queer brains?
C.W. Moseley
SEXUAL ORIENTATION MAY BE TIED TO BRAIN FORM
AP, washington
Researchers have found a new anatomical difference in the brain
structure of homosexual men and heterosexual men, a discovery which
supports a theory that nature may yet be responsible for sexual orientation.
Scientists Laura Allen and Roger Gorski, of the University of
California-Los Angeles School of Medicine, report that in autopsy studies
they found a brain structure, called the anterior commissure, to be 34%
larger in homosexual males than in heterosexuals.
[moz: they mean heterosexual MALES]
The finding, Dr Allen said, added weight to the theory that sexual
orientation was not a matter of choice but a function of biological
design or development.
"It's very supportive of the concept that (sexual orientation) is not an
environmental factor, not something acting early in childhood, but probably
something acting (before birth), or slightly afterwards", she said.
Dr Allen said that early studies had shown that hormones, active
just before and just after birth, could determine the sexual behavior and
brain structure of laboratory rats.
"Based on these animal studies, we would expect the differences to
occur very early in humans also," she said.
"In the rat," Dr Gorski said, "we have good evidence that brain is
basically female. To develop characteristics that are typically male, the
rat brain has to be exposed to specific hormones around the time of birth."
In the new study, to be published in the "Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences", Dr Allen and Dr Gorski measured the size of the
anterior commissure in tissue removed in autopsies of 34 homosexual men,
75 heterosexual men, and 84 heterosexual women.
Dr Allen said the area of the anterior commissure was clearly larger
in homosexual males, by about 34%, when compared to heterosexual males.
The homosexual male brain structure area was 18% larger than in
heterosexual females, but Dr Allen said the 18% difference disappeared when
it was statistically adjusted for the brain weight difference men and women.
Between homsexual males and heterosexual males, however, "the difference is
very real".
The anterior commissure is a structure of nerve cells that connects
the right and left hemispheres of the brain near the back of the skull. Dr
Gorski said the precise function of the anterior commissure was unknown, but
it was thought to carry signals between the cerebral halves.
The UCLA study follows by about a year work by researchers at the
Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California, who found that
the size of another part of the brain, called the interstitial nuclei of the
anterior hypothalamus, was smaller in homosexual men.
moz: pity you can only find out through an autopsy! (ok, I know that you
can probably use NMR or a CAT scan)
but seriously, this sounds like good news for those of us who get in
arguments about this. ie, my mother saying she would pay for therapy or
counselling for me, when I came out to her!! Sorry mum, but it's in my
brain!
Richard Kennaway
>More research today revealed that sexual orientation may be
>determined by nature. In an article published yesterday, UCLA School of
>Medicine scientists reported differences between the brain structures of
>heterosexual and homosexual men. They found that one part of the brain
>was 34% larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. That finding
>supports the theory that there is a biological basis to homosexuality.
I fail to see any connection whatever between the evidence reported and
the conclusions drawn. I mean, imagine if they'd said:
=More research today revealed that muscle weight may be determined by
=nature. In an article published yesterday, UCLA School of Medicine
=scientists reported differences between the muscles of athletes and
=non-athletes. They found that the muscles were 34% larger in athletes
=than in non-athletes. That finding supports the theory that there is a
=biological basis to muscle weight.
mose...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) quotes his local paper:
> "In the rat," Dr Gorski said, "we have good evidence that brain is
>basically female. To develop characteristics that are typically male, the
>rat brain has to be exposed to specific hormones around the time of birth."
Let's run this one again:
= "In the human," Dr Lackwit said, "we have good evidence that size is
=basically that of a child. To develop the size that is typically adult, the
=body has to be exposed to growth hormone for many years."
"Determined by nature", "biological basis", "basically"...this isn't
science, it's theology.
--
Richard Kennaway SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Internet: j...@sys.uea.ac.uk uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk
Lawrence C. Foard
>e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) quotes CNN:
>>More research today revealed that sexual orientation may be
>>determined by nature. In an article published yesterday, UCLA School of
>>Medicine scientists reported differences between the brain structures of
>>heterosexual and homosexual men. They found that one part of the brain
>>was 34% larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. That finding
>>supports the theory that there is a biological basis to homosexuality.
