Ten Points about the biology of Homosexuality

~from Jeffrey Satinover, chapter 1 - Same Sex Attraction: A Guide for Parents, 2003 This is important stuff. It is completely uncited and so very 'questionable', not in the sense of "probably false", but rather in the sense of worth looking into further. He is making the case informally to parents who are already convinced that homosexuality is wrong morally, and so not doing in depth academic work. But the academia behind the points could be seriously worth checking into. 1. Certain genes may in fact be linked to homosexuality. But no true scientist would honestly say they are determinatively linked; though most would say they are associatively linked. The difference is in whether there is any human effort in homosexuality or not. "Associative genes" produce dispositions, but nothing more. 2. The likliness that this gene would actually contribute to the make-up of the whole child is only 10-25% probable, at best. (He is statistically refuting activist claims of 50-100% probability...). 3. When a population shows higher incidents of homosexuality: the probability that the cause of the incident growth is genetic decreases, while the probability that he cause is not genetic increases. Thus, population frequency and genetic probability are inversley relational. 4. Some cultures of past have practiced gay activities; in many cultures upperclass men utilized boy concubines in sexual gratification. This is a highly publicized point that has absolutely no genetic connection whatsoever. Based on these pointsso far, we can deduce two "strains" of homosexuality: 1) genetically associated, and 2) cultural. 5. Given that cultures have existed where there is recorded increased incidents of homosexuality, AND probability shows that increased incidents mean decreased genetics, we can safely say that culture and homosexuality are strongly linked. In other words: Greater cultural acceptance = greater incidents of homosexuality & Lesser cultural acceptance = lesser incidents of homosexuality. 6. Much of what we "deem" genetic, is actually only traceable to innate, prenatal influences. European studies of hormonal effects show that women produce androgenic hormones for male developing babies and they produce estrogenic hormones for female developing babies. This is especially huge in the area of brain development. Some women do have mismatches and male babies grow up in female hormones and vice versa. This is extremely rare. However, it is estimated that where real prenatal influences are behind homosexual activity, its influence is purely dispositional and even then only possibly 10-50% of the actual predistposition of the individual. 7. The remaining 50-90% of an individual's predispostion is attributed to subjective reactions to 1) reinforced behavior, and 2) natural innate dispostitions. (Everyone has certain dispositons toward some type of behavior, but not everyone gives in to to those dispositions...e.g. alcoholism, etc). 8. Whatever combination of genetics actually do exist, they most likely contribute to something totally different than homosexuality (ie. effemanism) that makes homosexuality look like a more available option. (He tells the analogy of a tall, athletic man being born different than most people and becoming a basketball player; but he was not "born" a basketball player...). 9. In light of population genetics and the significance of replacement rates, you would think homosexuals who do not produce children to replace themselves would "breed themselves out". This does not take place if: 1) a mysterious, mutant gene spontaneously appears from no inheritable source and then, across society, with increasing similarity and frequency, or 2) the gene that causes homosexuality is passed on through hetero-sexual relations, meaning it is not as influential a gene as we are calling it in society these days. 10. He talks profusely about reading agendas into research. He mentions back page rebuttals to front page claims about biological confirmations of homosexuality. Basically, he says, always be wary of people assured that homosexuality is biological. No scientist has validated any studies done so far. Therefore: 1) homosexuality COULD still be more biological than we've seen so far, though only in spite of points 1-9, or 2) homosexuality unitl 1973 was considered a diagnosable mental disorder; it could be that the unfounded information used and still being sought will never show up and we should reconsider the psychology of homosexuality once again.