Biology and sexual orientation

Sexual orientation in human sexuality
Orientations
Asexual · Bisexual · Heterosexual · Homosexual · Pansexual
Gender-based alternative concepts
Non-westernized concepts of male sexuality · Third sex · Two-spirit
Research
Biology · Demographics · Environment · Kinsey scale · Klein Grid · Non-heterosexual · Queer studies · Sexology
List
List (category) of sexual orientations
LGBT Portal · Sexuality Portal
This box: view • talk • edit

Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into possible biological influences on the development of human sexual orientation. No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.^[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes.^[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of sexual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications.^[5]

Contents 1 Empirical studies 1.1 Twin studies 1.1.1 Criticisms of Twin Studies 1.2 Chromosome linkage studies 1.3 Epigenetics studies 1.4 Birth order 1.5 Female fertility 1.6 Pheromone studies 1.7 Studies of brain structure 1.7.1 Conclusions 2 Biological theories of etiology of sexual orientation 2.1 Early fixation hypothesis 2.2 Imprinting/critical period 2.3 Exotic becomes erotic 2.4 Pathogenic hypothesis of homosexuality 2.5 Sexual orientation and evolution 3 Biological differences in gay men and lesbians 3.1 Physiological 3.2 Cognitive 4 Political aspects 5 See also 6 References 7 Bibliography

Empirical studies

Twin studies

Researchers have traditionally used twin studies to try to isolate genetic influences from environmental or other influences. One common type of twin study compares identical twins (known as monozygotic or "MZ twins") who both have a particular trait to non-identical or fraternal twins (known as dizygotic or "DZ twins") with that same trait. Since identical twins have the same genetic makeup (genotype) while non-identical twins share no less than 50% of their genes, a difference between these types of twins provides evidence of a genetic component. For example, if a high percentage of identical twins both have red hair (while a low percentage of non-identical twins both have red hair), that suggests that red hair has a genetic basis. On the other hand, if identical twins share a characteristic just as often as fraternal twins (such as love of music), that suggests that there is not a genetic basis for that trait.

A number of twin studies have attempted this kind of isolation. As Bearman and Bruckner (2002)^[6] describe it, early studies concentrated on small, select samples, which showed very high genetic influences; however, they were also criticized for non-representative selection of their subjects.^[7] Later studies, performed on increasingly representative samples, showed much lesser concordance among MZ twins, although still significantly larger than among DZ twins.

For example, a recent meta-study by Hershberger (2001)^[8] compares the results of eight different twin studies: among those, all but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component. Two additional examples: Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.^[9] Also, Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.^[10] Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt. MZ twin concordance for homosexuality was found to be 30%.

As a counter-example, Bearman and Bruckner (2002), analyzed data from a large longitudinal study of adolescents. They found the data did not support genetic influence:

“

Among [identical] twins, 6.7% are concordant [that is, both express same-sex romantic attraction]. [Fraternal] twin pairs are 7.2% concordant. Full-siblings are 5.5% concordant. Clearly, the observed concordance rates do not correspond to degrees of genetic similarity. None of the comparisons between [identical] twins and others ... are even remotely significant. If same-sex romantic attraction has a genetic component, it is massively overwhelmed by other factors.[6]

”

Their conclusion is that the expression of same-sex attraction requires a social environment: "More plausible is the idea that genetic expression is activated only under strongly circumscribed social structural conditions. In contrast to other theories considered below, we assume that the close connection between gender identity and sexual identity is socially constructed."

A recent study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)^[11] found that same-sex behavior was explained by both heritable factors and individual-specific environmental sources (such as prenatal environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer groups, and sexual experiences), while influences of shared-environment variables such as familial environment and societal attitudes had a weaker, but significant effect. Women showed a statistically non-significant trend to weaker influence of hereditary effects, while men showed no effect of shared environmental effects. The use of all adult twins in Sweden was designed to address the criticism of volunteer studies, in which a potential bias towards participation by gay twin may influence the results (see below).

“

Overall, the environment shared by twins (including familial and societal attitudes) explained 0-17% of the choice of sexual partner, genetic factors 18-39% and the unique environment 61-66%. The individual's unique environment includes, for example, circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups, and sexual experiences. [...] In men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors.

