Although it is always good when research confirms previous findings, the “older brother” phenomenon has been documented for quite a while. In fact, at the last 3 Pride events in DC, researchers have been actively looking for gay men with gay brothers to further examine the phenomenon, I believe. As a sole son with only an older sister, I was not able to participate (and as I don’t have any older brothers, unless you count the miscarriage my mother had after only a few weeks of pregnancy, I consider myself a rare specimen :-))
Actually CPT — I think you may be eligible for these studies provided you know the details. Don’t know about this particular study criterea, but if your Mum lost a male baby, the maternal immune effect still operates.
Haven’t got the study at hand that took this into account (3 years ago?), but knowing you… you prob’ly know which study we mean anyway 🙂 Or will find out.
I have THREE older brothers. Apparently, I never had a chance. ;>
Since it’s a prenatal thing (apparently), our second adopted son (now five) may escape this dire fate. I suspect his older brother (now nine) will turn out straight*, given his utter and complete disinterest in girls and anything girlish at this point. Little brother – well, at five his main interest in life is tormenting his older brother, which isn’t evidence of anything except being a younger brother.
This research doesn’t prove either way because the causation of the homosexuality wasn’t studied. All the research does is *observe* that younger brothers are more likely to be homosexual, but there is NO biological data to go alongside to show why. That means that when he says “It might be like the maternal immune response that can occur when a mother has Rh-negative blood but her fetus has Rh-positive blood” that statement is plucked out of thin air. I could say “It could be that the more older brothers one has, the more one compares oneself to them and then feels inadequate about one’s own masculinity”, but without any evidence to prove that I’m just whistling up a path of my own choosing.
The closest we get is the observation that “increase in the likelihood of being gay was seen only in those whose brothers had the same mothers, whether they were raised together or not, he said. Men raised with several older step- or adopted brothers do not have an increased chance of being gay”, but the research is incomplete. There is no data as to what point in the gay child’s life the step-family enters. The “nurture” effect could already have taken place before the step-brothers join the family.
Don’t get me wrong; research like this is really useful, but we need to read it through a correct lens. It seems as thought there are gaps in the dataset that need to be filled in order to support the hypothesis presented by the researchers
True Peter — if they had asked if they felt less masculine, and it could be accurately determined rather than being imposed by a latter day therapist. (Pun intended, but not about you). But that’s been done before. And dead end.
The good — horrid — thing about such hard science research is that is doesn’t rely on what people claim to be. One is either born with an older brother, or one is not.
The real implication is that FAMILY ENVIRONMENT will have nothing to do with the subject, and can actually be measured and proved; wishful thinking ignored. The family environment (I have little doubt) may be enough to freak the gay kid out, but it doesn’t make the kid gay.
And where, oh where, does that place some people 🙂
One of the arguments against a biological basis for orientation is the notion that evolution would weed out the gene and not pass it on to succeeding generations. I’ve been thinking about thise for the past week or so, even before this latest study.
This observation about birth order and male homosexuality could relate to a need in earlier social structures.
If we recall that until very recently (in evolutionary terms) human existence was tied to clan structure, with a strong male leader. It makes sense to me that there could be an advantage to having less threat for dominance and for access to females from younger male siblings. It could be that those genes that did not result in warring males within a family could have an advantage.
In other words, those women whose sons did not fight over females may have had more descendents from the fewer males than those whose sons killed each other. The younger brothers might have served as allies for older brothers rather than a threat.
I’ve not really worked this through yet, but I think there may be something there.
“I can’t wait for the religious right to make up their own explanations for this.”
I’ll be interested in seeing Warren Throckmorton’s take on this. I know in the past he’s acknowledged that there does seem to be some pre-natal effect relating to older brothers.
However, until he lets us know, I suspect it will be that there are some predisposition in some younger brothers towards feminization and it is the environmental (society, family’s, etc.) response to that feminization that leads to homosexuality. I’m guessing that he’ll say that this is both avoidable and recoverable.
Obviously, I don’t buy into the two step process but since it would be a strawman argument to debate what I’m GUESSING would be Throckmorton’s position, I’ll leave it at that.
