Nature vs. Nuture: Sexual Orientation Edition

The debate between sexual orientation and where it originates has caused much confusion in our society. Are we genetically designed to become heterosexual or homosexual? Did we chose a specific lifestyle? Countless studies have tried to end this debate but different results led to speculation of what is valid.

Research conducted the University of California evaluated scientific evidence on whether women’s sexual orientation is based on biological factors. The study focused on the neuroendocrine theory and genetic explanations of women’s sexual orientation. The neuroendocrine theory indicates that if a female fetus is exposed to male hormones then their brain is too be wired more masculine than feminine. In order to test this theory, research was evaluated based on a research studies that focused on a rare disorder known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) and the effects of the synthetic estrogen diethylstilbestrol (DES). The research found that women with CAH are more likely to have same-sex fantasies rather than actually conducting same-sex sexual behavioral.  Additionally, females with CAH are “predispose” to develop same-sex sexiual orientation. However, since this disorder is extremely rare it debunks the theory (Veniegas). As for the genetic component, the research study looks at the difference between twins who label themselves as same-sex sexual orientation. Two studies looked at monozygotic and dizygotic twins. The first study which focused on the monozygotic (identical) twins found no evidence of same sex orientation twins. Additionally, dizygotic twins studies found no evidence to support that their this a genetic component when it comes to sexual preference. Another research study that was conducted in Europe concentrated on biological and psychosocial factors that can correlate to sexual orientation. The study did find that their was a correlation between transgender having relatives who were also transgender (Veale). However, these findings are not significant to prove any theory.

The studies above debunk any findings that sexual is genetically based however, two studies found that their a slight correlation with genetic components to sexual orientation. In a study conducted by Burri et al. claims that sexual attraction is caused by genetic component for childhood gender typicality (Burri et al). Additionally, another study conducted by Schwartz et. al found that sexual orientation is familial, meaning, that men are influenced by their family members (Schwartz). In other words, if a homosexual male had a brother there is a slight chance that he might be gay as well.

Despite the two sides to the argument, I believe that sexual orientation is based on environmental factors. I feel like the studies that focused on the genetic component emphasied on family studies. You can’t conclude if there is a family member who claims to be a homosexual doesn’t mean that future generations of the family will claim to have a same-sex sexual orientation. Additionally, the twin studies in both studies contradict each other which made it confusing for myself to understand. Also, I’m not really sure if there is a specific chromosomes that determines your sexuality. I feel that your childhood has a lot to do with your sexuality. I have notice that a lot of my homosexual guy friends have some type of dysfunction relationship with their father or they do not have a positive male role model while growing up. Hypothetically, these men find comfort in accepting love from a male figure. Of course, this is just my opinion and I have no empirical evidence to support my accusation.

Burri A, Cherkas L, Spector T, Rahman Q (2011) Genetic and Environmental Influences on Female Sexual Orientation, Childhood Gender Typicality and Adult Gender Identity. PLoS ONE 6(7): e21982. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021982

Schwartz, G., Kim, R. M., Kolundzija, A. B., Rieger, G., & Sanders, A. R. (2010). Biodemographic and Physical Correlates of Sexual Orientation in Men. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 39(1), 93-109. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9499-1

Veale, Jaimie F.; Clarke, David E.; Lomax, Terri C.. In Personality and Individual Differences. 2010 49(3):252-257 Language: English. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.045, Database: ScienceDirect

Veniegas, R. C., & Conley, T. D. (2000). Biological Research on Women’s Sexual Orientations: Evaluating the Scientific Evidence. Journal Of Social Issues, 56(2), 267.

 

One thought on “Nature vs. Nuture: Sexual Orientation Edition

  1. Two research articles included for Side A 5/5 pts

    Two research articles included for Side B 5/5 pts

    Summary of Side A and Side B 15/20 pts
    Side A was really thorough, but Side B needed a little more elaboration. Also, be careful about saying that one or two studies prove or debunk a theory. It’s better to say they did or didn’t provide support for a theory.

    Who you agree with and why? 12/15 pts
    (Include strengths and weaknesses)
    Try to be a little more clear when describing the strengths and weaknesses of the studies. It’s okay to include your personal opinions but make sure you’ve fully addressed the research.

    APA Formatting/ Grammar/ Length 3/5 pts
    Make sure to proofread your blogs for grammar/spelling.

    Total 37/50 total

    Good job overall!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *