A UCLA study recently suggested that a mother’s genes may play a contributing role in their sons’ sexual orientation. (Previous XGW coverage.)
Exgay movement pundit Prof. Warren Throckmorton responds to the study here.
Teach The Facts critiques Prof. Throckmorton’s analysis here.
(Background note: Throckmorton has aided the antigay parents group PFOX in its effort to inject exgay lessons and literature into the Montgomery County, Maryland, high school sex-education curriculum. TTF is a local group of parents that has advocated against the imposition of unscientific misinformation with antigay political and religious biases upon a fact-based curriculum.)
I didn’t see “gay tolerant” there. What I saw was Dr. Throckmorton changing the subject.
It seemed to me that what he was trying to say (and correct me if I’m wrong) was that the connection may have been between mothers and sons that had “gender atypical temperments” rather than mothers and sons that are gay.
(since GAT is not in common usage and has no read definition we have to assume it relates to men who are feminine by temperment – “nelly” or “queeny”)
“In my opinion, it is more likely that the X difference relates to basic temperamental differences that may find expression in any number of ways.”
In other words, the sons had different basic temperments that could result in ANY NUMBER of things, including being gay. But that is not what the study found, in fact quite the opposite.
But Dr. Throckmorton finds it “more likely”. Not as likely, not a huge stretch (as I see it), but MORE likely. Based on what?
I’m impressed that Dr. Throckmorton did not take the “what about the 3/4” approach. That argument would ignore the statistical relevance of the study. But instead, he seeks to acknowledge a likely connection but decide it is really something else.
Now to be fair, it could be. Further research could show that the gay sons were actually all drag queens who squealed “oh, mary” every ten seconds or demonstrated some other disassociation with their own gender.
But even supposing that it was found that all the sons of mothers with same chromosome deactivation (I’ll call it s.c.d) were all “gender atypical”, isn’t it odd that they were also all gay.
Throckmorton seems to be hinting that there could be a whole bunch of “gender atypical” men out there (with mothers that have s.c.d.) but that some could be gay and others could be straight, as determined by environment.
Throckmorton: “As I look at it, none of this is very enlightening unless the temperament and environment of the sons is also taken into consideration.”
However this would also suggest that “gender atypical temperment” is so strong of an inherited trait that it overrides society’s constant barrage of anti-gay early age propaganda nearly all the time (or 13 out of 17 times).
How that differs from “there is a strong genetic basis for sexual orientation, and that for some gay men, genes on the X chromosome are involved” is only in semantics. Dr. Throckmorton is holding onto a chance of intervention.
In other words, his position seems to be that genetics doesn’t cause homosexuality, instead it causes a temperment that can cause homosexuality – thus leaving open a window for intervention. And he finds indirect impact “more likely” than direct impact – without a shred of support.
But there is one more reason why this assumption of Dr. Throckmorton does not seem to play out. It assumes something that does not seem to conform to observation.
You will recall that the mothers with s.c.d. were as follows:
3 of 53 with one gay son – about 6%
10 of 44 with two gay sons – about 23%
If this trait is somehow associated with gender atypical temperment, then (assuming the numbers to be statisically reliable) gay men with gay siblings would be roughly four times as likely to display this temperment than those without a gay sibling.
In other words, gay men with gay brothers would be four times as likely to be nelly queens as gay men with staight brothers. Smart, Warren, as gay men with gay siblings probably were raised with less expectation from their siblings to conform to gender expectations, so this seems like a safe bet to make.
But, ironically, I did a quick mental survey. Of the five sets of gay brothers that I thought of immediately, none are gender atypical. Some are downright butch but most just normal guys. Of those few guys I know that demonstrate a gender atypical temperment, I don’t recall any ever mentioning having a gay brother.
Anecdotal evidence means very little, of course. But for something to be “more likely”, you’d assume that there would be something supporting that conclusion.
Your claim certainly shouldn’t be contrary to general observation, as this one seems to be.
I’d be glad to know if any one else here can confirm Warren’s assumption. Between the bunch of us we should get some type of picture whether gay brothers are more likely to be gender atypical than average gay men.
So what have you all observed?
Alternately, Throckmorton could be suggesting that these gay men with gay sibs were AS CHILDREN four times as likely to display gender atypicality than other gay men and now are not.
That of course makes things even harder to confirm or deny as it’s all based on subjective memory.
This supposition would require three steps to the connection
1. genetic trait in a child resulting in gender atypicality,
2. child becomes gay as a result of gender temperment, and
3. child exhibits gender atypicality as an adult at a rate no different from gay men without gay brothers.
