Etiology Of Gayness, Born Gay?

[Jingthing]

Here's some new to me rather interesting research. In my personal case, it seems to apply, youngest male birth order, right handed.

One of the most robust of research findings is the "big brother" or fraternal birth order effect. Men with a lot of older brothers are more likely to be gay. With each older brother a man has, his chances of being gay are increased by a factor of about 33% (Blanchard, 1997). This effect applies only for biological brothers, not stepbrothers, so it cannot be due to upbringing. It appears that the uterine environment has a "memory" for male occupation, with the mother progressively storing antibodies that interfere with the masculinisation of the foetal brain (c.f., Rh blood factor incompatibility). There is no parallel "big sister" effect promoting lesbianism in women because there is no hormonal conflict between a female foetus and its mother.

A complication that has recently come to light is that the big brother effect seems to apply only to right-handed homosexuals. Since homosexuality has been associated with non-right-handedness in both males and females (Lalumiere et al, 2000), there is a complex interaction between handedness and birth order, one interpretation of which is that big brothers either cause their younger brother to be gay or left-handed but not so often both (Blanchard, 2008). The reasons for this, whether genetic or environmental, are not yet understood.

Klar (2004) reports that gay men are about four times more likely than straight men to show an anti-clockwise scalp hair-whorl, the genetic basis for which is apparently connected with that underlying handedness (hence hemispheric specialisation of the brain).

http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/born-gay-the-origins-of-sexual-orientation

This concept of anti-clockwise scalp hair-whorl, I am trying to grasp. I'm not even aware of a whorl in my hair.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

I am right-handed, have no elder brothers, but I do have an elder sister. As for my hair, I don't have enough left to whorl one way or the other.

Ah, but I was brought up by my mother and my grandmother, with no males in the house (my father was away in the war). There must be a large number of people like that, though. (except that a good proportion have cashed in their chips by now).

[Ijustwannateach]

I suppose they must have done the due diligence regarding validity of their survey questions and sample populations, but this still smacks of phrenology (bumps-on-the-head science) to me....

[sbk]

What happens if you get the bump on your head as an adult, does it change things? Or go bald and have no more whorls? And there you go, its all your older brothers fault you are left handed???

[oldsalt]

So pleased to see this post. I have been laughed at by gay friends for more than 35 years now by asserting both the left handedness and the hair sworl as a sign of homosexuality.

My reasoning was based on simple observation of gay friends and of gay men in bars, starting back in the 70s when I used to bother with bars and noticed how many guys parted the hair the same way

I did - anti clockwise. In most cases the hair sworl also indicated left handedness. I did a survey of gay friends and acquaintances in the 80s and more than half of them were left

handed and with the anti clockwise sworl. I even sent a note to an academic researcher in the 1990s who was studying the link between left handedness. He was gracious enough to

reply but said (at that time) there was no link! Whereas, I have used the hair parting and the handedness as my own "gay guide" for decades.

[LeCharivari]

I have been laughed at by gay friends for more than 35 years now by asserting both the left handedness and the hair sworl as a sign of homosexuality.

I am not surprised ....

My favourite quote in the link and the psychobabble it was based on was "left-handed men without older brothers are more likely to be homosexual than non-right-handed men who have older brothers" (Blanchard, 2006).

[Jingthing]

What does hand dominance have to do with psychological theories?!? Clearly the sourced article points to BIOLOGICAL etiology.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Jingthing

[endure]

What's the difference between a "left-handed man" and a "non-right-handed man"? I'm a right-handed man who's the eldest brother with an anti-clockwise sworl. Am I supposed to be gay? Am I allowed to be gay? I hope so otherwise the past 50 years have been a waste of time

[Jingthing]

Fun to joke about but the sourced article and video CLEARLY are talking about increased probabilities, not determinism.

[LeCharivari]

Well, they are talking about probable causes, JT, and some of them are a bit bizarre - for instance "that the big brother effect seems to apply only to right-handed homosexuals .... one interpretation of which is that big brothers either cause their younger brother to be gay or left-handed but not so often both". ..... I wonder how they choose ...

You have to admire some of the insight, though: "While some studies have suggested that gay male genes are more likely to come from the maternal line than the father 's side, this might be partly because gay men produce fewer children to pass their genes on to " .... I wonder how many laymen would have realised that .....

[LeCharivari]

I suppose they must have done the due diligence regarding validity of their survey questions and sample populations ....

I doubt it, IJWT.

The hair-sworl/left-handed/homosexual connection, for example, was based on studies by Dr Klar. He questioned no-one and checked nobody's hair at close range, but he looked at around 500 men on a primarily gay beach in Delaware and how they parted their hair, and he then looked at 500 people in a shopping mall (apparently from a vantage point) in Maryland and how they parted theirs, then compared his results. His findings have since been contradicted by a number of more scientific studies which found no such difference.

