Is sexual orientation determined at birth?

[curiousnathan]

Whether sexual orientation is caused by the environment we have grown in or is a trait that we are born with is a contentious issue. Some argue that sexual orientation, much like eye colour and shoe size is determined by biological factors such as genes or hormones. Others contend that homosexuality, bisexuality and other sexualities that go against societal 'norm' are conscious, poor and reversible choices caused by poor familial relationships, sexual abuse, 'brainwashing' or other developmental abnormalities. This backs their claims that those of the LGBTQ community should be denied marriage, discrimination protection and social and religious acceptance.

What are your thoughts on this? Is sexual orientation determined at birth, or is it a choice?

 

[Aliencommander1245]

The obvious answer is that the second idea is demonstrably false and the first is the common consensus but from what (little) we know scientifically it seems like it's both, albeit a less extreme version of the second (Just environmental factors, rather than conscious choice)

Human sexuality is complicated, but at least within sexual orientation it seems like there's some form of genetic predisposition but it's also environmental in at least some ways. Now remember, environmental doesn't mean it's not biological or genetic- just that the change isn't intrinsically genetic, instilled at birth, and can be a result of the environment changing genes themselves or gene expression. For example, someone in a cramped environment will not grow as tall as they would not living in that cramped environment- this is a result of gene expression changing to their environment.

No one is really sure what the environmental or genetic factors actually are but scientific consensus is generally that they both do exist and both do have some level of factor into it- the exact split ect being entirely debatable.

Considering, at least in men, the rates of homosexuality are fairly consistent across all populations (Although this is difficult to test due to social taboo making it hard to actually assess in some populations) it seems to be something universal in humanity, and has probably remained at a constant rate throughout history.

Bisexuality across both sexes and female homosexuality (lesbianism? Is that a correct word?) are horribly under studied and we don't know much about either unfortunately so it's hard to speak on them but it's a safe guess to assume they're both more or less similar.

 

[Esper]

My main though is: The most important thing is the question of whether it matters. Because it shouldn't. Whether it is a choice or not, genetic or environmental, there is nothing inherently bad about being queer. (Pardon my language if this term offends you, but I use it as a convenient catch-all term which I find easier to use than LGBTQQIA+) There are only bad actions people take against queer people.

But I of course am also curious to know the science, and that seems to point to a strong genetic/epigenetic component. I haven't really done much reading into it, but the idea that different expressions of genes are what lead some people to become gay or not are pretty interesting ideas.

 

[Primarina]

My main though is: The most important thing is the question of whether it matters. Because it shouldn't. Whether it is a choice or not, genetic or environmental, there is nothing inherently bad about being queer. (Pardon my language if this term offends you, but I use it as a convenient catch-all term which I find easier to use than LGBTQQIA+) There are only bad actions people take against queer people.

But I of course am also curious to know the science, and that seems to point to a strong genetic/epigenetic component. I haven't really done much reading into it, but the idea that different expressions of genes are what lead some people to become gay or not are pretty interesting ideas.

I second this.

Plurality of what constitutes relationships is good for all people regardless of their gender and sexual identities. The reason being, "alternative" relationships and perspectives of gender help liberate heterosexual people from conforming to norms and rather choosing to express their gender and sexuality that is more genuine.

Moreover, the greying of categories allows for less black and white thinking of heteronormative gender binaries, which largely influences individuals' decision-making processes. We need to be able to have more perspective to critique and affirm conventions in order to improve upon those conventions. Ideally, we can construct better conventions -- which I would define as allowing individuals to make rational/reasonable choices that are unbounded by dead dogma. As such, there are certain principles that we can take as being universally applicable to all gender and sexual identities, for instance, a clearly rehashing as to what is consent.

The women's liberation movement and LGBTQ+ movements have allowed individuals to carve their own path, but still navigate many of the same institutions and social conventions. Essentially, freedom of choice and freedom of expression are bounded up by the very idea that simply "being gay" is a choice. Certainly gay people (as well as straight people) do not have full license to choose how they express their sexuality and gender in the manner most rational and reasonable to them because of the undue expectations and structural limitations set on us by others.

Being gay is not a choice really. however, the way we express sexuality and gender ought to be more choice-oriented rather than determined by social norms -- norms that often are not guided by anything more than convention rather than efficient or essential function. Ideally, children will be less and less coerced by these norms, and rather, only be limited by toleration of others with different needs. Though, this does not mean supporting those who express their sexuality and gender in a way that is coercive or intolerable -- toleration is self-defeating when we allow toleration of intoleration. Moreover, most of the straight people who tend to be intolerable are actually under the guise of heterosexist conventions of which they themselves are not consciously consenting to. Thus, currently, "being gay" or "being straight" is not a really choice, but that expression should be choice-oriented.