Thus it is the least likely of all scenarios.
I hope that isn’t Dr. Throckmorton’s position, because it would suggest to me that he’s simply trying to muddy the waters and it would cause me to lose all respect for him.
Timothy based on my experience I can’t believe Mr. Throckmorton would do anything other than try to slant his explanation of the evidence as much as possible to suit his pre-judged position against genes playing an important role. That’s what he get’s paid for, he’s based his career upon it, it would take an extremely big person to admit the truth if they were in his shoes. Throckmorton says he stands against moral relativity, that means he’s against changing his mind in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
I still need to get this study in and review it. I’ll also ask GCC’s real genetics expert, Dr. Ray to look at it. My point in the blog entry is that the relationship between inactivation and sexual orientation should be explored but it isn’t at all clear what the real relationship is. There is evidence of a genetic relationship between gender atypical preferences in childhood (e.g., the most recent Bailey twin study) and there is evidence from Bem’s work that the relationship between genetics and homosexual orientation in the Bailey sample is mostly explained by gender atypical preferences. Now I do not think that this line of research explains all same-sex attraction. I just think the indirect model has the most support for some undefined subset of gay and bisexual men.
Now here is something that I would be interested in hearing from readers of this blog. In St Louis, Dr. Nicolosi said that he has never seen an exception to this family dynamic: if a gay man has an older brother, the older brother is always hostile and feared by the younger gay brother. He said Freud said this and Nicolosi has likewise never seen an exception. Well, I have seen exceptions but I would like to take an informal poll on this question.
Warren- if you haven’t noticed by now, Nicolosi sees only what he wants to see.
Warren,
Thanks for responding.
“My point in the blog entry is that the relationship between inactivation and sexual orientation should be explored but it isn’t at all clear what the real relationship is.”
I think we can all agree on that.
“I just think the indirect model has the most support for some undefined subset of gay and bisexual men.”
I need to familiarize myself better with Bem, but I seem to recall that the Bailey had some significant flaws (help me out here folks… drawing on memory).
As you indicated, this study certainly doesn’t explain all same sex attraction. I suspect it does explain (or have some relationship to) some subset of men with same sex attraction. Unlike you, I think it probably more directly than indirectly related.
I look forward to the response of Dr. Ray and anything else you care to contribute.
“In St Louis, Dr. Nicolosi said that he has never seen an exception to this family dynamic: if a gay man has an older brother, the older brother is always hostile and feared by the younger gay brother.”
I’ve never seen that dynamic myself. Of the five sets of gay brothers I mentioned above, three are close. One has a distant relationship but there’s no fear just cultural differences – one went to law school and became anglicized, the other immersed himself in his ethnic culture. I can’t speak for certain about the fifth set, I don’t know the younger brother that well but the older brother talks about him a lot.
Randi Schimnosky at February 28, 2006 10:41 PM
“Timothy based on my experience I can’t believe Mr. Throckmorton would do anything other than try to slant his explanation of the evidence as much as possible to suit his pre-judged position against genes playing an important role.”
Randi, Dr. Throckmorton has a pre-determined position and will filter every study through that predetermination to see if it can be consistent with his position.
To be fair, I think most of us do that on a lot of issues throughout life.
However, unlike many in the anti-gay movement, I think that Dr. Throckmorton – if presented with irrefutable proof that could not fit within his position – would change his assumptions.
I don’t think he’ll ever stray from “it’s sin and therefore not an acceptable behavior” or at least not as long as that is the position of his Church. But I do think that he’s open to some shift.
If it were proven conclusively that for some subset of gay men their orientation is hard-wired into their genetic code and cannot be changed, I think he would agree that those persons probably are not good targets for reorientation. Naturally, it would take convincing proof and he would still continue to support reorientation for other gay men for as long as there was a possibility that some subset of gay men could reorient.
Warren, we know of 6 such men off the top of our head (and well enough to be able to judge). There’s undoubtably more, and they include one of us.Nicolosi’s view applies to none of them.Which just goes to show — Nicolosi doesn’t have a clue about what he describing. If he can be utterly wrong — or deliberately lying — on something that could be checked and refuted in a few minutes, what hope is there for any other of his views?