One well known study found that twice as many lesbians were left-handed than straight women, while the numbers for gay and straight men were virtually identical; another one found the exact opposite, even though they both sampled around 800 people - depending on your view, you choose whichever suits your theory.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics ...

[endure]

We're here, we're queer, get over it...

That just about sums up my feelings about 'research' into the Bentosphere.

[Jingthing]

I recall in the video an assertion is made that the genetic aspect of homosexuality is NOT the kind of thing that could engineered out by science. In other words, he is saying there isn't a way in the future that science can give a parents the choice not to have a gay child. If this is true, that would be potentially very significant, they can kill us (as is happening today in the Sudan, Iran, and other countries) but they can't stop us from being born.

[endure]

Although I don't live in Thailand (not by choice - I'd love to) I've been visiting there for 20 years. The one most precious jewel that I've taken from all my visits is that old Thai saying 'you think too much'. I can't begin to describe just how profound it is and how much comfort it's given me.

I've found the constant 'research' into homosexuality to be totally irrelevant to my life. Who actually gives a <deleted> if you part your hair on the right? Who cares whether your worl is anti-clockwise or whether you're the younger brother? What difference does it make to the life of your average homo living in Loughborough or Mahasarakam?

[isanbirder]

Although I don't live in Thailand (not by choice - I'd love to) I've been visiting there for 20 years. The one most precious jewel that I've taken from all my visits is that old Thai saying 'you think too much'. I can't begin to describe just how profound it is and how much comfort it's given me.

I've found the constant 'research' into homosexuality to be totally irrelevant to my life. Who actually gives a fuc_k if you part your hair on the right? Who cares whether your worl is anti-clockwise or whether you're the younger brother? What difference does it make to the life of your average homo living in Loughborough or Mahasarakam?

How many angels can stand on the head of a pin? (Gay angels, of course)

[Jingthing]

...

I've found the constant 'research' into homosexuality to be totally irrelevant to my life.

...

So why post on this topic if it doesn't interest you?

The potential for homosexually to be prevented genetically (or news that this WON'T be scientifically possible after all) is a medical ethics issue of interest to other people. No, it doesn't effect my life either because I am already born but that doesn't mean my areas of interest necessarily need to impact me personally.

The think too much thing is a charming Thai cultural thing, often invoked when you try to use logic and the Thai person doesn't like what he is hearing.

Cheers.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[endure]

...

I've found the constant 'research' into homosexuality to be totally irrelevant to my life.

...

So why post on this topic if it doesn't interest you?

The potential for homosexually to be prevented genetically (or news that this WON'T be scientifically possible after all) is a medical ethics issue of interest to other people. No, it doesn't effect my life either because I am already born but that doesn't mean my areas of interest necessarily need to impact me personally.

The think too much thing is a charming Thai cultural thing, often invoked when you try to use logic and the Thai person doesn't like what he is hearing.

Cheers.

I post because I have an opinion. Is that ok with you? The 'think too much' thing is far more than a charming Thai cultural thing. It's often a simple truth.

[Jingthing]

It's OK but I find it weird to post to a topic just to say -- this topic doesn't interest me.

We have a different point of view on think too much. Yes, I get it and yes I probably do, but it's not that simple, black and white. At it's root, it's an extremely anti-intellectual world view. Too many people take the think too much thing to mean it's OK to not think AT ALL.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

I recall in the video an assertion is made that the genetic aspect of homosexuality is NOT the kind of thing that could engineered out by science. In other words, he is saying there isn't a way in the future that science can give a parents the choice not to have a gay child. If this is true, that would be potentially very significant, they can kill us (as is happening today in the Sudan, Iran, and other countries) but they can't stop us from being born.

Sorry to spoil your day, JT, but you recall incorrectly:

If "gay genes" can be accurately identified, there is concern in gay circles that they might be deliberately flushed from the gene pool by genetic engineering. But at what cost? It would be difficult to do so without removing all kinds of valuable traits with which these genes are intertwined - for example, sensitivity, compassion, charm, and creativity. Humanity would almost certainly be the poorer for any such attempt to "edit" sexual orientation.

As always many of these "assertions" are, in any case, based on unfounded assumptions and not demonstrable facts. I doubt, for example, if there is much evidence to support the idea that gays have any more "charm" than anyone else.