LGBTQ+ liberation is straight liberation; women's liberation is men's liberation. We really need to get passed us v. them mentality. The whole distraction of questioning whether or not being gay is a choice only gets us so far; I totally agree with Esper! Toleration of ideas and values that oppose the status quo are always expressed through limited channels of choice, but often there is more conscientiousness among those who are on the outside of the norm. Ideally, no one would choose to blindly conform and find little ways in which they can resist and critique conventions when they do not align with the interests of oneself or others by somehow restricting freer choice.

 

[Somewhere_]

I honestly dont know. I dont really have too many empirical facts, but this is what I have gathered:

As far as I know, there is no gay gene. However, homosexuals have higher average IQ's, so that leads me to believe they have biological differences to their straight counterparts.

I believe that whether or not people are naturally gay or straight, people's environment play a role. For example, I have heard that girls that are abused by their father are more likely to be lesbian.

I do not think being homosexual or straight is a choice (I wouldnt rule it out, but I dont think it is); however, I believe that who you love is a choice.

I wouldnt be surprised if I am totally wrong on stuff, so if people have links to studies that would be great.

Regardless if sexuality is a choice or not, rights are universal, and there is no argument to not allow gay people get married.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

I believe that whether or not people are naturally gay or straight, people's environment play a role. For example, I have heard that girls that are abused by their father are more likely to be lesbian.

This isn't true, the abuse narrative is one spread a lot and mostly is intended to further the idea that gay people are "broken" or like they are because they've been abused or didn't have the right childhood- there's no statistics backing that claim up but it's pervasive because it sounds straight forward, "Oh, they were abused by a man in their childhood, so they don't like men, that makes sense" which is the worst kind of untruth/rumour.

It's sort of a demeaning/devaluing thing, like gay people are a thing to be pitied but being a fringe case don't deserve rights- it makes it easier for people to get into that whole "I'm not homophobic, i feel sorry for them but also they don't deserve to be married or anything" mindset

I do not think being homosexual or straight is a choice (I wouldnt rule it out, but I dont think it is); however, I believe that who you love is a choice.

I mean... I think it's fairly obvious it isn't a choice, because the implication is that everyone reaches a point of impasse where they make a conscious choice on their sexuality, and that some people choose the one more likely to make their life a living hell and devalue themselves in the eyes of the law and possibly even their own family.

Could you elaborate on choosing who you love, though? I don't really get what you mean, unless you're saying people literally choose who they're attracted to which... i'd disagree with

 

[Somewhere_]

This isn't true, the abuse narrative is one spread a lot and mostly is intended to further the idea that gay people are "broken" or like they are because they've been abused or didn't have the right childhood- there's no statistics backing that claim up but it's pervasive because it sounds straight forward, "Oh, they were abused by a man in their childhood, so they don't like men, that makes sense" which is the worst kind of untruth/rumour.

It's sort of a demeaning/devaluing thing, like gay people are a thing to be pitied but being a fringe case don't deserve rights- it makes it easier for people to get into that whole "I'm not homophobic, i feel sorry for them but also they don't deserve to be married or anything" mindset

I dont have much to say here, but thanks for the info. I know that its often used in a demeaning way, but I wasnt sure if the abuse thing was actually valid or not.

I mean... I think it's fairly obvious it isn't a choice, because the implication is that everyone reaches a point of impasse where they make a conscious choice on their sexuality, and that some people choose the one more likely to make their life a living hell and devalue themselves in the eyes of the law and possibly even their own family.

Could you elaborate on choosing who you love, though? I don't really get what you mean, unless you're saying people literally choose who they're attracted to which... i'd disagree with

Sure.
1) Each and every action a human takes is what that person believes benefits themselves.
2) Likewise, people choose to associate with people that increase their own living standards.
3) So when a person wants sex, they choose the most attractive individual. But if they want a long-term relationship where sex is not the only desire, they choose people based on personality traits that mesh with themselves.

I think choosing someone to love is mostly a choice, but can be impacted biologically. For example, people naturally want to reproduce with people smarter, more attractive, more athletic, etc than themselves. However, ultimately, value is subjective. Meaning people will value different people differently. And choose different people based on their subjective valuing system.

So basically, you choose a partner based on your value system. This system can be religious, environmental, etc. That is the natural part. The choosing part is the application, which is why I say its a mix of both.

Now that i actually give this some thought, it explains people's sexualities as well.