>
>I fail to see any connection whatever between the evidence reported and
>the conclusions drawn. I mean, imagine if they'd said:
>
>=More research today revealed that muscle weight may be determined by
>=nature. In an article published yesterday, UCLA School of Medicine
>=scientists reported differences between the muscles of athletes and
>=non-athletes. They found that the muscles were 34% larger in athletes
>=than in non-athletes. That finding supports the theory that there is a
>=biological basis to muscle weight.
Guess what muscle weight is largely determined by nature. I don't work
out and can beat people who work out constantly at things like arm
wrestling. Of course on the flip side I get to go bald early.
Try doing twin studies of people using muscle weight and you are
going to find a strong correlation. In this case it is a changeable
property, but the correlation will still be there, now try it with
baldness which uptill recently had no treatment available.
>mose...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) quotes his local paper:
>> "In the rat," Dr Gorski said, "we have good evidence that brain is
>>basically female. To develop characteristics that are typically male, the
>>rat brain has to be exposed to specific hormones around the time of birth."
>
>Let's run this one again:
>
>= "In the human," Dr Lackwit said, "we have good evidence that size is
>=basically that of a child. To develop the size that is typically adult, the
>=body has to be exposed to growth hormone for many years."
>
>"Determined by nature", "biological basis", "basically"...this isn't
>science, it's theology.
They said nature not god, as far as I know no one disputes the existance
of nature :-)
--
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<< ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line \ /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume. \ /
-- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.-- \/
Timothy G. Reynolds
>e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) quotes CNN:
>>More research today revealed that sexual orientation may be
>>determined by nature. In an article published yesterday, UCLA School of
>>Medicine scientists reported differences between the brain structures of
>>heterosexual and homosexual men. They found that one part of the brain
>>was 34% larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. That finding
>>supports the theory that there is a biological basis to homosexuality.
According to the Boston Globe story on this supposed study the
conclusions are based a sample of a whole 90 subjects, all dead
(results determined by autopsy). The Globe mentioned that there were
admitted homosexual men, heterosexual men and women. There was no
mention of the sexual orientation of the women. All the homosexual
men had died of AIDS. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to conclude any
kind of causality from these findings. This is Bad Science(tm) at
its worst.
--
Timothy G. Reynolds
"We're well into the later half of the twentieth century,
paranoid misogyny is just plain out of style."
Iain Morrison
> this article was in our local paper today:
>
> SEXUAL ORIENTATION MAY BE TIED TO BRAIN FORM
> AP, washington
>
I'm afraid I have to wonder why this research is being done at all - and
if it has to be done should it be widely publicised in non-specialist
media ?
I would imagine that by now the genetic/biological/environmental nature
of someones sexuality was largely irrelevant (though doubtless fascinating
to many scientists - but thats true of most science :-)).[ It would
certainly be nice to know what causes people to indulge in non-consenting
sexual (ie rape, sexual assault) acts but thats another area.]
There seems to be some relief that a biolgical difference has been found
between heterosexual and homosexual men as if homosexuality is thus
justified. It barely needs stating that no such evidence is required to
justify anyones sexuality. Also what if no difference was found? Also what
is a "cure" is possible (eg by application of some hormones). I find the
whole thing rather sinister/worrying - or am I just being paranoid.
iain
Owen Smith
mose...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
>SEXUAL ORIENTATION MAY BE TIED TO BRAIN FORM
>but seriously, this sounds like good news for those of us who get in
>arguments about this. ie, my mother saying she would pay for therapy or
>counselling for me, when I came out to her!! Sorry mum, but it's in my
>brain!
Can you say "brain surgery"? :-).
Owen (hot bi babe in need of a refit)
Ken Johnson
# SEXUAL ORIENTATION MAY BE TIED TO BRAIN FORM
So the Christians will tell us, no doubt, that it is better to enter the
Kingdom of Heaven with a frontal lobotomy than... oh, never mind.
-- Ken "Mantras R Us" Johnson
--
//// Advice to dieters: //// Ken Johnson, A I Applications Institute
//// Never eat more than //// 80 South Bridge, EDINBURGH EH1 1HN
//// you can carry. //// E-mail k...@aiai.ed.ac.uk
//// -- Miss Piggy //// phone 031-650 2756 fax 031-650 6513
Rick Adams
>
>I'm afraid I have to wonder why this research is being done at all - and
>if it has to be done should it be widely publicised in non-specialist
>media ?