As for Bem… (mainly for Timothy here)A major difficulty –upfront — is that he has based his work on Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith (1981) which in turn was based on their survey’s done in bars etc in 1970’s San Francisco. Their first (1978) publication is telling: it was called Homosexualities, a study of diversity among men and women.The data that they presented did one thing, specifically: it showed that there was no family pattern. They deliberately searched out the weird and the wonderful, for extremes, for a full range of expression. They concluded that whatever “caused” homosexuality, it certainly was not what so many psych. professionals had made a career out of for the past decades.More the point… and here’s a clincher Timothy… B&W wrote right at the very introduction that their purpose was to seek diversity, and not a representative sample. And all of this before we start looking at the nitty-gritty of how “gender atypical” was defined by Bem, or whether the recall is correct. I’m not sure many would consider the bars and bathhouses of 1970’s San Francisco to be representative of 1970’s America, let alone the World in 2006.All that aside, what we do know — and I have yet to see Bem adequately address this — is one saliant and uncomfortable fact: if the “exotic” for the child is what determines who becomes the “erotic” for the adult… why don’t we see this actually occuring in still very racially divided America?For Bailey you’ll need to be more specific about what study or what finding. Some are fairly straight forward.However, what you are probably referring to is something that was not a study (let alone scientific): The Man Who Would be Queen. It’s worth pointing out that this purported to be about transexuals, and not gay men, but this did not stop Bailey taking some huge liberties and commenting about gay men.Apart from the nonsense in the book, Bailey found himself disciplined over abusive and unethical behaviour with interview subjects. The book sunk like a lead balloon, as did Bailey’s reputation.(Bailey more recently was behind the study/claim that bisexuals are “really” 100% gay but pretending not to be. Perhaps you’re thinking of that one too?)
You are mostly correct Tim about my perspective.
I do not support the indirect model due to any requirement of my religious beliefs or my church. I just think it makes the most sense and has the most support empirically. Recently, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article about Love Won Out, Alan Sanders estimated that “genes account for about 40 percent of homosexuality.” I think it is somewhat less and manifests the influence via temperamental preferences, but we are not that far apart.
PS: if you want a very extended coverage of the Bailey controversy try Lynn Conway’s site.If I recall, the site does contain responses by Bailey etc.
I’ll add to Warren’s comments (re Saunder)Saunder’s quote about direct genes influence needs to be read alongside what Saunders calls “environment”.He does not mean the “my mother beat me” type stuff beloved of psych. people, but rather the biological environment in which our genes operate/are triggered. Such as, hormones in the womb. Or the genes of the mother etc. All those are called environmental factors.A fairly good summary was in the Seattle Times, and here’s a repeat.Unfortunately, much of the “environmental influence” discussion from some quarters is lead by Satinover’s nonsensical basketballer analogy. (“There are no genes for basketballers either”).While correct for basketball as a sport, of course Satinover is deliberately confusing the issue: there most certainly are genes for height. Whether the tall person takes up basketball or high-jump is better compared to whether a same-sex attracted man is openly gay or a closet case. The genes give the sexuality, but not how that sexuality will be utilised.
Warren,
I believe that sexual orientation – in at least some cases – is a predetermined aspect of a person resulting from a confluence of genes and possibly hormones and is most likely configured before birth. I believe that genes are probably the more significant factor involved.
I think it would be fair to say (I know you’ll correct me if I’m wrong):
You believe that sexual orientation – in at least some cases – is a behavioural impulse of a person resulting from a confluence of genes and environmental situations and is most likely configured after birth. You believe that environmental situations are the more significant factors involved.
As such, we are both going to view each study through the lens of what we believe. We are going to give more credence to the studies that confirm our suppositions and view suspect those that seem to disagree.
Sometimes Warren, however, I think you are too willing to accept as legitimate work that is shoddy or ill conceived.
I don’t think that you are like those anti-gay activists that don’t care if it is based at all in fact; your sense of professionalism would have you rather be right than simply be effective. But sometimes you seem eager to adopt a position that requires a real leap of logic – which is what I believe to be the case in regards to this study.
Unless it becomes clear that gay men with gay brothers are significantly more gender atypical than those without gay brothers, I can’t imagine how you could hold to this position.
Unless it becomes clear that gay men with gay brothers are significantly more gender atypical than those without gay brothers, I can’t imagine how you could hold to this position.
This is of course an empirical question. I would predict it to be true but I cannot back up that prediction as yet. If that were to be falsified, it would cause some difficulty for the Erotic Becomes Exotic theory, a variation of which I hold. However, I hold all theories loosely at this point because I do not see a wealth of strong support for any of them.