I think you misunderstand the point I’m making. Take for example the issue of the step-families. It could be that having older step-brothers has no effect because it’s a biological thing. OR it could be that having older step-brothers has no effect because the nurture element of homosexuality occurs in the years before the step-family forms. The research doesn’t have data to examine this and therefore one CAN’T make the suposition that the step-family data supports a biological causation.
The reseach DOESN’T prove that family environment doesn’t affect sexuality. Rather it shows that the addition of step-brothers to the family has no additional effect to the presence of biological brothers. That’s two entirely different things. Whether the effect of biological older brothers produces a nurture or nature causation effect is not shown by the study.
Sorry to be so pedantic, but I have a degree in hard sums specialising in stats, and I used to work in the banking industry doing stats, so I’m used to examining data-sets and discerning what they do (and don’t) say.
Timothy, that’s interesting. In a wolf pack, only the dominant male and female breed. The rest of the pack – including the males – all take part in raising the pups. There may be an evolutionary symmetry there.
Also Timothy — let’s not forget the last bit of research that presented mothers with gay children as having more than the average number of children. Hence, nett positive child bearing. Italy 2005, damn, I know you’ll ask me to go find that ref.
And if evolutionary efficiency, rather than sufficiency, was all that mattered we would have a less flipping organs that we actually do have. It’s a struggle of the fittest, not a struggle of the perfect.
Otherwise we’d have better eyes. Blame The Great Designer… S/He got it right with squid, but bummed out with humans… 🙂
Even if a biological factor can be proven conclusively, the people who insist that ex-gay is the way (and that same-gender loving people are sinful) will not change their tune.
As one of my ex-gay handlers (the director of a large ex-gay program) once told us in session when he admitted that he didn’t know if gayness was caused by nature or nurture. He stated hat even if it were a genetic issue, a gay gene, he would still fight it (and insist that others fight too).
He then taught us that Indians (aka Native Americans, First Nation People) have a genetic disposition to alcoholism. Should they embrace their alcoholism and have drunk pride parades? No!
Even though it is biological, that natural urge needs to be fought or it will destory the person (and the community–a slippery slope that I imagine ultimately leads to casinos).
In the same way, he concluded, if there is a gay gene, it is a BAD gene, a defect, an inborn sinful inclination that needs to be overcome–scientific proof of a sinful nature.
So many things wrong with his teaching that I have no idea where to begin.
One of the arguments against a biological basis for orientation is the notion that evolution would weed out the gene and not pass it on to succeeding generations. I’ve been thinking about thise for the past week or so, even before this latest study.
I had a post up on my blog, entitled Peacocks and Homosexuals, that discussed that:
Basically, from the peacock study: if you don’t pass on your genes, but you help your siblings pass on theirs, then your family genes get passed on and that is enough. If a trait is recessive, not everyone has to express it, for it to get passed on. Far in the human past, those groups who had a few individuals who forgo reproduction in favor of helping the rest survive, may have had a survival edge over groups that didn’t.
Homosexual members in the family or tribe, provided they’re accepted and given a place in the social structure, not having offspring of their own, could see to the needs of the whole, and that I think is the survival edge that makes homosexuality make sense from an evolutionary point of view. If the youngest sibling effect turns out to be real, I think that fits in nicely.
I’m mom’s only and dad’s oldest. I’ve noticed over the course of my life that of the guys I’ve dated, about half of them were middle brothers, and half youngest.
“OR it could be that having older step-brothers has no effect because the nurture element of homosexuality occurs in the years before the step-family forms.”
You are making an over-reaching assumption: that step-families are created AFTER the birth of younger children. This seems counter-intuitive. If we are talking about younger siblings, it seems much more likely that these boys are born into families in which there are children of the father by a previous marriage rather than later-merged families.
I would think it odd if that was not taken into consideration (what relevance would it be to the study if the child had older brothers that he gained when he was eight?). I wonder why you assume that the researchers are less likely to see the obvious than you or I.
Until such time as you actually read the study, disputing the results by challenging factors that (most likely) are not present are nothing but strawman arguments.
If you have some evidence that this study included older step-brothers that were added at some later date, present it. Otherwise, don’t claim it.