Note: This is my own little theory. I haven't actually done any research. But I can testify personally that I choose who I like. Maybe I'm not the rule, but the exception. Maybe I'm just weird. Or Im right. Im open to any of the possibilities.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

Sure.
1) Each and every action a human takes is what that person believes benefits themselves.
2) Likewise, people choose to associate with people that increase their own living standards.
3) So when a person wants sex, they choose the most attractive individual. But if they want a long-term relationship where sex is not the only desire, they choose people based on personality traits that mesh with themselves.

I think choosing someone to love is mostly a choice, but can be impacted biologically. For example, people naturally want to reproduce with people smarter, more attractive, more athletic, etc than themselves. However, ultimately, value is subjective. Meaning people will value different people differently. And choose different people based on their subjective valuing system.

So basically, you choose a partner based on your value system. This system can be religious, environmental, etc. That is the natural part. The choosing part is the application, which is why I say its a mix of both.

Now that i actually give this some thought, it explains people's sexualities as well.

Note: This is my own little theory. I haven't actually done any research. But I can testify personally that I choose who I like. Maybe I'm not the rule, but the exception. Maybe I'm just weird. Or Im right. Im open to any of the possibilities.

That's... odd? Maybe i'm the weird one but that's not at all the way i've ever experienced things, attraction is generally at first physical but with emotional attachment that leads to love
coming after, though the second can lead to the first just as easily. Someone you don't think is particularly attractive can be more attractive to you, or more appreciated, when you grow an emotional/romantic connection to them

I don't think i've ever heard of or experienced a situation where there's any kind of concious decision that's like "This person shares interests with me and is nice to be around, i think i'm going to love them now" or "That person is attractive, I will not love them but I will be attracted to them and attempt to engage in intercourse"

I mean sure, people tell themselves those things but romantic attraction is uncontrollable and the idea it can be chosen seems alien to me

 

[Somewhere_]

That's... odd? Maybe i'm the weird one but that's not at all the way i've ever experienced things, attraction is generally at first physical but with emotional attachment that leads to love
coming after, though the second can lead to the first just as easily. Someone you don't think is particularly attractive can be more attractive to you, or more appreciated, when you grow an emotional/romantic connection to them

I don't think i've ever heard of or experienced a situation where there's any kind of concious decision that's like "This person shares interests with me and is nice to be around, i think i'm going to love them now" or "That person is attractive, I will not love them but I will be attracted to them and attempt to engage in intercourse"

I mean sure, people tell themselves those things but romantic attraction is uncontrollable and the idea it can be chosen seems alien to me

I think this way lol. However, I will cede that I am limited by my age. Being a teen, judgement is clouded and natural attraction is more evident. I also have not been in a long term relationship. I also wouldnt say i have experienced love.

So basically my theory has very little evidence... just a little anecdotal and personal evidence.

 

[Sektor]

I don't know, really. I doubt we'll ever be able to fully answer the question. I mean, determining a newborn's sexuality straight from the womb is probably impossible. The human brain is still developmental at this stage (and throughout life) and a myriad of changes, including eye colour, can occur.

My eyes went from blue, to green, to hazel. I've seen a white family whose child presented a gene that wasn't dominant (going all the way back to their 1700 or 1800 ancestors, whom were black) give birth to a black child, does that mean that the child is African-American (due to skin tone) based on skin alone or the parents? These questions aren't one-two answers and they most likely never will be. I'd say it's much more like a hidden allele that can present itself at any time, or takes longer to manifest itself. Probably like dyslexia or speech impediments or lisps. Just misfires of the brain, or pre-programmed?

I'm not a scientist, but I doubt sexual preference can be determined right off the bat.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

My eyes went from blue, to green, to hazel. I've seen a white family whose child presented a gene that wasn't dominant (going all the way back to their 1700 or 1800 ancestors, whom were black) give birth to a black child, does that mean that the child is African-American (due to skin tone) based on skin alone or the parents? These questions aren't one-two answers and they most likely never will be. I'd say it's much more like a hidden allele that can present itself at any time, or takes longer to manifest itself. Probably like dyslexia or speech impediments or lisps. Just misfires of the brain, or pre-programmed?

Are.. you sure on this? The genetics on skin colour don't work in that sort of way, while it's possible for people with mixed race, or dark skinned/white skinned parents to give birth to children that express the alleles for all dark or all white skin (or a mixture between) outside of the skin of their parents, there's not really anything that could just make a random child two hundred years down the track express different skin based on anything like that

I don't want to accuse infidelity but, uh.

I'm not a scientist, but I doubt sexual preference can be determined right off the bat.