With regard to the gay brothers being gender atypical, I think this is a reasonable prediction. Much work points to the premise that the closer genetically two people are the more likely they are to share similar temperamental traits such as risk avoidance, aggression, etc. These boys becoming gay or not would depend at least in some measure on how divergent these traits were from their social world (e.g., a macho dad, a hostile school environment, etc.).
“However, what you are probably referring to is something that was not a study (let alone scientific): The Man Who Would be Queen. It’s worth pointing out that this purported to be about transexuals, and not gay men, but this did not stop Bailey taking some huge liberties and commenting about gay men.”
Grantdale- I would assume Warren was referring to the earlier Bailey/Hammer twin studies, which were not part of Bailey’s ridiculous book. However, the controversy over the book brought to light Bailey’s tendency to conveniently lose data that doesn’t correspond to the theory he’s trying to prove (one of the few transsexuals he interviewed for the book didn’t fit his stereotypes at all, so he dropped her from any mention, most of the others filed complaints with the university stating that they hadn’t given informed consent and that their stories were twisted to fit Bailey’s theories- e.g. “Maria” is referred to as “strikingly feminine” in the book because that fits Bailey’s views, but the reader is not informed that “Maria” was a bodybuilder for a time before transitioning, because that does not fit Bailey’s views). Given those problems, I’d say any study by Bailey is tainted.
Boo, you may be right (without me asking Timothy).I took Timothy’s words about “flawed” to mean he might have been remembering the controversy with Bailey and Queen, or the more recent bisexual paper. The twin studies are the ones that are relative straight forward.And you’re quite right about using descriptions that do not, in fact, match what is actual. Hence my earlier concern re Bem’s EBE and how it was decided a boy was gender atypical. From Kurdek’s site at Wright State you may run through a Bem Sex Role Inventory for Children. Make your own mind up about whether such questions are an accurate measure for gender atypical… or are they a better example of sterotype.Personally I think anyone who scores a boy who ‘smiles and laughs a lot’, or ‘who is true to his friends and can be depended upon’ as a feminine girly boy needs a damn good talking to. I’d have thought those described a model boy scout, not a girl per se :)(And yes, the Bem in BSRI refers to Dr. Bem; and dates orginally from urgh, gawd, 1971?)
Boo, part deuxI should add that I see sexual orientation and gender as two entirely different scales. An X and a Y; with Straight-Gay (sticking to classic Kinsey) on the X, and masculine-feminine on the Y. I’d also add a Z axis for “Interest in sex” (or something) running from Nil to Extreme. But then, I’m an engineer and love 3D graphs…Warren, I sometimes suspect, sees them as parallel lines and not as intersects. How that could hope to explain the fact that most M2F tg are heterosexual in their attractions… well, ask Warren. It’s not my hypothesis.
Darn those cut and pastes and typing up posts all higgildy-piggildy…I forgot to edit part of above back in. Correct the
to
“Warren, I sometimes suspect, sees them as parallel lines and not as intersects. How that could hope to explain the fact that most M2F tg are heterosexual in their attractions… well, ask Warren. It’s not my hypothesis.”
If you mean attracted to girls remember girls liking girls is “homosexual” not “heterosexual.” It can be confusing because most of the literature puts it backwards in contravention of APA writing guidelines.
The DSM basically follows Bailey’s mentor Ray Blanchard in claiming that MTFs who like girls are actually fetishistically attracted to themselves as women, but one of the dirty little secrets of TG healthcare is that almost no clinician who works with TSs actually takes the DSM seriously. Blanchard and Bailey try to deal with the inconvenient fact that there’s almost no evidence for their theories by simply insisting that everyone who doesn’t fit them must be lying.
Posted by: Warren Throckmorton at March 1, 2006 12:06 AM
Its no coincidence that the vast majority of anti-gays are religious. Blindly adhered to religious beliefs are the primary motivation for the social rejection of gays and if it weren’t for them odds are you wouldn’t be opposing the healthy expression of same sex attraction. People who accept their same sex attractions are better adjusted than those who don’t. If fairness were your motivation you wouldn’t be encouraging anyone to represss same sex attractions, you’d be opposing the social rejection that causes all bad feelings associated with being same sex attracted.
From a moral perspective it does not matter if being gay is a choice or not, what matters is how we treat each other. Society can’t morally oppose same sex relationships while being blind to whether or not the individuals involved consider the relationships beneficial. Its no more right to oppose gay relationships in this way than it is to blindly punish individuals who part their hair on the right side, or wear blue T-shirts – there has to be a valid reason for society to morally oppose and punish someone and being in a loving same sex relationship ain’t it.