Even if a biological factor can be proven conclusively, the people who insist that ex-gay is the way (and that same-gender loving people are sinful) will not change their tune.
I had almost exactly the same discussion earlier today. There will always be a fall back position no matter how much data becomes available. But hopefully, along the way, a lot of reasonable people will understand and change their views. For a select group however, I suspect you are correct that this will never been the case.
Even if a biological factor can be proven conclusively, the people who insist that ex-gay is the way (and that same-gender loving people are sinful) will not change their tune.
The fact that race (or those characteristics we usually ascribe to race) is genetic sure hasn’t mollified racists has it?
I’ve heard the comparison to alcoholism before. But there is a wee difference between consuming alcohol and having sex. You raise a group of humans in an isolated part of the world with no contact with nor knowledge of alcohol and you won’t see them spontaneously build a still. But put the boys and the girls together at the right age, and they’ll be making babies whether you told them anything about sex or not.
Sex isn’t a human invention, it’s an instinct older then the fish, let alone the mammals, let alone the primates. And it is intricately woven into our consciousness; in particular, into our need for intimate companionship. Human children have long childhoods and it makes sense that sex would not only produce babies, but also create a deep, intimate bond between a couple. The sex drive is different in that fundamental way from alcohol addiction. It’s an urge that springs from the process of life. That part of ourselves isn’t a blackboard anyone can just erase and re-write.
You can break the bottle to heal yourself. But you can’t break your heart to heal yourself.
Once again I think I’m slightly misunderstood. I’m not saying that the step-families were post child-birth of the gay child, rather I’m saying that the study doesn’t address that point and so to use it to argue in favour of nurture doesn’t totally work.
And please don’t get me wrong on this. There have been a number of pieces of research recently that seem to point more and more to some kind of nature element in sexual orientation. All I’m doing is asking us to be careful that we claim with conviction what the research does actually say RATHER than what it *might* say.
Peterson / Bruce – The alcoholism thing is very interesting, far less for the comparison over the relative morality of the two activities (alcohol consumption / homosexual activity) and far more to do with the question of whether anything that is natural is necessarily moral. Interesting.
I think the main reason the exgays world objects to the biological origin theory of homosexuality is not so much the “right or wrong” of it, but the argument about whether it can be changed. For them, their whole reparative therapy model is built on the position that it’s a psychological problem which can be “fixed” through therapy.
If homosexuality is genetic, then the Moberley Model dies and so does NARTH.
“I’m saying that the study doesn’t address that point and so to use it to argue in favour of nurture doesn’t totally work.”
From the limited amount I’ve read, there is NOTHING to suggest that the study DID NOT address the point of biological brothers being present in the family at birth. It appears that the point of the study was to determine whether nurture could be eliminated from the equation of incidences of younger gay sons. It would seem to me that a study designed to determine if older brothers had a socializing impact that differed between birth mothers, they would keep the other situations the same.
To claim that they did not keep the other factors the same, and then to claim that this makes the study ineffective for determining what they set out to determine is a very strong claim.
“The alcoholism thing is very interesting, far less for the comparison over the relative morality of the two activities (alcohol consumption / homosexual activity) and far more to do with the question of whether anything that is natural is necessarily moral. Interesting.”
Yes it is interesting. For millenia alcoholism was not considered immoral. Getting drunk repetitively, while frowned on, was not immoral (provided you were not violent and it did not impact your ability to provide for your family). And yet just this year the Southern Baptist Church voted that anyone who consumed alcohol in moderation (or even on rare occasion such as a wedding) could not be a minister or leader in the church. Interesting.
Then again, so very many things have been considered immoral over the years. Some things that seem completely natural (such as wearing clothes that are relevant to your climate) take on overtones of morality with immigrant communities. Another example might be the length of a person’s hair (lots of Biblical quotes there but most of them are now ignored).
I really think “morality” has less to do with religion than it has to do with culture, economics, and social positioning. Ethics, on the other hand, seem to hold onto some meaning and are less subjective.
Come on guys. Evangelical Christians are not big fans of Darwinism. They will not endorse ANY (purely) biological theories of behavior. They cite a “soul” that no evolutionary psychologist would find it worthwhile to mention.
