There is a very good article in the Sunday Boston Globe about the various theories as to the origins of sexual orientation. The author, Neil Swidey, covered most of the ideas floating about relating to what factor may be the determinant as to why a boy may end up gay.
Some are familiar, such as hormones in the uterus. Some were new to me, such as the idea of a viral infection in the uterus (back to “it’s a sickness”) or something called “imprinted genes” (genes that are “turned off” but which in the gene-splitting that creates a fetus could turn back on, which may go to explain inconsistency in the sexual orientation of identical twins). And others I personally find to be preposterous, for example the “exotic becomes erotic” theory.
Swidey came away with no clear favorite.
In the course of reporting this story, I experienced a good deal of whiplash. Just when I would become swayed by the evidence supporting one discreet theory, I would stumble onto new evidence casting some doubt on it. Ultimately, I accepted this as unavoidable terrain in the hunt for the basis of sexual orientation. This is, after all, a research field built on underfunded, idiosyncratic studies that are met with full-barreled responses from opposing and well-funded advocacy groups determined to make the results from the lab hew to the scripts they’ve honed for the talk-show circuit.
And that, I believe, is true. Some gay rights groups want a clear argument for Genetics Only, believing this will best lead to equality between gay and strait individuals and couples. Alternately, the change advocates desperately want No Genetic Cause, rightly believing that should sexual orientation be inarguably proven to be determined pre-birth then their ministry would become an embarrassment.
Swidey did make the following conclusion:
Still, no matter how imperfect these studies are, when you put them all together and examine them closely, the message is clear: While post-birth development may well play a supporting role, the roots of homosexuality, at least in men, appear to be in place by the time a child is born. After spending years sifting through all the available data, British researchers Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman come to an even bolder conclusion in their forthcoming book Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation, in which they write: “Sexual orientation is something we are born with and not `acquired’ from our social environment.”
I, for one, am looking forward to the Wilson / Rahman book. That is, indeed, a bold statement and I curious to see how they back it up.
That is a good long article — congrats to the Globe for even attempting it.Apart from starting off with a long introduction using extreme femininity in boys, that is. While a useful part of the discussion, it leaves out a great slab of gay men without such backgrounds.The virus theory isn’t about “sickness” as such, merely that a virus may trigger a chemical response by the mother leading to a particular environment for the developing fetus. It’s a long way short of evidence… It was good to see genetic influence on traits treated with rather more complexity that typical for a newspaper.And I am looking forward to getting my hands on Wilson & Rahman’s book. I have read some rather bold statements from them in recent times, and it’ll be good to see how they presnt the issues.Hopefully it’ll also be good companion to re-read Mondimore’s A Natural History of Homosexuality. (which, if you haven’t already read, I recommend as a good summation from 8,9,10? years ago.)
Loved this quote: it’s about as clear and succinct as can be made:
I haven’t read the article yet, but I also recommend a
book on the research on sexual-orientation written by Simon LeVay (the neuroscientist who performed the homosexual hypothalamus study). It is a little outdated, but it clearly follows past works, dives into history and explains thorough issues of the research.
The Boston Globe article was repeated in the UK Guardian (G2 supplement) just recently, though it doesn’t appear to be linked on the Guardian website.
I think that it is a pretty good summary of current science and achieves a fair bit without being over technical. It is a good article for those starting to investigate this area.
In amongst the points covered, the “exotic/erotic” theory is generally only promoted by ex-gay type groups now, and the virus theory is certainly new to me.
I encounted the “virus” theory just about a month ago. Only one publication that I know of so far that discusses it. If anybody knows anyone else who is proposing this idea, I’d love to know.
Look up a group called the “Human Biodiversity Institute.” It’s basically an email discussion list for eungenics enthusiasts. A lot of them are also pushing the “gay germ” idea. The founder of the list, Steve Sailer, wrote an article entitled “Gay gene or gay germ?” which you could prolly find by googling. John Derbyshire, who also happens to be on the list, mentioned it in one of his national review columns a while back on possible causes of homosexuality, and said he thinks it’s the most likely, but I don’t remember the exact reference. You could probably find it by searching National Review online.
I know we’re not permitted to call people nuts at XGW but…Steve Sailor is better known for various “genetic theories” about racial inferiority — presented as only a non-scientist journalist with a bent could. Here’s a summary together with various of his scribblings. Those familiar with John Derbyshire will understand the connection of views etc.The viral theory (for this and much else was) first promoted by Ewald and Cochram — in the late 1990’s. The rambling piece by (the rambling) Derbyshire mentions it. And as always with JD — snippets of disjointed information gleaned from G.K.W. and all leading to a firm but unwarranted opinion. Given Derbyshiire is in an interracial marriage, one wonders what the hell he is playing at…
For more insights into the way of thinking behind these “theories” check out this weirdness, espcially the Benjamin Leo comments:
https://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001560.html