Just what is the strength of the "born this way" argument?

[Dekusta]

I was wondering what is the general opinion on the "born this way" argument. How important are biological factors when it comes to homosexuality?

In my opinion, I think genetics count for 10-15% only, and other enviromental factors for the rest. People who think there is more influence from biology have to consider, in my opinion, what it seems to be the best case against the BTW argument, which is the "My Genes My Do It" by Neil Whitehead, and their online website. He reviewed and continues to review almost all studies on the issue and finds fatal flaws with most of them, and he also presents a good case for social factors such as parenting and other learned behavior.

He has not received any relevant criticism so far.

 

[bilby]

...He has not received any relevant criticism so far.

That cannot possibly be true, and your stating it is good hard evidence that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.


That said, the whole question is based on a false premise. People are not attracted to genders; they are attracted to individuals. The proportion of completely homosexual or completely heterosexual humans is tiny. Sexuality is a spectrum - and is of no practical importance - either you fancy someone or you don't; and they either fancy you too, or they don't.

Why does anyone who is not involved in, or wishing to be involved in, any relationship care a jot who is doing what with whom? Discussions of other people's sexuality are rude, uncivilised and unnecessary.

The causes of people's sexual preferences are irrelevant to their practice. You might as well ask if liking cheese is caused by genes or environment.

 

[dystopian]

That said, the whole question is based on a false premise. People are not attracted to genders; they are attracted to individuals.

What if they're attracted to groups? This is some bullshit anti-orgy bias going on here!

 

[Dekusta]

...He has not received any relevant criticism so far.

That cannot possibly be true, and your stating it is good hard evidence that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

But it is true. He has not received any relevant criticism, in the sense that nobody has come to engage his arguments. This is science. We care to discuss about whether sexual attraction to children is a pathology or not, but somehow we can't discuss about what causes a person to feel attracted to their same sex because that is uncivilized. If science shows that homosexuality is caused by some parenting issue, than pro-LGBT people have to stop using the born this way argument. If science shows that it is a pathology, then people will have to swallow that it is a pathology.

That is what the discussion is about. Calling science uncivilized is the same as calling a tree immoral. It can't truly make any sense.

Scientists and others who agree that homosexuality has some biological cause have ignored Dr. Whitehead (including APA) and that is uncivilized: state something without considering the arguments against it. Try to appeal to any kind of emotion is useless and possibly ridiculous.

 

[Valjean]

No-one is proposing a gay gene except sensationalistic news media. Most behaviors, drives, &c are multifactoral, nor are identical twins entirely identical.

 

[Malintent]

No-one is proposing a gay gene except sensationalistic news media. Most behaviors, drives, &c are multifactoral, nor are identical twins entirely identical.

Are there numerous cases of identical twins having opposite gender identities or sexual preferences? That would be supporting evidence for your claim.

If the proportion of homosexuality across the globe was equal to the proportion of homosexuality in one of two identical twins, then there is no correlation to genetics. So... what are the statistics telling us?

 

[Bomb#20]

No-one is proposing a gay gene except sensationalistic news media. Most behaviors, drives, &c are multifactoral, nor are identical twins entirely identical.

"Born this way" != "gay gene". Environmental influence does not begin at birth.

 

[repoman]

No, environmental influence starts at conception on even sometime 1 or 2 generations earlier if you account for epigenetic switches.

 

[fromderinside]

I was wondering what is the general opinion on the "born this way" argument. How important are biological factors when it comes to homosexuality?

In my opinion, I think genetics count for 10-15% only, and other enviromental factors for the rest. People who think there is more influence from biology have to consider, in my opinion, what it seems to be the best case against the BTW argument, which is the "My Genes My Do It" by Neil Whitehead, and their online website. He reviewed and continues to review almost all studies on the issue and finds fatal flaws with most of them, and he also presents a good case for social factors such as parenting and other learned behavior.

He has not received any relevant criticism so far.

When one starts a scientific thread with "in my opinion" one must expect political discourse. Let me suggest a bit of evidence upon which we can rev up a debate. I'm thinking the article I posted has many slaps in the face for Whitehead and for who your claim that a social factor basis best explains the data.

"Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation" http://speciosawandira.com/wp-conte...psychobiology-of-human-sexual-orientation.pdf

Sexual orientation is fundamental to evolution and shifts from the species-typical pattern of heterosexualitymay represent biological variations.The growth of scientific knowledge concerning the biology ofsexual orientation during the past decade has been considerable.Sexual orientation is characterised by abipolar distribution and is related to fraternal birth order in males.In females, its distribution is morevariable; females being less prone towards exclusive homosexuality.In both sexes homosexuality isstrongly associated with childhood gender nonconformity.Genetic evidence suggests a heritable componentand putative gene loci on the X chromosome.Homosexuality may have evolved to promote same sexaffiliation through a conserved neurodevelopmental mechanism.Recent findings suggest this mechanisminvolves atypical neurohormonal differentiation of the brain.Key areas for future research include theneurobiological basis of preferred sexual targets and correlates of female homosexuality

The bold suggests if genetic it is very complex. The sentence after suggests to me a throw back to something like imprinting.

