Is sexual orientation determined at birth?

[Unveiled Artist]

If so, why does God find fault with it?

He doesn't. He finds fault in actions. People put words in god's mouth. If god speaks to a person, then hopefully, what comes out of their mouths (and fingers on keyboard) is unconditional love for the person regardless their sexual orientation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you are gay, I would appreciate it if you let me know whether or not you feel you were born that way. Thanks!

I am born that way.

My mother is straight. My father is straight. My siblings are straight. My immediate relatives (except my two aunts) are straight. I live in a straight community, environment, society, and country.

So, if psychology, society, and upbringing brought me up, it would have influenced me to be straight from the get-go. Since outside influences doesn't determine one's biology from hair color to attraction, the natural default of human biology is "we're born that way." LGBTQ and S included.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

- even though twins genes are almost identical, is there a theory about other non-social, environmental factors?

There is no real solid theory or explanation. We see things here and see them there, but if you ask me we're asking the wrong questions. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not universal concepts, but when we try to figure out what makes someone either we assume those two are the defaults, even though they are not.

- how is homosexuality in other animals accounted for?

It depends on the species. Some times it's dominance, sometimes it's pleasure, sometimes it's group bonding. But it's doubtful they care beyond mating.

 

[gnomon]

Absolutely not

No evidence.

Ignored.

Imagination maybe, a disregard for scientific facts.

What scientific facts? Have you studied the intersex?

You do realize that gender identity and sexual identity are not the same thing?

The answer is no.

Genetic factors and prenatal environment play a role, sometimes large, in the development of sexual orientation, but the environment and socializing after birth play a role in actualizing the potential for an orientation.

Actualizing the potential for an orientation?

Is that a scientific statement?

I think not. Please do not enter a conversation that you know nothing about.

You started off well in talking about the prenatal environment and could have possibly brought up the intersex.........

I recall watching a documentary of a woman who was denied a divorce settlement because in the State she lived in they relied upon a birth certificate statement of sexual identity. Her husband divorced her because she could not bear a child. Turned out she was someone who had a condition called CAIS. Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. She was a gorgeous woman. Declared female at birth. After a test of both partners the doctors found out she was born a male. Never mind the fact that she developed breasts normally and had a vagina, though incomplete, she had no womb and testes where a regular female would have ovaries. Never mind that she grew up as a female, her parents raise her as such, she married as such, etc. A genetic test revealed that she suffered from a particular condition.

I seriously doubt most members here have any clear understanding of the nature of the human condition or are capable of making a rational statement otherwise.

But hey.......some environmental and socializing.........that will change your biology.......what an absolutely ignorant point of view.

Here's some facts. About half of all fertilized eggs are flushed away naturally. That's called a spontaneous abortion. There are certain percentage of eggs born with both XY and XX chromosomes. They are called mosaic. The concept of XY and XX births determining male and female often includes XXY and other deviations. There are individuals born with partial or complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. Individuals born with male chromosomes but present as females. Some of those individuals live their lives, in the case of complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, as female models.

Taking all that into account and considering the hormonal development as well as genetic development........no wonder there are homosexuals in our society. They are as normal in the developmental process as any other human being.

But hey......just throw out a no to the poll based upon what.........religious beliefs?

 

[Mister Emu]

Actualizing the potential for an orientation?

Is that a scientific statement?

Yes, it is.

Please do not enter a conversation that you know nothing about.

Then what are you doing here?

You started off well in talking about the prenatal environment and could have possibly brought up the intersex.........

Except we weren't talking about intersex, but the development of sexual orientation, which is a process that isn't finished until after you are born. Every Psychological organization in the world acknowledges that.

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."
Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality

But hey.......some environmental and socializing.........that will change your biology.......what an absolutely ignorant point of view.

The only ignorant point of view here is the one that rejects the findings of science for feel good "I was born this way" claptrap.

I recall watching a documentary of a woman who was denied a divorce settlement because in the State she lived in they relied upon a birth certificate statement of sexual identity.

Here's some facts. About half of all fertilized eggs are flushed away naturally.

What does any of this have to with sexual orientation?

But hey......just throw out a no to the poll based upon what.........religious beliefs?