And a Darwinist would be happy to theorize on both the biological origins of homosexuality and the biological origins of homophobia.
I think the main reason the exgays world objects to the biological origin theory of homosexuality is not so much the “right or wrong” of it, but the argument about whether it can be changed. For them, their whole reparative therapy model is built on the position that it’s a psychological problem which can be “fixed” through therapy.
If homosexuality is genetic, then the Moberley Model dies and so does NARTH.
Not necessairly. Instead of closing shop, they could also follow the old (but more factual) steps of the antigay endocrinologist Gunter Dorner; perhaps by regulating the mother’s environment conditions during pregnancy, or advocate chemical castration. I don’t think they’d go as far as advocating James Watson’s ideas on the subject though, since it involves abortion.
Like I said before there’s an easy (and certainly unethical) way of removing unwanted sexual attractions: chemical castration and lobotomy. Dorner studied the method of lobotomy performed on pedophiles in the 1960s, which he considered a success. Fortunately the practice came to a near stop in the 70s dur to ethical issues.
Which reminds me of a longtime question, how many ex-gays would be willing to go under the knife to remove unwanted same-sex attractions? Can anyone here answer this question?
These studies could be used to support the hypothesis that pre-natal hormones are having an influence, as also suggested by twin and triplet studies.
And as to the evolutionary reasoning behind why gay folk keep cropping up in the gene pool, there are a number of studies which show increased fecundity of relatives of gay men. e.g.
Female relatives of gay men had more children on average than female relatives of straight men. The effect was only seen on their mother’s side of the family:
Camperio Ciani A. et al
Evidence for the influence of a genetic factor on both the likelihood of male homosexuality and the female fecundity.
Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, vol. 26(3), pp. 151, 2003.
and
“We found increased fecundity in the relatives of gay men and this is one explanation of how a genetic influence might persist in spite of reduced reproductive fitness in the gay phenotype.” [note that this was only one of a number of possible explanations]:
King, M. et al
Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Feb;34(1):117-22.
“OR it could be that having older step-brothers has no effect because the nurture element of homosexuality occurs in the years before the step-family forms.”
You are making an over-reaching assumption: that step-families are created AFTER the birth of younger children. This seems counter-intuitive. If we are talking about younger siblings, it seems much more likely that these boys are born into families in which there are children of the father by a previous marriage rather than later-merged families.
If I am reading the reports on the subject correctly, the study also includes adoption, in addition to step-families, to argue that only a biological explanation could be the basis for the finding.
Tim Dailey, a senior fellow at the conservative Center for Marriage and Family Studies disagreed.”We don’t believe that there’s any biological basis for homosexuality,” Dailey said. “We feel the causes are complex but are deeply rooted in early childhood development.”
Dr. Tim Dailey’s ‘scientific’ credentials: Dr. Dailey received his bachelors’ degree in Bible and Theology from Moody Bible Institute, his M.A. in Theological Studies at Wheaton College, and his Ph.D. in Religion from Marquette University. In addition, Dr. Dailey has completed graduate study at the University of Wisconsin; Milwaukee; Jerusalem University College; Jerusalem; and Hebrew University; Jerusalem.
I think you miss the point. I’m simply criticising the study from a statistics point of view. The study shows that older brothers increases the likelihood that a male child is homosexual but:
i) To use it to statistically suggest that there might be a hormonal precursor to homosexuality is an invalid stastistical judgement to make because the data on the presence of the specific hormones in the mother has not been collected.
ii) The research DOESN’T make any allowance for when the adoptive/step family creation occured, which therefore draws into suspicion the results drawn from it in this regard.
I’m not coming from this from any pro/anti perspective. Rather I’m simply assessing the research as presented with my “hard sums” hat on. I used to get paid (quite a bit as it happens as I was good at it) to do this kind of analysis and thinking.
A MUCH better piece of research is the paper a few months back looking at chromosomal variations in mothers and “gay” children. That paper (I forget for the moment who did the research) shows a much clearer link between a biological factor in the mother (chromosomes) and a behavioural trait in the son (homosexuality) and should be taken very seriously (and certainly much more seriously then this more recent paper).