”

Criticisms of Twin Studies

Twin studies have received a number of criticisms including self-selection bias where homosexuals with gay siblings are more likely to volunteer for studies. Nonetheless, it is possible to conclude that, given the difference in sexuality in so many sets of identical twins (who are genetically identical, and shared the same fetal environment), sexual orientation cannot be purely caused by genetics.^[12]

Another issue is the recent finding that even monozygotic twins can be different and there is a mechanism which might account for monozygotic twins being discordant for homosexuality. Gringas and Chen (2001) describe a number of mechanisms which can lead to differences between monozygotic twins, the most relevant here being chorionicity and amniocity.^[13] Dichorionic twins potentially have different hormonal environments and receive maternal blood from separate placenta. Monoamniotic twins share a hormonal environment, but can suffer from the 'twin to twin transfusion syndrome' in which one twin is "relatively stuffed with blood and the other exsanguinated".^[14] If one twin receives less testosterone and the other more, this could result in different levels of brain masculinisation.

Chromosome linkage studies

Earlier chromosome studies of homosexuality in males have not been replicated, or have had doubt cast on these early suggestions. For example, in 1993, Dean Hamer and colleagues published findings from a linkage analysis of a sample of 76 gay brothers and their families.^[15] Hamer et al. found that the gay men had more gay male uncles and cousins on the maternal side of the family than on the paternal side. Gay brothers who showed this maternal pedigree were then tested for X chromosome linkage, using twenty-two markers on the X chromosome to test for similar alleles. In another finding, thirty-three of the forty sibling pairs tested were found to have similar alleles in the distal region of Xq28, which was significantly higher than the expected rates of 50% for fraternal brothers. This was popularly (but inaccurately) dubbed as the 'gay gene' in the media, causing significant controversy.

However, a later analysis by Hu et al. revealed that 67% of gay brothers in a new saturated sample shared a marker on the X chromosome at Xq28.^[16] Sanders et al. (1998) replicated the study, finding 66% Xq28 marker sharing in 54 pairs of gay brothers.^[17] On the other hand, two other studies (Bailey et al., 1999; McKnight and Malcolm, 2000) failed to find a preponderance of gay relatives in the maternal line of homosexual men.^[17] Also, a study by Rice et al. in 1999 failed to replicate the Xq28 linkage results.^[18]

Additionally, Mustanski et al. (2005) performed a full-genome scan (instead of just an X chromosome scan) on individuals and families previously reported on in Hamer et al. (1993) and Hu et al. (1995), as well as additional new subjects.^[19] With the larger sample set and complete genome scan, the study found much weaker link for Xq28 than reported by Hamer et al. However, they did find other markers with significant likelihood scores at 8p12, 7q36 and 10q26, the latter two having approximately equivalent maternal and paternal contributions.

Epigenetics studies

A recent study suggests linkage between a mother's genetic make-up and homosexuality of her sons. Women have two X chromosomes, one of which is "switched off". The inactivation of the X chromosome occurs randomly throughout the embryo, resulting in cells that are mosaic with respect to which chromosome is active. In some cases though, it appears that this switching off can occur in a non-random fashion. Bocklandt et al. (2006) reported that, in mothers of homosexual men, the number of women with extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation is significantly higher than in mothers without gay sons. Thirteen percent of mothers with one gay son, and 23% of mothers with two gay sons showed extreme skewing, compared to 4% percent of mothers without gay sons.^[20] One problem in building consensus using this type of study stems from their heavy reliance on participants truthfully reporting their sexual orientation.

Birth order

Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33%.^[21][22] This is now "one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation."^[23] To explain this finding, it has been proposed that male fetuses provoke a maternal immune reaction that becomes stronger with each successive male fetus. Male fetuses produce HY antigens which are "almost certainly involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates." It is this antigen which maternal H-Y antibodies are proposed to both react to and 'remember'. Successive male fetuses are then attacked by H-Y antibodies which somehow decrease the ability of H-Y antigens to perform their usual function in brain masculinisation.^[21]

Female fertility

In 2004, Italian researchers conducted a study of about 4,600 people who were the relatives of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than those of the heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men on their mother's side tended to have more offspring than those on the father's side. The researchers concluded that there was genetic material being passed down on the X chromosome which both promotes fertility in the mother and homosexuality in her male offspring. The connections discovered, however, would explain only 20% of the cases studied, indicating that this might not be the sole genetic factor determining sexual orientation.^[24]