How about scientific evidence.

 

[Mister Emu]

@gnomon

Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.

"Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden". Arch Sex Behav. 39 (1): 75–80

 

[gnomon]

Yes, it is.


Then what are you doing here?


Except we weren't talking about intersex, but the development of sexual orientation, which is a process that isn't finished until after you are born. Every Psychological organization in the world acknowledges that.

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."
Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality


The only ignorant point of view here is the one that rejects the findings of science for feel good "I was born this way" claptrap.




What does any of this have to with sexual orientation?


How about scientific evidence.

If you cut out the intersex than you have no understanding of the development of sexual orientation.

Because intersex individuals are actual human beings which undergo their own sexual orientation.

It's a process through birth.

If you are unwilling to accept that I have no desire to engage your utter stupidity.

Understand that?

To believe that intersex individuals play no part in understanding human sexual development.........

How stupid can you get?


And your statement about "born this way claptrap" only shows you are an ignorant slice of garbage.

Your link was a piece of garbage.

I'm talking about scientific facts that people are not born male or female all the time.

What does the intersex existence among our population have to say about sexual orientation........

Intersex Society of North America | A world free of shame, secrecy, and unwanted genital surgery

 

[gnomon]

@gnomon


"Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden". Arch Sex Behav. 39 (1): 75–80

Actually provide a freaking link.

 

[Mister Emu]

Sad that you can only refute the current scientific understanding of the origins of sexual orientation with worthless personal attacks. But, please continue arrogantly coming into situations you are so woefully inadequate and unprepared for. It is entertaining.

Understand that?

I understand that you are upset you don't know the first thing about what knowledge we have of the development of sexual orientation and got called out on it.

If you are unwilling to accept that I have no desire to engage your utter stupidity.

Please, point out where I rejected any of what you asked to accept.

How stupid can you get?

I know you're digging deep to find out, but don't strain yourself.

Your link was a piece of garbage.

BWAHAHAHA The APA is a garbage when it comes to psychology. Thanks.

I'm talking about scientific facts that people are not born male or female all the time.

Cool.

What does the intersex existence among our population have to say about sexual orientation........

I don't even know what you suggest it says, other than some vague sense that you think it somehow means people are born with innate sexual orientations.

Actually provide a freaking link.

Hilarious that you would refer to my "stupidity" while displaying an apparent utter ignorance of what an academic citation looks like.

Here's a link. https://www.researchgate.net/public...ehavior_A_Population_Study_of_Twins_in_Sweden

I'll wait with bated breath for any scientific or professional psychological organization statement that says nothing that happens after birth has an effect on the development of sexual orientation. Oh, wait. No, I won't; because they don't exist.

 

[gnomon]

Sad that you can only refute the current scientific understanding of the origins of sexual orientation with worthless personal attacks. But, please continue arrogantly coming into situations you are so woefully inadequate and unprepared for. It is entertaining.


I understand that you are upset you don't know the first thing about what knowledge we have of the development of sexual orientation and got called out on it.


Please, point out where I rejected any of what you asked to accept.


I know you're digging deep to find out, but don't strain yourself.


BWAHAHAHA The APA is a garbage when it comes to psychology. Thanks.


Cool.


I don't even know what you suggest it says, other than some vague sense that you think it somehow means people are born with innate sexual orientations.


Hilarious that you would refer to my "stupidity" while displaying an apparent utter ignorance of what an academic citation looks like.

Here's a link. https://www.researchgate.net/public...ehavior_A_Population_Study_of_Twins_in_Sweden

I'll wait with bated breath for any scientific or professional psychological organization statement that says nothing that happens after birth has an effect on the development of sexual orientation. Oh, wait. No, I won't; because they don't exist.

Current scientific understanding of sexual development? You presented no evidence at all.

Stop posting that useless link. "All adult twins in Sweden...."......nothing to read after that to be relevant.

The point is that there is no clear sexual development of male and female among human beings.

You are adhering to this outdated notion that everyone is either XX female or XY male. And it's mandated by some divine concept. But that is not the case and the gender expression of individuals are both due to genetics and hormonal development.

