I will say this: at the very least, if no one reads this entry, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading scientific papers and doing research for the first time in 6 months. I turned off my music to write this. That means a lot! Anyway, given it HAS been a long time since I've written anything like this, I hope my writing is coherent enough to make sense.
This is a lecture presented by Dr Cynthia Chappell at a PFLAG meeting in 2005, reviewing the best research done on the biological causes of homosexuality. This is not Dr Chappell's area of research - she's a Professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center's School of Public Health, her primary research interest (at the moment) is related to human parasitic diseases. After her son came out to her a few years ago she decided to do some homework into the research done on the causes of sexuality, in the hopes of a) having a greater understanding of homosexuality, and b) being able to translate this research into language more palatable to a general audience, so that this information could be disseminated. As she mentions at the end of the lecture, a study done in 2002 in Sweden, which involved 992 adult Swedes, found that there had been a significant change from previous studies in tolerance of and attitude toward homosexuals. The three main reasons for this were found to be:
- Anti-discrimination legislation
- Increased visibility of homosexuals (due to aforementioned legislation - more and more gay people felt safe revealing themselves, and so more people realised they had gay family members and friends); and
- the belief that homosexuality has a biological cause and is a normal variant of human sexuality.
Since this research shows very clear evidence of sexuality as being established prenatally (before birth, and therefore not "chosen" later in life), the more people who know about it the better. I will add this - this doesn't try to explain why ALL homosexuals are the way they are, and certainly does not prove that sexuality is 100% genetic. It simply shows that there is very good evidence that sexuality is at least some part genetic.
Anyway, I found it to be a very interesting lecture. It goes for about 45 minutes, followed by about another 30 minutes of interesting questions. The information is easy to digest, and the results are fascinating. If you have time to watch it I recommend it. However, if you don't have time I've summarised some of the results I've found fascinating below.
3 comments:
Hummm very interesting. There is still so much we don't know. I had the most bizarre conversation with a fellow Master of psyc student over the removal of homosexuality from the DSM III. She didn't say it but I got the idea that she wasn't convinced that it should have been removed. Grrrrh! Maybe I should send her the link to your blog :) I personally like the theory that sexuality is on a continuum ... it's not dichotomous. I like the idea of falling in love with a person not their gender. Oh well ... I hope this gives you hope that more people are beginning to accept that being "gay" isn't a fashion statement! Love u lots Kell
It would be interesting to see how these sorts of studies fit in with the studies that suggest a difference in the arousal patterns of men and women with respect to gender specificity.
For example, the neurohormonal model seems to account nicely for the gender-specific response of both gay and straight men, but women appear to respond to both genders anyway, so in what way is the hormone affecting them?
And then there's the question of how much arousal has to do with orientation - this article (ignore the terrible writing) talks about a study suggesting that women are physically (though not necessarily mentally) aroused by images of both genders and even bonobos having sex and that it's an evolutionary response to rape.
Women's sexuality in general needs a lot more study. But anyway, thanks for summarising the lecture - it's very interesting reading.
Thanks for those articles Aditi - very interesting reading! Particularly the bit about the evolutionary response to rape.
Re: bisexuality (and sexuality existing on a continuum). In the lecture she mentions that the "presence" of testosterone produced by the fetus results in straight males and gay females, while the "absence" (or presence in very small amounts) leads to gay males and straight females. So it's probably the case that some middle amount of testosterone leads to bisexuals, and so you have in effect a continuum, a scale based on the amount of testosterone present. In other words, it's not clear cut, on/off, gay/straight.
Post a Comment