Obviously the main reason for this article is its references. Enjoy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I was wondering what is the general opinion on the "born this way" argument. How important are biological factors when it comes to homosexuality?

That would depend on what you're trying to accomplish by making the argument, wouldn't it?

If people are born gay, then it would make no sense for God to send them to Hell for something they can't control. If gay is entirely a choice, then the blame is entirely on the individual for being icky.

To me, it makes about as much sense as discriminating based on hair color, which has influences of genetic, environmental and choice basis. And whether she's naturally blonde, sun-bleached or a bottle-blonde, it's really none of my business.

So, to me, the BTW argument is about as strong as 'who gives a shit and why?'

 

[Valjean]

No-one is proposing a gay gene except sensationalistic news media. Most behaviors, drives, &c are multifactoral, nor are identical twins entirely identical.

"Born this way" != "gay gene". Environmental influence does not begin at birth.

Balderdash! It's not nearly so simple.
Environmental influences begin in the womb. Even with homozygous twins there are physical and chemical variables. There is no large vs small, fat vs thin, left vs right handed genes, either. Simple determinants like eye colour are rare.
There is birth order, monoplacental vs separate placental twins, epigenetic changes, birth order, hormone level variability. There is evidence of anatomical differences in gay vs straight male brains. Of course there are social factors as well, but in societies where homosexuality is stigmatized the Nature/nurture ratio is probably the opposite of that proposed by the OP.

 

[Underseer]

I was wondering what is the general opinion on the "born this way" argument. How important are biological factors when it comes to homosexuality?

In my opinion, I think genetics count for 10-15% only, and other enviromental factors for the rest. People who think there is more influence from biology have to consider, in my opinion, what it seems to be the best case against the BTW argument, which is the "My Genes My Do It" by Neil Whitehead, and their online website. He reviewed and continues to review almost all studies on the issue and finds fatal flaws with most of them, and he also presents a good case for social factors such as parenting and other learned behavior.

He has not received any relevant criticism so far.

If you think lust is a choice, even partially, then you are bisexual.

You cannot think lust is a choice for everyone unless lust is a choice for you. Lust is not a choice for you unless you feel lust for more than one gender. Hence, if you think lust is a choice (to whatever degree), then you are bisexual.

I'm not bisexual. That's why I know it's not a choice. I get a primal, physiological reaction to an image of a good-looking woman (no, not just that, there's also changes to bloodflow, breathing... why am I explaining this? Get your mind out of the gutter!), but the most primal reaction I get from an image of a good-looking man is jealousy (or guilt of the "I need to work out" variety).

It's not a choice. I was not raised Christian and I find the homosexual taboo to be bizarre and cruel. If I felt any urges to have sex with men, I would have done it by now. Probably several times.

 

[ronburgundy]

...He has not received any relevant criticism so far.

That cannot possibly be true, and your stating it is good hard evidence that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.


That said, the whole question is based on a false premise. People are not attracted to genders; they are attracted to individuals. The proportion of completely homosexual or completely heterosexual humans is tiny. Sexuality is a spectrum - and is of no practical importance - either you fancy someone or you don't; and they either fancy you too, or they don't.

Why does anyone who is not involved in, or wishing to be involved in, any relationship care a jot who is doing what with whom? Discussions of other people's sexuality are rude, uncivilised and unnecessary.

The causes of people's sexual preferences are irrelevant to their practice. You might as well ask if liking cheese is caused by genes or environment.

This is even more scientifically wrong than the OP. People are very much sexually attracted to others, depending on their biological sex. Who the specific person is matters too, but probably less than than their biological sex. This is especially the case for the sexual attraction of males toward other people. Most males between 13 and 50 get immediately, uncontrollably, biologically aroused at the sight of the females indicating sexual receptiveness, and it doesn't hardly matter who the woman is. In contrast, they don't respond this way to the sight of males, unless they report being homosexual in which case their biological arousal is largely limited to images of biological males. This is what makes female porn marketed to males one of the largest industries in human history, emerging immediately with the earliest forms of photography and film.

The gender-specific nature of male sexual arousal is well established.
"Three decades of research on men's sexual arousal show patterns that clearly track sexual orientation—gay men overwhelmingly become sexually aroused by images of men and heterosexual men by images of women. "

However, research suggests that the same is not true of females whose sexual arousal to images is less dependent upon the biological sex of the person. But those findings may not be because females' sexual attraction is not tied to other's biological sex, but rather because other research shows that visual stimuli of a sexual nature triggers less of a sexual response in females. .
Research with pheromones has shown "gender" specific responses in both men and women, with self-defined hetero men showing sex-related brain activation in response to pheromones contained primarily in female urine, but gay men and hetero women showing similar activation in response to pheromones contained primarily in male sweat.

