Are we complete at birth or are we made

[stars2heaven]

When it comes to what influences sexual orientation the available scientific evidence heavily favors biological factors over environmental ones as being the primary determining factors.

Not really.

 

Considering the fact that there are very few studies, if any, which suggest otherwise I will have to disagree. At-least as far as the studies I am aware of which look at the role environment plays, they all suggest that it has very little to do with anything aside from behavior.

 

Most of those studies only take into account late life measurements and link them with how that person identifies. Many of them are also peppered with political motives since the only way that anyone with an alternative lifestyle has gotten any acceptance is with the standpoint of "being born this way". It may not be the whole truth, but it is the truth that people on both sides want simply because it's harder to condemn and easier to get evidence for.

 

I can not agree or disagree with your first statement here. Since no specific studies are being discussed at the moment I don't know that any estimate of what the majority of those studies take into account can be made. I'm assuming you are aware of the majority of the body of research that is available in order to make this claim, I'm not.

 

Your second claim I find rather dubious, however. It would seem to suggest that some studies are biased because of sympathizing? I don't think that will be an easy claim to defend.

 

 

There have been relatively few studies which don't measure solely around personal identification... Which is essentially the problem. It's not that people might lie, or not know, it's that their personal identification is based on their own experiences. Up until recently they didn't even acknowledge the possibility of bisexuality in males. And on the other side of things, you still have groups taking just a MRI of people's brains and concluding that just because a man has some features similar to a 'typical' female brain and dissimilar to a 'typical heterosexual' male brain, they have proof that homosexuality is biologically linked. There is just too much bad science out there and nothing that ever looks at evidence in depth.

 

I don't see the problem here. What you described certainly wouldn't amount to "proof", but it does amount to evidence. I doubt very seriously the people responsible for the actual research claimed anything more. If that small piece of evidence is looked at in conjunction with all of the other evidence and weighed against evidence to the contrary, you get a good picture of what is actually going on. As I said, the current body of evidence suggests heavily that biological influences are the dominant factor in determining sexual orientation. Differences is the physical structures of peoples brains is a part of that body of evidence.

 

This is not to say that there might not be a biological link, just that it is more of a predisposition to a certain grouping of impulses that happens to have a biological link. But, just like predispositions to alcoholism, violence, they are not an absolute cause, and are not the only reason for an end behavior.

Here I agree completely. It is very clear that society has an effect on peoples behavior in regards to sexual orientation. I am not convinced though that it actually influences it. (the sexual orientation, not the behavior)

 

The bottom line is this... Sex for most people, once they get past all those problematic thoughts of who, what, and how, still feels pretty damn good or else we wouldn't have it. Sexuality however is pretty much all those thoughts of who, what, and how, and since are internalized thoughts, can be very hard to measure or even draw meaning even when they are your own.

[Vagrant0]

I think that what you're missing is the subtext in why all this seemingly matters so damn much.

 

I touched on this briefly, but I guess it needs actual explaining. If variances in sexuality is something which cannot be empirically judged, and if it does not cause any significant increases of illness, or disease among responsible adults, does not account for any mental or emotional instabilities, and at best only elects a group of individuals from being less likely to reproduce... Why do we need to research it so damn much? The answer, as I already explained, is because regardless of any interpersonal implications, it has significant sociopolitical implications.

 

If it's a biological issue, people want to know so that they can screen for it, genetically test for it, treat it, and possibly cure it. It also becomes something of a minority status and can be used to hold a group of persons in a different light, as a different demographic set. Persons with this biological 'disorder' would be fit for public office or most jobs related to public exposure with minors because their condition is not likely to spread or corrupt young minds. In the greater population, it gains a certain level of acceptance and the behaviors associated with this condition lose some of their mark of immorality. Laws against those behaviors get reviewed and become more relaxed save for those which relate to actual public harm.

 

If it is an environmental issue, people want to know so that they can screen for it, test behaviors for early indications, establish support groups, and possibly cure it. It doesn't get a minority status any more than alcoholic or vegan and persons exhibiting these sorts of behaviors may even be excluded from voting or other privileges as their behavior may have unwanted influences on their judgment. Laws are passed to make certain behaviors illegal for the sake of "public good and health". Persons with any history or tendency for this behavior are excluded from any position where they may have public impact or contact with children for fear of encouraging these behaviors. The behaviors themselves continue to be seen as immoral by many groups, and violence or sanctions carried out by these groups becomes justified.