Pheromone studies

Recent research conducted in Sweden^[25] has suggested that gay and straight men respond differently to two odors that are believed to be involved in sexual arousal. The research showed that when both heterosexual women (lesbians were included in the study, but the results regarding them were "somewhat confused") and gay men are exposed to a testosterone derivative found in men's sweat, a region in the hypothalamus is activated. Heterosexual men, on the other hand, have a similar response to an estrogen-like compound found in women's urine.^[26] The conclusion, that sexual attraction, whether same-sex or opposite-sex oriented, operates similarly on a biological level, does not mean that there is necessarily a biological cause for homosexuality. Researchers have suggested that this possibility could be further explored by studying young subjects to see if similar responses in the hypothalamus are found and then correlating this data with adult sexual orientation.^{[citation needed]}

Studies of brain structure

A number of sections of the brain have been reported to be sexually dimorphic; that is, they vary between men and women. There have also been reports of variations in brain structure corresponding to sexual orientation. In 1990, Swaab and Hofman reported a difference in the size of the suprachiasmatic nucleus between homosexual and heterosexual men.^[27] In 1992, Allen and Gorski reported a difference related to sexual orientation in the size of the anterior commissure.^[28]

Early work of this type was also done by Simon LeVay. LeVay studied four groups of neurons in the hypothalamus, called INAH1, INAH2, INAH3 and INAH4. This was a relevant area of the brain to study, because of evidence that this part of the brain played a role in the regulation of sexual behaviour in animals, and because INAH2 and INAH3 had previously been reported to differ in size between men and women.^[29]

He obtained brains from 41 deceased hospital patients. The subjects were classified as follows: 19 gay men who had died of AIDS, 16 presumed heterosexual men (6 of whom had died of AIDS), and 6 presumed heterosexual women (1 of whom had died of AIDS).^[29] The AIDS patients in the heterosexual groups were all identified from medical records as intravenous drug abusers or recipients of blood transfusions, though only 2 of the men in this category had specifically denied homosexual activity. The records of the remaining heterosexual subjects contained no information about their sexual orientation; they were assumed to have been mostly or all heterosexual "on the basis of the numerical preponderance of heterosexual men in the population."^[29] LeVay found no evidence for a difference between the groups in the size of INAH1, INAH2 or INAH4. However, the INAH3 group appeared to be twice as big in the heterosexual male group as in the gay male group; the difference was highly significant, and remained significant when only the 6 AIDS patients were included in the heterosexual group. The size of the INAH3 in the homosexual male brains was similar to that in the heterosexual female brains. However, he also found some contrary results:

• Three of the 19 homosexual subjects had a larger group of neurons in the hypothalamus than the average control-group subject.
• Three of the 16 control-group subjects had a smaller group of neurons in the hypothalamus than the average homosexual subject.^[29]
• One of the subjects classified as gay was actually bisexual. This subject's INAH3 group was about the same size as the heterosexual group.^[30]

William Byne and colleagues attempted to replicate the differences reported in INAH 1-4 size using a different sample of brains from 14 HIV-positive homosexual males, 34 presumed heterosexual males (10 HIV-positive), and 34 presumed heterosexual females (9 HIV-positive). They found a significant difference in INAH3 size between heterosexual men and women. The INAH3 size of the homosexual men was apparently smaller than that of the heterosexual men and larger than that of the heterosexual women, though neither difference quite reached statistical significance.^[31]

Byne and colleagues also weighed and counted numbers of neurons in INAH3, tests not carried out by LeVay. The results for INAH3 weight were similar to those for INAH3 size; that is, the INAH3 weight for the heterosexual male brains was significantly larger than for the heterosexual female brains, while the results for the gay male group were between those of the other two groups but not quite significantly different from either. The neuron count also found a male-female difference in INAH3, but found no trend related to sexual orientation.^[31]

Conclusions

LeVay concluded in his 1991 paper that "The discovery that the nucleus differs in size between heterosexual and homosexual men illustrates that sexual orientation in humans is amenable to study at the biological level, and this discovery opens the door to studies of neurotransmitters or receptors that might be involved in regulating this aspect of personality. Further interpretation of the results of this study must be considered speculative. In particular, the results do not allow one to decide if the size of INAH 3 in an individual is the cause or consequence of that individual's sexual orientation, or if the size of INAH 3 and sexual orientation covary under the influence of some third, unidentified variable."^[29]

