limited sexual opportunity), the former completely prevents the continuation of a particular strain. It’s my (admittedly limited - this is the “opinion” forum) understanding, that this runs counter to the whole idea of ecology. As a personal model, I attribute almost nothing that qualifies as a “variable behaviour” to raw genetics. But I could be wrong.

So, now that I’ve completely avoided the question by establishing why don’t believe it’s genetics…

The upbringing option is related to the malimprinting scenario, with a fine helping of negative conditioning. A developmental environment that fails to provide the “proper” sexual roles and socio-sexual imprinting/conditioning is going to have an aberrant effect on a developing child. This could just as easily be fetishism, or prudishness or sexual ambiguity or a whole host of other sexual orientations/whatever term you like.

And none of this is to say a.) this is the be-all, end-all of sexual psychology, or b.) I believe a word of it, it’s just a facet of my current model for nature vs. nurture arguments, which is just that - a model, just like everything else I post on this, or any other board. If you can provide me a model that makes more sense, I’m all ears.

12

First off

Touche. I admit it - I read you all wrong, so apologies for the accusation.

All my own opinions of course:

The way Mother Nature works is that men are genetically encoded to want to mate with women, and vice versa. However is it not possible that homosexuality is caused by a kink in the genetics when the foetus is created? There are many conditions which are caused by such a thing, perhaps homosexuality is such a condition, albeit a very common one.

Your argument about sexual roles and socio-sexual imprinting/conditioning having an effect on the sexuality of a child is flawed, in my opinion. It could be understandable if homosexuality was rare, but I have heard that the figure could be as high as 1 in 10. Surely not all of these people were exposed to an abnormal upbringing? I’m sure most homosexuals were brought up in a normal loving family with a caring mother and father.

Hamish: Interesting post. I haven’t time to address your points just now but I will try to check back in later to address more issues.

13

Oops - I just noticed that you also began your post with “First off”. I didn’t intend to copy you as sarcasm, if was just coincidence!

14

Perhaps, too, the OP should rephrase the title of this thread.

For most people, birth is a single physical event in the life of a human. To assume birth plays a role in sexuality, in light of Qadgop’s post, among others, assumes that event plays a greater role than reality says.

If one assumes a human life is applied along a time continuum, sometime (if not more than one time) prior to birth the sexuality of the fetus begins to form. It may be fully formed prior to that event we call birth, or not until sometime after birth (lending to the possibility nurture plays a role).

Whatever the case, this is too detailed for some segments of society to understand, let alone accept. Those segments require clearly defined boundaries for sexuality. Unfortunately, those societal segments often choose such boundaries to fit within their own biases (including power, control, condemnation, and scapegoatisms). Those same societal segments also attempt to impose their beliefs upon others.

15

It’s not obvious to me that homosexuality does run counter to gene perpetuation. Nonbreeding adults can indirectly perpetuate their genes by helping related members raise young. I seem to recall that this isn’t all that rare in the animal kingdom. So it’s seems that this is a valid way to perpetute your genes (or at least some of your genes)

I tend to agree with Qadgop. It’s probably many different influences. Genetic, prenatal, early childhood envirment. I tend to believe that it’s nothing the individual, or the parents, have any control over and probably happens very early in life. Say, before puberty.

16

samarm - Thanks for the acknowledgement, and the apology. I’saaallll gooood.

Ahem.

It’s absolutely possible for homosexuality to be a result of some obscure, tweaked protein somewhere, sure. I try to make it a policy never to discount anything. As stated above, I was just describing my current model. I haven’t seen much reliable evidence for the genetic aspect, and I’m obsessively studying imprinting, conditioning, and metaprogramming right now, so naturally, everything’s going to be influenced by that.

17

Here’s what will probably amount to a stupid question. Have any comparison studies been done specific to hormonal (and especially targeting testosterone) production/levels between gay, bisexual and straight men and women? Anything that anyone’s aware of off hand?
Personally I think that there’s a decided genetic component. I think that environment can play a role in terms of how a person interprets and eventually acts on those feelings. I also think there are different levels or degrees of sexuality and that the environment is more likely to influence someone with a lesser degree of preference. And I think there can be a trauma-induced response, specifically thinking of a woman who is violently raped by a man and then rejecting men and turning to women for sexual comfort.

18

Given the research cited above, it seems like more of a possibility than you seem to want it to be.

Genes don’t have jobs, that seems like an inaccurate way to read it. And given that homosexuality is not at all unique to people, that might seem to discount the idea that it’s purely choice or culture.

19

The “problem” with saying that homosexuality is genetic is that rabidly homophobic individuals can say that gays have a “genetic defect.” Which means that if a specific genetic condition becomes associated with homosexuality, someone will develop an in utero test for it, and homophobic parents will begin aborting babies lest the be born gay. (Or worse, allow the child to be born, and then subjecting the child to all kinds of “treatments” to prevent the child from becoming gay, thus screwing the kid up.)

Frankly, I think that all animals are wired up with “if it feels good do it!” as their primary motivation, so I think that if our society weren’t so dead-set on making sexual choices a black or white issue, there’d be a lot more people declaring themselves as bi-sexual.

20

I love the theories which posit that homosexuality stems from a flaw or abberant behavior as Panzerfaust suggests.

It really reinforces such POSITIVE esteem to hear people positing on what is wrong with you, why you go against nature, and shouldn’t exist.