Yes, we know for a an absolute fact, that there are people born XY with androgen insensitivity syndrome. They are born as apparently female but their genetic disposition is XY male. They express as female but, given any legal definition within any state, are declared male based upon chromosomes or female based upon genitalia, and as an example,CAIS females do not have a womb but are declared female at birth.

Legally speaking there are many repercussions based upon State laws relying upon outdated concepts of sexual identity. In other words a child raised as female because she presented as female but lo and behold suddenly they find she is actually an XY male with CAIS........her husband can annul the marriage and leave her in the dust. It happens.

And this: "Sad that you can only refute the current scientific understanding of the origins of sexual orientation with worthless personal attacks. But, please continue arrogantly coming into situations you are so woefully inadequate and unprepared for. It is entertaining."

Klinefelter syndrome, androgen insensitivity syndrome, Turner syndrome, mosaicism, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, 5-alpha-reductase deficiency........or in other words current scientific studies.

Science is talking about those issues. Individuals who express one way at birth but another way upon development. But why am I bothering?

I don't know. When people are talking about sexuality the fact that there are human beings who present one sex but are actually and biologically the other sex that speaks volumes about human sexuality. I don't need to read some BS twin study program in Sweden when there is an entire scientific field studying actual chromosomal and hormonal development and the personal sexuality of these individuals.

Try again. Personally. I'm done with this **** because I know who I'm talking to. And I don't give one **** about your spiritual beliefs.

I didn't refute current scientific understandings. You simply do not understand them.

You are avoiding the arguments I'm bringing forth to simply support an ignorant point of view.

The fact that people are not simply born male or female you simply responded........."Cool.".

In other words......you won't bother to educate yourself.

So this conversation is obviously not going to get anywhere.

What a waste of time.

edit: I'm sorry. A lot of personal baggage and I'm projecting.

 

[Mister Emu]

edit: I'm sorry. A lot of personal baggage and I'm projecting.

It's okay. I don't understand where your anger rises from, and if you don't want to share I don't need to know. I apologize if I added to some distress I was unaware of.

My angry response arose as a reaction to the perceived unjust manner in which I saw myself under attack. Sexuality(and DSDs in particular) are not my area of interest, but I do have a degree in psychology, I'm working on a second; I will be a Ph.D. I have run a meta analysis on the current literature for the development of sexual orientation and that, the weight of the accumulated psychological knowledge, is the well I draw my conclusions from.

I'm not sure what you think I believe, but your outbursts about spiritual beliefs and outmoded thoughts are representative of gross error.

Lastly, my saying that there are non biological factors in the development of sexuality is not an attack against anyone, nor is it a statement of condemnation.

 

[gnomon]

It's okay. I don't understand where your anger rises from, and if you don't want to share I don't need to know. I apologize if I added to some distress I was unaware of.

My angry response arose as a reaction to the perceived unjust manner in which I saw myself under attack. Sexuality(and DSDs in particular) are not my area of interest, but I do have a degree in psychology, I'm working on a second; I will be a Ph.D. I have run a meta analysis on the current literature for the development of sexual orientation and that, the weight of the accumulated psychological knowledge, is the well I draw my conclusions from.

I'm not sure what you think I believe, but your outbursts about spiritual beliefs and outmoded thoughts are representative of gross error.

Lastly, my saying that there are non biological factors in the development of sexuality is not an attack against anyone, nor is it a statement of condemnation.

Thank you.

I recognize that whenever this issue arises I throw out the intersex but the nature of human sexuality in regards to homosexuality and gender identity is beyond that.

Here's my argument. I don't think any argument about human sexuality is complete without discussing intersex individuals. A biological condition. But thinking further I recognize that human sexuality upon even those individuals might have a social aspect. And that the fact the vast majority of homosexuals and transgendered individuals are not intersex. The reason for my argument is that the fact that human beings are not born clearly male or female, basic sexual identity, extends to the notion that human sexuality is greater affected by the fact that humans are not clearly born male or female in every circumstance of birth. Based upon that fact it seems clear there is a strong biological phenomenon upon human sexual orientation given that human sexual development is subject to random genetic and hormonal circumstances.

Disregarding spiritual aspects and taking into account non biological factors....what are your studies upon the non biological aspects of human sexual development?

