Sexual Orientation Of Men Determined Before Birth

[TC]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/27062006/325/sexu...ined-birth.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/27062006/325/sexual-orientation-men-determined-birth.html)

Sexual orientation of men determined before birth
Tuesday June 27, 05:44 AM



NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A man's sexual orientation appears to be determined in the womb, a new study suggests.

Past research by Dr. Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catherines, Ontario and colleagues has shown that the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay. But it has not been clear if this is a prenatal effect or a psychosocial effect, related to growing up with older male siblings.

To investigate, Bogaert studied 944 gay and straight men, including several who were raised with adopted, half- or step-siblings or were themselves adopted. He reasoned that if the relationship between having older male siblings and homosexuality was due to family environment or child-rearing practices, it would be seen whether or not a man's older brothers were biological or adopted.
Bogaert found that the link between having older brothers and homosexuality was present only if the siblings were biologically related -- this relationship was seen between biological brothers who were not raised together. The amount of time that a man was reared with older brothers had no association with sexual orientation.

"These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men and indicate that the fraternal birth-order effect is probably the result of a maternal 'memory' for male gestations or births," Bogaert writes in his report in PNAS Early Edition.

A woman's body may see a male foetus as "foreign," Bogaert explains, and her immune response to subsequent male fetuses may grow progressively stronger.

"If this immune theory were correct, then the link between the mother's immune reaction and the child's future sexual orientation would probably be some effect of maternal anti-male antibodies on the sexual differentiation of the brain," he suggests.

Other lines of research also support the sexual orientation-maternal immune response link, he notes.

SOURCE: PNAS Early Edition, June 26, 2006.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought there was a lot of evidence for that anyways but still interesting...and its a politically relevant issue.

[Hit The North]

Sounds extremely dodgy to me. Have they proved that sexual orientation can be traced to differences in brain structure or function?

The apparent 'evidence' may just be based on statistical probability, i.e. the more sons a woman has the greater the probability that one of them will be homosexual.

[Ander]

I see this as a huge defeat for religion and I really hope it gets more research done on it. Fuck you Christianity!

[Avtomatov]

no if you read its that the more older brothers a child has the more likely he is gay. Its not the same thing as the more children a mother has the more likely one is gay. Dumb Dumb.

[TC]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 27 2006, 02:22 PM
Sounds extremely dodgy to me. Have they proved that sexual orientation can be traced to differences in brain structure or function?


Sounds extremely dodgy to me. Have they proved that sexual orientation can be traced to differences in brain structure or function?

Well there was a study that showed a structual difference a while ago actually, and there was a study that showed that people's brains process certain chemicals differently depending on sexual orientation...i can find references to these if you want but i think they've already been discussed on this forum.


The apparent 'evidence' may just be based on statistical probability, i.e. the more sons a woman has the greater the probability that one of them will be homosexual.

Um, no...the issue is that if you have a group of 100 people who each have four sons, each of their oldest sons are much less likely to be gay than their youngest sons...it demonstrates that theres a pre-natal environmental factor (not a genetic or a social one) to determining sexual orientation.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 04:36 PM
no if you read its that the more older brothers a child has the more likely he is gay. Its not the same thing as the more children a mother has the more likely one is gay. Dumb Dumb.
So if a woman had twelve sons and the 11th was gay; would we expect the 12th son to be even more gay?

Still sounds like crap to me.

How does the researcher account for gay single children? And does his data also apply to lesbians and sisters? Applying his hypothesis of 'immune theory' it would seem not.

Anyone who believes this research is fucking stupid.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 27 2006, 04:06 PM
So if a woman had twelve sons and the 11th was gay; would we expect the 12th son to be even more gay?

Still sounds like crap to me.

How does the researcher account for gay single children? And does his data also apply to lesbians and sisters? Applying his hypothesis of 'immune theory' it would seem not.

Anyone who believes this research is fucking stupid.
No the 12 would be more likely to be gay.

