Abstract
When
searching out answers on homosexuality, many theories have been uprooted.
Homosexual genetic factors of sexual relations have been based on sibling and
twin studies done to correlate genes with sexual orientation. However,
correlation does not equal causation. Another proposed cause of same-sex
orientation focused on hormones in the brain. No study has ever taken into
consideration the fact that the brain is not the same from birth to adulthood;
the brain actually grows and forms as we get older and as we shape it. Outside
the workings of our bodies are environmental factors that we react to everyday.
We decide how we react to different stimuli, and sometimes when someone acts a
little bit different from everyone else he or she might decide he or she must
be gay or lesbian because of the way he or she responds to certain accusations.
Although genes, hormones, environmental factors, and patterns of behavior all
play a role in influencing who we are attracted to, ultimately each person
chooses his or her sexual orientation.
On Homosexuality
Laura
King, author of Experience Psychology,
asks, “What explains a person’s sexual orientation?” (2010, p. 315). Many
studies have been done in an attempt to answer this question. The studies have had
varying results. Some claim homosexuality to be attributed to genetics, others
to hormonal, behavioral, or environmental factors. We will see as the research
emerges that there are factors to homosexual orientation that stem from each of
these areas. Nevertheless, homosexuality is ultimately a choice made by an
individual.
In
relation to genetic factors, Neena B. Schwartz (2008), a lesbian emerita
professor of neurobiology at Northwestern University, points out:
A behavior pattern as complex and variable as homosexuality
cannot possibly be due to a single altered gene or even several genes alone.
Many women have lived happy heterosexual lives for a number of years before
changing to a lesbian orientation. This is clearly non-deterministic, in
contrast to the genetic factors that cause, say, cystic fibrosis or Tay-Sachs
disease or Down syndrome. (p. 21)
Because there are so many
people who do not start out life as gay or lesbian, but later on in switch
their orientation, we can rule out genetics as being a major influence in
determining homosexual tendencies. An article found in The Guardian, a news website, points to some correlations between
gay men and genetically inherited factors:
A host of studies since the mid-1990s have found common
biological traits between gay men, including left-handedness and the direction
of hair whorls. The likelihood that if one identical twin is gay, the other
will be also be gay is much higher than the "concordance" of
homosexuality between fraternal twins, indicating that genes play a role in
sexual orientation, but are not the entire cause. (McClatchy, 2008)
Because they are assuming
being gay is a biological trait because many of them are also left handed, does
this also mean that because nearly half of all baseball players are left handed
that playing baseball is a genetically inherited trait? We know many baseball players who play in part
because a parent played, but that does not make it genetic; there are many
players whose families were never into baseball. In the cases of twins and
siblings, Marcia Malory (2012), in her article from The Scientific American, claims:
We know, from many twin and adoption studies, that sexual
preference has a genetic component. A gay man is more likely than a straight
man to have a (biological) gay brother; lesbians are more likely than straight
women to have gay sisters. (paras. 10-11)
Although a gay man is
more likely than a straight man to have a gay brother, genes may not be
entirely to blame. Just because there is a positive correlation between similar
genes and gay and lesbian siblings, it does not mean the genes cause this
correlation; there are too many outside factors that influence sexual
orientation. There is a high likelihood the siblings were raised in a similar
environment that has influenced them to make similar choices and come to the
same conclusion regarding their sexual orientation.
Schwartz
(2008) is also an endocrinologist, that is to say, a doctor who studies
hormones. She said, “There is no evidence that gay men have lower or higher
testosterone or lower or higher estrogen levels than heterosexual men. Similarly,
there are no reliable data on circulating sex hormone differences between
lesbians and heterosexual women” (Schwartz, 2008, p. 21). According to Schwartz,
hormones do not play a significant role in determining sexual preferences.
Furthermore, Malory (2012) mentions a study of the brain in which the different
parts of the brain in gays and lesbians are different sizes when compared with
their heterosexual counterparts:
PET and MRI studies performed in 2008 have shown that the two
halves of the brain are more symmetrical in homosexual men and heterosexual
women than in heterosexual men and homosexual women. These studies have also
revealed that connections in the amygdalas of gay men resemble those of
straight women; in gay women, connections in the amygdala resemble those of
straight men. The amygdala has many receptors for sex hormones and is
associated with the processing of emotions. (Malory, 2012, p.1)
We cannot take on a
confirmation bias and ignore the research that has been done to support the
fact that the brain structures in homosexuals are different. However, our
brains are amazing and complex machines that do not remain the same from the
moment we are born. The structures in the brain can grow and retract little by
little based upon our usage of particular parts of the brain. Therefore, it should not
be a surprise to see the differences we find in these studies. However, we must
recognize that the choices we make create these differences in our brains and
that people are not born that way.