>
previously lacked by the scientific community. Apart from research which can
only be used destructively or offers far too many dangers to offset the
scientific benefits (i.e., biological warfare research, etc.) _no_ research
should be avoided.
With respect to widespread publication, currently many uninformed
individuals cling to the misperception that homosexuality is a matter of
personal choice, and subject to "therapeutic" change. So long as such false
perceptions exist, those individuals will continue to demand that
homosexuality be treated as a form of deviant behavior, rather than as a
perfectly normal and understandable sexual orientation. Such research will
help to "defuse" such individual's arguments at the political/legal/public
perception levels. If the public grows to accept that fact that homosexuals
_are_ demonstrating normal behavior, they will also grow to accept the
individuals themselves, and to support homosexual causes. Many members of
the public who now oppose gay and lesbian rights are not inherently evil,
merely uninformed.
>I would imagine that by now the genetic/biological/environmental nature
>of someones sexuality was largely irrelevant (though doubtless fascinating
>to many scientists - but thats true of most science :-)).[ It would
>certainly be nice to know what causes people to indulge in non-consenting
>sexual (ie rape, sexual assault) acts but thats another area.]
>
As it happens, that is the area of my research (I'm a grad student
in Clinical Psychology specializing in criminal psychology). Some rather
interesting information has been surfacing in these areas in recent years,
but nothing which matches the clarity of the research on homosexual brain
structure under discussion.
>There seems to be some relief that a biolgical difference has been found
>between heterosexual and homosexual men as if homosexuality is thus
>justified. It barely needs stating that no such evidence is required to
>justify anyones sexuality. Also what if no difference was found? Also what
>is a "cure" is possible (eg by application of some hormones). I find the
>whole thing rather sinister/worrying - or am I just being paranoid.
>
Some will attempt to find a "cure" while others will look for a
means of determining "homosexual tendancy" in the fetus. In the former case,
given the nature of the "causitive" agent (brain structure itself) no
possible "cure" could exist which would be acceptable to the public (you
_could_ perform hemispheric seperation, but no one in his/her right mind
would accept such a solution - regardless of their oppostion to
homosexuality). In the latter case, of course, an interesting dichotomy
exists in that the very people who would support such research would also
oppose abortion, while such information would be supportive for any gay
individual who hoped to have children. In addition, since it is impossible
to examine the brain of a fetus prior to the point at which it would be
viable outside the womb (i.e., before it was developed enough that no doctor
would perform an abortion, but would have to deliver the baby instead), it
is rather unlikely that this will pose a threat. If a parent knew that a
child was genetically disposed toward homosexuality, in _most_ cases s/he
would raise that child appropriately - and those who did not would
(eventually) be considered abusive, in the same manner that a parent who
DOES raise a child with a homosexual gender identity is considered abusive
today!
--
Rick Adams | KE8HH /|\ You are right from your side,
ada...@netcom.com / | \ And I am right from mine.
rick.adams on GEnie \ /|\ / We're both just one too many mornings,
ada...@norwich.bitnet \|/ And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan)
John Clark
+
+# SEXUAL ORIENTATION MAY BE TIED TO BRAIN FORM
+
+So the Christians will tell us, no doubt, that it is better to enter the
+Kingdom of Heaven with a frontal lobotomy than... oh, never mind.
Than a bottle in front of me..
--
John Clark
jcl...@ucsd.edu
Jari Junikka
> With respect to widespread publication, currently many uninformed
>individuals cling to the misperception that homosexuality is a matter of
>personal choice, and subject to "therapeutic" change. So long as such false
>perceptions exist, those individuals will continue to demand that
>homosexuality be treated as a form of deviant behavior, rather than as a
>perfectly normal and understandable sexual orientation. Such research will
>help to "defuse" such individual's arguments at the political/legal/public
>perception levels. If the public grows to accept that fact that homosexuals
>_are_ demonstrating normal behavior, they will also grow to accept the
>individuals themselves, and to support homosexual causes. Many members of
>the public who now oppose gay and lesbian rights are not inherently evil,
>merely uninformed.
I think it's very naive to assume that finding biological basis
for homosexuality is going to end discrimination. First of all,
the phobes will just flat out deny the validity of the research.