He later added,

"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. ... Since I look at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later." ^[32]

Biological theories of etiology of sexual orientation

Early fixation hypothesis

The early fixation hypothesis includes research into prenatal development and the environmental factors that control masculinization of the brain. Studies have concluded that there is empirical evidence to support this hypothesis, including the observed differences in brain structure and cognitive processing between homosexual and heterosexual men. One explanation for these differences is the idea that differential exposure to hormone levels in the womb during fetal development may block or exaggerate masculinization of the brain in homosexual men. The concentrations of these chemicals is thought to be influenced by fetal and maternal immune systems, maternal consumption of certain drugs, maternal stress, and direct injection. This hypothesis is also connected to the fraternal birth order research.

Imprinting/critical period

This type of theory holds that the formation of gender identity occurs in the first few years of life after birth. It argues that individuals can be predisposed to homosexual orientation by biological factors but are triggered in some cases by upbringing. Part of adopting a gender identity involves establishing the gender(s) of sexual attraction. This process is analogous to the "imprinting" process observed in animals. A baby duckling may be genetically programmed to "imprint" on a mother, but what entity it actually imprints upon depends on what objects it sees immediately after hatching. Most importantly, once this process has occurred, it cannot be reversed, any more than the duckling can hatch twice.

A sort of reverse sexual imprinting has been observed in heterosexual humans; see the section on the "Westermarck effect" in Behavioral imprinting.

Several different triggers for imprinting upon a particular sexual orientation have been proposed.

One hypothesis is that something about what young children see in the gender-roles behavior of adults, or some differences (possibly unconscious) in the way adults treat young children, somehow influences or determines a child's eventual sexual orientation.

Exotic becomes erotic

Daryl Bem, a social psychologist at Cornell University, has theorized that the influence of biological factors on sexual orientation may be mediated by experiences in childhood. A child's temperament predisposes the child to prefer certain activities over others. Because of their temperament, which is influenced by biological variables such as genetic factors, some children will be attracted to activities that are commonly enjoyed by other children of the same gender. Others will prefer activities that are typical of another gender. This will make a gender-conforming child feel different from opposite-gender children, while gender-nonconforming children will feel different from children of their own gender. According to Bem, this feeling of difference will evoke physiological arousal when the child is near members of the gender which it considers as being 'different'. Bem theorizes that this physiological arousal will later be transformed into sexual arousal: children will become sexually attracted to the gender which they see as different ("exotic"). This theory is known as Exotic Becomes Erotic (EBE) theory.^[33]

The theory is based in part on the frequent finding that a majority of gay men and lesbians report being gender-nonconforming during their childhood years. A meta-analysis of 48 studies showed childhood gender nonconformity to be the strongest predictor of a homosexual orientation for both men and women.^[34] Fourteen studies published since Bailey & Zucker's 1995 also show the same results.^[35] In one study by the Kinsey Institute of approximately 1000 gay men and lesbians (and a control group of 500 heterosexual men and women), 63% of both gay men and lesbians reported that they were gender nonconforming in childhood (i.e., did not like activities typical of their sex), compared with only 10-15% of heterosexual men and women. There are also six "prospective" studies—that is longitudinal studies that begin with gender-nonconforming boys at about age 7 and follow them up into adolescence and adulthood. These also show that a majority (63%) of the gender nonconforming boys become gay or bisexual as adults.^[36] There are very few prospective studies of gender nonconforming girls.^[37][38] In a group of eighteen behaviorally masculine girls (mean age of assessment: 9 years), all reported a homosexual sexual orientation at adolescence, and eight had requested sex reassignment.^[39]

William Reiner, a psychiatrist and urologist with the University of Oklahoma has evaluated more than a hundred cases of children born with sexual differentiation disorders. In the 1960s and 70s, it was common in developed countries for doctors to castrate boys born with a micropenis and have them raised as girls. However, this practice has come under attack, because even though these boys were raised as girls, they nearly all report as adults that they are sexually attracted to women. This suggests that their sexual orientation was determined at birth. The only cases Reiner found where children born with a X and Y chromosome are attracted to males as adults were those where testosterone receptors were absent, which prevented the male sex hormones from masculinizing the fetus.

