Are there any "social factors" that cause homosexuality?

First, please quote where I say specifically it is a choice (I don't recall this, and if I did it was a mistake, please show me).

Second, I know there are many MZ twin studies that suggest homosexuality is partly environmental.

Third, in science, evidence never "proves" anything. Ouch, hearing that makes me cringe, after having it drilled into my brain to NEVER use "proves" in a scientific paper.

Fourth, by saying that sexuality is produced in the womb, you are admitting it is environmental and not completely genetic. However, if it did happen in the womb you are technically still "born this way."

 

I think epigenetics is probably the biggest post-birth factor.

 

I asked you to list the studies and you said they weren't any available

But you said people aren't born that way and it happens outside of the womb and after their environment forms their sexuality or am I wrong ?
.
About the choice thing you said

That said, even if it were a choice it is still a choice that needs to be respected. That is why I will never use the argument "I was born this way, so don't hate me." Even if I chose to be gay, I think it is a personal choice that should be respected and not looked down upon.

Here you said even if it's it were a choice which can sound to some that your saying some people choice to be gay or can be misinterpreted as all or most gay people are choosing to be gay .

 

Great points! Things are hardly ever as simple as they seem.

 

Gen, I think you're being terribly unfair to accuse me of bias on this. Frankly your tone is completely uncalled for. It's a personal attack :icon_sad:, when it should just be a discussion. The scientific evidence - for example the twin studies - shows absolutely that there is a non genetic component, so I don't know where you're getting the 'genetically predetermined' thing. We don't know how much of the remaining influence is in utero or post natal (randomness included), or if any is post natal.

The only thing science has done is show that only about 50% of it is purely genetic.

Also, if I could just explain, the two statements 'there's not a shred of evidence for born gay' and 'there's evidence of a substantial genetic component' do not contradict each other at all. Recall that 'born gay' is quite a strong claim that requires evidence that 100% of influences on later sexuality are pre-natal.
In fact, the evidence of 'substantial genetic component' does not support that. It just shows that genetics are one limited part which interacts with other factors. In order for there to be scientific evidence supporting 'born gay', one would have to show that genetics and in utero epigenetics are determinative. Actually, in the case of genetics, we know from the twin studies that the influence is like 50 or 60%. We don't really know what happens after that.

I think if you took the time to read the relevant studies you'd come away with a similar impression. I'm not saying that people aren't born gay :icon_wink, and it definitely may be the case, but the evidence for it is minimal as it stands and really overblown for political reasons.

---------- Post added 29th Sep 2014 at 12:53 AM ----------

Just to comment on the points stocking and austin have just raised, I don't think 'it's a choice' is the conclusion one draws if one thinks that people aren't born gay. It doesn't follow. Clearly nobody makes a choice to be gay other than a few political lesbians. It's crazy to think it's a choice, and nowhere did austin give in to that viewpoint. You can believe gayness is immutable without believing necessarily that it's innate.

 

I fully admit to being extremely blunt when addressing these types of topics. It might be the blame of being a student of the sciences, but attempting to be respected when presenting an opinion that you could not support with scientific evidence or an extremely thorough and convincing philosophical theory would get me laughed out of a discussion.

I never turn to personal attacks in discussions, but I do call attention to statements that I find to be problematic. My critique of Wontwalkblindly response was not to attack her personally, nor even her viewpoint. I am completely of the belief that whether sexuality originates from biological or social factors it should be respected and supported no less. My critique was towards the reasoning behind her viewpoint; the disbelief in the presence of sexuality in the mind during infancy and early years. Likewise, my critiques towards your posts were far less about taking issue with your grievances with the concept of 'born gay' rather the reasoning behind that opinion.

Your original post did not include phrases such as "I believe", "I think", etc, nor were your statements made in any way that insinuated them to be based completely in personal opinion.

You presented them as statements that could be supported, as matters of fact. Which is completely fine in the case that you are very confident in your viewpoint, but it opens yourself up to be questioned. Which is all that I have done.