 

The reason why most of the research out there has been trying to point to the biological side of things is quite literally that. If it's biological, people can't help it; if it's environmental, people can help it and need to be discouraged.

 

 

It's not that there is some great conspiracy actually, for the reasons mentioned in my last post, biology is really about all that people can study. But again, there is no clear definition of homosexuality or even heterosexuality when you consider the larger scope of interpersonal relations. At best you only get a general notion about predispositions toward procreative or non-procreative acts, or which grouping of physical traits another person might be more likely to be attracted to.

 

Ultimately it's still the same old crap... Trying to judge the morality of persons bases on this notion of 'right sex' and 'wrong sex' and giving them labels so that society knows what to do with them.

[PowderdToastMan]

According to Freud, people know they are gay at the onset of puberty. With the exception of women who are turned gay by abusive men.

 

But i read a study done in some scandinavian country a few years back where they figured out that there is a certain section of the hypothalmus that lights up on a cat scan when one is aroused, so they made an experiment.

They took a control group of gay men, strait men, gay women, and strait women, and they let them each sniff pherimones of men and scanned their brain without telling them what they were smelling. Then they had them smell the female pherimones and were scanned.

 

The strait men were aroused only by the female pherimones

 

The gay men were only aroused by the male pherimones

 

The gay women were aroused only by the female pherimones

 

and the strait women were aroused by both the male and female pherimones.

 

Then there was a study done, i think in chicago, where they dissected the brains of men and women, and specifically gay men. They found that a man has a larger and different shaped hypothalmus in the region that deals with sexual arousal than women, but they found that gay men had the hypothalmus of the size and shape of a womans.

 

These studies would suggest that it is likley genetic.

 

I would be interested to see if there are other genetic brain differences between gay men and strait men. Men by nature have a larger left inferior pateal lobe where women have a larger broacas region. (why they talk so much)

I would be interested to see whether gay men have a broacas region that is that of a womans?

 

interesting no?

[DeadMansFist849]

:facepalm:

 

Being gay and being transgender aren't the same thing, or mutually exclusive. Why are people suggesting that? Not all gay men are femme, not all lesbians are butch, as a corollary of that. I like guys but that does not make me female.

[PowderdToastMan]

The term "transgender" is a made up load. It is a frankfurt school style identy group created for deconstruction. there is nothing legit about the term transgender.

 

Its as legitimate as me thinking im napoleon or jesus and asking you to call me trans-historical.

 

Sure, i may be convinced of that fact, and i my psycology may support that belief entirley, but there is nothing significant or substantial about it enough to warrant its own defenition as an identity group

[marharth]

:facepalm:

 

Being gay and being transgender aren't the same thing, or mutually exclusive. Why are people suggesting that? Not all gay men are femme, not all lesbians are butch, as a corollary of that. I like guys but that does not make me female.

This is why I thought it would be obvious that it was not the same thing.

[Vagrant0]

I would be interested to see if there are other genetic brain differences between gay men and strait men. Men by nature have a larger left inferior pateal lobe where women have a larger broacas region. (why they talk so much)

I would be interested to see whether gay men have a broacas region that is that of a womans?

 

interesting no?

Not really. Anyone with even some understanding of how the brain works could tell you that these conclusions "women talking so much" are probably more valid as an explanation for why those areas tend to be larger, rather than being caused because it is larger. The way brain development works is that those areas which get more usage tend to be more developed while those who do not get much usage tend to atrophy. It gets seen as a gender constant simply because most cultures have normative behaviors which favor social women and solitary men.