Whether you "fancy someone" or "attraction" in a broader sense is more than (and my not even include) sexual attraction. Neither is necessary nor sufficient for the other. Thus, of course this is less tied to gender and tied more to person-specific attributes. But that kind of general "attraction" is far more intellectualized and socially constructed than the sexual attraction that is more strongly tied to biological sex of the other person and is itself are more biological form of attraction that is not under conscious control.

 

[Peez]

FYI: Secular Cafe - Science and Stuff - Creation & Alternative Science: Biology and Sexual Orientation

Peez

 

[Bomb#20]

"Born this way" != "gay gene". Environmental influence does not begin at birth.

Balderdash! It's not nearly so simple.
Environmental influences begin in the womb. Even with homozygous twins there are physical and chemical variables. ...

Yes, that's what I said. Why are you crying "Balderdash!" at me?

 

[Dekusta]

When one starts a scientific thread with "in my opinion" one must expect political discourse. Let me suggest a bit of evidence upon which we can rev up a debate. I'm thinking the article I posted has many slaps in the face for Whitehead and for who your claim that a social factor basis best explains the data.

"Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation" http://speciosawandira.com/wp-conte...psychobiology-of-human-sexual-orientation.pdf

Sexual orientation is fundamental to evolution and shifts from the species-typical pattern of heterosexualitymay represent biological variations.The growth of scientific knowledge concerning the biology ofsexual orientation during the past decade has been considerable.Sexual orientation is characterised by abipolar distribution and is related to fraternal birth order in males.In females, its distribution is morevariable; females being less prone towards exclusive homosexuality.In both sexes homosexuality isstrongly associated with childhood gender nonconformity.Genetic evidence suggests a heritable componentand putative gene loci on the X chromosome.Homosexuality may have evolved to promote same sexaffiliation through a conserved neurodevelopmental mechanism.Recent findings suggest this mechanisminvolves atypical neurohormonal differentiation of the brain.Key areas for future research include theneurobiological basis of preferred sexual targets and correlates of female homosexuality

The bold suggests if genetic it is very complex. The sentence after suggests to me a throw back to something like imprinting.

Obviously the main reason for this article is its references. Enjoy.

Thanks! I'll certainly take a look at them.

 

[Valjean]

Balderdash! It's not nearly so simple.
Environmental influences begin in the womb. Even with homozygous twins there are physical and chemical variables. ...

Yes, that's what I said. Why are you crying "Balderdash!" at me?

Oops, misread. Apologies. Consider yourself unbalderdashed.

 

[gmbteach]

No-one is proposing a gay gene except sensationalistic news media. Most behaviors, drives, &c are multifactoral, nor are identical twins entirely identical.

Are there numerous cases of identical twins having opposite gender identities or sexual preferences? That would be supporting evidence for your claim.

If the proportion of homosexuality across the globe was equal to the proportion of homosexuality in one of two identical twins, then there is no correlation to genetics. So... what are the statistics telling us?

The statistics IMO are telling us that there is no rhyme or reason to sexuality and attraction.

Cultures across the planet have identified men and women as being 'outside of the norm'. Men who are effeminate and prefer other men, women who are butch and like to fight.

My belief, and I would love to find statistics to support it, is that, we are more aware of these issues now as we are now studying them and seeking them out.

 

[ronburgundy]

Are there numerous cases of identical twins having opposite gender identities or sexual preferences? That would be supporting evidence for your claim.

If the proportion of homosexuality across the globe was equal to the proportion of homosexuality in one of two identical twins, then there is no correlation to genetics. So... what are the statistics telling us?

The statistics IMO are telling us that there is no rhyme or reason to sexuality and attraction.

???? There is a massive amount of rhyme, reason, predictability, and identified causes of sexual attraction. There is both a mountain of evidence regarding biological bases of sexual orientation, evidence of the gender-specific nature of sexual attraction among most people (especially among males), and evidence of qualities (biological and behavioral) that trigger sexual attraction more towards one specific person than another and/or in one context than another.

There are few aspects of human psychology and behavior for which their is more evidence identifying causes and constraints than for sexual attraction.

 

[gmbteach]

The statistics IMO are telling us that there is no rhyme or reason to sexuality and attraction.

???? There is a massive amount of rhyme, reason, predictability, and identified causes of sexual attraction. There is both a mountain of evidence regarding biological bases of sexual orientation, evidence of the gender-specific nature of sexual attraction among most people (especially among males), and evidence of qualities (biological and behavioral) that trigger sexual attraction more towards one specific person than another and/or in one context than another.

There are few aspects of human psychology and behavior for which their is more evidence identifying causes and constraints than for sexual attraction.

Okay then. Show me the data!