Secondly, they'll just find other excuses.
By accident I ran into a discussion about homosexuality in
soc.culture.bangladesh. It is an example how phobes need
to rationalize their prejudices. The bias is first and reasons
are thought up afterwards. [The discussion is in s.c.b is fairly
interesting. Among the homophobic bullshit there are some supportative
posts which are quite interesting.]
Granted, biological basis for homosexuality would remove one excuse,
but the phobes only have to refine their argument. The "hate the sin,
not the sinner" will apply still without any modification.
"We aren't animals. We should control our urges and not let
them control us."
Sorry, I don't care what caused my homosexuality.
I'm just glad I'm queer.
jari
Keith Niall
Rick Adams (ada...@netcom.com) says:
>As it happens, that is the area of my research (I'm a grad student
>in Clinical Psychology specializing in criminal psychology). Some
>rather interesting information has been surfacing in these areas
>in recent years, but nothing which matches the clarity of the research
>on homosexual brain structure under discussion.
Best of luck in your studies, speaking as one who survived the ordeal
of graduate school in clinical psychology. I think you do the field
a disservice, however. If that research is the clearest thing to be
found in the area, then we would both be better off becoming table
dancers. It would be a more useful profession, if that were true.
--
*** Keith Niall ****** k...@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca *****************************
BODIES LIE IN THE BRIGHT GRASS
AND SOME ARE MURDERED AND SOME ARE PICNICKING
Jenny Holzer, SURVIVAL
C.W. Moseley
> mose...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
> >but seriously, this sounds like good news for those of us who get in
> >arguments about this. ie, my mother saying she would pay for therapy or
> >counselling for me, when I came out to her!! Sorry mum, but it's in my
> >brain!
> Can you say "brain surgery"? :-).
not any more :-)
I like the comment about heaven and lobotomies : from what
I've heard they must hand them out as you go in?
yep, I can also stir things up with a variety of bits of (mis-)information
like that one. I tend to argue all/many sides of an issue and like to have
the appropriate information for them. The fact that it is all arguably
accurate doesn't hurt at all.
the `evidence' I have heard so far suggests that:
- people have leanings sexually
- people can choose whether to act on these feelings or not
- sexuality may have a genetic component
- " " " " socialised component
- VERY FEW people are exclusively monosexual in `word, thought and deed' the
key thing to me is the identification with the LGB politic.
in other words, it's a people phenomenum(sp) and so cannot be decided
exactly. I am currently reading `looking at gay and lesbian life' by
Warren J Blumenfeld and Diane Raymond, which starts off with the analogy
with Left-handedness and Homo-Hetero sexuality. Interesting!
T.C.Weaver
'nuff said?
Tanaqui
Rick Adams
>I have a queer brain. &, no, you can't take my head apart to check.
>
J. Pallister
> In article <1992Aug4....@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>, mose...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
> > this article was in our local paper today:
> >
> > SEXUAL ORIENTATION MAY BE TIED TO BRAIN FORM
> > AP, washington
> >
> [report about new findings deleted]
>
> I'm afraid I have to wonder why this research is being done at all - and
Because a lot of people would like to use the research findings to
justify their own position (be it for or against) on the
acceptability/morality/etc of homosexuality (& by extension bisexuality),
and if the results are conclusive/scientifically sound, then that's
an added bonus, but certainly not a requirement...
> if it has to be done should it be widely publicised in non-specialist
> media ?
>
If the article hadn't made it to our local rag then the thread arising from
Moz's posting wouldn't have happened -- although I guess people who've
been reading this stuff longer than I have were thinking, "Oh no, not
'nature vs. nurture again...' :-) ; but I found the information interesting.
Basically, if anything affects me or the decisions people make about me,
I want to know about it! :-)
> ... It barely needs stating that no such evidence is required to
> justify anyones sexuality. ...
You know that and I know that, but... :-)
> iain
Cheers,
John
P.S Could someone post/mail us the FAQ for this group, or
let us know when it's going to appear again? - Ta :-)
"To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem." - The Book
Bob Donahue
> But the vocal minority who are actively opposed to homosexuality are
>not representative of the majority of American citizens, any more than the
>racist views of skinheads and neoNazis are representative of typical values.
Careful. I know quite a few skinheads who have value systems
we would all do well to emulate. Tsk. - you;d think that being an
opressed minority you'd know the danger of bowing to a stereotype.
