Good post. One modification: I don't think the original cause need to be genetic, although genes are part of it. See my response to Meyer: https://rdcu.be/ceJm9
One thing missing is that homosexuality in men is likely related to brain masculinization under prenatal hormonal influence rather than genetics. So, because of their feminized brains they are higher in trait neuroticism. Gay men are tilted towards the female neurotic average. There is a new papers in the Archives of Sexual Behavior supporting this: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-022-02319-2
If I understand correctly you are suggesting there can be factors that predispose for homosexuality which are neither genetic nor discrimination related (such as prenatal effects). This is probably true and I don't think the Meyer alternative model ("gay gene") is a very good summary of the alternative to discrimination. But I don't think we understand the aetiology of homosexuality very well at this point, genes, prenatal effects contribute somewhat but we can't nail down the whole pathway.
Prenatal hormones only account for gender nonconforming behavior. And gender nonconforming socialization can often result in homosexual feelings and homosexual identity later in life.
Both of them confirm that the prenatal hormone theory does not apply to gender conforming gay men. If it only applies to gays that behave a certain way, then it is based on behavior and not sexuality.
This is not true. Prenatal hormones only account for gender nonconforming behavior. While this is often a predictor for homosexual identity later in life, we have to take into account that this does not apply to gender conforming gay males. So it is more accurate to say that prenatal hormones account for gender nonconformity rather than homosexuality, and this gender nonconforming socialization can often result in homosexuality rather than making the jump of directly linking prenatal hormones with homosexuality.
"This is not true. Prenatal hormones only account for gender nonconforming behavior". You speak as if your argument is fact, it isn't. It is a competing hypothesis, and one which has mustered no evidence. It makes zero sense that humans would have biological contributions to how masculine/feminine they are, but not their attractions.
Look at ferret experiments in which the hypothalamus is destroyed using a toxin (study by Michael Baum), which gives male ferrets a female typical hypothalamus. They immediately begin mounting males. It suggests a biological mechanism controls the size of the hypothalamus and male/female mate preference. Also, studies in which they manipulate the prenatal hormonal levels in rats can increase the rate of homosexual mounting. That isn't socialization. There are a variety of other lines of evidence (boarding schools, tribal populations with sex segregation) which also show that socialization is not a plausible explanation here.
What applies to rats does not necessarily apply to humans. Humans are much more complex creatures. Those studies I linked show that the prenatal hormone theory does not apply to gender conforming gay men. If it doesn't apply to GC gays but only applies to GNC gays, then the logical conclusion is that it is is a GNC thing and not a gay thing. I suspect that once a study using GNC straights is used, the prenatal hormone theory would apply to them as much as it does to GNC gays.
Those studies regarding animals do show that there's some link between behavior and hormones. But sexuality is just a portion of behavior, whether this is GNC behavior or GC behavior. Those studies involving ferrets and rodents also show that their overall behavior changes generally. These animals are not as complex in their socialization so the most obvious behavioral difference may be sexuality, but sexuality is just one part of behavior and shouldn't be treated as the whole thing.
While those ferrets may have female typical brains, gender conforming gay men do not have female typical brains, so once again, your example only applies to gender nonconforming gay men. The study on ferrets even said that the way those "gay" ferrets approached was also female-typical.
Look, I've read thousands of papers on this topic over a decade. There are dozens of potential explanations and you're reducing it down to the most implausible (socialisation). Simply because some gay men are gender conforming (rare) does not mean they are not neurally feminised. It is possible to be feminised in a very small region for attraction, but not other behaviour. Besides, most "masculine" gay men were more feminine in childhood than they present as adults, because they adopt more masculine behavior in order to cope with bullying from others. That doesn't prove they are not neurally feminised.
Also, I would not reference a brain scan study on this. First, they are unreliable and usually won't replicate (a sample of 20? Seriously?) and second, they cannot get the precise detail we need. Narcolepsy is caused by a difference in the brain that is the size of a grain of sand. This tiny difference is not detectable on a brain scan and produces huge differences in behavior.
