Gay-nature or nurture. We want to know because we are curious but also because we just can’t help using information against each other.
So I’ve not read the actual study, but my practical response to this is…nature enjoys and thrives on variety so why wouldn’t it make sense for our sexualities and physicalities to be varied. And interesting that it’s a “womb” thing. Ladybusiness is powerful in many ways it seems. The number of things being turned off/on/washed over/triggered…it’s such a gorgeous idea, like a mosaic of possibility in a life support system, a living chrysalis of change and surprise. Why fight the beautiful outcomes?
My brilliant friend Heather noted this on my FB feed. I think it’s all spot on. Thoughts?:
“Okay I’m going to rain on the parade…sorry…just went to a talk about the problems of scientific studies of sexuality…
1. This wasn’t a study…it was simply an untested hypothesis. It’s a “mathematical model,” and thus doesn’t really prove anything.
2. What is the paper’s definition of homosexuality? It’s a bit problematic to be looking for a biological cause for a social identity/group. So what are they trying to explain? Same-sex attraction or same-sex sexual behaviour? The two aren’t synonymous, after all. And where do they place bisexual people? Or do they just lump them in with either heterosexual or homosexual, as most studies do? Or just ignore them completely?
3. The intro sentence of the study itself is a bit troubling: “THE COMMON occurrence of homosexuality is perplexing from an evolutionary perspective.” – That’s not exactly true, really. That sort of statement stems from the thought that homosexuality is something that demands explanation, whereas heterosexuality just makes evolutionary and logical sense…but then that only works if you ONLY think of heterosexuality in terms of reproduction, and the vast majority of heterosexual sex acts don’t actually result in a pregnancy. Hell, a lot of heterosexual sex acts CAN’T result in pregnancy.
4. Here I’ll mention the problem of assuming the evolutionary reason for sex is strictly about procreation…even sex that doesn’t result in pregnancy.
5. And now we’re kind of back at the problem of assuming a social identity (in this case heterosexuality) is somehow strictly caused by biology. Heterosexual is viewed as non-problematic evolutionarily…except heterosexual doesn’t actually exist without the social aspect…the term heterosexual requires the term heterosexual to make any kind of sense. “