Some
examples of environmental factors are physical abuse, sexual seduction,
extensive exposure to immoral media and peers, social norms, and economic needs
(Dahle, 2009; Malory, 2012). From a book that Dahle (2009) and his colleagues
edited, called Understanding Same-Sex
Attraction, they said, “Heterosexuality is the automatic default program
for humans unless something in the child’s environment interferes with its
expression” (Dahle, 2009, p. 303). Any number of things can influence a child
to change this “default program.” Something that is unfortunately common in
many gay men is childhood experiences with rape. A young boy who has been
sexually abused is more likely than one who has not been abused to become
homosexual (Dahle, 2009, p. 159). This may be because, if it was a heterosexual
rapist, the child would be turned off to the idea of having the same experience
again. However, if it was a homosexual rapist, the child’s body might respond
to the abusive treatment in a way that would make the child wonder if he or she
might be gay or lesbian. Aside from childhood experiences, one environmental
factor is society. In the United States, society frowns upon polygamy and being
unfaithful to a spouse. Citizens “adhere to cultural constraints of monogamy
despite being attracted to people other than their spouses” (Malory, 2012).
However, even though it is also frowned upon to engage in same-gender sexual
activities, gays and lesbians ignore the cultural norm and choose to act on
their feelings of sexual attractiveness toward people of the same gender. Both
cheating on a spouse and homosexual attractions have negative connotations in
our society; however, for some reason, this environmental factor has different
effects on individuals depending upon how they choose to justify their actions
whether for better or for worse.
Environmental
factors influence our behavior, or how we react to stimuli in the world around
us. Patrick J. Leman (2011), a professor at the University of London who focuses
on studying children's conversations, communication, learning and social
development, and Harriet R. Tenenbaum (2011), a psychology professor at
Kingston University, wrote about the development of gender behavior in
children. They said, “For
boys, victimization led to engagement in more feminine behaviours” (p. 155).
When boys are not treated with kindness by their same-gender peers, they tend
to hang out with and act more like girls instead. This causes them to associate
better with girls than with boys. When boys and girls start to show interest in
the opposite gender the reason is because the other gender peers are “odd” or
“interesting.” They are curious about why the other gender acts so differently.
If a boy associates better with girls, he will start noticing these differences
between himself and the other boys. We should realize this is not a sexual
attraction. However, just as sexual attraction of opposite genders arise by
seeking out those impulses to satisfy curiosity, the boys who find other boys
to be “exotic” or “different” will want to satisfy their curiosity as well.
Appeasing these impulses, whether by participating in sexual practices or by
other more subtle approaches, results in romantic attachment (Bem, 2000, p.
533). In their study on gender nonconformity, sexual orientation, and
psychological well-being, Gerulf Rieger and Ritch C. Savin-Williams (2012) have
discovered, “On average, participants with any same-sex orientation scored
significantly higher on measures of gender nonconformity” (p. 1). The characteristics
of these individuals reflect more about how a child behaved based on their
social interactions and less on their biologically inherited characteristics. The
participants would demonstrate more cross-gender behaviors such as, for
example, a girl labeled as a “tomboy” would. Daryl C. Bem (2000), a
self-identified gay researcher at Cornell University, explains that when
someone acts like someone of the opposite sex would, it is due to how they
react to a biological characteristic. In his own words:
At best, there seems to be an implicit, primitive
gender-inversion theory of homosexuality: If, for example, a biological
characteristic that is more prevalent in gay men than in heterosexual men
happens also to be more prevalent in women than in men, then, ipso facto, that
is somehow deemed to “explain” the homosexual orientation. (Bem, 2000, p. 532)
Biological
characteristics do not “explain” homosexual orientation. Our behavior is based
on how we choose to act in certain circumstances depending on the factors of
that circumstance. “Daryl C. Bem . . . postulates that genes do not directly
cause homosexuality but rather set the stage for homosexuality by influencing
temperament” (Dahle, 2009, p. 161). King (2009) defines temperament as “an
individual’s behavioral style and characteristic way of responding” (p. 276). If
temperament is the way we respond to environment, it then has a huge role in
influencing how we view a situation and how we choose to react to the events
that go on around us. In a study done by B. P. Zietsch and his colleagues
(2009) on genetic and environmental influences on risky sexual behavior, they
“tested [their] concern that participants self-identifying as homosexual (1.6%
of the sample) may have artificially lower [risky sexual behavior] scores than
heterosexuals. However, homosexuals actually had higher scores than
heterosexuals” (p. 14). Because of the negative judgment constantly being
passed to homosexuals through their peers, they respond by choosing to engage
in behavior that reassures them that their choice of sexual orientation is what
they want.
According
to C. Lynn Carr (1998), the thing that is “missing from these accounts is an
acknowledgement of agency, the (potential) ability of individuals to create
their identities (given social constraints) through social practice” (p. 3).
Carr is explaining that we have our agency, meaning we choose who we become. We
take what we have learned from our environment and our social interactions, and
we choose the significance and how much those situations influence our lives
and who we become. The idea of choice is further explained in the book Understanding Same Sex Attraction:
And choice—agency, or the active role of the individual in
constructing his or her own identity—is an important consideration [in the case
of homosexual orientation]. This choice may not be a conscious choice in the
development of the attractions themselves, but rather is a choice in how the
individual responds to the biological and environmental influences. And even
when the attractions develop, there is choice in how the individual will
respond to those attractions: either to accept and act on them or to choose not
to act on them and to focus on eliminating or diminishing the attractions.
(Dahle, 2009, p. 168)
The attraction toward the
same gender may not always be affected by conscientious choice; however,
whether a person acts on feelings of attraction or chooses to forsake those
feelings is a matter of individual agency. The pertinence of choice is
reflected again by Carr (1998) when she states, “While identities are social
constructions, individuals do not have identities manufactured for them” (p.
3). As individuals we have the choice to be influenced by what goes on in
society around us and how it will influence us. We manufacture our own
identities.
There
are many ways in which we can look at the different pieces of research and
decide what has a greater influence on homosexual orientation: genetics,
society, or personal choice. Nevertheless, it all comes down to the realization
that we all have our agency. Despite the influence of our genetics, our
hormones, or how nonconforming we are to our typical gender roles when faced
with differing environmental factors, sexual orientation comes down to making a
personal decision.
References
Bem,
D. J. (2000). Exotic becomes erotic:
interpreting the biological correlates of sexual orientation. Archives of
Sexual Behavior. 29(6),
531-548. Retrieved from:
http://tinyurl.com/ahmyg74
Carr,
C. L. (1998). Tomboy resistance and conformity: agency in social psychological
gender theory gender & society. Gender & Society. 12, 528-553. doi: 10.1177/089124398012005003
Dahle,
D. V., Byrd A. D., Cox S. E., Dant D. R., Duncan W. C., Livingstone J. P.,
& Wells M. G. (Eds.). (2009). Understanding
Same-Sex Attraction. Salt Lake City, UT: Foundation for Attraction
Research.
King, L.A. (2010). Experience psychology. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Leman
P. J., & Tenenbaum H. R. (2011). Practising
gender: children’s relationships and the development of gendered behaviour and
beliefs. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology. 29(2), 153-157. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02032.x
Malory,
M. (2012). Homosexuality &
choice: are gay people 'born this way?' The Scientific American. Retrieved from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/homosexuality--choice-born-science_n_2003361.html
McCatchy
Newspaper. (2008). US researchers
find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics. theguardian. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
Rieger,
G., & Savin-Williams, R. (2012). Gender nonconformity, sexual orientation,
and psychological well-being. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(3),
611-621. doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9738-0
Schwartz,
N.B. (2008). Genes, hormones, and sexuality. Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, volume,
15(1), 21-23. Retrieved from
http://tinyurl.com/9klx6g5
Zietsch,
B. P., Verweij K. J. H., Bailey, J. M., Wright, M. J., & N. G. Martin
(2009). Genetic and environmental influences on risky sexual behaviour and its
relationship with personality. Behav
Genet. 40, 12–21. doi:
10.1007/s10519-009-9300-1
No comments:
Post a Comment