Genetics and prenatal are nearly never definite matters. There is not a single biology, genetic, psychiatric scientist that would claim that biological disposition and inclination are anything less than that; dispositions and inclinations. We see in it genetics of race, disease, sex, etc. They are almost always matters of propensity and rather than certainty. Discoveries in science, especially in the vast intricate field of genetics, most certainly do not have to live up to a standard of absolute, 100% certainty. Discrediting the worth of correlation in the name of absolute certainty would have kept modern science in the stone ages.

I just will not idly entertain the notion that offspring are not born with sexual disposition or at the very least inclination. Both of which would agree with phrase "born gay" no differently than "born straight". These concepts are not insinuating that offspring are born with a completely developed sexuality standpoints. They insinuate that infants are born with an innate biological propensity no less than their heterosexual counterparts.

I am going to put aside the fact that you know literally nothing about me, nor the education I both have and continue to receive within the fields of neurosciences and psychobiology. Not a single ounce of the data that you have presented today can be used to support your viewpoint. You have even previously stated that you have found literally nothing to support the claim that social factors are the driving force. That evidence simply do not exist. With all things considered, I am assure that I will never be a believer of a viewpoint that has simply no scientific or respectable basis in lieu of one that does.

 

People talk as if homosexuality is only excusable by virtue of it being beyond the individual's control. The nature vs nurture debate is rather inconsequential when they can't prove how homosexuality is inherently harmful to begin with.

 

Since you addressed me I'll answer your comment here .
Yes he didn't say it's a choice ,but his statement where he said even if it were a choice or it didn't matter if someone chose it . Can be misinterpreted as that , to even suggest that people can choice or will come off to some that your saying some people who identify as gay lesbian or bisexual are choosing to do so . I can get you don't like born this way but I don't think it's very smart to use the line if they choose it because as we all know people don't choose their sexuality besides political lesbians .

Now if you still don't understand, where I'm coming from I'll use an example .
For example what if I was accused of stealing someone clothes ,and I protested to the people that did not believe me that I did not steal it. While a few believed me and a few remain that still think I did it . Then a few years later I come back ,and said even if I did steal those clothes I didn't deserve to be accused . I would be casting some doubt in the people that believe I didn't steal it , and the people who still thought I did, take what I said and use it against me .
Then I turn around and get upset when it's implied when that I stole the clothes .

---------- Post added 28th Sep 2014 at 07:03 PM ----------

I agree with what your saying (not all of it but some of it ) with the it's excusable by virtue of being beyond the individual's control but I think it should be said like homosexuality is not different than heterosexuality and people should be discriminated against for it .


@Gen these days when people think your questioning them or not agreeing with them your either being mean or attacking them .

 

Have anyone here considered the possibility that alterations to the structure and/or hormone or functions of the brain which is related to sexual orientation may actually alter it? As someone who lost interest into sex and relationships, I was not born that way. I do remember my old sexual orientation dying though.

 

Absolutely. Sexuality can be altered based on social factors. There is definitely scientific evidence to support that idea. What scientific and research findings do not support is the theory that sexuality can be created as a result of social factors. It is definitely not out of the power of the mind to suppress specific, or even all present, attractions that we might experience. This can be caused by biological factors, but it is most often caused by environmental factors that have affect us in the past, especially traumatic experiences.

For example, the concept of a heterosexual/homosexual individual growing to be asexual is known to be possible. It doesn't mean that the transition is necessary healthy because it is often brought on by negative social factors (Victims of sexual offense for instances), but it definitely occurs. Likewise, with a polysexual individual turning monosexual. When the logic falls flat is within the concept of a person born with a heterosexual disposition turning homosexual or even bisexual. The idea of sexual attraction being created by social factors. This is simply not scientific, nor even respectable theoretical, evidence to support such a phenomenon.

