An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
« Steven Berlin Johnson In Time On Twitter
Obama’s Nomination of Sotomayor a Chance for Nicaraguans to Take Stock: La Prensa of Nicaragua »
Study Supports View Sexuality Is Hard Wired
Posted by PATRICK EDABURN, Assistant Editor in At TMV, Science & Technology, Society.
Jun 5th, 2009 | 14 responses
Jun 5th, 2009 | 14 responses
A recent study seems to support the idea that sexuality is, to a large degree, hardwired into people at birth. The study showed that the brains of gay men are similar in structure to those of straight women while the brains of gay women are similar in structure to those of straight men.
The study will no doubt prompt debate from those who feel sexuality is entirely learned.
14 Responses to “Study Supports View Sexuality Is Hard Wired”
It might be worth mentioning that, unless we think we get our personality from some extra-bodily source, every single behavior we have is theoretically detectable with neurological studies. At the moment, our resolution on brain scans is relatively gross and so we cannot record many very detailed neurological differences, but every single thought we have only happens in one place — the brain. One day, we might see studies like this as similar to a report that people generally hold things with their hands. How else are they going to hold them?
Anyway, I find such studies interesting on an intellectual level, but I never see their great importance for morality or civil society. I have a few gay friends and they remain my friends and worthy of respect whether they are gay from birth or gay through experience. Still like them either way, and still think they deserve to be treated as full citizens either way.
Personally I think nature and nurture are involved, and as usual a study like this is being overhyped to claim conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence. It surprises me that one of the researchers said this, for instance:
“Savic said she believed the brain differences were forged in the womb or infancy, probably as a result of genetic or hormonal factors. She said she could not explain why the differences were more pronounced in homosexual men than in homosexual women.”
When there was apparently nothing in the study to address that hypothesis. The changes could have taken place from early development, or may have occurred later (which would support environmental influence.)
I'm not making a claim either way, mind you, and my hunch is that there are biological tendencies which might be expressed under certain external influences or remain unexpressed in others. I just wish people wouldn't make claims about what is proven when it's not really proven.
This is old news. I remember seeing similar results announced over 15 years ago. It didn't exactly settle the matter then.
Out trolling for some Silhouette comments this morning, Patrick?
At any rate, we winter in FTL and we have a large circle of gay acquaintances there. Those folks all pretty much subscribe to the “from birth” theory.
The latest one making the rounds was that it was extra estrogen being absorbed by the embryo……and more gay men are lower in the birth order since women tend to produce more estrogen in later pregnancies……..or some such thing………
Doesn't matter to me, they're all pretty entertaining guys and always have plenty of liquor and other attitude adjusting materials laying around.
So If I have opposing information, I am a troll..
*jots in notebook*…intolerance isn't limited to the right I see…
I know of one set of identical twins, girls, who I spoke about yesterday, who factually exist. They were brought up in a household that rambled from heterosexual parents, to homosexual and back to hetero again at the end. One is a butch dyke and the other hetero and living with a boyfriend.
Aside from the AI industry that banks on sexuality being malleable, that very knowledge and fact that brings food to your table every single day, if you have one set of identical twins like the ones I know of, where one comes out homosexual and the other hetero, you cannot rule out environmental influence in determining sexual-preference. In fact it is proven.
If it is found that homosexuality is innate, it must be realized that from these twins, it can be affected after birth to different outcomes. So if innate, environment trumps the original drive. We see this in prisons were as late as adulthood, people “convert” to homosexuality and often stay that way when “on the outside”.
Sexuality is malleable. It is a fact. Pretending it isn't is as laughable as christians pretending evolution isn't viable. It's just laughingly sad and pathetic the levels of denial people participate in to avoid having to restructure the foundation of what they once were so sure of…brainwashed if you wil to believe..
You're just fun to harass, Sil, largely because you are so intellectually “un-malleable”!