Boo, yeah — it is confusing when put it into few words. I wrote that about 6 different ways, and then gave up; hoping that the “M” in the MTF, and the TG would sort it out. Perhaps “” around heterosexual would have helped. But then I’d have to put it around “lesbian” too (I dropped that), as we all don’t want to start on that women-born-as-women controversy at this time on the morning either…Aren’t people messy? 🙂
“From a moral perspective it does not matter if being gay is a choice or not, what matters is how we treat each other.”
Careful, Randi. You are now imposing your views of morality on everyone else. While you may certainly hold your own views of what is or what is not moral, that is all they are: your views.
You have no more right to impose your morality on Warren than he has to impose his on you – which I don’t see him doing here.
Timothy, at sometime in a society someone is going to force their views of morality on someone else. Straights by virtue of “might makes right” have imposed their views of morality on LBGTs for a long time. When it comes to a rational debate of morality, I place Fairness as the ultimate deciding factor and in a logical debate with a one for one trade of questions and answers I’ve found most people agree. I don’t have the power to force my views of morality on anyone that logic won’t convince.
Warren Throckmorton at March 1, 2006 08:22 AM
“… I hold all theories loosely at this point because I do not see a wealth of strong support for any of them.”
Fair enough. Within that context we can certainly disagree amicably about the likely outcome of future evidence.
“With regard to the gay brothers being gender atypical, I think this is a reasonable prediction. Much work points to the premise that the closer genetically two people are the more likely they are to share similar temperamental traits such as risk avoidance, aggression, etc.”
But here is where I think you are leaping to conclusions. I agree that gay brothers are probably more likely to share tempermental traits than they would with random strangers.
However, you assume (without basis other than it fits your presumption) that these traits are related to the single-chromosome inactivation in the mother AND that the trait demostrated WILL BE gender atypicality.
You assume that gender atypicality must be present in gay brothers and so therefore if there is a relationship between sexual orientation and the genetic observation (which certainly seems to be the case) then it MUST be evidenced as gender atypicality. And further, that since this genetic observation is evident at a rate of 4 to 1 in gay brothers vs. solo gay men, that it is a “reasonable prediction” that gay brothers will demonstrate gender atypicality at that ratio.
I’m suggesting that this is not a reasonable prediction. There’s no evidence at all to suggest such a prediction in this study – other than that it is the pattern that would best fit your Exotic Makes Erotic belief. So if you champion it as “most likely” this comes across less as a measured response, and more as spin.
Surely you would not respect me if I claimed that it was “most likely” that all of these gay men had a close relationship with their fathers and all excelled at sports. That would be contrary to what you suspect and, more importantly, would be nothing other than guesswork.
Similarly, you challenge your credibility if you too quickly assume that it is “most likely” or a “reasonable prediction” that this subset of gay men all demonstrated gender atypicality.
Not only is it not what I suspect, it runs contrary to my (albeit limited) real life observation. I’ve seen or heard nothing to indicate that gay men with brothers are four times as likely to be gender atypical than those who do not have gay brothers.
However, I do respect that you agree that should it be determined that gay men with gay brothers do not demonstrate gender atypicality at a significantly higher rate than gay men without gay brothers, that this would challenge Bem’s speculation about Exotic makes Erotic.
I would go further and suggest that it dimishes the likelihood of an indirect (environmentally impactable) genetic impact and increases the likelihood of a direct genetic impact on sexual orientation in SOME gay men with gay brothers.
In fact, were a gender atypical temperament be shown to be not statistically related to gay brothers (vs. solo gays), this would be a strong indicator that for at least some gay men environmental factors can be discounted. It would give the best (though not conclusive) evidence to date that at least some gay men may very well be born gay.
Randi, OK – sure. Like I said that’s your moral belief system and you’re welcome to it.
I just don’t think it’s very practical to try to argue “morals” with someone who has a different belief system. It has all the usefulness of arguing over which is better, chocolate ice cream or strawberry.
Timothy, I’ve found if I can get someone to agree to a debate with a sincere one for one trade of qu4estions and answers (very difficult to do) they normally agree that regarding morality Fairness comes First. People like Warren see the problem that equal consideration presents to their rigid viewpoint and tend to avoid it at all costs. Warren, as noted in this thread, has tried to impose his point of view on the Montgomery school board. Stating my viewpoint doesn’t impose it on anyone.