Pathogenic hypothesis of homosexuality

The pathogenic hypothesis of homosexuality, also called the 'gay germ' hypothesis, suggests that homosexuality might be caused by an infectious agent. The speculative hypothesis was suggested by Gregory Cochran and Paul Ewald as part of a larger project advocating a number of pathogenic theories of disease. They argue that because of the reduced number of offspring produced by gay and lesbian people, evolution would strongly select against it. They also draw an analogy to diseases that alter brain structure and behavior, such as narcolepsy, which are suspected of being triggered by viral infection.^[40] Cochran also argues that the prevalence of homosexuality in urban areas suggests that an infectious disease causes homosexuality.^[41] They conclude that it is a "feasible hypothesis... no more and no less."^[40] After being unable to publish this account in a peer-reviewed journal, the idea appeared in the popular press.^[42] An American Philosophical Association newsletter the following year stated "there is ultimately very little to be said in favor of these contentions", and criticised the press attention gained, given a lack of peer reviewed publication of the theory, and questioned the general ethics of communication of theories about homosexuality by researchers to the public. ^[43] In an article in Out Magazine, brain researcher William Byne stated "Cochran and Ewald are guilty of pathologizing homosexuality"^[44], while in the same article psychology professor J. Michael Bailey posited that a 'germ theory' did not necessarily mean homosexuality was a disease, but recognised the political ammunition such a belief could give to homophobes. ^[44]

Sexual orientation and evolution

Sexual practices that significantly reduce the frequency of heterosexual intercourse also significantly decrease the chances of successful reproduction, and for this reason, they would appear to be maladaptive in an evolutionary context following a simple Darwinian model of Natural Selection—on the assumption that homosexuality would reduce this frequency.

Those who believe that homosexuality is purely genetic argue that maladaptive traits will only be removed from a population if the trait is under simple, direct selection, if it derives from a heritable component of a genotype and if the intensity of selection is greater than other evolutionary forces like genetic drift, or inclusive fitness.^{[citation needed]}

Some scholars have suggested that homosexuality is adaptive in a non-obvious way. By way of analogy, the allele (a particular version of a gene) which causes sickle-cell anemia when two copies are present may also confer resistance to malaria with a lesser form of anemia when one copy is present (this is called heterozygous advantage).^[45]

The so-called "gay uncle" theory posits that people who themselves do not have children may nonetheless increase the prevalence of their family's genes in future generations by providing resources (food, supervision, defense, shelter, etc.) to the offspring of their closest relatives. This hypothesis is an extension of the theory of kin selection. Kin selection was originally developed to explain apparent altruistic acts which seemed to be maladaptive. The initial concept was suggested by J.B.S. Haldane in 1932 and later elaborated by many others including John Maynard Smith, W. D. Hamilton and Mary Jane West-Eberhard.^[46] This concept was also used to explain the patterns of certain social insects where most of the members are non-reproductive.

The primary criticism of this theory has to do with the fact that children share on average 25% of their genes with their uncles and aunts, but on average 50% with their parents. This means that to be adaptive, a "gay uncle" would need to somehow assist an extra two nieces or nephews, on average, to reach adulthood for every one of their own offspring they give up. Critics of the theory find this trade-off to be unlikely to produce a net reproductive gain.

Brendan Zietsch of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research proposes the alternative theory that men exhibiting female traits become more attractive to females and are thus more likely to mate, provided the genes involved do not drive them to complete rejection of heterosexuality.^[47]

In a 2008 study, its authors stated that "There is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency." They hypothesized that "while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them." and their results suggested that "genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population." ^[48]

Biological differences in gay men and lesbians

Physiological

Recent studies have found notable differences between the physiology of gay people and non-gay people. There is evidence that:

• Gay men have similar brains to those of straight women and gay women to those of straight men ^[49]
• The average size of the INAH-3 in the brains of gay men is approximately the same size as INAH 3 in women, which is significantly smaller, and the cells more densely packed, than in heterosexual men's brains.^[5]
• The suprachiasmatic nucleus was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men,^[50] the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women.^[51]
• The anterior commissure is larger in women than men and was reported to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men,^[52] but a subsequent study found no such difference.^[53]
• Gay men report, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than non-gay men.^[54]
• Gay men's brains respond differently to fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.^[55]
• The functioning of the inner ear and the central auditory system in lesbians and bisexual women are more like the functional properties found in men than in non-gay women (the researchers argued this finding was consistent with the prenatal hormonal theory of sexual orientation).^[56]
• The startle response (eyeblink following a loud sound) is similarly masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women.^[57]
• Three regions of the brain (medial prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus, and right amygdala) are more active in gay men than non-gay men when exposed to sexually arousing material.^[58]
• Gay and non-gay people emit different armpit odors.^[59]
• Gay men are more likely to have a counter-clockwise hair whorl pattern.^[60]
• Gay and non-gay people's brains respond differently to two human sex pheromones (AND, found in male armpit secretions, and EST, found in female urine).^[61][62][63]
• Finger length ratios between the index and ring fingers may be different between non-gay and lesbian women.^{[56][64][65][66][67][68]}
• Gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than are non-gay men and women;^[69][70][71] Simon LeVay argues that because "[h]and preference is observable before birth^[72]... [t]he observation of increased non-right-handness in gay people is therefore consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is influenced by prenatal processes," perhaps heredity.^[5]

Cognitive

Recent studies suggest the presence of subtle differences in the way gay people and non-gay people process certain kinds of information. Researchers have found that:

• Gay men^[73] and lesbians are more verbally fluent than heterosexuals of the same sex^[74][75][76] (but two studies did not find this result).^[77][78]
• Gay men may receive higher scores than non-gay men on tests of object location memory (no difference was found between lesbians and non-gay women).^[79]

Political aspects

Whether genetic or other physiological determinants as the basis of sexual orientation is a highly politicized issue. The Advocate, a U.S. gay and lesbian newsmagazine, reported in 1996 that 61% of its readers believed that "it would mostly help gay and lesbian rights if homosexuality were found to be biologically determined".^[80] A cross-national study in the United States, the Philippines, and Sweden found that those who believed that "homosexuals are born that way" held significantly more positive attitudes toward homosexuality than those who believed that "homosexuals choose to be that way" and/or "learn to be that way".^[81][82]

The perceived causes of sexual orientation have a significant bearing on the status of sexual minorities in the eyes of social conservatives. The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian think tank in Washington, D.C., argues in the book Getting It Straight that finding people are born gay "would advance the idea that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, like race; that homosexuals, like African-Americans, should be legally protected against 'discrimination;' and that disapproval of homosexuality should be as socially stigmatized as racism. However, it is not true." On the other hand, some social conservatives such as Reverend Robert Schenck have argued that people can accept the "inevitable... scientific evidence" while still morally opposing homosexuality.^[83] As well, Orson Scott Card has supported biological research on homosexuality, writing that "our scientific efforts in regard to homosexuality should be to identify genetic and uterine causes... so that the incidence of this dysfunction can be minimized".^[84]

Some advocates for the rights of sexual minorities resist linking that cause with the concept that sexuality is biologically determined or fixed at birth. They argue that sexual orientation can shift over the course of one's life.^[85] At the same time, others resist any attempts to pathologise or medicalise 'deviant' sexuality, and choose to fight for acceptance in a moral or social realm.^[83] The Atlantic Monthly has stated that "Some, recalling earlier psychiatric "treatments" for homosexuality, discern in the biological quest the seeds of genocide. They conjure up the specter of the surgical or chemical "rewiring" of gay people, or of abortions of fetal homosexuals who have been hunted down in the womb."^[86] Simon LeVay has said, in response to letters from gays and lesbians making such criticisms, that the research "has contributed to the status of gay people in society."^[83]

See also

• Against Nature?
• Alfred Kinsey
• Arnold Aletrino
• Norms of reaction
• Xq28
• Environment and sexual orientation
• Neuroscience and sexual orientation
• Theories on homosexuality