Let me add one more thing to clarify. Two basic things we need to get sorted:
i) It is a basic statistical premise that you cannot draw a conclusion about the effect of an input variable upon the dependent variable when the input variable data is not available.
ii) Statistical correlation does not prove causality, merely correlation
I.e. I have a dataset of fathers and sons with a dummy flag for whether the father support the Chicago Bulls, whether the father has a Chicago Bulls T-Shirt and whether the son supports the Chicago Bulls. So the Data Set looks a bit like this:
#, F Sup CB, F CB T, S Sup CB
1, 1, 1, 1
2, 0, 1, 1
3, 1, 1, 1
4, 0, 0, 0
…
Now – analysing the data we find a strong correlation between the Father supporting the Bulls and the Son supporting the Bulls. It is reasonable to surmise from our understanding of family dynamics that the Father supporting the Bulls is the causation of the Son supporting the Bulls.
However, we also find a very strong correlation between the Father having a Bulls T-Shirt and the Son supporting the Bulls. Does that mean that the Father having a Bulls T-Shirt causes the Son to support the Bulls?
The answer is no – further step analysis shows that the Bulls supporting Father is the most dominant factor and once you include that data and THEN look at the effect of the father having a Bulls T-Shirt there is almost no additional effect on the son supporting the Bulls.
What we have here are two variables (T-Shirt wearing and Son supporting) which depend on the first (Father supporting). However, because the dependencies are closely related, THOUGH INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER, wrongly analysing the data might lead one to assume that the Father wearing a t-shirt caused the son to support the Bulls, because there is such a high correlation between them.
I’m afraid to say these are the basic kinds of statistical errors made when trying to analyse these types of research. We need to be very careful not to imply that correlation (or non-correlation) necessarily implies causation (or non-causation in the case of the older step/adoptive-brothers).
One statistical OBSERVATION is absolutely clear given the large amount of research done, namely that younger brothers are more likely to exhibit homosexual attraction and behaviour. However the leap from that observation to a statement on causation is a step that needs very clear data and a constant reminding of the chief statistical analytical fact that many ignore:
Correlation DOES NOT IMPLY causation
Non-correlation DOES NOT IMPLY non-causation
There are a number of conditions in children (e.g. Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD), the condition covered in the film Lorenzo’s Oil) where there is an observable link between a biological condition in the mother and the symptom in the child. In the case of ALD there is an easily observable correlation between a faulty gene in the child (interestingly enough found on Xq28, the same place Hamer thought he’d found genetic causation of homosexuality, research that has since been discredited) and the mother bearing a gene that is passed on recessively.
However, and this is the crucial point, although you can make the observation about the correlation of the two seperate bits of data (faulty Xq28 in the child and the recessive gene in the mother), that doesn’t prove biological causation. The proof of biological causation is when we observe the actual genetic handover of material from mother to son and can trace it through the whole gestation of the child and then it’s upbrining. Once we can show observationaly that the defective chromosome is passed onto the child, AND THAT THERE IS NO OTHER INFLUENCE ON THAT GENE ONCE PRESENT IN THE CHILD, only then can we claim biological causation. Up till that point we simply have an observation of a correlation, not a causation. For example, it could be that the Xq28 section that is passed on is the perfect one from the father, but
some other factor inherited from the mother triggers the defect while the child is in the womb. It could be that some enviromental factor triggers the defect (not likely I know but I raise the example to show the variety of possibilities). The bottom line is that without the clear scientific evidence of the chain of causation all that we have is observation.
And yes, we do know that ALD is caused by a recessive gene handed onto the child – but we know that because we can observe the entire biological chain of causation.
It’s a subtle statistical / scientific point but it’s vitally important.
So basically, anti-gay Christian gropes evoke a theory they don’t even believe in, just to denounce homosexuality. [sarcasm]That makes so much sense.[/sarcasm]
No Audrey, it’s a bit more subtle. *Ex*-gay groups [sic] promote a developmental theory of sexuality (as an offshoot of the standard psychological understandings of child relational and sociological development) that they have seen walked out in the lives of many, many men and women, in the light of no substantial evidence of a direct biological causation of homosexuality.
