is being attracted to the same sex innate?

[nicholascageconfusedface]

I don't think it is. I think we are all born and have both biological and environmental influences that make us who we are. I do not think that any baby is born gay (prisoners, gay for the stay) I don't think there is anything wrong with being attracted to people with the same sex as you, as long as it is consensual, and of a legal and mental age for capacity of understanding. Be happy. I'm just your average straight woman with children. I wonder how gay/lesbian people disagree with me, but claim that transgenderism is not innate. To clarify, are we born gay/lesbian? if not, why not? and if you believe that nonsense, why do you disbelieve transgenderism? (I'm very gender critical, non religious, and in full support of 'gay/lesbian' rights' I'm interested to know peoples thoughts

I've known 3 women who told me they turned lesbian later in life and it was because of the horrible experiences they had with men. The last one was in a relationship with a woman for 8 years and the switch seemed totally serious to me.

I suspect there are hormones or other innate reasons others are gay, But the reason a gay gene, or set of genes, can't be found for all gay people is because some are born that way and some aren't.

Amid the homophobia, there are some really interesting points here.

I wonder (or fear) whether I’m one of those ‘secondary lesbians’. I’ve been married twice to men and still am. I don’t have a super high sex drive and generally describe myself as bisexual, but I feel that my principal attraction is to women, and while my marriage is wonderfully happy, if it didn’t work out, I think I’d be done with men.

I tend towards believing that every human being (and therefore every human behaviour) is the sum of all their parts.

I agree ‘born this way’ is designed to appeal to features of society such as powerful classes and establish legitimacy.

I think it is highly unlikely to be as simple as that on any issue regarding human behaviour, personality traits, sexual attraction or identity.

I also think ‘choice’ and ‘preference’ are, at the opposite end of the scale to ‘born this way’, equally too extreme and often attempts to delegitimise.

It’s much more complicated than that IMO. I believe many factors are likely to be involved in the ultimate result and we have not yet worked out, and may never (and realistically re sexuality do we even need to?!?!) how all the factors relate, operate and combine.

IMO trans issues must be separated from issues regarding sexuality because a person’s sexuality is simply about who they have sex and relationships with, it doesn’t involve changing the body, medical/surgical procedures etc etc trans is different and may (though not for all included in modern definitions) and so there is a duty of care created when the expectation is that society will provide these interventions. Also, LGB groups have not had success in lobbying govts to erase heterosexuality in the same way that trans lobby groups have been having success with lobbying that has the effect of erasing sex and replacing it with gender identity.

There is an awful lot of ‘who you are, what you are and what you do’ involved in all of this which is both very complicated to tease out and also can have profound effects for individuals and societies.

while my marriage is wonderfully happy, if it didn’t work out, I think I’d be done with men.

I might be in the same boat Sporadic. In that article I linked it mentions something I'd never heard of before - the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid, which divides orientation into seven distinct categories-- Attraction, Behavior, Fantasies, Emotional Preference, Social Preference, Lifestyle, and Self-Identification.

I always felt kind of on the fence, but wouldn't have described myself as bi because I knew I wouldn't have a complete and fulfilling relationship with a woman (I guess that came down to social preference or lifestyle?). So the idea of taking a level of attraction to mean that I was fully bisexual seemed it would be offensive to bi people who are able to have relationships that are fully equal with either men or women.

But you know, if my heterosexual relationship for one reason or another went tits up, I don't necessarily think I feel the same inequality between the relationships I could potentially have with men and women, or perhaps I would actually favour women at this point.

P.S. I don't know anything about Klein but read the Wikipedia page and he seems legit enough.

The "lifestyle preference" section is going to muck up the results for people from societies that are heavily homosocial, with opposite sex people who're not dating not really socializing much.

I would also like to point out that it is very rare anyone ever frames this question as ‘is heterosexuality innate?’ Certainly, this is never done in the mainstream where heterosexuality is not subject to scrutiny but it is the same question; ‘is sexual orientation innate?’

That's because people are different.

Yes that was exactly my point Ukelele.

I think that for some people who're bisexual it's easy to project "flexibility" onto other people that may not in fact exist, and we (and I'm bi myself) shouldn't do that.

This absolutely.

I believe you are born gay, it is innate.

Those who grow up in extremely conservative and oppressive regimes are definitely not socialised into 'gayness', since it is sometimes punishable by death.

Innateness seems to be the counter argument to the idea that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’. However that only makes sense if you view things through the lense of ‘normal’ and ‘devient’. It’s the Roy Moore idea that it’s ‘natural’ for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old but ‘unnatural’ to be gay.