 

As for the pheromone stuff... If we were talking about rats or animals who have no conscious will, yeah, I might see that. But we're talking about people here, and if it was as simple as just smelling right, there would be men literally bathing in pheromones to cover up their own physical or emotional shortcomings. In practice, it just doesn't work. So why does it work in theory? Well, Freud was probably onto something there talking about how these things manifest in puberty. During puberty the brain changes quite a bit from all the chemicals racing around trying to sort themselves out. Similar to that brain development and atrophy bit, as those chemicals move around they touch on portions of the brain which are both designed to receive those chemicals as well as those which are developed enough to overpower other stimuli. Since various pleasure centers are already developed at that point, the notions connected to those pleasures also tend to get developed more. This is why most fetishes and kinks, or atleast the roots of them almost always develop during adolescence as well as notions of sexuality, preferred partner, and such. The way that those particular stimuli get interpreted by the brain as being sexual or non-sexual may have genetic links as a starter, but it is the way these connections are developed as the person matures that determines sexuality. Stronger connections between certain stimuli and their interpretation means more development in that part of the brain. In this way, the brain, up until about the age of 14, is extremely plastic... Neuroscience has known this for awhile now... It's just not as neat and tidy of an answer when you consider the very reasons why they're even looking at it.

[PowderdToastMan]

I was not trying to say that the size was due to the habit. in fact my statment confirms that. Sorry if you mis interpreted it that way.

 

Edit* whoops i misread your statment

 

It is a scientific fact that women have a larger broca's / wernicke's region than men and men have a larger left inferior pateal lobe. That is confrimed by neuroscience.

 

Edit2*

love you guys. Im being forced to go back to work so i will check back later. I Like Your thoughts vagrantO and wonder if anyone could expand on them. Kudos to all

[Ghogiel]

I would be interested to see if there are other genetic brain differences between gay men and strait men. Men by nature have a larger left inferior pateal lobe where women have a larger broacas region. (why they talk so much)

I would be interested to see whether gay men have a broacas region that is that of a womans?

 

interesting no?

Not really. Anyone with even some understanding of how the brain works could tell you that these conclusions "women talking so much" are probably more valid as an explanation for why those areas tend to be larger, rather than being caused because it is larger. The way brain development works is that those areas which get more usage tend to be more developed while those who do not get much usage tend to atrophy. It gets seen as a gender constant simply because most cultures have normative behaviors which favor social women and solitary men.

 

As for the pheromone stuff...

Word about the brain development.

 

In regards the researcher behind the pheromone stuff, he actually stated that the study could not determine if the results were either the cause or the effect. It just pointed out the reactions to them differed according to sexual orientation.

[stars2heaven]

VagrantO has a good point about areas of the brain becoming more developed as we use them more. But I think it's just as important to remember that biological predispositions can influence ones behavior so that you do certain things more often. Handedness, for example, has been very clearly shown to be controlled by biological factors. Most people are naturally predisposed to use a particular hand, and because of this, gain more practice with it which increases neural connections in the brain that deal with the use of that hand. Of course, because of social stigmas, a person my be forced to use their non dominant hand and circumvent what is most natural to them. Their brain would form neural connections that allowed them to better use their off-hand. But because of their natural predisposition to another hand, gains in these neural connections will always come more slowly than with the other.

 

Just as Vagrant said,

The way that those particular stimuli get interpreted by the brain as being sexual or non-sexual may have genetic links as a starter, but it is the way these connections are developed as the person matures that determines sexuality. Stronger connections between certain stimuli and their interpretation means more development in that part of the brain.

 

So if a person has certain biological predispositions they are more likely to behave in certain ways which in-turn reinforce and strengthen those connections.

 

That last bit is all well and good. It offers some explanation as to why some people might become gay or straight. It doesn't address social pressures though, and this is why it seems obvious to me that environment plays a secondary role: No matter where you go in the world, no matter how homophobic the culture or oppressive or prejudiced it is against non-heterosexuality, you will find gay people and you will find them in roughly the same quantities as you would find them in cultures that are more accepting of that behavior. Sometimes these people convince themselves that they aren't gay and behave as heterosexuals. But they are still there. You also find them being raised in very imaginable family type there is, same as heterosexual children. Of course, the various attempts that have been made to raise certain male children (those who had genital deformities or suffered some sort of accident) as female children failed spectacularly.

 

So if social pressures can't provide enough influence to significantly alter sexuality, then something else must play a more primary role.

Edited September 16, 2011 by stars2heaven