Scientists may have found a biological basis for homosexuality.

[jimmy olsen]

Wouldn't a woman's right to privacy entitle her to choose the sexual orientation of her child before birth, if that becomes possible?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/06/biological_basis_for_homosexuality_the_fraternal_birth_order_explanation.html

Born This Way?
Scientists may have found a biological basis for homosexuality. That could be bad news for gay rights.

By Mark Joseph Stern|Posted Friday, June 28, 2013, at 5:45 AM

"Baby, you were born this way." As soon as Lady Gaga sang these words on her smash hit Born This Way, they became a rallying cry for gay people around the world, an anthem for sexual minorities facing discrimination. The shiny, catchy song carries an empowering (if simple) message: Don't be ashamed about being gay, or bi, or trans, or anything—that's just how you were born. Gaga later named her anti-bullying charity after the same truism, and two filmmakers borrowed it for their documentary exposing homophobia in Africa. A popular Born This Way blog encourages users to submit reflections on "their innate LGBTQ selves." Need a quick, pithy riposte against anti-gay bigotry? Baby, we were born this way.

But were we? That's the foundational question behind the gay rights movement—and its opponents. If gay people were truly born that way, the old canard of homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice" (or "sexual preference") is immediately disproven. But if gay people weren't born that way, if scientists were unable to find any biological basis for sexual orientation, then the Family Research Council crowd could claim vindication in its fight to label homosexuality unnatural, harmful, and against nature.

In recent years, scientists have proposed various speculative biological bases for homosexuality but never settled on an answer. As researchers draw closer to uncovering an explanation, however, a new question has arisen: What if in some cases sexuality is caused by an identifiable chemical process in the womb? What if, in other words, homosexuality can potentially be prevented? That is one implication of one of the most widely accepted hypotheses thus far proposed. And if it's true, it could turn out to be a blow for the gay rights movement.
Advertisement

Some of the strongest current evidence that some people are born gay is based on a phenomenon called the fraternal birth order effect. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that men with older biological brothers are likelier to be gay than men with older sisters or no older siblings. The likelihood of being gay increases by about 33 percent with each additional older brother. From these statistics, researchers calculate that about 15 to 30 percent of gay men have the fraternal birth order effect to thank for their homosexuality.

The fraternal birth order effect is a little perverse. It means that a disproportionate number of gay men are born into disproportionately homophobic households. Couples with large numbers of children tend to be religious and belong to denominations that are conservative and more homophobic. Consider the numbers: 1 percent of Unitarians have four or more children, while 3 percent of evangelical Protestants, 4 percent of Catholics, 6 percent of Muslims, and 9 percent of Mormons have families that large. At the same time, 64 percent of Evangelicals, 30 percent of Catholics, 61 percent of Muslims, and 68 percent of Mormons believe homosexuality should be "discouraged by society." (Compare that with 15 percent of Jews.) Big families that disapprove of gay people are likely to have gay people in their own clan.

Perhaps these families would be more accepting if the specific biological basis for the birth order effect were elucidated. We know the effect is biological rather than social—it's entirely absent in men whose older brothers were adopted—but scientists haven't been able to prove much else. One of the leading explanations is called the maternal immunization hypothesis. According to Ray Blanchard of the University of Toronto, when a woman is pregnant with a male fetus, her body is exposed to a male-specific antigen, some molecule that normally turns the fetus heterosexual. The woman's immune system produces antibodies to fight this foreign antigen. With enough antibodies, the antigen will be neutralized and no longer capable of making the fetus straight. These antibodies linger in the mother's body long after pregnancy, and so when a woman has a second son, or a third or fourth, an army of antibodies is lying in wait to zap the chemicals that would normally make him heterosexual.

Or so Blanchard speculates. Although the hypothesis sounds reasonable enough, it's premised on a number of assumptions that haven't been proven. For instance, no one has shown that there is a particular antigen that controls sexual orientation, let alone one designed to make men straight. And if that antigen does exist, does it control orientation only? Blanchard refers to its antibody attackers as "anti-male," implying that the antigen controls for various aspects of masculinity. But when I asked him about this, he was noncommittal. Moreover, the hypothesis proposes a loose, two-way flow of antigens and antibodies between the fetus (whose antigens spread to the mother) and the mother (whose antibodies spread to the fetus). But this exchange has never been observed—and the antibodies and antigens in question are hypothetical, anyway. If they do exist, there's no assurance that they perform this placental pirouette.

There's a problem with this explanation. Even though the gay rights movement theoretically wants proof that homosexuality is inborn, this particular hypothesis is, unintentionally, a little insulting. "The scientists behind the [maternal immunization] hypothesis talk about it as if they're not making judgments, but there are implicit judgments," says Jack Drescher, former chair of the American Psychiatric Association's Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues. Drescher points out, correctly, that the hypothesis is fundamentally one of pathology. If Blanchard is right, then (at least some) gay people are indeed born gay, but there's still something wrong with them. The hypothesis turns homosexuality into a birth defect, an aberration: Gay people are deviants from the normative mode of heterosexuality. We may have been born this way, the hypothesis implies, but that's not how it was supposed to happen.

Drescher is skeptical that scientists will ever uncover a single biological basis for homosexuality—he suspects the root causes are more varied and complex—and suggests that it's the wrong question to ask in the first place. But the hunt will go on. The gay rights movement, like the black civil rights movement before it, begins with the proposition that we should not discriminate against people because of who they are or how they were born. That's a belief most Americans share, and it explains the success of the "born this way" anthem. If homosexuality is truly biological, discrimination against gay people is bigotry, plain and simple. But if it's a birth defect, as Blanchard's work tacitly suggests, then being gay is something that can—and presumably should—be fixed.