And he said if you have more older brothers it is MORE LIKELY to be gay. Obviously just because something is likely doesnt meen itll always happen. So of course alot of single children would be gay.

And im pretty sure youre an idiot. Now im not saying i beleive this. I just think youre and idiot because you dont understand simple mathematics.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 05:28 PM
No the 12 would be more likely to be gay.


More likely to be gay than the 11th who's already gay?


And im pretty sure youre an idiot. Now im not saying i beleive this. I just think youre and idiot because you dont understand simple mathematics.

Before you accuse other people of idiocy, please endeavour to construct a coherent sentence with correct grammar. Thank you. :rolleyes:

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 27 2006, 04:52 PM
More likely to be gay than the 11th who's already gay?
Yes dont you understand chance? If someone has for example a 70 percent chance that doesnt meen they will be gay that meens they will PROBABLY be gay.


Before you accuse other people of idiocy, please endeavour to construct a coherent sentence with correct grammar. Thank you. :rolleyes:
I have correct grammar, all i did was make a few typos. You're just like a reactionary, youre fighting desperately with illogic and irrationality to make me seem stupid. Im sorry but perhaps you could spend less time protecting your ego and more time trying to genuinely understand things, and judge things rationally not emotionally.

[RevMARKSman]

Now what I find really demeaning is that TragicClown accepts this study on sexual orientation but rejects a study on transsexuality being biological.

[TC]

No, both studies suggest a biological component that effectives the probability of being gay or being transsexual (in the case of the other study) more likely, this is very very different from supporting a specific interpretation of the nature of those phenomenons, a causal link, specifying what that component was and claiming that it and it alone accounted for that phenomenon, all of which you said either implicitly or explicitly about the other study, Monica.

I'm not rejecting either study i just didn't think your paraphrase of the other one was very accurate.

[bayano]

one scientific bit of thought that has been thoroughly disproven is any claim that levels of testosterone or estrogen affect sexuality, plenty have found high levels of testosterone in gay men.

[LSD]

This is some interesting research.

It's only in the early phases of course and will require significantly more prrof before it can be taken as "fact". But the more evidence that sexual orienation is biological, the better.

And this definitely opens up a new area for study. Hopefuly more objective resarch can be done into this kind of correlation so that we can identify the causality that, ultimately, must be there.

From a political perspective especially, this is particularly good news.


So if a woman had twelve sons and the 11th was gay; would we expect the 12th son to be even more gay?

No, we'd expect him to have a statistically higher chance of being homosexual.

If the 11th child, say, had an at birth 70% chance of being gay, the 12th child will have a >70% chance.

That doesn't mean that either one will nescessarily be gay or that if the 11th child is gay the 12th "must"; just that if you were to sample 100 women all of whom had 12 sons, statistically speaking, >70% of the 11th and 12th sons would be gay.


How does the researcher account for gay single children?

It doesn't.


And does his data also apply to lesbians and sisters?

Obviously not.

Lesbianism is often compared with male homosexuality because both involve attraction to members of the same gender, but that doesn't mean that they have identical or even similar causes.

It's rather certainly possible that male and female homosexuality, although manifestly similar, may be caually unrelated.


Anyone who believes this research is fucking stupid.

What's with all the anger? :huh:

Obviously, this research is far from conclusive, but I really don't understand why you would react so emotionaly. From what I can tell, this study is pretty credible, it certainly appears to be scientifically sound.

For what it is, its a decent piece of sociobiological research.

For you, however, it seems to have "struck a nerve" of some sort.

Tell me, does it perhaps challenge some "belief" of yours regarding homosexuality, maybe one that you're not willing to admit to? Are you, by chance, among those who consider homosexuality to be a "choice"? :o

If so, I understand why this study would offend you so... but I must inform you that that kind of "lifestyle" thinking has been long disproven and really has no place in the revolutionary left of today.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 12:07 AM

So if a woman had twelve sons and the 11th was gay; would we expect the 12th son to be even more gay?

No, we'd expect him to have a statistically higher chance of being homosexual.