The problem lies in the brain being a very different organ to something like eyes or hair, changes in pigment expression are very different to the kind of thing a brain can change in. You can't suddenly develop autism, or any other kind of brain thing like that because it's and intrinsic, thing. I'd imagine sexuality is the same, or at least whatever genetic component there is to sexuality is

 

[Sektor]

Are.. you sure on this? The genetics on skin colour don't work in that sort of way, while it's possible for people with mixed race, or dark skinned/white skinned parents to give birth to children that express the alleles for all dark or all white skin (or a mixture between) outside of the skin of their parents, there's not really anything that could just make a random child two hundred years down the track express different skin based on anything like that

I don't want to accuse infidelity but, uh.

Yes, I'm sure. They went through blood tests at the time. It's not an impossible theory, either. I wasn't part of their tree, but I know it had something do do with an ancestor of some kind, whether or not it was earlier in the past or further in the past. Besides, we have seen cases of albinism in African children before, and whose to say the opposite can't happen from time to time? Anything has the potential to occur, given enough time.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

Yes, I'm sure. They went through blood tests at the time. It's not an impossible theory, either. I wasn't part of their tree, but I know it had something do do with an ancestor of some kind, whether or not it was earlier in the past or further in the past.

Ah, ok, yeah it would've been in the immediate one or two generations for both parents then, not "hundreds of years" or anything. That's perfectly possible

Besides, we have seen cases of albinism in African children before, and whose to say the opposite can't happen from time to time? Anything has the potential to occur, given enough time.

Because we know what Albinism is, we know how it occurs and what causes it, there's really no such thing as an opposite in genetics but alright. There is actually a condition similar to what you're talking about called melanism, but it's not something found in humans and it's an adaptive trait, like the pepper moths in the UK that evolved to be all black from their previous all white colouration due to the industrial revolution covering trees with black from smoke, and the white moths being eaten while the mutant black ones weren't

 

[Sektor]

Sandra Laing was born to white parents. That's perhaps the most widely known case that I can point to.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

Sandra Laing was born to white parents. That's perhaps the most widely known case that I can point to.

It is, and it's a very sad story, but she never really had any solid proof she was her white father's child, and being that this was apartheid south africa you can see why that raises a lot of problems? A blood test isn't a DNA test, it simply tests the blood type of the two individuals which is way less precise and tells you a lot less, given that around 50% of the population has O type blood

 

[Hands]

I don't know, I'm not LBGT, but I know this. I was born straight. If I was born prewired to like girls it makes perfect sense to me that other guys might be prewired to like guys. I didn't choose to be straight, i'm sure likewise lbgt individuals did not choose to like what they like.

So in my opinion, I think it's something we're born with.

 

[gimmepie]

I don't know, I'm not LBGT, but I know this. I was born straight. If I was born prewired to like girls it makes perfect sense to me that other guys might be prewired to like guys. I didn't choose to be straight, i'm sure likewise lbgt individuals did not choose to like what they like.

So in my opinion, I think it's something we're born with.

Pretty much this. One way or another nobody chooses what attracts them.

 

[Primarina]

Pretty much this. One way or another nobody chooses what attracts them.

But they might, to an extent.

For instance, if someone is only attracted to other white people, it is likely the case that it is a product of socialization. To get at whether there is actual innate attraction to whites-only we would be required to not socialize an individual. Since we do not have that ability, it's impossible to distinguish sexual preference at birth versus socialized preferences.

With gender preferences, things get more difficult. Is a heterosexual man attracted to cis-gendered tom-boys, transgender women who have not undergone sex-reassignment, or conventionally feminine women? What about feminine intersex individuals? It's difficult to parse out whether or not the attraction or non-attraction to the aforementioned groups is innate, socialized, or a combination of the two. How we define men and women, and what our expectations for those genders are,surely influences our sexual preference.

For that reason, I think societies that encourage diversity of gender expression and limiting of gendered expectations will allow all people involved to parse out their innate desires and from their choices. odds, are choice dictates much of attraction, but often that choice is taken away and rather, delegated to social conventions.

 

[RetroPokeman]

I freely admit this isn't really answering the question, but what difference does it make? Either way, they're still people and have the same basic human rights as anyone else. I pretty much think the same on the topic of it being a choice or not. I don't think it is a choice, but so what if it was? People have the right to choose whom they have relationships with.

 

[Hands]

I freely admit this isn't really answering the question, but what difference does it make? Either way, they're still people and have the same basic human rights as anyone else. I pretty much think the same on the topic of it being a choice or not. I don't think it is a choice, but so what if it was? People have the right to choose whom they have relationships with.

This might be the single best statement I've ever seen on the topic.