That's a toxic view, and one that must be abandoned. We might not yet understand the exact biological mechanisms underlying sexual orientation, but we will one day soon. And if, at that point, homosexuality is seen as a disorder, the next step will be a search for a cure. That would be a tragedy—for society and for science. There's nothing wrong with being gay: You know it; I know it; the Supreme Court knows it. But so long as large swaths of the country believe otherwise—places where homophobic families still ostracize their gay sons and brothers—any research into its biological origins is fraught with peril for the cause of gay rights.

[Valmy]

But if it’s a birth defect, as Blanchard’s work tacitly suggests, then being gay is something that can —and presumably should —be fixed.

Well color me unconvinced that is what that work suggests.

[Neil]

Of course it's a defect.  The gays rights people are exactly the same as the deaf culture retards.

[The Brain]

It's a bit scary that gays don't think that people with birth defects should have equal rights.

[Valmy]

It's a bit scary that gays don't think that people with birth defects should have equal rights.

[merithyn]

While I understand where all of this is coming from, it doesn't explain homosexual men who are only children, oldest children, or only sons, of which there are many. So there has to be something beyond what this claims.

That being said, if this turns out to be one way in which homosexuality is caused, I can see an evolutionary net positive for it happening. If after a certain number of men are born who wish to reproduce, having men who can still fight and hunt but who don't wish to procreate can have a positive affect in a limited-size society. In addition, it would create scenarios where there would be a larger gene pool to dip into since one family is only likely to produce a certain number of reproducing males.

At least, those are my pre-coffee, stressed-out thoughts on the subject. Feel free to tear them apart so that I can see the flaws. It'll help me flesh out my ideas on the subject.

[crazy canuck]

As posted in the other thread, scientists looking for a biological "cause" for sexual orientation are barking up the wrong tree.  Human sexuality is much more complex and flexible than that.

[Valmy]

As posted in the other thread, scientists looking for a biological "cause" for sexual orientation are barking up the wrong tree.  Human sexuality is much more complex and flexible than that.

I guess I would prefer to await scientific results first before coming to conclusions.  I find the biological "cause" more compelling based on the evidence so far, you clearly don't but maybe eventually we will find out.

Besides biology is not uncomplex and unflexible.

[crazy canuck]

As posted in the other thread, scientists looking for a biological "cause" for sexual orientation are barking up the wrong tree.  Human sexuality is much more complex and flexible than that.

I guess I would prefer to await scientific results first before coming to conclusions.  I find the biological "cause" more compelling based on the evidence so far, you clearly don't but maybe eventually we will find out.

Besides biology is not uncomplex and unflexible.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.  The article refers to a biological factor that determines sexual preference.  That kind of thinking is fixed in older research that assumed that sexual preferences were fixed at the time of birth.  More recent research shows that sexual preference is more flexible than that and can change over time.

There may well be biological factors which influence sexual preference - Meri indicated some of that research in the other thread but the current research directly contradicts the notion that sexuality and sexual preference is a static characteristic.

[Valmy]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

You have to be kidding me.  Was it that complex that you have no idea at all?

1. I do not find it conclusive that these scientists are barking up the wrong tree.

2. I do not think that if the cause is biological, it therefore lacks flexibility and complexity.

The article refers to a biological factor that determines sexual preference.  That kind of thinking is fixed in older research that assumed that sexual preferences were fixed at the time of birth.  More recent research shows that sexual preference is more flexible than that and can change over time.

The article says nothing of the sort.  I am not sure what you mean by flexible here but I do not think that necessarily disproves biology and I do not think a biological cause necessarily means anything is absolutley fixed.  I am also not sure what precisely you mean by this, how flexible are we talking about here?

There may well be biological factors which influence sexual preference - Meri indicated some of that research in the other thread but the current research directly contradicts the notion that sexuality and sexual preference is a static characteristic.

You just said scientists are barking up the wrong tree but then come back and say there may well be biological factors...so perhaps they are barking up the correct tree?  Again I am not sure what you mean by 'static'.  When somebody goes through puberty he or she finds dudes attractive but later inventions could get them to find ladies attractive?  Or they have the power to change that?  I don't think research has proven that yet.  But that may not be what you mean.

[crazy canuck]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

You have to be kidding me.  Was it that complex that you have no idea at all?

1. I do not find it conclusive that these scientists are barking up the wrong tree.

2. I do not think that if the cause is biological, it therefore lacks flexibility and complexity.

On the contrary, your simplistic view that sexuality is determined at birth is not complex at all.  Rather its lack of complexity is the problem.

[Valmy]

On the contrary, your simplistic view that sexuality is determined at birth is not complex at all.  Rather its lack of complexity is the problem.

I think your simplistic view that just because I think biology is the primary determinant is not complex is a problem.  Because I do not see that is true in any remote form.  I am quite open minded about it, you were the one who has already reached conclusions and declared the research 'barking up the wrong tree'.

Of course you later said they might not be barking up the wrong tree at all

[Neil]

Lawyers have a tendency to overcomplicate matters.  It's a function of the perversity required by their profession.

[crazy canuck]

Valmy,

In the other thread you asked me to post an academic article which supported my view.  I did that and I explained to you what it meant.  Did you even bother the read the piece?  If you did, did you notice that your views have been overtaken by research in the area over the last decade or two?

If you didnt, then I apologize.  I had assumed you had taken the time to inform yourself before posting.  I won't make that assumption again.

[Barrister]

If you didnt, then I apologize.  I had assumed you had taken the time to inform yourself before posting.  I won't make that assumption again.