Are Straight People Born That Way?
By Alice Dreger
Mar 22 2012, 8:06 AM ET 3
The best scientific argument we have for the innateness of straightness is that evolution would favor it. But a poll of sexologists raises some interesting questions about arousal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/are-straight-people-born-that-way/254592/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/are-straight-people-born-that-way/254592/)
Time for a thought experiment: Are straight people born that way? When I put the question to a number of sexology colleagues, they thought it a good question -- indeed, a hard question.
To answer it, we have to start with a more fundamental question: What do we mean when we say someone is "straight"? At the most basic level, we seem to be imagining female bodies that are specifically sexually aroused by male bodies, and vice versa.
Laboratory studies such as those conducted by Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Meredith Chivers of Queens University suggest that, while such people probably do exist -- at least in North America, where many sexologists have focused their attentions -- it's not uncommon for straight-identified people to be at least a little aroused by the idea of same-sex relations.
Wow! I hope more people read this article as the subject matter is well worth discussion.
Nurture vs. Nature. How will we ever separate them to know for sure?
Quote from: Cindy Kate on March 22, 2012, 06:16:58 PM
Nurture vs. Nature. How will we ever separate them to know for sure?
One way is to look at the behaviors of our close animal cousins in the wild. These may be clues to pre-civilized human behavior.
The article started weak, then got intersting, but at the end went out without a puff as she forgot or chose to ignore the wealth of information on the neuro-biological basis of GID and homosexuality. I would say it is a rather disappointing paper
Quote from: peky on March 22, 2012, 09:06:47 PM
The article started weak, then got interesting, but at the end went out without a puff as she forgot or chose to ignore the wealth of information on the neuro-biological basis of GID and homosexuality. I would say it is a rather disappointing paper
Well, it is
The Atlantic, which is for popular consumption and not meant for social science professionals.
Still, it is an interesting question to put to people who are not accepting, but not actually transphobic. Bit like asking them " how do you know you are a man or woman?"
Karen.
Quote from: Jamie D on March 22, 2012, 09:49:49 PM
Well, it is The Atlantic, which is for popular consumption and not meant for social science professionals.
I am not saying that she should have entering into a scientific expose, just that as an MD, she should have included the whole known facts in laymen terms.
Quote from: Jamie D on March 22, 2012, 09:49:49 PM
Well, it is The Atlantic, which is for popular consumption and not meant for social science professionals.
Alice Dreger references studies by Bailey and Blanchard in this article, thus highly suspect IMO.
Z
The study aside, the answer, which ever way they say, puts them in an ackward position.
If they say yes, straight people are born that way, then they also have to say, "gay" people are born that way and "ts" people are born that way.
If they say no, its enviornmental, then it makes it impossible to complain about gay or ts people, because the environment caused it just as it caused being straight.
Either way the pundits lose. Because the individual had no choice in the result. It was not an active "choice" to become straight, gay, ts. It was the enviornment of the world around us.
I come to the article from a little bit different perspective, having been trained in and worked in the natural sciences.
"Male" and "female" in a system of classification are totally artificial, but are an attempt to describe a state of nature. By looking at all the organisms that exhibit sexual reproduction, the overwhelming majority exhibit the XX or XY genotypes (less than 0.2% of humans are not).
Beyond that, over 96% have sexual tendencies and phenotype that match their genotype. A recent UCLA study reported about 3.5% of the US population self-identifies as GLBT. Of that, just 0.3% are transgendered.
In statistics there is a rule-of-thumb called the "3 sigma rule" (or the "68-95-99.7 rule"). Sigma represents one standard deviation. When describing a system, if your confidence level is beyond 3 Sigma, you have a reasonable description. 0.3% (100 - 99.7) is a very small number which does not invalidate the classification.
I have always had a problem with the "GLBT" grouping anyway, because it mixes behavior (G,L, and B) with an innate sense of being.
I see it as a straight up, Yes or No answer.
Statistics are just that a bunch of meaningless numbers trying to prove something that can't be proven.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on March 23, 2012, 11:31:24 AM
I see it as a straight up, Yes or No answer.
Statistics are just that a bunch of meaningless numbers trying to prove something that can't be proven.
I try to keep in mind that no system is perfect.
I would
tend to say, "yes" the vast majority of people are born "straight" - meaning their phenotype and "heterosexual orientation" match their genotype. If that were not the case, the species would have gone extinct.
(BTW is that a Joshua Tree in your avatar?)
Yes its a Joshua tree with a coyote drinking from the birdbath.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on March 23, 2012, 11:55:29 AM
Yes its a Joshua tree with a coyote drinking from the birdbath.
Oh I see in your bio that you are also in SoCal. It looked like familiar terrain.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on March 23, 2012, 11:31:24 AM
I see it as a straight up, Yes or No answer.
Statistics are just that a bunch of meaningless numbers trying to prove something that can't be proven.
LOL; what they say: there is facts, lies, and statistics :) Joke aside, there is some true in the statical view