References

Bibliography

• Anders Agmo Functional and dysfunctional sexual behavior Elsevier 2007
• Serge Wunsch PhD thesis about sexual behavior Paris Sorbonne 2007
• BBC (April 23, 1999). Doubt cast on 'gay gene'. BBC News.
• Articles by Dr. Daryl Bem will be found at [1], including several on his EBE theory
• William Byne (May 1994). The Biological Evidence Challenged. Scientific American, vol. 270, pp. 50–55.
• Simon LeVay (updated at intervals) The Biology of Sexual Orientation, a literature review web page.
• Trisha Macnair (undated). Genetics and human behaviour. BBC Health.
• Timothy F. Murphy (Fall 2000). Now What? The Latest Theory of Homosexuality. APA Newsletter on Philosophy and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues.
• Muscarella, F., Fink, B., Grammer, K., & Kirk-Smith, M. (2001). Homosexual Orientation in Males: Evolutionary and Ethological Aspects. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 22(6), 393-400. Full text
• Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002). Genetics and human behaviour. London: Author. Chapter 10 discusses sexual orientation.
• Out in Nature: Homosexual Behaviour in the Animal Kingdom, a documentary by Stéphane Alexandresco, Bertrand Loyer and Jessica Menendez
• Rahman Q. (2005). The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 29 :1057–1066.
• Rines JP, vom Saal FS (June 1984). "Fetal effects on sexual behavior and aggression in young and old female mice treated with estrogen and testosterone". Horm Behav 18 (2): 117–29. doi:10.1016/0018-506X(84)90037-0. PMID 6539747. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0018-506X(84)90037-0. 
• Rosemary C. Veniegas & Terri D. Conley (2000). Biological Research on Women's Sexual Orientations: Evaluating the Scientific Evidence. Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, pp. 267–282.
• Ryan BC, Vandenbergh JG (October 2002). "Intrauterine position effects". Neurosci Biobehav Rev 26 (6): 665–78. doi:10.1016/S0149-7634(02)00038-6. PMID 12479841. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0149763402000386. 
• Simon LeVay & Dean H. Hamer (May 1994). Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality. Scientific American, vol. 270, pp. 44–49.
• T. J. Taylor (1992). Twin Studies of Homosexuality. Part II Experimental Psychology Dissertation (unpublished), University of Cambridge, UK.
• vom Saal FS (July 1989). "Sexual differentiation in litter-bearing mammals: influence of sex of adjacent fetuses in utero". J. Anim. Sci. 67 (7): 1824–40. PMID 2670873. http://jas.fass.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=2670873. 
• vom Saal FS, Bronson FH (May 1980). "Sexual characteristics of adult female mice are correlated with their blood testosterone levels during prenatal development". Science (journal) 208 (4444): 597–9. doi:10.1126/science.7367881. PMID 7367881. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=7367881. 
• McCarty, Linda. "Wearing my identity: a transgender teacher in the classroom." Equity & Excellence in Education 36.2 (June 2003): 170-183. Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. UC Santa Barbara. 10 Dec. 2007 [2].
• Begley, Sharon. "Nature plus nurture." Newsweek 126.n20 (Nov 13, 1995): 72(1). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. UC Santa Barbara. 10 Dec. 2007 [3].
• Jones, Steve. "Ys and wherefores." New Statesman & Society 6.n256 (June 11, 1993): 30(2). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. UC Santa Barbara. 10 Dec. 2007 [4].
• Dr. Gregory Cochran (July 2005). An Evolutionary Look At Human Homosexuality.
• Caleb Crain (August 1999). Did a Germ Make You Gay?. Out Magazine.

v • d • e Human group differences Race and intelligence | Sex and intelligence | Gender differences | Neuroscience and intelligence | Race and health | Race and height | Race and crime | Race and face perception | Gender and crime | Religiosity and intelligence | Heritability of IQ | Race and genetics | Biology of gender | Biology and sexual orientation | Race and absolute pitch

v • d • e Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Gender and sexual identities Lesbian · Gay · Bisexual · Transgender · Transsexual · Intersex · Queer  · Third sex / third gender · Two-spirit Sexual orientation Biology and sexual orientation · Bisexuality · Demographics · Environment and sexual orientation · Heterosexual-homosexual continuum · Homosexuality · Homosexuality and psychology · Kinsey scale · Klein Grid  · Neuroscience and sexual orientation · Timeline of sexual orientation and medicine Category:LGBT · LGBT portal

sex

stock | retire | vm
Why are we here?
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
This page is cache of Wikipedia. History