What makes people gay

[Betsy]

The debate has always been that it was either all in the child's upbringing or all in the genes. But what if it's something else?

Entire article at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/

It's a long, but most interesting article.

Registration is required but you can use bugmenot.com to grab one.

[Dana Gold]

I did not read the entire article because I did not want to register, however (please correct me if I am wrong) I got the distinct impression that the author/s of this article define a gay boy or man as one who displays "extreme feminine characteristics" (childhood gender nonconformity ..CGN) without taking into account that many gay men display male (to male extreme) characteristics; as in the so-called "leather boys" and body-builder types. What is it about society's investigators, "looky-loos", and so-called experts that "they" have to lump any and all variant sexualities and gender expressions as "homosexual"?...a "gay umbrella"?....like the so-called "transgender umbrella"?...or "intersex umbrella"?; when there are so many "categories" and degrees of each to gay, lesbian, trans, and intersex. Perhaps Betsy hit upon a point.....nature, nurture, or something else. Hmmmm...would gays and gender variants even consider themselves "different" if society didn't succinctly and sometimes brutally "tell them so"...that is, if left alone and not subjected to "comparison" (or alteration) would such people not just feel and consider themselves normal? And consider this: any time a certain portion of the human population is subjected to ghetto-ization, do they not develop their own culture, with its own unique characteristics and behaviours, even language? (African-Americans and Latinos are an example of such). That is why, when I mentioned in an earlier post that I (during my transition) made a determination to blend in with the "normal folk" so I would not be emulating the cultural stereo-typing that I see happening within the gay and trans "communties" and subsequently from others not within those communities. And....a person may be gay, but that does not mean they are of the "gay community"...to say so diminishes that person's self-identity and individuality. I may be trans, but I do not "belong" to the trans community, nor am I a "member" of it. However, for political activism, sense of solidarity, and various degrees of social ostricization, such communities eventually (out of necessity and protection) had to form....again, without the negative influence of society, any and all of these indiividuals may have merely blended in with the rest.
So nature = genetics, and nurture = society? and each is a separate phenomena?.....not so simple....the individual interacts and evolves/develops with both of those and the intrinsic self derived from both and itself...heh, heh, a riddle, yes?....hmmmpphh!!..this planet is a riddle because for all their knowledge of technology, many people still can not (and want not) with all their "accepted philosophies" figure out and/or accept themselves as themselves....as just human beings...as universally different as the "heavenly bodies" in the infinite number of galaxies....or plants and animals in a tropical rain forest.

Dana

[Betsy]

You really need to read the whole article to see where he was coming from on that. You can use bugmenot.com to get a password and username for full access.

Betsy

[Dana Gold]

Betsy, you're right, judging the article by the first few pages is not a fair and accurate assessment of the article's intent. I just didn't like the young boy Patrick, who may have been actually "transgendered", as having been labeled "homosexual"...i.e aberrant...because the DSM-IV designates gender dysphoria (childhood gender nonconformity) as a psychiatric condition and homosexuality as "not anymore". To me that meant Patrick is ok, as long as he "is gay", but, perhaps would still be "questionably normal" as a transgendered....in the med/psych sense. Anyway, I will read the entire article and see what the "whole picture" has to say for itself....as always (as you and others know) I am an eternal cynic of and distrust the "med/psych-ers" and others' views toward us "non-conforming sexual minorities".

Dana

[Morgan]

I think I got to read the whole article without having to subscribe. Must've slipped in under the radar or something :) Try clicking 'printer friendly' when you're on page 1.

His argument is - largely - that it's probably nature, and probably a lot to do with prenatal exposure to hormones. Which sounds a lot like discussions on the origins of transsexuality. Which sounds a lot like discussions on brain sex and pheromones.

All of which seems to be about 'explaining' gay men and transwomen and our/their commonalities with born straight women.

It kind of leaves you and other lesbians, and transmen out in the cold, doesn't it, Betsy? Maybe, like heterosexual men, you don't 'need' 'explaining'. Maybe we're all be expected to want to be one of those?

Personally, I think, "ok, it might well be true", and "so what". I also think that there might be multiple reasons for a person's sexual or gender identity.

I've had 3 significant relationships, all of them with gay men who have elder, heterosexual brothers. It's not just a characteristic of people I've had relationships with. Most of my gay male friends and acquaintances also seem to fit that classification. But I don't. There might be other things different about me (I'm here, after all), but nor does my gay male cousin.

What I do know is that I didn't choose my identity/identities, and my only option is to work out how to live happily with it. The only problems that I've had to deal with so far (after >38 years) have occured when I've tried to conform to other people's expectations.

M

[Dana Gold]

I quick-read the whole article and will take more time later (I'm at work now)....but you're right....interesting... especially with Dr. Reiner's part in the article (his work and person I admire and respect). I too, am a proponent of the intrinisic self which finds itself as the basic framework of the person's identity and anatomic formation already pre-established while in the womb.....and some studies have indicated that even sounds and phenomena outside the womb as well as emotions by others are "sensed" by the fetus and processed by the developing brain....to me it makes perfect sense....and the brain is part of the body....sooo..
However own's volition (or others' "influence") may add to, delete from, or skew the natural course of events established while in utero, which I think was happeneing with Patrick's mother, even as she "accepts him", but subconsciously and a bit consciously really would like for him to be a normal (i.e. less feminine) male.....and getting some humankind to "understand" through unequivocal scientific research" may represent some "progress", but to focus on the origins of homosexuality by looking at gay boys/men does not fairly represent the many other gender and sexual variations....as Morgan mentioned....and not all "boys with dinky-dongs" will still retain their "male sexual orientation" even after being vaginoplastied....there will always be another sub-section of the "established fact".an exception to the rule, say....and there will still be subsets of "sexual minorities" who do not like or understand each other, despite knowledge to the contrary.

Dana

[Betsy]

It kind of leaves you and other lesbians, and transmen out in the cold, doesn't it, Betsy? Maybe, like heterosexual men, you don't 'need' 'explaining'.

It's because virtually all research is done on gay men and transwomen. While I can't pretend to know the reasons behind that, I suspect it is largely based on homophobia and transphobia.

One disappointment in the article is the fact he used the research of Bailey without mentioning some of the controversy behind his work. I think that information is germane to the discussion.

[Morgan]

Agreed. Plus a good bit of misogyny. I re-edited while you were posting and added a little bit to the end of that sentence...

[Dana Gold]

fact he used the research of Bailey without mentioning some of the controversy behind his work. I think that information is germane to the discussion.
Yes, Bailey's work and statements in public are conflicting and confusing and his "research" was strictly limited to MtF transsexuals who mostly were interviewed and came from an environment that a lot of transsexuals do not frequent (bar scene and street walkers)...and he neglected to provide historical information on "successfully integrated" transsexuals....intersex?...he most likely doesn't know sh*t about that...I hope he never has the gall to even try....as he did when he talked about bi-sexuality.

I also think that gay men and transwomen are viewed and lumped together as degrees of homosexuality (according to Bailey) and society is most eager to "explain" this phenomena, rather than FtM trans and lesbian because the male dominant factor in this world regards it as less 'threatening" and "disgusting" ....notice the terms queer and faggot are used primarily in reference to gay men and transwomen and much more violence is perpetrated against these people than lesbians and transmen.

Morgan's quote problems....snip...have occured when I've tried to conform to other people's expectations.
My point precisely when I talked about gender resistance syndrome from other's' in another thread entitled Peter's comments.....

Dana

[Morgan]

Hi Dana

I think we're saying the same thing on more than point, here.

Um, I'm not sure I really like the "snip" in that quotation, though... ;)

[Dana Gold]

Um, I'm not sure I really like the "snip" in that quotation, though... ;)

My apologies Morgan, I didn't mean to "cut you short"..... :rolleye11 :wink_smil

Hey, every time I go to fetch a smiliey, I notice they have always re-arranged themselves in much different places....how is that? :thinking2

Dana :redface:

[Morgan]

's ok. I wasn't really put out by it..

[Sofie]

What makes people gay?
Do we really care?

[Betsy]

Those who would wish to eliminate all things queer do. If they know what causes it, they can work on a solution to eliminate it.

I don't buy the story we hear often in the gay community that if being queer is proven to have a biological basis, people will be more accepting. The opposite, however is quite a likelihood.

I've expressed those concerns speaking within the trans community as well...as people try to prove that being trans is a medical condition rather than a mental health issue. At least with mental health issues, they haven't figured out brain surgery to "cure it" whilst a biological cause would automatically lead people to looking for "a cure".

Betsy