In those thousands of papers you have read, gender conforming gay men have only been used as a control on two occasions, and both disproved the notion males are gay straight out of the womb. Socialization is a perfectly plausible explanation. Generally, the current position is now that epigenetics code for our behavior and very little about our behaviors can be said to be strictly genetic. It's not right to completely ignore the socialization aspect. There's differing social mechanisms at play among children that grow up gender nonconforming and those that grow up gender conforming.
This isn't even the only instance where socialization influencing sexuality is relevant. For instance, being raised by same sex parents is shown to increase the likelihood of becoming homosexual later in life. Regarding brain scans not showing every tiny mental difference, that may be true, but this is a counter to the claim that all gay men have female-typical brains. While it may be true in most cases, it only applies to a specific subgroup. And if a brain scan could detect minute differences, it would show that pretty much every single individual brain is different from one another. No two people would have an identical brain structure down to the smallest atom, especially considering the brain is a malleable structure that constantly changes over time.
Besides the two studies I linked, none of the "homosexuality is exclusively prenatal/biological" studies use gender conforming men as a control group even once. You need to find evidence of your theory applying to gender conforming gay men for it to hold true since you are applying it to sexuality specifically and not gender nonconformity. Genetic association between gender nonconformity and prenatal hormones is FAR greater than any genetic association between homosexuality and prenatal hormones that is independent of gender nonconformity.
Epigenetics and Bem now? This is just silly. Being raised by same-sex parents isn't "shown to increase likelihood of homosexuality". The only study that truly addresses causality was a Mike Bailey study which measured the length of time sons spent with gay fathers, and did not find any increased odds of homosexuality in those who spent the most years with an openly gay father. Second, homosexuality has a modest heritability so traits can runs in families for partially genetic reasons (e.g. a contribution of genes and hormones in utero) which would mean they are more likely to have gay offspring for biological reasons. Practically all studies here are relying on tiny convenience samples and are meaningless. If anything, they show women have fluid attractions and daughters are more likely to identify as bisexual, which is to be expected given women are much more bisexual in general.
As for Bem's theory which you link, it contradicts this point as well. Wouldn't sons raised by gay fathers be *more* heterosexual by his logic, because they "weren't exposed to females"? Females would be exotic. There is zero evidence that boys raised in predominantly male households or predominantly female households have altered orientation. Go and argue with Gregory Cochran about it, he is more interested in these dumb tired arguments.
Historically, how many of those men who experienced this masculinization prenatally would identify as or behave as homosexuals? Conversely, how many who experienced this masculinization today do not identify as or behave as homosexuals? I suspect that any predispositions which result from genetic or prenatal influences are not overwhelmingly determinative of behavior, and therefore the resulting preponderance of mental illness for homosexuals who identify as, and behave as such, can be explained by a combination of neurological features in addition to lifestyle and environmental ones. It is objectively harder to be homosexual than it is to be heterosexual in terms of sexual behavior and its consequences.
This is better but not really good for big conclusions. If you check my later posts I write about how this is not a very good design to ask people retrospectively about problems - if you are in a bad mood (suicidal), you see your past as darker, so the retrospective trauma-->bad mental health association is baked in the cake. The stats are also fishy. All problems are correlated with suicidality, but only 'interpersonal microagressions' remain significant in the logistic model for attempts (Table 2) and basically only school belonging for ideation (Table 3). I'm wondering if there were multicollinearity problems here. I don't think this is a very good paper, you would need a bigger sample with longitudinal measurement, ideally independent observers for trauma and suicidality, and the stats should be fixed because something is wrong here.
Good post. One modification: I don't think the original cause need to be genetic, although genes are part of it. See my response to Meyer: https://rdcu.be/ceJm9
Thank you! This was also my understanding, I just used the terminology used by Meyer.