I think that most people in the UK (and the law) are now more likely to think in terms of the ability to give consent.

Those who grow up in extremely conservative and oppressive regimes are definitely not socialised into 'gayness', since it is sometimes punishable by death.

I don’t think we can say that with confidence because we don’t understand the factors involved in shaping sexual orientation. I think you possibly could say simply that same sex attraction persists despite extreme social prohibition. I don’t think persistence despite socialisation = conclusion it is innate. I don’t think socialisation is even as simple as ‘society’ or ‘family’ even.

Offred definitely not conclusive, but an indicator I think, that being gay is not a 'choice', as is sometimes peddled in the homophobic rhetoric.

I think sexuality is multi-faceted in terms of determining factors, but from my (admittedly small) pool of homosexual friends, they all feel they were born that way and nothing would have changed the outcome, but that society influenced their level of comfort with it.

It’s very difficult to do any kind of research into sexual orientation because of prejudice. Every piece of research, opinion, discussion etc etc has the potential to be used in an oppressive manner. ‘Born this way’ does offer significant protection from this.

I think we miss out on so much in terms of advancement of knowledge because of this kind of pervasive societal prejudice.

Heterosexuality for example will not be framed as a ‘choice’ or a ‘preference’ by those motivated to dismiss homosexuality/bisexuality by saying it is a ‘choice’ or a ‘preference’. This makes inquiry itself into a tool of oppression.

that being gay is not a 'choice', as is sometimes peddled in the homophobic rhetoric.

But in order to believe that being gay is a ‘choice’, you also have to be a bit bat shit crazy and believe that gay people aren’t really attracted to people of the same sex and that they are just being difficult.

There are so many things wrong with this concept that it’s difficult to prove or disprove in a rational way.

I already linked an episode of this Norwegian "nature vs nurture" series in another thread.

This episode explores sexuality:

What is interesting about this is the conclusion that all of the environments that humanity has created over the centuries have helped influence people to become gay/lesbian. Every society has had gay and lesbian and transgender people in it.

What is interesting is the vast range of animals that also display same sex attraction. I mean, either animals have the same socio-environmental influences humans do, or maybe just perhaps, there is a biological issue at play here.

The environment helps people who are LGBT to either be LGBT or force them to hide it. It doesn't cause it.

The environment helps people who are LGBT to either be LGBT or force them to hide it. It doesn't cause it.

Yep. If you live in a society where openly admitting that you're gay could result in being executed that's a pretty good reason to try to hide it and even to try to deny it and force yourself into straightness, whereas in a society where being gay is less of a big deal the pressure will be more individualized (ie, does your specific family have stronger prejudices and are they likely to reject you).

Again though for me it is the framing. Why is it gay/lesbian sex/relationships we are trawling history to justify? Because of prejudice. This is the environment in which all discussions of human sexuality/orientation are currently taking place. It places limits during the process of inquiry. It inherently assumes exclusive heterosexuality is beyond examination AND that examination/conclusions regarding sexuality/orientation of LGB do not apply to hetereosexuality.

I don’t think persistence despite socialisation = conclusion it is innate.

Which does make me wonder about evolution. Why do over 250 species of animal display homosexual behavior? How can socialisation account for that. There is a clear biological determinant at work that has been around for millions of years.

Agree completely about framing Offred, in that it sets it up as a question of default and "other". Which is a presented dynamic that can be recognised in so many (all?) unequal or oppressive scenarios.

IMO we think we know more about animals than we do know. We tend to anthropomorphise animals and apply human standards to conclusions in research/reporting.

Humans are not particularly comfortable with ‘not knowing’ IMO which both lends itself to inquiry (curiosity) and limits the process/conclusions (bias).

Is homosexual behaviour in animals indicative of anything of relevance re humans? We don’t know, we certainly don’t understand how or why.

It’s back to nature vs nurture... something which makes me prickle... surely, certainly the findings re brain plasticity tend to indicate we may be framing this whole thing wrongly in the first place and that it may be nature and nurture - ultimately this poses many more questions than answers.

And bringing it back to sexuality/sexual orientation; we need to define what we mean more precisely and we need to understand how and when what we are talking about is even formed.

Can a baby have a sexuality/orientation/identity/attraction etc in utero? In what capacity? Does sexuality/orientation/identity/attraction etc begin to form in adolescence?

There are so many questions and I know many people will have had very different answers whether they ‘have always known’ or whether they ‘realised when’... it’s extremely complicated...

And rat - I think the KSOG you linked to is a good example of this stuff in action. It’s an attempt to look at some of the variables that make up what we understand as ‘sexuality’.