Randi, Warren hasn’t tried to impose his view on the MCSB. He has been invited to speak by those who are trying to do that, and has advised them; neither of which is the same thing.Warren is exactly dead wrong on many things, and therefore a menace given the glee with which anti-gay groups have seized on his viewpoints; but none of us need to invent while we are pointing that out.It’s also worth keeping in mind that Warren has no contact with contented gay men and women (except at this trivial level) and does work alongside all the usual anti-gay suspects. You may make of that what you will, and adjust your expectations for a “debate” accordingly 🙂
Grantdale, I didn’t realize I was inventing something. To me there isn’t an important distinction between advising those who are trying to impose their views on the Montgomery school board and actually imposing his own views on the board. Ditto for the supposed distinction between same chromosome deactivation and either temperament leading to gayness or gayness being directly caused directly by the SCD genetics.
Timothy I wouldn’t be impressed by Throckmorton not bringing up the 3/4 of women with SCD that did not have gay sons – anyone who’s dug into this a reasonable amount realizes that the 1/4 or 1/3 of women with SCD that did have gay sones is far in excess of the 1% that might be expected given common anti-gay rhetoric. To suggest there is no genetic link by pointing out the 3/4 or 2/3 that didn’t have gay sons would have been farcically disengenuous of Throckmorton if he claims to be any kind of a scientist or statisticitian.
In the interests of balance I must acknowledge that I didn’t expect Mr. Throckmorton to admit any genetic role in this scenario nor to recognize bisexuality.
Regarding the reasonableness of cross-sex-typed behavior being related to homosexual orientation, I submit:
In a recent meta-analysis of the retrospective literature, Bailey and Zucker (1995) [6] showed a very strong relationship between extent of childhood cross-gender behavior and a later homosexual sexual orientation for both men and women. However, despite this strong relationship, a proportion of youngsters in Green’s (1987) [35] follow-up and in the early follow-up results from our clinic (and some other smaller samples) identify as heterosexual. Similarly, in the retrospective literature, not all individuals who later self-identify as homosexual recall a history of cross-gender behavior.
This quote comes from a review article by Bradley and Zucker in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1997. The Bailey & Zucker meta-analysis from Dev. Psych, 1995, provides support for the relationship between gender atypical behavior and homosexuality (they predict that 51% of gender atypical boys will become homosexual).
Here is a quote from biological determinist Qazi Rahman allowing that perhaps he could be wrong:
An alternative hypothesis follows the line of Bem’s (1996) developmental model of sexual orientation, and posits an interaction between neuroendocrine prenatal events and postnatal psychosocial influences. Genetic contributors may produce sex-atypical neural differentiation that manifests behaviorally as childhood gender-nonconforming behaviors (which are significantly predictive of adult homosexuality [Bailey and Zucker, 1995]). Differential reinforcements from inputs in the psychosocial milieu to these sex-atypical behaviors makes the “pre-homosexual child” view the same sex as “exotic” (i.e., different from one’s self), which later in puberty becomes the object of eroticization (the “exotic becomes erotic” being Bem’s key theoretical notion). The activational actions of gonadal hormones at puberty may further reinforce this eroticization by fixing key neural substrates in sex-atypical directions, ultimately manifesting in adult homosexual orientation.
To conclude, it is important to illustrate that neurobiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals are by no means decisive. Nonetheless, the several independent findings of neuroanatomical differences in sex-atypical directions are not easily refutable. The most plausible explanation for such differences lies in hypotheses implicating sex-atypical neurohormonal differentiation. Unfortunately, evidence currently available is limited and largely correlational in nature. Owing to this, it is not possible for alternative developmental processes associated with sexual orientation to be excluded.
My own belief is that there are people who owe SSA to a Bemian model; some who are youngest sons who as Rahman says, owe the SSA to sex atypical neurohormonal differentiation, some people with SSA may experience more social/environmental deficits and so on. None of the evidence explains it all but it all explains something. I am not troubled by alternative pathways to SSA (nor do I think it must be a final destination, ala OSA) because I believe the brain is pretty plastic (retains capacity for differentiation through the lifespan).
