New Theory: Sexual Orientation Determined by Brain Hemisphere Dominance 
One California author believes he's found the missing link to the physiological source of sexual orientation, and it lies in the brain, not the loins.       
BY Sunnivie Brydum  August 06 2012 4:00 AM ET

http://www.advocate.com/health/2012/08/06/new-theory-says-sexual-orientation-determined-brain-hemisphere-dominance


A Northern California author says he's discovered the missing link that explains the biological source of sexual orientation. While doing research for his recent book, The Whole-Brain Path to Peace, James Olson stumbled upon what he says is the direct correlation between hemispheric dominance in the brain and whether a person is gay or straight.
Olson's theory portends that both heterosexual men and lesbians are generally dominated by the left hemisphere of the brain, which is committed to sequential, thought-oriented processes. And heterosexual women and gay men are much more likely to be dominated by the right hemisphere of the brain, which regulates feeling and cultural awareness.Olson believes that current research looking for a "gay gene" is searching in the wrong place. Rather, Olson contends, sexual orientation is determined by brain hemisphere dominance. Most men are left-brain dominant, whereas most women are right-brain dominant. Seizing on the implication that "most" necessarily excludes some people, Olson wondered what happened when brain dominance was reversed from the standard. After reviewing a large collection of scientific literature, Olson hypothesized that when a man is right-brain dominant or a woman is left-brain dominant, that person will be gay or lesbian.

Dearie me - so all men and lesbians are masculine blah blah ...and ignoring the entire body of research showing that left-right brain dominance is often switched over the other way in left-handed people. This is like a time-warp back to the 70's .

It also seems to imply that sexual orientation and gender expression are the same and interchangeable when they are clearly two different things.

Yes, it's like some 12-year-olds' class debate, not science. Seriously, I heard this sort of nonsense being debunked back in the 80's.

Note: the theorist is an author not an academic.


Says it all really.


Bad mood today.

Quite. It's like saying "A northern California barista says he's discovered..."

I agree that there are many myths regarding the extent and meaning of brain lateralization.  Although I believe that there is a neurological basis for gender dysphoria, brain lateralization is not likely. Please refer to the following which is one of many studies denouncing the hyperbole around this issue.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/258066?uid=3739600&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21100966464623

I gotta admit, this one made me headdesk.  As in, actually headdesk.  In my office.  Oh well, they probably just think I'm fighting with Lotus Notes again  .

It's surprising how much of a hold the left brain/right brain idea has over the public consciousness.  I've seen teachers using it just a couple of years ago in an attempt to define students' learning styles.

Quote from: Padma on August 07, 2012, 01:16:22 AM
Quite. It's like saying "A northern California barista says he's discovered..."

Heyyy....a lot of northern California baristas have PhDs, y'know!

...but not necessarily a relevant one .

So I'm a MTF that is attracted to women.. does that mean that i'm really just a "pretty" straight guy.. hmmm... me thinks some else may be the cause here...

Apologies for my late response, but I only recently discovered this.

Based on the comments it appears that no one has read my paper.  I certainly don't think that all men and lesbians are masculine, but most men and lesbians (based on hard science and empirical evidence) see reality from a left-brain perspective, which although not masculine per se, is the perspective we associate we most males. The problems we have in understanding what is happening in human sexuality is in large part due to its immense diversity. We can make generalizations, as I have, and explain most experiences, but because of the diversity we there are many exceptions. Not everyone will fit into the generalizations, but still, they serve as a broad guide from which to start. Human sexuality exists on a continuum that has no divisions or categories other than those we apply (rightly or wrongly) in our attempts to better understand its components.

Handedness is mentioned in the comments and is one of the factors that help determine how we use our brain. I tend to work around handedness simply because I have met so many people who tell me they were forced to write with one hand or the other, thus skewing the way they use their brain. This is just one of several cultural forces that can affect the way we use our brain.  In effect, there is a natural inherited brain dominance—which is the focus of my research— and then there are a variety of cultural factors that alter the way we use our brain. The latter naturally confuses the process of research.

As for the 70s, are you aware that Roger Sperry won a Nobel Prize in 1981 for his 70's research into brain lateralization?  Yes, there were some flawed interpretations of his work, and now there are new discoveries about the split brain that adjust his findings—and these have served to create some confusion—but this research continues and in Michael Gazzaniziga's new book he restates the obvious—that the two hemispheres are so different that they seem to have totally separate experiences of life. And why not, the dualistic left analyizes (takes things apart), the holistic right synthesizes (puts things together)—and this is just one of many examples of their complementary nature.  They are specialist that work together as a team.  And when they are reversed, and a guy is directed by his right-brain rather than his left, it makes all the difference in the world!  And we have to remember that the same wide range of response that we find in heterosexuals can be found in homosexuals.