If the 11th child, say, had an at birth 70% chance of being gay, the 12th child will have a >70% chance.

That doesn't mean that either one will nescessarily be gay or that if the 11th child is gay the 12th "must"; just that if you were to sample 100 women all of whom had 12 sons, statistically speaking, >70% of the 11th and 12th sons would be gay.


Firstly, the original question was intended to be facetious. However, I'd like to know what a 70% chance of being gay actually means - especially if the subject turns out to be hetro. If you're going to accept that there's some kind of division between hetrosexuality and homosexuality (which a biological determinism must surely confirm), then either you are gay or you're not.

EDITED TO ADD: The problem with a biological reductionist view which seeks to categorise individuals as either gay or straight (linking this to brain function or hormonal balances or whatever) is that it cannot explain the cultural and historical facts of human sexual behaviour. For instance, in most hellenistic and Mesopotamian civilisations, homosexuality wasn't seen as a minority perversion but was a social institution. Their conception of the sprectrum of human sexuality was much more fluid and far less categorical than the Judeo-Christian view which, I would argue, still pervades Western thought and even Western science.



How does the researcher account for gay single children?

It doesn't.

Then it seems to me to not be a very good explanation for homosexual behaviour.



Lesbianism is often compared with male homosexuality because both involve attraction to members of the same gender, but that doesn't mean that they have identical or even similar causes.

It's rather certainly possible that male and female homosexuality, although manifestly similar, may be caually unrelated.

That may be true - and I'm dying to know what explanation the sociobiologists will come up with.


Obviously, this research is far from conclusive, but I really don't understand why you would react so emotionaly. From what I can tell, this study is pretty credible, it certainly appears to be scientifically sound.

Scientifically sound? Its central explanation hinges on this:


A woman's body may see a male foetus as "foreign," Bogaert explains, and her immune response to subsequent male fetuses may grow progressively stronger.

"If this immune theory were correct, then the link between the mother's immune reaction and the child's future sexual orientation would probably be some effect of maternal anti-male antibodies on the sexual differentiation of the brain," he suggests.

Firstly, has he discovered these 'anti-male antibodies'? Secondly what would be the evolutionary advantage of a woman's body perceiving a male foetus as foreign?



For you, however, it seems to have "struck a nerve" of some sort.

Tell me, does it perhaps challenge some "belief" of yours regarding homosexuality, maybe one that you're not willing to admit to?

My problem isn't with homosexuality, it's with sociobiology which has failed to produce any convincing explanations for complex human behaviour.


Are you, by chance, among those who consider homosexuality to be a "choice"? ohmy.gif

If so, I understand why this study would offend you so... but I must inform you that that kind of "lifestyle" thinking has been long disproven and really has no place in the revolutionary left of today.

No shit!

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 12:07 AM
From a political perspective especially, this is particularly good news.


From a political perspective it's, at best, double-edged. Sure it's one in the eye for the religious fundamentalists and other homophobic witchdoctors. But, if a biological cause for homosexuality was found, how long would it be before it's eradication becomes part of the whole designer baby package?

[Avtomatov]

I dont think its a choice or biological. I think it is developed during childhood and adolescence. But I dont know whats right. I just think thats the most likely explanation.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 01:24 AM
I dont think its a choice or biological. I think it is developed during childhood and adolescence. But I dont know whats right. I just think thats the most likely explanation.
I'd agree with that. I think it's best to understand human sexuality as a bunch of physical urges which are expressed through a set of symbolic meanings and transformed into desires.

[Koji Ishiguro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 07:07 PM
This is some interesting research.

It's only in the early phases of course and will require significantly more proof before it can be taken as "fact". But the more evidence that sexual orienation is biological, the better.

...

From a political perspective especially, this is particularly good news.
Care to explain this view a bit. Honestly I don't see why sexual orientation being a biological issue being "good" or "bad" politically. As Citizen Zero already alluded to there would be no lack of people who'd try to come up with a "cure for homosexuality" if sexual orientation is indeed proven to be biological. A lot of anti-gay groups like P-FOX and Exodus International already accept (or at least appear to accept) that homosexuality is biological, yet they still cousel people to "repress" their urges.