Warren, and this is your basic viewpoint problem…IMOGreen, Zucker, whoever, were studying a very select group of very gender atypical children. Those kids, largely (75%, or 63% etc) did become gay adults. (What’s often missed is they also weren’t, same ratio, gender atypical adults).But they also found the control groups of non-gender atypical boys became gay adults at the expected proportion (eg “4%” etc). What that points to is that, regardless of the very small number of highly gender atypical boys and their outcomes, the pathway for having “4%” of adult men as gay is not predicted by them having gender typical childhoods.And that’s really the point of good science and a good theory: the power of prediction.On that common measure used to turn a hypothesis into an accepted theory… Bem’s EBE collapses, except perhaps for the small number of highly gender atypical boys that Green or Zucker studied. (And even for these boys there is are other reasonable explanations, should you regard gender and sexual attraction as two intersecting ranges rather than a single scale).While Bem’s EBE appears to fit the history of some gay people, and strike a conforting chord with some people looking for support for their other views about gay men, it simply does not explain homosexuality per se. As I’ve mentioned before — even astrological charts appear to be an accurate fit at times (but are also, alas, pure coincidence).For the rest — about the plastic brain — the “capacity to differentiate” means what exactly?And, hopefully when we have an explanation of what you are claiming and implying… do you therefore claim that any heterosexual — including Warren Throckmorton — could remake themself into a genuinely same-sex attracted and openly gay man? With no attractions to women.Or does this plasticity only go one way — gay to straight.
Another problem is if you follow the link above to Bem’s childhood sex role inventory, a lot of his choices for what constitutes “masculine” or “feminine” behavior seem… a little odd, to say the least.
As far as I can tell its entirely speculation that “the exotic becomes erotic”. As I’m sure grantdale has pointed out we don’t see any evidence of this happening between the races. Its just as valid to speculate that some children exibiting gender atypical behavior have been biologically wired from birth to exibit a same sex attraction later in life and the atypical behavior is simply an earlier manifestation of a brain biologically oriented to become same sex attracted.
The lack of any objectively documented “exgay” success in changing same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions shows that people’s sexual desires and brains are not so plastic and capable of differentiation as Throckmorton says. Can people resist strong sexual desires? Of course some can, but even most “exgays” admit they have not changed same sex into opposite sex attractions in the way Mr. Throckmorton’s “plasticity” and “differentiation” innuendo imply
One could find just as much evidence, if not more so, that for many people the familiar is erotic. Statistically, people tend to date within their own age group, race, and socio-economic class.
Boo, I had to immediately correct a mangled cut and post passage around that link. I left out a few words I’d intended to add back in, and I apologise if you only caught the first post.The Bem in BSRI is Prof Sandra Bem, not Daryl. The surname is no coincidence — Sandra is his wife. The criticisms about the gender typical terminiology and categories remains the same though :)Daryl Bem has a quite extensive website over at Cornell, and you may want to google for Peplau and Bem if you’re interested in some of the (many) criticisms.
Warren,
POINT ONE
Thank you for your clarification of what you believe are the factors which gay men owe for their same sex attraction. It is a bit different that what I had assumed. But I would like one further bit of clarification.
Do I understand you correctly when you say “…some who are youngest sons who as Rahman says, owe the SSA to sex atypical neurohormonal differentiation”, that you are stating that you believe that at least some gay men were born with a brain that was different than other men?
If so, speaking only of this subset of gay men, if we define “same sex attraction” as being the attribute that inclines one to be attracted to the same sex and not to the opposite sex, then these men were born with SSA. One could, I suppose, argue that they were born with an INCLINATION towards SSA which develops later into SSA, but then it becomes a matter of splitting hairs – they would then simply be born with same sex attraction inclination, or SSAI. Nonetheless, this subset of gay men were born with the attributes that naturally resulted in their being gay – ie they were not “made” gay by their environment or though the exotic-erotic hypothosis.
I understand that you believe that regardless of being born with sex-atypical neurohormonal differentiation, the brain can be altered to be sex-typical (environment can make an otherwise SSAI child straight). I think that unlikely but we can agree to disagree about that.
But, I would like to know: setting aside deliberate reinterpretations of words and the question of whether the brain can be reoriented, do you agree that it is untruthful to proclaim “No one is born gay”?
Warren, I am not asking rhetorically but would love to hear your response.
POINT TWO
You have stated that you think it likely that there is more than one pathway to SSA. And, for sake of argument, let’s assume that Bem’s model of Exotic becomes Erotic does hold for some portion of gay men.
What I’m not able to connect is the assumption that this study must be (or can be predicted to be) reflecting this same subset.
I have pointed out more than once, now, what would have to be observed for your assumption to be correct, ie statistically higher gender atypical manifestation in gay siblings. And I have pointed out that this does not seem, so far in any case, to be an observation that has been made. Anecdotal evidence (though of limited value) suggests that it isn’t the case.