One thing missing is that homosexuality in men is likely related to brain masculinization under prenatal hormonal influence rather than genetics. So, because of their feminized brains they are higher in trait neuroticism. Gay men are tilted towards the female neurotic average. There is a new papers in the Archives of Sexual Behavior supporting this: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-022-02319-2
If I understand correctly you are suggesting there can be factors that predispose for homosexuality which are neither genetic nor discrimination related (such as prenatal effects). This is probably true and I don't think the Meyer alternative model ("gay gene") is a very good summary of the alternative to discrimination. But I don't think we understand the aetiology of homosexuality very well at this point, genes, prenatal effects contribute somewhat but we can't nail down the whole pathway.
Prenatal hormones only account for gender nonconforming behavior. And gender nonconforming socialization can often result in homosexual feelings and homosexual identity later in life.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-74886-0
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87338-0
Neither of those studies confirm that.
Both of them confirm that the prenatal hormone theory does not apply to gender conforming gay men. If it only applies to gays that behave a certain way, then it is based on behavior and not sexuality.
This is not true. Prenatal hormones only account for gender nonconforming behavior. While this is often a predictor for homosexual identity later in life, we have to take into account that this does not apply to gender conforming gay males. So it is more accurate to say that prenatal hormones account for gender nonconformity rather than homosexuality, and this gender nonconforming socialization can often result in homosexuality rather than making the jump of directly linking prenatal hormones with homosexuality.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-74886-0
"This is not true. Prenatal hormones only account for gender nonconforming behavior". You speak as if your argument is fact, it isn't. It is a competing hypothesis, and one which has mustered no evidence. It makes zero sense that humans would have biological contributions to how masculine/feminine they are, but not their attractions.
Look at ferret experiments in which the hypothalamus is destroyed using a toxin (study by Michael Baum), which gives male ferrets a female typical hypothalamus. They immediately begin mounting males. It suggests a biological mechanism controls the size of the hypothalamus and male/female mate preference. Also, studies in which they manipulate the prenatal hormonal levels in rats can increase the rate of homosexual mounting. That isn't socialization. There are a variety of other lines of evidence (boarding schools, tribal populations with sex segregation) which also show that socialization is not a plausible explanation here.
What applies to rats does not necessarily apply to humans. Humans are much more complex creatures. Those studies I linked show that the prenatal hormone theory does not apply to gender conforming gay men. If it doesn't apply to GC gays but only applies to GNC gays, then the logical conclusion is that it is is a GNC thing and not a gay thing. I suspect that once a study using GNC straights is used, the prenatal hormone theory would apply to them as much as it does to GNC gays.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30579744/
Those studies regarding animals do show that there's some link between behavior and hormones. But sexuality is just a portion of behavior, whether this is GNC behavior or GC behavior. Those studies involving ferrets and rodents also show that their overall behavior changes generally. These animals are not as complex in their socialization so the most obvious behavioral difference may be sexuality, but sexuality is just one part of behavior and shouldn't be treated as the whole thing.
While those ferrets may have female typical brains, gender conforming gay men do not have female typical brains, so once again, your example only applies to gender nonconforming gay men. The study on ferrets even said that the way those "gay" ferrets approached was also female-typical.
Look, I've read thousands of papers on this topic over a decade. There are dozens of potential explanations and you're reducing it down to the most implausible (socialisation). Simply because some gay men are gender conforming (rare) does not mean they are not neurally feminised. It is possible to be feminised in a very small region for attraction, but not other behaviour. Besides, most "masculine" gay men were more feminine in childhood than they present as adults, because they adopt more masculine behavior in order to cope with bullying from others. That doesn't prove they are not neurally feminised.
Also, I would not reference a brain scan study on this. First, they are unreliable and usually won't replicate (a sample of 20? Seriously?) and second, they cannot get the precise detail we need. Narcolepsy is caused by a difference in the brain that is the size of a grain of sand. This tiny difference is not detectable on a brain scan and produces huge differences in behavior.