This is why the idea of fluid sexuality, for instance, is often misunderstood. Fluid sexuality, or the ability for sexuality to change with time, is not about an actual sexual evolution. It is the product of an individual who happened to have ability of both attractions present in the mind biologically, but one grew to be repressed as a result of social factors for one reason or another. Through time, it was then rediscovered and either grew to stand on equal terms with the former known sexual attractions, or became more dominant in turn.

 

Haha you know what would be really cool is actually if some people could choose their sexuality because then I could pay them to choose to be my robot girlfriend, that'd be rockin but I wouldn't probably do that or take advantage of it, but it would make a nice lite-comedy tv show

 

Do you have any evidence that it isn't possible for one to experience sexual evolution given that there's no reason why sexual orientation does not have the potentials to change even if there was changes to the area of the brain related to sexual orientation. As someone who is a former heterosexual, I can attest to not experiencing such negative experience and yet my heterosexuality died out almost 5 years ago and counting. Exceptions to this were anesthesia side effects, but my heterosexual attraction died again after anesthesia side effect.

 

If this were true, I'd be a raging lesbian.

 

Unless I am understanding you incorrectly, I do believe that is possible. The sexual evolution that I was referencing was more of creation of a new and entirely different set of sexual attractions. When it comes down to repression or loss of attraction for any reason (social, biological, unknown, etc), it is definitely possible. Your story seems perfectly reasonable.

 

So you admit that 'born gay' is inapplicable, unless it is a sort of shorthand for a more subtle description? I'm very happy with the terms 'genetic predisposition' or 'inclination' then, as are used elsewhere in the field of genetics. 'Born gay' is a completely different thing which suggests that sexuality is determined by birth, which has never been shown. That is why the American Psychological Association still says:

Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality

While you're correct, of course, that 'genetics and prenatal are nearly never definite matters' no reputable scientist in any field of human biology would read in 'born [this way]' from 'established but limited genetic influence'.

Of course, I make no positive claim that there are social factors at play. Maybe there aren't, or maybe there's a play of random factors in early infancy that are really complex. We can't rule it out, because about 50% of homosexuality is non-genetic. We literally don't know how to divide that 50% up at this point. It's difficult to show that there are social factors involved because you can't establish a control for the test: you can't hold the in-utero environment exactly the same for two different foetuses. So biological research in this area is hamstrung, leaving it to the speculations of psychologists, who are in no position to offer scientific evidence.

You claim expertise in this area, but you seem to make obvious errors, like saying that sexuality is 'genetically predetermined'. Not even the biggest advocates of 'born gay' say that genetics account for any more than 50-60%, given the twin studies!!

It's not that there's no absolute certainty of 'born gay'; it's that it just doesn't have any substantive evidence behind it. 40-50% of the non-genetic contribution has yet to be understood.

If you could demonstrate your evidence for born gay, that would be helpful. I suspect that all the evidence will be is a) studies showing of 50-60% genetic influence and b) studies showing in-utero hormonal effect on gendered behaviours. Together these fall far short of showing 'born gay'.

It is a shame that this has become such a shibboleth in the gay community. We shouldn't need to be 'born this way' for it to be okay. It's okay by itself!(!)

---------- Post added 29th Sep 2014 at 08:21 AM ----------

Stocking, just because, if we said 'even if it's not a choice it's okay', some silly homophobes might think 'oooh, he's admitting it's a choice' does not mean the first statement should not be stated. It's correct, and it's more morally and philosophically rigorous than the alternative, which is to say 'we're stuck like this, so we can't help ourselves, please tolerate us on that basis'. No! Our rights *exist*, regardless of the issue of choice.

Well in fairness Gen did say in response to only my second post, 'Logic and reason are often no longer enough to convince those that are so vehement in their personal viewpoints, as unsupported and baseless as they may be. Which is exactly why I don't believe there is much else that can be done other than allowing you to believe whatever you please' to my second post. I think that was a little uncivil, because as has been hopefully clear all along, I'm happy to engage in debate and discussion on this topic.