Dalebert, nothing I have found or written about suggests that sexual orientation and gender expression are the same. Gender expression arises from our perspective, the first step in perception (perspective>perception>action/behavior) and is relatively simple: we have two fundamental perspectives, the left-brain's dualistic and the right-brain's holistic. Sexual orientation arises from a complex combination of two factors: primarily, but not limited to, the sexuality of our body and our perspective along with the perception we create based on it.  This creates four types of beings: males directed by a dualistic perspective, males directed by a holistic perspective, females directed by a holistic perspective, and females directed by a dualistic perspective (body type being relatively fixed; perspective being extremely variable). Please read my paper.  http://thewholebrainpath.com/role.html   I've done lots of radio interviews. I would be happy to talk with you.  My paper also explains where transgenderists and transsexuals fit into the big picture.

Lauraiti, science has come a long way since the 25 year-old paper you recommend was published. I notice that it quotes, among others, Michael Gazzaniga, whose latest book states that the conscious experience of the two hemispheres are specialized and very different, a conclusion so well supported by research, say Gazzaniga, that he describes it as "obvious." Instead of referring to someone whose speciality is disorders of the nervous system, I suggest you read the work of people whose speciality is brain lateralization, say, The Right Mind by Robert Ornstein, or My Stroke of Insight by Jill Bolte Taylor, or the recent works of Michael Gazzaniga, such as Who's in Charge?  Yes, there are myths out there.  I tried to avoid them by relying on the the top experts and doing basic research.

So, where do individuals who have had a hemispherectomy fall in? They have only one half of their brain, yet that one half can function, for the most part, as a whole brain. Not to mention, people who have had this procedure do not fall within the hemispheric binary that is mentioned above.

take it with a grain of salt, Olson has not publish his hypothesis or his work in any peer-review scientific journal.

Peky, James Olson is two posts above you! Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on November 05, 2012, 03:33:52 PM
Peky, James Olson is two posts above you! Hugs, Devlyn

I stand by my comment. Mr. Olson have you publish you hypothesis or work in any peer-review journal?

Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Apr;34(2):167-72.
Handedness, functional cerebral hemispheric lateralization, and cognition in male-to-female transsexuals receiving cross-sex hormone treatment.
Wisniewski AB, Prendeville MT, Dobs AS.
SourceDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. amy.wisniewski@drake.edu

Abstract
This study examined the impact of sex hormones on functional cerebral hemispheric lateralization and cognition in a group of male-to-female transsexuals receiving cross-sex hormone therapy compared to eugonadal men with a male gender identity. Cerebral lateralization was measured with a handedness questionnaire and a visual-split-field paradigm and cognitive tests sensitive to sex hormone exposure (identical pictures, 3-D mental rotation, building memory) were also administered. Endocrine measures on the day of participation for transsexual and control subjects included total testosterone, free testosterone, estradiol, gonadotropins, and sex hormone binding globulin concentrations. Compared to controls, male-to-female transsexuals had elevated estradiol and sex hormone binding globulin concentrations and suppressed testosterone concentrations. Transsexual subjects showed a trend toward less exclusive right-handedness than controls. No group differences were observed on the visual-split-field or cognitive tasks. No direct associations were observed between endocrine measures and the laterality measures and cognitive performance. Previous observations of female-typical patterns in cerebral lateralization and cognitive performance in male-to-female transsexuals were not found in the current study.

With respect to the doubters, it seems a little premature.

If the theory is seeking to demonstrate one possible explanation then it may have some credibility. I confess, that while I follow some of it, it isn't particularly my field.

I myself, put forward a postulate which I have been working on since the start of the 70s, suggesting that gender identity and sexual orientation may have a link to cultural necessity in early humans.

To briefly recap, There is ample evidence indicating  that gender identity problems and homosexuality are persistent throughout history. That despite routine persecution of these varients, they continue to persist.

We know also,  that human males tend to form themselves into peer groups, based upon a dominant male, the alpha, some betas and a mass of contenders under them. While females tend to form themselves into peer groups where there is an alpha, surrounded by contenders of varying status, depending upon how close they are to the alpha female.

I postulated that humans have been feral creatures for most of their existence. That they lived in hostile environments. That males, necessarily would go on the hunt while females would remain at camps, caring for young. It is conceivable that essentially, non-breeding member of the tribe could have been held in high value to protect vulnerable nursing females.

I fully appreciate that my postulate is generally dismissed, and this latest seem to be treated in a similar fashion. This seems rather harsh and possibly ignorant. These are not being posted as fact as such, neither are they being posted as a universal explanation. But rather as some of possible explanation as to why people like us actually exist.