You stated studying meta analysis. What are those?

edit: And by God it's late in the morning. Sorry.

 

[Mister Emu]

Thank you.

Thank you as well.

Based upon that fact it seems clear there is a strong biological phenomenon upon human sexual orientation given that human sexual development is subject to random genetic and hormonal circumstances.

There is definitely such. It is almost assured that a large majority of the development of orientation is biological in nature.

what are your studies upon the non biological aspects of human sexual development?

Most of the studies into the divergence of nature and nurture as guiding elements in psychological development are twin based studies. It allows us to remove genetics off the board as a differentiating factor entirely with identical twins, and they share the same uterine environment.

You stated studying meta analysis. What are those?

I comb through the journal databases looking for relevant studies, read them and then report what the consensus opinion is from the various studies. A study of studies.

 

[gnomon]

Thank you as well.


There is definitely such. It is almost assured that a large majority of the development of orientation is biological in nature.


Most of the studies into the divergence of nature and nurture as guiding elements in psychological development are twin based studies. It allows us to remove genetics off the board as a differentiating factor entirely with identical twins, and they share the same uterine environment.


I comb through the journal databases looking for relevant studies, read them and then report what the consensus opinion is from the various studies. A study of studies.

Thank you.

But if we remove the twin status and recognize that there is an individual basis of biology.........

One's nature of sexual nature or otherwise is biological or what?

At what point does the social aspect come in?

Because if one member of a twin nature exhibits an opposite sexual orientation.....

Where are we?

I guess I should wait upon the studies.

 

[gnomon]

I'm still waiting.

 

[gnomon]

Still waiting.

 

[gnomon]

Still waiting.

If I bring up the concept of sexual dimorphism will peoples heads explode on this forum?

This simple Southern boy lacking a college degree just needs to know....by golly?

But I'm still waiting.......

Even though we already know the results. And of course.........the evidence of intersex individuals and the fact that gender is an entirely social construct........

But you've been reading this ancient book.........

 

[gnomon]

The science still seems to be out on many key questions regarding the origin of our sexual orientations. Nevertheless, a lot of the current science points to factors that at the very least influence sexual orientation and occur before birth.

This is the best response. Hormonal development within the womb and at the point of birth are seen to be key indicators of sexual development as well as sexual identity. There is still so much to learn but hormonal development seems to be the key. Also knowing that some humans are born XXY male and XY female as well as multiple chromose XXY or XXX or even mosaic which means a child is born with both XY and XX chromosomes or even CAIS in other words XX Male but doesn't express certain hormones and develops as female......

There is so much in regard to human development. Too bad some idiots who log on here fail to understand that.

We are still learning so much about actual human sexual development that I find the community about gender development to be running too far ahead considering gender is a social development.

In the end......we are all just **** bearing individuals farting in the wind until we breathe our last breath. So let's make it great until we die.

edit: I said farting. Is farting censored. Flatulence is acceptable?

edit: No...I said ****ting. ****ing vodka.

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm still waiting.

Sorry, missed it.

But if we remove the twin status and recognize that there is an individual basis of biology..

Could you rephrase this? It could be because I'm tired, but I want to make sure I'm clear on what you are asking.

Are you asking if twins have individual biological factors irrespective of their shared genetic make-up?

One's nature of sexual nature or otherwise is biological or what?

"nature of sexual nature or otherwise"? Are you asking again if the scientific evidence points towards a purely biological source for the development of sexual orientation? The answer remains the same, the consensus opinion today among researchers and studies is that there are non-biological factors.

Because if one member of a twin nature exhibits an opposite sexual orientation.....

Where are we?

Well for starters, we're at genetics not being the critical component of sexual orientation, that is played out among all studies I can think of.

I guess I should wait upon the studies.

What are you waiting on exactly? I need to make sure this isn't a case of a moving goalpost; I've already offered one study with the conclusion that social factors play a role in sexual orientation, and I've offered a statement by the APA.

But you've been reading this ancient book.........

I thought we were past this. For the final time, none of my knowledge on the development of sexual orientation comes from any "ancient book". It comes from modern scientific studies into how our sexual orientation develops.

 

[suncowiam]

Option 3 - Doesn't matter.