In those thousands of papers you have read, gender conforming gay men have only been used as a control on two occasions, and both disproved the notion males are gay straight out of the womb. Socialization is a perfectly plausible explanation. Generally, the current position is now that epigenetics code for our behavior and very little about our behaviors can be said to be strictly genetic. It's not right to completely ignore the socialization aspect. There's differing social mechanisms at play among children that grow up gender nonconforming and those that grow up gender conforming.
https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/roney/james/other%20pdf%20readings/Bem%25201996%2520Exotic%2520becomes%2520erotic.pdf
This isn't even the only instance where socialization influencing sexuality is relevant. For instance, being raised by same sex parents is shown to increase the likelihood of becoming homosexual later in life. Regarding brain scans not showing every tiny mental difference, that may be true, but this is a counter to the claim that all gay men have female-typical brains. While it may be true in most cases, it only applies to a specific subgroup. And if a brain scan could detect minute differences, it would show that pretty much every single individual brain is different from one another. No two people would have an identical brain structure down to the smallest atom, especially considering the brain is a malleable structure that constantly changes over time.
Besides the two studies I linked, none of the "homosexuality is exclusively prenatal/biological" studies use gender conforming men as a control group even once. You need to find evidence of your theory applying to gender conforming gay men for it to hold true since you are applying it to sexuality specifically and not gender nonconformity. Genetic association between gender nonconformity and prenatal hormones is FAR greater than any genetic association between homosexuality and prenatal hormones that is independent of gender nonconformity.
Epigenetics and Bem now? This is just silly. Being raised by same-sex parents isn't "shown to increase likelihood of homosexuality". The only study that truly addresses causality was a Mike Bailey study which measured the length of time sons spent with gay fathers, and did not find any increased odds of homosexuality in those who spent the most years with an openly gay father. Second, homosexuality has a modest heritability so traits can runs in families for partially genetic reasons (e.g. a contribution of genes and hormones in utero) which would mean they are more likely to have gay offspring for biological reasons. Practically all studies here are relying on tiny convenience samples and are meaningless. If anything, they show women have fluid attractions and daughters are more likely to identify as bisexual, which is to be expected given women are much more bisexual in general.
As for Bem's theory which you link, it contradicts this point as well. Wouldn't sons raised by gay fathers be *more* heterosexual by his logic, because they "weren't exposed to females"? Females would be exotic. There is zero evidence that boys raised in predominantly male households or predominantly female households have altered orientation. Go and argue with Gregory Cochran about it, he is more interested in these dumb tired arguments.
Historically, how many of those men who experienced this masculinization prenatally would identify as or behave as homosexuals? Conversely, how many who experienced this masculinization today do not identify as or behave as homosexuals? I suspect that any predispositions which result from genetic or prenatal influences are not overwhelmingly determinative of behavior, and therefore the resulting preponderance of mental illness for homosexuals who identify as, and behave as such, can be explained by a combination of neurological features in addition to lifestyle and environmental ones. It is objectively harder to be homosexual than it is to be heterosexual in terms of sexual behavior and its consequences.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691058.2013.841290 what do you think of this
There is no quantitative data in this paper so I can't think much about it.
what about this one? https://sci-hubtw.hkvisa.net/10.1177/0886260520915554
This is better but not really good for big conclusions. If you check my later posts I write about how this is not a very good design to ask people retrospectively about problems - if you are in a bad mood (suicidal), you see your past as darker, so the retrospective trauma-->bad mental health association is baked in the cake. The stats are also fishy. All problems are correlated with suicidality, but only 'interpersonal microagressions' remain significant in the logistic model for attempts (Table 2) and basically only school belonging for ideation (Table 3). I'm wondering if there were multicollinearity problems here. I don't think this is a very good paper, you would need a bigger sample with longitudinal measurement, ideally independent observers for trauma and suicidality, and the stats should be fixed because something is wrong here.
also another question, do you have research against sex work legalization/prostitution, or anything that debunks the arguments for them?
alright, ty for the comments