I've found that when people argue with gay-bashers about whether 'homosexuality is or is not biological?' they find themselves sidetracked in useless arguments about genetics or science. The real question they should be asking, is what's wrong with homosexuality in the first place? You believe that homosexuality is a choice? Well explain to me, without evoking the bible, the harm caused by me blowing that guy last night.

What if they conclusively find that homosexuality is a choice? Is that "bad"? Does it really mean gays shouldn't get the same rights as heterosexuals?

I think politically the biology of homosexuality should be neutral. So can you explain how it's good news.

[Avtomatov]

Maybe because that would imply that god meant for people to be gay and has no problem with it? I dunno

[Koji Ishiguro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 09:47 PM
Maybe because that would imply that god meant for people to be gay and has no problem with it? I dunno
Yeah... Because biblical inconsistancies have always stopped bible thumpers...

[LSD]

Firstly, the original question was intended to be facetious. However, I'd like to know what a 70% chance of being gay actually means - especially if the subject turns out to be hetro.

It means that there was 70% chance of his being homosexual at birth, what else?

It means that if you take 100 people with identical birth circumstances, around 70 of them will be gay and 30 will be straight.

There's nothing "wrong" with the ones who turn out straight, it just so happens that in their case the biological process in question (as I understand it, it's still undefined) didn't have as pronounced an effect.


The problem with a biological reductionist view which seeks to categorise individuals as either gay or straight (linking this to brain function or hormonal balances or whatever) is that it cannot explain the cultural and historical facts of human sexual behaviour.

There's a difference between sexual behaviour and sexual attraction.

Some cultures may have socially promoted homosexual behaviour, but that doesn't mean that the attraction was ever predominently homosexual. Indeed, even in the hellenistic cultures you speak of, the homosexual relationships which did exist were rather complex social creatures, whereas hetrosexual relationships remained the primary psychosocial unit.

After all, none of these societies experiecned population collapses, did they? ;)


Then it seems to me to not be a very good explanation for homosexual behaviour.

It seems to be an incomplete explanation for homosexuality. That's not the same thing as an invalid one.


Secondly what would be the evolutionary advantage of a woman's body perceiving a male foetus as foreign?

There isn't one ...as far as I can see. But then there needn't be one, either.

There probably isn't an evolutionary reason for homosexuality, but that doesn't mean that it isn't biologically based. There's no biological reason for intersexed individuals either, but no one would propose that their birth is anything but a natural process.


But, if a biological cause for homosexuality was found, how long would it be before it's eradication becomes part of the whole designer baby package?

That's irrelevent.

Eugenics could apply to any minority status. Your position is akin to saying that we should ignore the biological nature of race because people may want to genetically eliminate all black people.

Well...yeah, eugenics, even "liberal" eugenics can be dangerous, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore a valid and real biological identity so as to "hold off" the hordes of reprogeneticists waiting to wipe out the homosexuals.


Care to explain this view a bit. Honestly I don't see why sexual orientation being a biological issue being "good" or "bad" politically.

Because liberal politics have an inherent bias towards "natural" identity groups as opposed to socially constructed ones.


What if they conclusively find that homosexuality is a choice? Is that "bad"?

Morally? No. Political? Probably...

The problem with homosexuality being a "choice" is that it politically makes homosexuality just another "deviant" sexual "choice" and it eliminates homosexuality as a valid identity, especially from the perspective of the modern liberal state.

If gay people "choose" to be gay, then having gay relationships becomes legislatively no different from having "relationships" with a tree ...and accordingly, the bourgeois state is not obliged to recognize any deductive rights.

I'm not saying that's the way it "should be", but that's the way it is.

If homosexuality does turn out to be a choice (something which the evidence is more and more suggesting it's not), it would not mean that gay rights are not important. Unfortunately, however, it would mean that achieving them would be more difficult.

