Wayne Besen - Author, Activist, Columnist, Public Speaker

Monday, June 26, 2006

A new study suggests a male's sexual orientation is not the product of his environment but rather is influenced by biological factors present before birth.

Researchers at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ont., have found evidence that "a prenatal mechanism(s) . . . affect men's sexual orientation development."

The study's author, Prof. Anthony F. Bogaert, explored the causes behind what is known as the fraternal birth order, research that shows a correlation between the number of biological older brothers a man has and his sexual orientation.

Dividing his sample into four groups, Bogaert examined the impact of all types of older brothers, including step and adopted siblings, and the amount of time brothers spent together while growing up.

His research found that only the number of biological brothers had an impact on sexuality, regardless of whether the boys were raised together. Writing a commentary piece accompanying Bogaert's study, professors from Michigan State University noted that his research puts to lie the notion that one's social environment can affect sexuality.

"It is the number of older biological brothers the mother carried, not the presence of older brothers while growing up, that makes some boys grow up to be gay," write David Puts, Cynthia Jordan and Marc Breedlove.

Once again, a biology study strongly points out that homosexuals are born, not made, as the anti-science right wing arrogantly says in its propaganda. The notion that sexuality is a result of nurture is looking more bizarre by the day. After all, gay and lesbian people come from every imaginable background. To create a cause and effect relationship between homosexuality and family dynamics is so 19th century and absurd on its face. I look forward to more research which will confirm this simple truth.

20 Comments:

As far back as the 1950's, a psychiatric geneticist named Franz Kallman found that adopted male identical twins who were separated at birth tended to share the same sexual orientation. (The results were more equivocal with lesbians.) So the idea that gays are 'born that way' isn't something that was just dreamed up yesterday.

Still, I wonder how much difference it makes. Racists certainly don't care that skin color is something you are born with; while anti-Semites don't care that religion is something you are raised in. (I can see it now: A "You don't have to be Jewish!" ad campaigns sponsored by NARTJ, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Judaism. Whoops! Better not give people ideas; it's plain that plenty of bigots read this site too.)
posted by Anonymous, at 6/26/2006 10:51 AM

Now boys, all we have to do is beat that pillow harder with the tennis racket while saying dad dad dad and all genetics and biochemistry will be magically transformed.
B. Queer
posted by Anonymous, at 6/26/2006 11:33 AM

Previous studies have found this "fraternal birth order" link and it looks now like it's further confirmed.

That's not to say, of course, that a firstborn male is never born gay. But it does point to some hormonal effect in the environment of the womb as being implicated in sexual orientation.

It is yet another piece of modern evidence pointing in the direction of nature rather than nurture. Most of the evdence of good studies from the past twenty years seems to point in that direction. No evidence is amassing for outdated and discredited "nurture" theories such as those espoused by Cohen and Nicolosi. What Cohen says at the start of the blurb on his homepage, in fact, appears to me to be simply a lie. Or, let us say, the information he presents is inaccurate.

One point that should be noted is something pointed out by Wilson and Rahman in the mostly excellent "Born Gay, The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation" (published by Peter Owen). They point out a misuse of the term "environmental factors". The WOMB, they note, is part of the developing environment. So if some hormonal factor is at work in the womb which affects sexual orientation in the developing baby, then it is true to say that environmental factors can shape sexuality. The womb is, for nine months, the whole environment. But we are talking here of a chemical, not a psychological, environment.

(In early days of broadcasting, the BBC had a list of expressions that were banned, even in comedy sketches, on Radio. Among them, curiously, was "His Mother was frightened by a donkey").
posted by Anonymous, at 6/26/2006 12:10 PM

Anonymous: "Still, I wonder how much difference it makes. Racists certainly don't care that skin color is something you are born with; while anti-Semites don't care that religion is something you are raised in."

Wayne: The difference is that white racists don't have black kids (Strom Thurmond desn't count)and Nazis do not have Jewish kids. However, homophobes have gay kids and knowing that it is a natural part of life helps them get over it and become supportive. In yesterday's New York Times, for example, Larry Kramer's brother explains his acceptance this way:

"I was persuaded over time that there was nothing you could do about it and it was my problem."

I think Arthur Kramer makes the case better than I ever could.
posted by Wayne Besen, at 6/26/2006 1:03 PM

That would make sense, because then the older males who are stronger and more experienced would most likely reproduce and that would be nature's way of keeping the competition down - by eliminating some of the males. Also, then their gentic material would not be passed on.
posted by Anonymous, at 6/26/2006 1:44 PM

Ach Anonymous, I can't see that your theorising makes the least bit of sense! You're saying it's all a plot by the embryonic firstborn son?
posted by Anonymous, at 6/26/2006 3:03 PM

No, it's natures way of both protecting the familial line by eliminating competition and because of familial bonds endorsing the reproduction of some. Have you ever looked at wolf packs??? It is not some vile plot. That's just paranoia.
posted by Anonymous, at 6/26/2006 3:16 PM

ya know, beat the pillow, beat off, do whatever you want - but the study is saying that biologically, you won't be reproducing. but of course, these days we can get around that.
posted by Anonymous, at 6/26/2006 3:44 PM

Sorry, I'm too busy beating a pillow with a tennis racket, shouting Dad Dad Dad, to give this discussion my attention. I'm getting more butch and sweaty by the minute, by the way......
posted by Anonymous, at 6/26/2006 3:47 PM

Regardless of the origins of homosexuality, there are still no legitimate excuses for the way gay people are treated in the "Land of the Free."

Whether you are born gay or straight, you should not have to pay more taxes simply because the government recognizes you as "single, no dependents."

Whether you are born gay or straight, there is no good reason you should be denied access to your partner while he/she is in the hospital.