[Ijustwannateach]

One of the more reassuring articles I once read speculating on this subject suggested that a model combining genetics and environment was quite possible and also 'safest' from the doomsday scenarios. For example, plant seedlings with exactly the same DNA would have different genes activated depending on environmental influences, like altitude, soil composition, etc. These genes would lead to very different growth patterns, from height to number of leaves per branch, etc.- however, if the plants were then moved to a different environment their pattern could not be changed after a certain developmental stage.

[Jingthing]

I recall in the video an assertion is made that the genetic aspect of homosexuality is NOT the kind of thing that could engineered out by science. In other words, he is saying there isn't a way in the future that science can give a parents the choice not to have a gay child. If this is true, that would be potentially very significant, they can kill us (as is happening today in the Sudan, Iran, and other countries) but they can't stop us from being born.

Sorry to spoil your day, JT, but you recall incorrectly:

If "gay genes" can be accurately identified, there is concern in gay circles that they might be deliberately flushed from the gene pool by genetic engineering. But at what cost? It would be difficult to do so without removing all kinds of valuable traits with which these genes are intertwined - for example, sensitivity, compassion, charm, and creativity. Humanity would almost certainly be the poorer for any such attempt to "edit" sexual orientation.

As always many of these "assertions" are, in any case, based on unfounded assumptions and not demonstrable facts. I doubt, for example, if there is much evidence to support the idea that gays have any more "charm" than anyone else.

You couldn't spoil my day; trust me on that one, snookums.

Yes, plenty of evidence right here that all gays don't have more charm. Take that any way you like; be gay creative!

I said from the VIDEO.

A much more complete background on this issue is on the VIDEO, starting at about 31 minutes, then keep listening. What you did was post a SNIPPET from the included TEXT which includes a rather SMALL SUBSET of the actual entire lecture. Thus you have DISTORTED the meaning. The core meaning is the contention that there is not ONE gay gene, so at the very least any anti-gay engineering would be more difficult but also likely more expensive than deleting ONE gene (my conclusion) and if they had to "edit" SEVERAL genes, most parents probably would never take such a risk to basically warp the future of their child in very unpredictable, potentially very damaging, ways. The potential realistic real threat of prenatal genocide against gays would be if the prevention mechanics were clean, simple, low risk for altering OTHER parts of the child's whole being, and very cheap so that it would be done widely internationally. This lecturer certainly provides interesting info that these exigencies probably won't exist. Good news I think, if not charming. We are likely in the beginning stages of this kind of research, so wouldn't take any of this as gospel as yet, but still I think some may be interested in what progress has been made to date.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

It's a rather dark topic, but when it has come up before- what I have sometimes pointed out is that any 'gay gene' means there will be identifiable STRAIGHT genetic material, too. (I don't really think that genetically these things can boil down to that, any more than I believe in 'grandmother neurons' that individually give us memories for grandmothers).

But what THAT would mean is that if there could be an 'anti-gay' procedure, virus, whatever- you could also have the opposite. And I would be betting we have better scientists.

[LeCharivari]

One of the more reassuring articles I once read speculating on this subject suggested that a model combining genetics and environment was quite possible and also 'safest' from the doomsday scenarios. For example, plant seedlings with exactly the same DNA would have different genes activated depending on environmental influences, like altitude, soil composition, etc. These genes would lead to very different growth patterns, from height to number of leaves per branch, etc.- however, if the plants were then moved to a different environment their pattern could not be changed after a certain developmental stage.

I have no doubt at all that you are correct there - its been tried, tested and proven time and again.

The recurring problem with the "gay gene" argument, which is never really addressed even if it gets a mention, is that genes are inherited. Even if the "gay gene" is passed down on the maternal side or it is somehow dormant in some generations, it would diminish to some extent with each passing generation. Assuming that we have had around 100 generations in just the last 3,000 years that doesn't appear to be the case.

A "gay-virus" ..... that would make an interesting WMD!

Yes, plenty of evidence right here that all gays don't have more charm. Take that any way you like; be gay creative!

I said from the VIDEO.

Biased though I may be, and much as I hate to generalise, I have found gays to be more sensitive and compassionate but I haven't found them to be either more creative or charming. Just a passing thought.

Yes, guilty to not watching the video - when giving videos as a link please bear in mind that we don't all live in the urban jungle and have access to some things you townies take for granted.

[oldsalt]

I have been laughed at by gay friends for more than 35 years now by asserting both the left handedness and the hair sworl as a sign of homosexuality.

I am not surprised ....

My favourite quote in the link and the psychobabble it was based on was "left-handed men without older brothers are more likely to be homosexual than non-right-handed men who have older brothers" (Blanchard, 2006).