I will throw you one anecdotal bone for your viewpoint……..we met a 20'ish gay man not too long ago and he said he was gay because it was so much easier finding sex. So, score one for “environmental”!
The nature/nurture argument is irrelevant, because knowing one way or the other doesn't tell us what to *do* about it.
Silhouette, you keep doing face plants when it comes to proposing sensible policies. Sexuality is malleable, though we don't know exactly how, so therefore being rude to gays is the only prudent policy? Promiscuity is bad, therefore we should oppose institutions like marriage known for reducing it? WTF?
BTW, that's not what “tricking” means. And I haven't heard “chicken” used to mean anything but poultry in 20 years. Except in your posts.
“Why do they have a word for it? Why do they have a specific derivative of “tricking” for young male hetero “targets” called “chicken” [meat for their consumption]?”
Wow…you are seriously losing it, dear. “Tricking” means the same thing to gay people as it does to straight people, as does “chicken”. Prostituting oneself and birds yummy with dumplins, respectively.
And this: “It is because their culture factually includes predation, sexual predation and conversion of others to their particular fetish. Why? I suppose for more potential partners. Promiscuity demands a constant fresh supply of meat..” … is just disgustingly overt bigotry. It becomes clearer with every sad comment you make that you bring up agrilcultural sexual practices so often because you actually think of gay people as animals. That doesn't make gay people disgusting or wrong — it makes YOU disgusting and wrong.
A gay trick is a one-night (or shorter) stand, whether or not any money was involved. The word doesn't imply the other participant was straight, or underage, or fooled into something.
And “chicken” MAY mean the white meat that often comes with dumplings. It may also mean a young gay man. It may also refer to gay men who do a lot of upper-body building, but ignore the lower body (the famous “Chelsea Chicken” type comes to mind). So Sil has stated she knows at least 10 lesbians, and now she knows two twins. These do not make a representative sample, and as always, it's helpful to remember that our experiences shape the way we understand the world. This includes everybody. So Sil, back the heck off, because your experiences, as unfortunate as they may have been, are not “the truth.”
Sil. Ohmygoodness. Sil.
LOL!!!
Actually, I suspect Silhouette's suffering from a bit of over-generalization. Whether she has her details right or not, there is, in fact, a sexual sub-culture that traditionalists consider deviant (or merely bizarre?), whether practiced by gays or straights.
Silhouette also doesn't seem to know that traditionalists are both gay and straight. (Think monogamy here, Sil, and ordinary evenings at home with a television and a spouse / significant other) .
What Sil (and she's not alone here) seems to be doing is applying a sub-cultural behavior to a wider population. Just as generalizing tends to lead us astray in politics, so to does it here.
>sexuality may be hard-wired, but that wiring can be rewired by the environment. It is supported by an industry that relies on that F-A-C-T.
Ah. Yes. And we have always been at war with Eastasia.
Excuse me, my RELIGION is Judaism and I have never had the slightest desire to reproduce
Heterosexuals also use the terms “chicks” so I guess your whole poultry argument is a bust. Two things about this debate always makes me wonder 1) in a world of over 6 billion people that is dangerously unbalancing the ecosystems of the planet why would anyone be so obsessed with making sure everyone procreates. Are you concerned that our species numbers are in decline? 2) Why do those who are against same-sex relationships always seem to have so much anger behind what they are saying? It's a sad state of affairs when someone is so desperate to make themselves feel important that they need to run around condemning everyone else. Lastly, to address Silhouette's “promiscuity demands a constant supply of fresh meat” comment, heterosexuals are just as promiscuous as gays, and I am assuming you are referring to gay men (because lesbians are the least sexually active of all- look it up). Surely you've noticed the existence of heterosexual pornography on the Internet (there's actually quite a bit of it if you haven't noticed) And as far as sexual predators the figures are around 82% of child molesters are heterosexual. Life is short live and let live. You won't save the world by spreading irrational fear and spewing your anger on the least protected social minority. Global warming is a bigger threat than any of this nonsense, but I bet you still drive your car.