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

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

Possibly. I agree that animal behaviour needs to be seen in context (e.g. the high levels of female-on-female sax that occurs when new female bonobos join a new troop) but my point is that same sex behavior is prevalent across the animal kingdom, include species where their is little or no parental input and no social structures, so it becomes a biological fact as opposed to a nurtured activity.

Gay and lesbian people have different brain structures than straight people of the same sex. www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8

I agree it may imply that, it may imply things re humans too.

It isn’t certain that it is/is not nurture IMO, it isn’t certain that it is/is not biological either. Is it not more likely that in both humans and the rest of the animal kingdom it is actually way more complicated than being ‘nature’ or ‘nurture’?

We should be careful re making those assumptions IMO but also I question why we are asking the questions? In the current climate you have to have regard to this constant need to justify non-compliance with heterosexuality.

Everything regarding neuroscience and fMRI IMO needs to be understood with regard to plasticity. The conclusion from that report is not necessarily ‘sexuality/transgender identity is innate’ it is ‘we found what we think are differences in function’.

The abstract demonstrates some bias too IMO.

I'd love the OP to come back and tell us what the point of the OP is.

As far as I see the 'evidence' for all these things...

1. There is evidence that there is a heritable component to being gay, more strongly in men. Sexuality is not anywhere near 100% heritable.

1. We are a sexually diamorphic species. This is literally how babies are made and how our species continues. There are a very small proportion of intersex people. And sadly a lot are infertile; it appears not to be an adaptation but a flaw (no moral judgement there).

1. There are hormonal influences on how 'feminine' or 'masculine' people are. You get high testosterone women for example. This is more complicated but there are effects.

None of this tells me why even low testosterone men should share facilities based on this rather than biological sex, which has a massively bigger effect. Having a penis is a fact. It is easy to separate based on sex. It is ridiculous to separate based on endocrinology.

I'm a bit confused as to the context of your post MrsTerry;

2. We are a sexually diamorphic species. This is literally how babies are made and how our species continues. There are a very small proportion of intersex people. And sadly a lot are infertile; it appears not to be an adaptation but a flaw (no moral judgement there).

Are you suggesting that any sexuality or identity or genetic condition that does not produce babies is a flaw? The use of the word "flaw" there seems particularly emotive, and I'm not sure it bears scrutiny....

Is the sole purpose of humanity to reproduce?

Of course it is fundamentally important in that it ensures the survival of the species.

But another important function of particularly the act of genes replicating, is that the potential to create "anomalies" is a very good thing in terms of evolution. In fact we need to produce anomalies to evolve - is my very basic understanding of the set up.

So is something a flaw if it is a variation that does not produce babies? It is a success in that a variation has been achieved, but also can you not see that success within a species - particularly a species like humans - could be measured against more contributions to that group that merely continuing their existence?? Like passing on acquired knowledge through a novel experience, rather than simply passing on a new physical lump of human tissue?

But then you go on to talk about trans people, so perhaps I've misunderstood how your statement fits in with the discussion?

Evolutionarily yes; reproduction and survival of the young is the only goal. The selfish gene. Anything that doesn't further that evolutionary imperative is selected out. That's what biology does.

This is all just about what is innate, genetic and based on biology. It's entirely possible to base arguments on morality and utility and whatever else you'd like. But the OP was talking about biology.

Is the sole purpose of humanity to reproduce?

I don’t think humanity needs to have a point. However, we are sexually diamorphic because that is how we reproduce.

Are you suggesting that any sexuality or identity or genetic condition that does not produce babies is a flaw?

Neither sexuality nor identity affect fertility.

Evolutionarily yes; reproduction and survival of the young is the only goal. The selfish gene. Anything that doesn't further that evolutionary imperative is selected out. That's what biology does.

But genetic anomalies do help further that evolutionary imperative, even if they are selected out!

I don’t think humanity needs to have a point. However, we are sexually diamorphic because that is how we reproduce.

And no-one here is disputing that. But I took MrsTerry to be establishing a "normal" and "other" dynamic between heterosexuality and homosexuality/bisexuality - on account of the subject of the thread. When all sexualities should probably be considered "normal" if we're looking with a truly unprejudiced eye.

Neither sexuality nor identity affect fertility.

But some present far bigger hurdles to reproduction than others, no? Does that mean those are less "normal" than sexualities or identities which most easily facilitate reproduction?

But I took MrsTerry to be establishing a "normal" and "other" dynamic between heterosexuality and homosexuality/bisexuality - on account of the subject of the thread.

That's the story you're telling yourself.

That's the story you're telling yourself.

I directly questioned my interpretation to you in my post; you are welcome - very welcome - to correct me!

Here's the thing. I'm inclined to say a propensity for fancying men or women is innate - albeit subject to environmental influences. It sure as hell isn't a free choice, anyway, or for most of history nobody would have chosen it in most cultures.
But whether it's nature or nurture, or choice, in a way, doesn't matter; people don't have to justify themselves to the rest of the world, as long as nobody's hurt by what they do. The only difference is that it's crueller to disapprove of someone because of what they are, if they haven't got a choice in the matter. But you're being a wanker if you go round disapproving of people when they aren't hurting anyone, even if they could choose to behave like you.
The same could be said of a propensity to believe yourself to be of the opposite sex. Again, if it doesn't hurt anyone else, there's no good reason to disapprove of it and no need to justify it.
BUT - that doesn't mean to say that a trans person is factually correct to believe that s/he really is a woman in a man's body, or vice versa. And it certainly doesn't mean that you're a bigot who deserves to die in a fire if you don't believe that.
And it really, completely and utterly doesn't mean that any man who likes should be able to get into the Ladies' on the basis that he says he thinks he's a woman.