BBC
T.C.Weaver
> twe...@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver) writes:
>>I have a queer brain. &, no, you can't take my head apart to check.
>>
> Can I at least drill a little hole and peek?
Don't fancy that. (trepannage, you perv |-)
Tanaqui
David Silverman
is way to prove which came first, the sexual orientation or the brain
structure, from only one examination of each body. I don't think we know
enough about the brain to say that it can't be changed by a persons actions.
Some "experts" think you can develop your left or right side of your brain
by doing certain mental exercises. Maybe the brain adapts to an individuals
actions/preferences/desires to 'disconnect' one mode of behavior and permit
another.
I hope this makes sense. I just think a lot of conclusions were being drawn
inappropriately. It's like going to a hundred deserts and seeing cactus in
every one and concluding that cacti cause desert, so if we get rid of all
cactus, we can eliminate deserts
Dave
PS I hope this is a rehash of another posting, but when I started reading
today, there was over 1700 unread articles in this group and I didn't
read them all.
Dave Ferguson
>The way I see it, there is no proof that homosexuality is biological. There
>is way to prove which came first, the sexual orientation or the brain
>structure, from only one examination of each body. I don't think we know
>enough about the brain to say that it can't be changed by a persons actions.
>Some "experts" think you can develop your left or right side of your brain
>by doing certain mental exercises. Maybe the brain adapts to an individuals
>actions/preferences/desires to 'disconnect' one mode of behavior and permit
Y'know...this reminds me of a conversation I once had with my kinda-sorta-
boyfriend-but-more-like-close-friends-and-we're-not-TOTALLY-committed-but-
who-asked-YOU-anyway about whether homosexuality was "nature" or "nurture".
He concluded that it was a bit of both. According to him, even though he's
gay, he could have trained his mind to become bisexual if he really wanted
to go to the effort. I think he even said that he could have made himself
straight, but I don't remember.
Basically, his point was that we are all born with the potential to be
bisexual, but that we consciously decide whether we want to develop into
homosexuals, bisexuals or heterosexuals. He made a pretty good point at
the time, but I don't think I'm doing it justice here. Oh yeah...and BTW,
I didn't say I necessarily agreed with him, so if you don't buy it, don't
take it out on me, 'K?
Daemon
--
+ D.C.X. Ferguson, "Daemon" Industry, Science & Technology Canada +
+ gri...@micor.ocunix.on.ca Policy Sector +
+ Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA +
+ No tax dollars were expended to bring you this message +
J. N. Shaumeyer
> Y'know...this reminds me of a conversation I once had with my kinda-sorta-
> boyfriend-but-more-like-close-friends-and-we're-not-TOTALLY-committed-but-
> who-asked-YOU-anyway about whether homosexuality was "nature" or "nurture".
> Basically, his point was that we are all born with the potential to be
Was his first name Sigmund, by any chance?
--jns
Dave Ferguson
>Dave Ferguson (gri...@micor.ocunix.on.ca) wrote:
>
>> Y'know...this reminds me of a conversation I once had with my kinda-sorta-
>> boyfriend-but-more-like-close-friends-and-we're-not-TOTALLY-committed-but-
>> who-asked-YOU-anyway about whether homosexuality was "nature" or "nurture".
Well...no, although it may as well be. He *is* very deep, and he *did* study
psychology. Hmmmmmmm...
Daemon -- involved with a reincarnated famous dead person
Jim Duncan
>The way I see it, there is no proof that homosexuality is biological.
Earlier this summer the very progressive CBC (Canadian Broadcasting
Corp.) broadcast an elaborate documentary in three one-hour segments on
their summer "Witness" series. Presented was luxuriant, detailed
research demonstrating that sexual orientation, indeed one's gender
outlook, was substantially a biological phenomenon having to do with a
jillion interelated factors. Clearly, the presence of certain physical
hardware configurations is just one of a huge variety of indicators
that place a given individual on a seemingly infinite gender continuum.
The point of the entire documentary is that there are endless gender
outlook possibilities - all perfectly natural and primarily biological
in origin!
The last segment was followed by an academic roundtable where the
points were further discussed. I wrote the CBC with comments on this
absolutely fascinating documentary, and they replied that indeed
"a few feathers were ruffled". The CBC is available in the US with any
typical home satellite system, which is how I see it.