---------- Post added 29th Sep 2014 at 08:33 AM ----------

Edit: where I said '40-50% of the non-genetic contribution has yet to be understood' I meant: 'The 40-50% contribution that we know to be non-genetic has yet to be understood'

 

The one who finds social factors will get a medal. :lol:

I think nurture can help you realise it easier, or influences the way you feel about it.

 

I apologize for my part in the derailment of this thread. This will be my final post:

You seem to be projecting your personal impressions of the phrase "born ______" when perceiving the viewpoints of others. Not a single time have I stated that infants are birthed homosexual, in the sense that their sexuality is present and evolved. I have claimed that infants are born with a genetic disposition or inclination that will serve as the foundation for sexual development through natural neurological growth. There is no doubt that a professional would reference this phenomenon with the phrase "born gay", nor was I the member of this discussion who introduced it; however, that is not because the phrase it metaphorically inaccurate rather it simply doesn't tailor to the specificity that is often stressed in scientific language.

For instance, with respect to a phrase such as humans being "naturally fertile", it is an inaccurate statement when viewed from a literal standpoint; in the sense that organisms are not inherently fertile at the point of creation. Metaphorically, however, the statement is justified in the sense that fertility originates in organisms as a result of a natural, innate genetic disposition that is merely not applied on a physiological standpoint until the time for sexual maturity has arrived. While this development occurs after the point of birth, the introduction of fertility is both natural and innate in the way that formation of that process neurologically is predisposed. While the organism have introduced to social factors leading up to that point, this phenomenon was not created by them in any way.

The problem here is that you are attempting to use the incompleteness of a metaphorical phrase in comparison to terminology and vernacular that would be employed by professionals in order to discount an entire concept. Yes, the phase "born gay" isn't most scientific sound way to word the concept of sexual disposition, nor is "naturally fertile"; however, simply because you can argue that certain semantics are not as justified on a scientific scale does not at all discount the existence of the concepts they are intending to reference. "Born gay" and "naturally fertile" reference the presence of sexual disposition and physiological evolution being established at birth.

English was always a favorite subject of mine. Why don't we discuss vocabulary and meaning for a moment?

First of all, educated scholars and professionals would not attempt to claim with absolutely certainty that sexuality is entirely predetermined; however, if we actually took the time to follow along with the statements that I have had to repeat time and time again, neither have I. Despite the fact that I have literally never used such a phrase when arguing on behalf of my own beliefs, the single time I have even used the word predetermined in this thread was in reference to the only viewpoint that I stated scientific findings could theoretically support. I truly hope that we shouldn't have to go deeper into the differences between a statement of inference and a statement of fact or certainty because we should all honestly be beyond that level of critical thinking.

For reference into the meanings of what terminology I have actually attached to my personal claims (All of which that were presented as matters of sexual propensity rather certainty...), and hopefully a better understanding of the statements as a whole: Disposition- a tendency to develop a disease, condition, mental state, etc. Inclination- a feeling of wanting to do something; a natural disposition.

I began with that statement because I value my time. Discussions can bevery enlightening and educational tools, but I have learned not to waste my time and energy carrying out debates with those who are too settled within their views to be receptive of those of others. Especially when the views that they have cemented themselves in lack both support and value. This sentiment can come off as harsh, but it is the best for all parties present on certain occasion. There is little point in arguing a point with those who wish only to ague.

Bottom Line: I honestly don't believe that there is much else that can be said on the topic and it would probably be best that we put an end to the derailment of this thread so the focus can shift now to the views and perspectives of other members. I have absolutely no idea why you have solidified yourself so firmly in this belief. Possibly you feel it would be more empowering to believe that part of who you are is far less predisposed than it plausibly is. Truthfully, your opinion behind the origins of your sexuality is not a concern of anyone but you. If you are that set and passionate about your beliefs than I encourage you to believe them. It is not as though any harm is done; however, if you wish for them to be respected when they fail to provide any form of evidence or proper education to support them, you leave outsiders with little incentive to accept them.