At the very least they may go some way to back up the claims of those who have suggested that homosexuality and gender identity problems are genetic or at the very least, biological.

There was a time when this was equally important to me, when male homosexuals were dismissed as bottom obscessed perverts, a danger t women, children and dogs while female homosexuals were just bored, waiting for the 'right' man.

Now, I really don't care. I take the view that people living peacefully, hopefully falling in love and contributing to their society is somewhat more important than who they do it with.

OK, some sanity check!

Anybody is entitle to his or her opinions, and when it comes to sciences you may want to express you ideas as hypothesis.

However, Mr Olsen call his idea a "Theory." In sciences a "Theory" is a series of verified and repeatable facts that explain a given phenomena.

The medical literature is replete of papers that demonstrate beyond a doubt that certain brain processes and/or structures are asymmetric and gender specific. Indeed, data has accumulated indicating that for certain functions transgender individuals either fell withins their self identified gender or somewhere between genders.

However, it has also been documented beyond doubt that in some cases the in-gender differences are more than the between gender.

Another important point is that the brain superior activities are holistic, that is they are the product of many centers acting in concert. So, the whole brain dominance -while true for some specific task- is not absolute and indeed is a minority effect. 

I'm sure the terminologies were used incorrectly by accident. There is no indication, as far as I know, that Mr Olsen made any claims of specific scientific research.

However, if we look at the main scientific theories that have been put forward in my life time alone.

In the 60s, male homosexuals were bottom obscessed, stuck in the Fruedian anal phase. I heard this from Scoience teachers and Drs, mainly in articles. Female homosexuals were just waiting for the right man! Male Cross dressers were just pervert fetishists. (After all, some articles went, this was often done during the War when putting on a show! Eh What? Pass the gin). Anyone who wanted to change sex was just an extream and therefora much more dangerous, cross dresser. Females don't apply. not the same thing ect.

Then come the 70s. Universities all over the wrold turn their attention to gender. All Men are Rapists. Later, sex change types want to castrate themselves to invade the womens' movement.

Now, think about this last claim, backed and still backed, by universities, including professors, all over the world. Think about just a fww of the several thousands of utterly decent women, who have been and still on, these pages. According to the most up to date scientific theories, all of them have risked everything, often loosing everything, they have spent years and fortunes, just so they can sneek over to a group of girls nad listen into whatever it is they are saying, between giggles.

I'm sorry, but those are the facts. And they make no sense at all. (I've heard what girls say and it's mostly starting somehting then gigging. They never talk about doing it to each other).

So, the current ideas are:

1. Psychological disturbance during growing up, causing the individual to hate/fear ther own sexuality. They seek to alter the most fundimental aspect of themselevs as a sort of Schizophrenic Simplex symptom. Very young children who say these things, (I was 4 but some are as young as 2, others much older, even adults), do so because of conscious or unconscious encouragement from a parent, secretly wanting a child of the opposite gender! Sort of one step beyond the anal phase theory.

2. A part of the brain, which normally is different sizes between males and females, seems to be of the female size in some transgender gmales.

3. Still with the castrating themselves to invade the women's movement but now with added: legitimisation of sexual contact with fathers and daughters, (Greer), guilty homosexuals, wester Middle class women are superior and therefore more culpable than non-wentern middle class women, (Prof Jefferies), lesbianism is a viable choice between submitting yourself to oppressive men or being alone, (Bindle).

4. It is benign. It can bring clear releif to many suffering men (sic). No evidence of any criminality or antisocial behaviour from from this group. No medical or sociological reasons to oppose it. (How nice!  )

5. Something I proposed initially in the 70s and have been working on ever since. Though it is just a set of postulates, conjectures and assumptions. That gender and sexual variations are a genetic throwback to the feral period of human development, when essentially, non-breeding members of a tribe would tend to guard vulnerable nursing women and babies, while the men went on the hunt. (I make no claims for this, I started it at 14 when I needed to understand beyond accepting I was a bottom obscessed prevert. It is simply an explaination nopw which keep me sane, rather like those people who believe their tormentors will go to hell after they die).

6. Brain hemispheric explainations. I first heard this in the 70s but dismissed it then, partly because others did but also because I preferred seeing myself as a legitimate evolutionary marvel, rather than as someone with a problem with my brain. But Mr Olsen seems to have expanded it.

And I'm sure there's more.

If someone hadn't put forward the notion of perfect circles, it seems unlikely that eventually, people wouldn't have any understanding of the mechanisms of the universe. So, at least some people are making positive efforts and I suggest should be encouraged.