Whether you are born gay or straight, there is no reason for various politicians - for their own political legacies and well-beings - to turn your American dream into a nightmare.

The list goes on and on.

The right wing will never listen to science or common sense. Let's face it - one hundred years after the introduction of the theory of evolution, they are STILL fighting it in the courts.

Sadly, they are centuries behind.

Our job as progressive, free thinking Americans is to continue to educate people on such concepts as self-determination, equal justice under law, and civil rights.
posted by Matthew, at 6/26/2006 9:39 PM

Boo Said: Relying on the "we can't help it" argument implicitly concedes that being gay is something negative which we ought to change if we could, but since we can't others should take pity on our unfortunate condition.

So I wouldn't put too much stock in the origins arguments.

Wayne: I disagree. What the right is saying is that homosexual love is fake because it is the product of dysfunction or abuse.

By pointing to biology, people like me are saying, no - it is actually natural and beautiful. This is coming from a source of pride, which is different than "we can't help it."
posted by Wayne Besen, at 6/26/2006 9:52 PM

actually white racists do have black kids ( they don't talk about the balck women with whom they have intercourse and Nazi's did have Jewish kids (again same scenario) and how is it that so many fundamentalists have these homosexuals for children..??? It's because it is a variant that exists in us all.
posted by Anonymous, at 6/26/2006 10:15 PM

anonymous - in your response to wayne - congratulations. very mature. homosexuality has it's proper place in this world.
posted by Anonymous, at 6/26/2006 10:21 PM

Gay activists have been asserting for years that science has already proven beyond a doubt that people are born gay. If that's true, which I doubt, what's the point of mentioning this new study? Do you think that people who have already heard the born-gay message and rejected it will be convinced now if it gets repeated yet one more time?
posted by Anonymous, at 6/27/2006 2:30 AM

Anonymous, the point of mentioning the new study is that it is another brick in a wall of evidence that has been building up over the last couple of decades, as decent science has started to be done, that the homosexual orientation is of biological origin.

This science is still in early stages, but study after study is pointing in the same direction, and as these results amass, old ideas about "nurture" which were based on theory and not science, become ever less tenable. (For a prime example of baldly and boldly stated theory with no shred of evidence behind it, read Moberly's "Homosexuality, A New Christian Ethic").

Of course, if people won't believe the evidence, you can't make them. As an example: I believe that failure of the Islets of Langerhans in the pancreas to make a hormone called insulin is what causes Type 1 Diabetes. I consider the evidence very strong. If someone else doesn't want to believe that, I can't make them. (Further work in the future may establish why the Islets of Langerhans fail. That is yet to come. But it is definitely established that Type 1 Diabetes arises from lack of insulin).

In any field of science or medicine, one study or a couple of studies are not considered enough. But when study after study after study all yield results pointing in the same direction, then the evidence becomes weighty. Previously held theories may have to be abandoned, when all good research gives results pointing in a different direction.
posted by Anonymous, at 6/27/2006 8:15 AM

Still grasping at straws.

There are gay-as-a-goose guys out there who were the oldest brother in their families.

I think the Kallman study has been discredited because his patients all came from insane asylums. Another separated-at-birth-identical twin study (the "Minnesota twin project") seemed to arrive at a 50/50 concordance rate (for same-sex attraction) for men, 0 for women. (2 sets male identical twins studied, 4 sets of female identicals studied.)
posted by Anonymous, at 6/27/2006 11:35 AM

Anonymous, neither this nor any of the previous birth order studies rules out a firstborn being gay. For the matter of that, I am gay and am the first and only born.

What these studies - this and a previous fourteen birth-order studies, according to today's issue of The Times, of London, England, establish, is that there is definitely a statistically significant variation.

This latest study has been useful in specifically establishing that it does not hold good for non-biological siblings, (e.g. step-brothers or half-brothers) but only for those born of the same womb.
posted by Anonymous, at 6/27/2006 12:02 PM

Phil,

I'm not quite sure you see my point. The gay activist establishment has for a very long time been saying that the born-gay theory was the only plausible explanation of homosexuality, and even that it is a proven fact - if they are so sure of that, then no more research of any kind should be needed.

The only reason why any research should be needed is because there is still uncertainty about such a basic point.
posted by Anonymous, at 6/27/2006 5:50 PM

Oh I see, anonymous. Yes, sorry if I missed your point. I do not think it is right for any group to have said that the matter is absolutely, definitively established. I believe that there is much work still to be done, and that perhaps a whole new class of body chemistry is yet to be discovered.

Nonetheless, I think my point holds good that the whole weight of evidence of the last couple of decades is pointing to a biological causation.

You know, Quantum Physics leads to some very strange and mind-stretching conclusions, which might seem nonsensical. But experiment after experiment after experiment has confirmed the predictions of Quantum Theory. Such a weight of evidence has built up, that it's been called the most successfully proven branch of science. But people still carry on doing experiments. They don't stop, because there are still things to learn.
posted by Anonymous, at 6/28/2006 6:14 AM

Happy 4th everyone,

The fact is that it is strictly a religious problem. I have no problem being gay. I've been fortunate to have a good supportive family structure. But too many people are misreading the Bible and taking the word of their pastors who are also misreading. To them, Gay can't be born in. It would completely disrupt their lives and take them out of their comfort zone. They depend on the book to see them through. Even if some of the Book has been Scientificaly debunked, they still hold it as truth. Therefore, to them; the weak-minded and undereducated, gays are deviants who can't hold a steady relationship and adopt kids so they can convert them.

In order to fight bigotry, we need to educate. Most people who hate gays have never known one. We can change the world, one person at a time.
posted by jekelhyde, at 7/04/2006 12:38 AM