I took MrsTerry to be establishing a "normal" and "other" dynamic between heterosexuality and homosexuality/bisexuality - on account of the subject of the thread.

I think you are reading things into the posts that aren't there.

But some present far bigger hurdles to reproduction than others, no? Does that mean those are less "normal" than sexualities or identities which most easily facilitate reproduction?

I'm not sure what you mean by "normal" here, but you seem to be implying some kind of value judgement that wasn't made.

I find this whole thread intensely homophobic

So if people aren't born gay are they not born straight either op ????

I think you are reading things into the posts that aren't there.

I suggested that as a possibility, but she hasn't corrected me so what can I do.

I'm not sure what you mean by "normal" here, but you seem to be implying some kind of value judgement that wasn't made.

I was responding to the assertion that things which do not achieve reproduction are a "flaw", and specifically in the form of a question; so any value judgement was a proposal. I mean explicitly, it was an explicit question; "do you think that...?"

This is weird, this thread kind of isn't about anything anymore.

Which is a shame, because Ophelia posted some really interesting stuff.

Whoops, Offred not Ophelia!

As regards politics, I think the gay being innate thing was a potentially useful idea to convince, but has now become a belief in itself, rather than anything useful. Some lesbians and gay men may find it a comforting belief, that is true, but some (like Julie Bindel who says she chose to be a lesbian) do not.

Myself, I don't much care, I'm just glad I am (quick chorus of Tom Robinson despite the fact that he never had that much to say about dykes..............).

From a scientific (and political) point of view, I think it is a mistake to continually frame it as 'why are some people gay?' -- especially given what we now know about species like bonobos where hetero and homo sex is perfectly normal, and used for various (social) purposes other than reproduction.

Why isn't everyone bi? might be a more interesting question. Why aren't we more like bonobos?

As regards those getting all wibbly over the use of 'normal' this is just a standard usage in science, and doesn't imply a value judgement. So, homosexuality isn't 'normal' in the statistical sense.

I tend to think people are born peopl(ish), and their full suite of interests and skills develops as they develop. There are genetic influences, of course there are, but our personalities are complicated, emergent structures, rather than the simple this gene means blue eyes, this gene means they'll be gay of the simplistic 'nature or nurture' pseudo-debate. After all, we are genetically products of a very different environment from the one that we spent most of our evolutionary time in -- yet we are very successful in terms of longevity and in terms of sheer numbers. Sex, and possible sexuality and sexual responses and social and biological uses of sex is wider than the simple 'sex is for reproduction' of those who get stuck at the 'homosexuality is unnatural' stage - which as we now know just isn't true in terms of other species anyway!

Homosexuality is 'unnatural', but then so is almost everything else that humanity gets up to in between eating, sleeping, and fucking to make babies!

As regards those getting all wibbly over the use of 'normal' this is just a standard usage in science, and doesn't imply a value judgement. So, homosexuality isn't 'normal' in the statistical sense.

Thanks @SomeDyke

And WRT the word 'flaw' what I meant (although I'm fairly irritated having to defend myself) is that some things are trial and error genetic noise. Could be beneficial and therefore passed on, could be detrimental and therefore not.

By flaw I mean neither of these. I mean that a number of intersex conditions involve things like penises not fully forming. Sort of like a cleft palate. It doesn't function as the body part it is. There's no value judgement attached to that.

I suggested that as a possibility, but she hasn't corrected me so what can I do.

You could maybe not read something into a statement that isn’t there in the first place.

*I was responding to the assertion that things which do not achieve reproduction are a "flaw”.

Mrs TP no more asserted that an intersex person is a flaw than she asserted that somebody born without a hand or with diabetes is a flaw. She was distinguishing between adaptive and non adaptive differences in a particular area of the body.

It’s true that you don’t have to be able to reproduce to live, but I think you’ll have a hard time if you try to tell people suffering from infertility that they shouldn’t be treated because they don’t need to reproduce.

Of course many people don’t want children, but like it or not the point of our reproductive systems is to produce children.

Luckily we are each more than a reproductive system, but we can’t escape the reality of the one we were born with.

None of that has anything to do with sexuality or identity.

You could maybe not read something into a statement that isn’t there in the first place.

Christ alive, I read it how I read it but I wasn't sure I was right so questioned it. How deplorable.

MrsTp thank you for the clarification. I questioned how you were using the word. You have told me the way in which you used the word.

"the point of our reproductive systems is to produce children."
Well, that may be the primary purpose, but the fact that (unlike other species) human females are willing to have sex when they are unlikely to conceive, or when they are no longer fertile, shows that our reproductive systems have been utilized for other purposes -- like general fun, social bonding of a couple and so on and so on. I will admit, I have come across religious right-wingers who believed that sex was only not a sin when the woman was ready to conceive (i.e. contraception was a sin), but I never asked if they thought sex after the menopause/hysterectomy was also a sin? That might have been a good idea given that homosexual sex being innately sinful because it could never lead to reproduction was often their argument...........

Back then I didn't know about bonobos though, which is some wonderful diversity, that really does help when trying to convert the ignorant.

Not quite as funny as the New Scientist line about someone trying to study lesbian sheep though:

www.newscientist.com/article/mg12817427-000-ariadne/

*I knew I liked girls before I knew about lesbians or bisexuals.

Me too*

Me three.