The CBC representative indicated that The Discovery Channel has second
broadcast rights for the documentary, but I bet they'll be too chicken
to air it! In any case, one might still want to see if/when they'll
put it on. This documentary, titled "Brain Sex", would fascinate anyone.
--
KUFX | w ["] | WA6MBV
94.5 |... |___|_____..dun...@ravel.ati.com | Jim Duncan
FM | H | ----------
******** \_____I_____/ 37 3 10N/121 59 10W **************
adolphson
> ... an elaborate documentary in three one-hour segments on
> their summer "Witness" series. Presented was luxuriant, detailed
> research demonstrating that sexual orientation, indeed one's gender
> outlook, was substantially a biological phenomenon having to do with a
> jillion interelated factors. Clearly, the presence of certain physical
> hardware configurations is just one of a huge variety of indicators
> that place a given individual on a seemingly infinite gender continuum.
> The point of the entire documentary is that there are endless gender
> outlook possibilities - all perfectly natural and primarily biological
> in origin! ....
Heavens. Any biological "hardware configurations" (please pay
closer attention to your metaphors) that would go to explain
the gender outlooks/sexual orientations of: Gertrude Stein,
J. Edgar Hoover, Christopher Isherwood, Pat Califia, Tallulah
Bankhead, Pol Plancon, Tobias Schneebaum, Roy Cohn, Catullus,
Eleanor Roosevelt, Jack Wrangler, and me would to be seem
capable of explaining *anything*.
Arne
Ron Buckmire
>The way I see it, there is no proof that homosexuality is biological. There
>is way to prove which came first, the sexual orientation or the brain
>structure, from only one examination of each body. I don't think we know
>enough about the brain to say that it can't be changed by a persons actions.
I presume your second statement should read ``There is NO way tomprove which
came first..''. Actualy, I interviewed Dr. Roger A Gorski, for THIS WAY OUT
whilke I was in LA last week, and the interview aired on KPFK in lA last
Friday. It should also be around on THIS WAY OUT wherever you usually listen
to that show. Dr. Gorski is one of the co-authors of the recent UCLA study
which shows that there are some brain structures in the brain of homosexual
males that are larger than those for heterosexual males or females.
He also complained in my interview that it would be extremely difficult to
discover which came first, the brain structures that cause sexual orientation
difference or if the sexual orientation difference alters the brain,
especially fromjust looking at the corpses of people. He doubted that there
would be venough interest to support monitoring people to see how their brain
and sexual orientation turn out...
--
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ``D.C. in 93!''
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buc...@rpi.edu buc...@rpitsmts.bitnet
"Dick--my bottom hurts just thinking about it!" - MADONNA, _Dick Tracy_ sndtrck
eleanor.j.evans
>
>>The way I see it, there is no proof that homosexuality is biological.
>
>Earlier this summer the very progressive CBC (Canadian Broadcasting
>Corp.) broadcast an elaborate documentary in three one-hour segments on
>their summer "Witness" series. Presented was luxuriant, detailed
>research demonstrating that sexual orientation, indeed one's gender
>outlook, was substantially a biological phenomenon having to do with a
>jillion interelated factors.
Was the research conducted on men or on women? I recently (within the
past 3 months?) read an article on the topic of homosexuality as a
biological phenomenon (I _think_ it was published in "Ms.") which
said that most gay men are comfortable with the biological explanation,
and felt that they had been "hard-wired" into homosexuality, whereas
most lesbians had made a conscious choice towards the company of
women, and were frequently uncomfortable with the biological explanation.
Comments? Better sources? Disagreement??
Piglet
John Clark
+said that most gay men are comfortable with the biological explanation,
+and felt that they had been "hard-wired" into homosexuality, whereas
+most lesbians had made a conscious choice towards the company of
+women, and were frequently uncomfortable with the biological explanation.
This would 'correlate' to a phase which I can't recall the
attribution for, "most lesbians have had some heterosexual
relationships before comming out, whereas most gay males do not".
It may have more to do with the socialization of 'marriage is the
ultimate goal for women', which pressures the women to a
heterosexual relationship, which when it ends they can re-evalutate
the message, and they desires.
--
John Clark
jcl...@ucsd.edu