So, again, politically, the more evidence that homosexuality is biological, the better for the gay rights movement.

[apathy maybe]

I was under the impression that sexual orientation and gender (as well as obvious physical differences), are all determined biologically. All foetuses start out "female", at some point in the development those with a Y start developing differently. Hormones are released all the time that regulate different things, and I thought that ones sexual orientation was one of these things. There is one cocktail of hormones that says that the person will favour men, one for favouring women and so on. Generally only men receive the cocktail for favouring women and vis versa, but sometimes it doesn't always work out.

But that is just my limited knowledge gleaned from various articles, papers and other places over the years. It could all be a load of horse shit as I haven't gone out of my way to determine if it is correct.


(And actually I swear I have heard of this (the subject matter fo the article) before. Maybe they repeated an old study or something.)

[Hit The North]

Care to explain this view a bit. Honestly I don't see why sexual orientation being a biological issue being "good" or "bad" politically.


Because liberal politics have an inherent bias towards "natural" identity groups as opposed to socially constructed ones.

So therefore, we should support the biological explanation, no matter how poor the science is, in order to pander to the liberal elite?

Honestly, I've never known so much bad science as the stuff which emanates from sociobiology. Anyone remember the "gay gene" which was discovered in the late 1980s and then more or less debunked a couple of years later? Anyone remember the "criminal gene" discovered a few years later? Or maybe someone can recall the discovery of the disease "nymphomania" in Victorian society, which accounted for the deviant behaviour of women who had the temerity to act on their sexual desires and led to their incarceration and subjection to horrific "treatments"?


Eugenics could apply to any minority status. Your position is akin to saying that we should ignore the biological nature of race because people may want to genetically eliminate all black people.

Well those of us who are not in thrall to the bourgeois materialism of sociobiology have rejected the 'biological nature of race' as being irrelevant to explaining human behaviour anyway. It's well known that there is more genetic diversity within so-called racial groups than there is between them.

Personally I prefer Marx's approach to understanding human behaviour as a product of the ensemble of human relations, not the product of biological determinism.

[LSD]

So therefore, we should support the biological explanation, no matter how poor the science is, in order to pander to the liberal elite?

No, but if the science does suggest a biological cause for homosexuality, all the better for the gay rights movement which, again, has to deal with that "liberal elite" to get anything done.

We shouldn't "fake" the science one way or the other. But science is not apolitical and when it provides us with political amunition, we should not be afraid to exploit it.

Obviously from an academic perspective, it doesn't matter why homosexuals are homosexual, they deserve the same rights regardless. But the reality of the liberal politics today is that biological identity groups "count more" than social ones.

That's just the way it is.

[STI]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero

Then it seems to me to not be a very good explanation for homosexual behaviour.


All the study does - indeed, all it is meant to do - is identify one of several causes which work, to varying degrees with other causes, to determine a person's sexuality.

Humans are far too complex - both biologically and psychologically - for phenomena as prevalent as differing sexual orientations to be fully explained by one cause and one cause alone.

[Koji Ishiguro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 05:44 AM
Obviously from an academic perspective, it doesn't matter why homosexuals are homosexual, they deserve the same rights regardless. But the reality of the liberal politics today is that biological identity groups "count more" than social ones.

That's just the way it is.
Fair enough.

Although I still believe that discovering the "actual" biological cause of homosexuality isn't a silver bullet that will lead to gay rights (and I don't think you were saying that), and might actually harm certain queer groups (I'm thinking of certain bisexual groups here) that don't fall under its umbrella. The level of evidence linking homosexuality to nature is sufficient to make the "natural case" for gay rights. I agree that more similar evidence is desirable. On the otherhand I fear the political misinterpertation that can result from the proported discovery of a set of biological "homosexuality factors." Possibly leading to rights for only those with the "factor" or attempt to treat the "factors" as a sort of disease, but that just might be paranoia on my part.

Either way all this illustrates a problem with the bourgeois politics, and the fight for full equality everywhere is going to be a tough fight.