As Jinthing says it is biologically based and not psychobabble. Obviously, the link is your first encounter with handedness. Without going into detail, as it might confuse you more, left handedness in itself generally indicates right brain dominance, which, in turn has its own well established and researched traits. Years ago, it was described as the "feminine" side of the brain (see a connection here on where handedness, brain side dominance and gayness might be going), but now it is generally described as the intuitive, creative, sensitive, etc side of the brain. You must be completely left brain dominant (you can google tests for it).

[Junglejumbo]

Over the years, I've had a number of people ask me if a bump on the head when a child could have made them gay. I guess there must've been another study of some kind that said so in years' past.

Personally, I would like to know more about the connection between largely vegetarian species and gayness. Seems to me that sheeps, goats, chimpanzee's and others all regularly produce gay off-spring, and let's not forget that our ancestors were vegetarian too.

[sbk]

Interesting take on being "born gay" here and I take out the quote I liked best:

Regardless of the cause of homosexuality, it doesn’t seem logical for the GLBT community – both individually and as a collective – to rely on genetics for any kind of comfort.

I don’t recall the black community needing to prove and pinpoint its exact biological differences between other races in order to gain rights. And if the GLBT community truly believes its members are born homosexuals, it shouldn’t need statistics or studies to prove its points.

http://temple-news.com/2011/03/01/qchat-genetic-basis-for-homosexuality-not-necessary/

[Jingthing]

Most of our enemies argue it is a choice so if it is a choice, we chose to be "bad" and we therefore deserve to be oppressed and also directed to "conversion" programs. While there are clear parallels (in the US) between the black civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement, this isn't one of them!!!!! Blacks identity as blacks wasn't questioned except in the sense of social definitions of blackness. For example, in some states 1/8 black would make you legally black, while in others even ONE black ancestor would make you legally black.

[sbk]

Blacks identity as blacks wasn't questioned except in the sense of social definitions of blackness. For example, in some states 1/8 black would make you legally black, while in others even ONE black ancestor would make you legally black.

So, it is called in to question then. Its not a case of either you are black or not black from this example but how black are you?

But regardless, you are missing my point here. Why the need to justify anything? Who gives a rats ass what right wing bigots think? You are a human being same as me and entitled to the same rights - or rather same rights as a white guy

[isanbirder]

But regardless, you are missing my point here. Why the need to justify anything? Who gives a rats ass what right wing bigots think? You are a human being same as me and entitled to the same rights - or rather same rights as a white guy

So simple... and yet even gay people try to obfuscate it. Thank you, SBK.

[Jingthing]

Blacks identity as blacks wasn't questioned except in the sense of social definitions of blackness. For example, in some states 1/8 black would make you legally black, while in others even ONE black ancestor would make you legally black.

So, it is called in to question then. Its not a case of either you are black or not black from this example but how black are you?

But regardless, you are missing my point here. Why the need to justify anything? Who gives a rats ass what right wing bigots think? You are a human being same as me and entitled to the same rights - or rather same rights as a white guy

It's called realpolitik. We have real enemies. They believe real stupid things. Not only do the actively oppose gay equal civil rights, right at this moment powerful people are working overtime to make things even MORE oppressive against gays. Michele Bachman is now one of the top leaders in the republican USA PRESIDENTIAL nomination -- she is a total hater against gays, this threat isn't a joke or a paranoid fantasy. She signed a DOCUMENT professing her belief that homosexuality is always a CHOICE, that is the right wing dogma. Anything we can do to show their ignorance and bigotry helps lessen their potential power. This includes presenting the strong evidence that does exist that there is a large genetic factor in gayness to the public. Other things as well, such as repeating a million times that homosexuality occurs NATURALLY in many animal species. Personally, I would choose to be gay if I had a choice, but that's just me.

You totally misunderstood the comparison of gays and blacks in the US. The state's laws were not about how black you are, but about how to define who is black. For the state's saying even one black ancestor makes you black, according to their laws such a person was LEGALLY 100 percent black. If the law stated 1/4 black equals black, under the law a person with 1/4 was 100 percent black. These are defunct racist laws now, just saying how different the two movements are in at least some ways.

As far as gay identity, it does depend on the society. In more liberal countries now, it is all about self definition. In very repressive regimes, if a neighbor says you are gay you can face charges for being gay. It used to be in Cuba that if a neighbor accused you of being gay, automatically your identity card would be labeled HOMOSEXUAL, for LIFE.

I agree we shouldn't care what the right wingers say as far as how we FEEL about who we are. I am just saying we have an enemy and they won't stop with what they are doing, so it's silly to put our heads in the sand and not argue against them with facts if we can.

Of course we are ENTITLED to the same rights as the majority. But in most countries in the world we DO NOT have such rights. Some of you may not care, but many of us DO CARE, and won't tolerate being dissed for caring, even by other homosexuals.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Jingthing