Please tell me, Warren, is my reasoning incorrect or my logic flawed?
If you believe Bem to be one subset and you believe younger brothers to be another, why is it that you insist that it is “most likely” that these gay brothers are Bem gays?
I suspect you will think I am splitting hairs but I differentiate between experiencing attractions to the same sex and identifying as gay. Gay in my view is a social construct that is specific to recent times. I have friends and clients who have disclosed that they are at times quite drawn to the same sex but have never given any real thought to living as gay. So are people born gay? Not exactly. Is there evidence that brains can differentiate in such a way as to make SSA more likely and more importantly to me, make OSA less likely, yes, I believe there is. I wrote about this in my article “Did Jesus Bless Homosexuality.” However, given the tentative state of research and means of assessing brain differences at this stage, these views are subject to change.
On the second point, I think I should defer any more comments on this until I read the Human Genetics article. I cannot find it online and we are on break now so my article request will not be realized until next week sometime.
Ok, we’ll leave the second.Regards the first: I would appreciate if you could reference what has caused you to think that about OSA v SSA. I don’t find you making any references in that article (I went back and checked) except to refer to someone without a medical or scientific background who was commenting on the interpretation of bible passages by another person without a medical or scientific background. That passes for research these days?And you are splitting hairs. Would you raise the same nonsense if someone called themself queer v gay? We know Nicolosi does for homosexual v gay. And you on SSA v gay?I guess negros must be different to black Americans then. Wow, I can just see the billboards now…They’re just handles Warren. They say nothing about the etiology of gay/homo/queer/exgay/straight-trade/down-low sexual attractions for the same gender.
grantdale- even leaving whichever Bem aside, I’ve read enough of Bailey and the Zucker/Blanchard clique to see that their definitions of what constitutes “feminine” seem fairly arbitrary.
As more evidence of Bailey’s weirdness, here are some actual verbatim questions he has advised clinicians to use in diagnosing transsexualism:
[to the clinician themselves] Would some of your male friends find this person sexy?
[to the client] If you could spend only one hour with a very attractive man, which would you like to do more: dance with him or suck his penis? [the client is not given the option of responding “neither”]
Eww, ick. That’s sounds awfully like projection to me.For the first — a legit question, prob., if testing the person had fully thought through how they will appear to others afterward. (A legit answer could also be “No, but that doesn’t bother me”). But testing for transexualism??? Versus what else?The second… jeez, I hope no transexuals in wheelchairs darken his doorstep… I guess it’s the dick then…(and no replies pointing out the obvious to that people. We already know many people in wheelchairs who enjoy dances. I’m also being as ridiculously sterotyped.)
Warren,
Yes, I do think you’re splitting hairs, which is why I used the phrase “setting aside deliberate reinterpretations of words” and rather than ask if you thought anyone was born gay instead asked if it was untruthful to say that “no one is born gay”.
Relating to the other issues of gay brothers, I had a conversation last night with a friend who is the younger of two gay brothers (I wasn’t aware he had a gay brother and didn’t count him as one of the 5 sets earlier) and asked him specifically the following:
“Did both you and your brother demonstrate gender atypical behavior when you were kids?” He answered that yes, both of them did.
So this would count toward your presumption.
“Was your older brother hostile and were you afraid of him?” He said his older brother was very aggressive and he was afraid to stand up to him as a kid.
So this too fits with Nicolosi’s stereotype.
If I get a chance I’ll ask around to other gay sibling sets and let you know what I hear.
Warren, I am a male to female transexual, I was the youngest of nine and did have gender atypical behavior. However, I got along reasonably well with my two older brothers, it was my older sisters who were hostile, aggressive, verbally and physically abusive. I was frequently terrified by them.
Now try and explain that and my attraction to men using your social environmental model of causation – it just doesn’t work. Nicolosi’s and most of these social environmental causation theories are based on nothing more than what is likely coincidental observation – lots of heterosexuals as well as gays had poor relationships with distant agressive fathers, I scarcely know anyone who didn’t, that’s the way men commonly are in North America, to attribute this as causation to gayness is just plain silly.
This UCLA study, like all the studies on the biological origins of gayness doesn’t concretely prove same sex attractions are caused by biological factors, but like most or all the other studies it clearly points in that direction and at some point even Warren Throckmorton has to admit that there is becoming so little room for the idea of a social environmental cause that its time to accept that there is no social environmental cause to speak of.