…AND THAT THERE IS NO OTHER INFLUENCE ON THAT GENE ONCE PRESENT IN THE CHILD…
Okay…I’m a little fuzzy about your concept of genetic causation here. If the gene needs to be present for the effect to occur, even if that effect still needs an environmental factor or two to prompt it along, then how do you say that the trait is not genetic in nature? It seems to me it must be, or else the genes must be irrelevant. But if the genes are irrelevant, then why are they associated with the trait?
I don’t see how you can demonstrate that a trait is associated with a gene, and yet say the trait is not genetically influenced. Genes either play a roll or they don’t. And if they don’t, then why the correlation? I don’t think genes like to hang out with certain people with certain traits just because they happen to like those kinds of people.
You know…when Newton presented his work on gravity, he was criticized that he hadn’t explained how gravity actually worked. It was a very intricate and precise model for how it worked, but it was all based on observation of how the planets moved, not how the force was transmitted. He never saw that, and nobody ever has since. In point of fact, they’re still arguing about how gravity actually works.
“ii) The research DOESN’T make any allowance for when the adoptive/step family creation occured”
PROVE IT !!!
Prove that it DOESN’T make those allowances. Where’s your source? Have you read the report?
I keep saying that you have to prove this and instead of supporting your claim you just keep repeating it. Unless you are able to support this claim, I will request that Daniel remove any future posts on this thread that makes this unsubstantiated claim.
Further, Peter, for someone claiming to be a stats guy you totally missed it on your Chicago Bulls analogy.
This study did not attempt to prove causation but to eliminate a possible causation. This study made no claim that sexual orientation is genetic or hormonal or even pre-natal, but rather said that these were more likely because it eliminated one alternate theory.
And you are completely wrong when you say that “Non-correlation DOES NOT IMPLY non-causation”. Yes it DOES.
You can have correlation without causation but you CANNOT have causation without correlation. If a causes b, then by definition where you have b, there will be a statistically higher observation of a.
To use your example, Bulls-fans dads have a causal relationship with Bulls-fans sons. Thus when you observe Bulls-fan sons and Bulls-fans fathers, there’s going to be a correlation. If there’s no correlation, there’s no causation.
It has been observed that there is an increase in gay likelihood based on male birth order. If one were to argue that the “cause” for the observation is the presence of older brothers in the family dynamic, then by definition one must observe (at least statistically) the presense of older brothers. However, this study showed that the increase in gay younger sons was observable whether or not the older brothers were present.
Hence, we can remove “present older brothers” as the explanation for the observation. No correlation equals no causation.
Second, some might argue that the birth order might have something to do with the father or perhaps the standing (postition within the total children) in the family. So a comparison was made and it was determined that whether the father had previous sons or whether there were adopted children or other non-maternal older male siblings, it did not have an observable impact on the statistical results.
Hence, if there’s no correlation with older non-maternal male siblings, these too may be eliminated as a source of causation.
You seem to think that the researchers missed some point about at what moment the step-brothers became part of the equation. But you have presented nothing to show that this was missed.
Further, if step-brothers were not shown to impact the observation, then why do you think that the entry of step-brothers into the family is relevant? Assuming that the researchers were total dolts and not a genious like you, and assuming that they missed the boat and did not differentiate between step brothers at birth and step-brothers that the gay son did not hear about until he was 50, as long as the step-brothers DID NOT MAKE AN IMPACT on the observed increase in gay sons, then this is a completely immaterial distinction.
In other words, if there was NO correlation between fathers wearing Bulls T-Shirts and sons supporting the Bulls, then it really doesn’t matter if the T-Shirt says “Bulls” on the front or the back.
Third, “raised by mother” was shown to have no correlation.
Finally, this study does not “prove” that the increased incidence of gay sons by birth order is genetic. Or hormonal. Or biological in nature. But it does eliminate attitudes of mother, presense of brothers, and total number of older male persons.
Perhaps there’s some other as-yet-unproposed idea of what could result in an increased observance of gay sons based on male birth order, but I’ve not heard it from you or anyone else. Pre-natal causes are seeming more and more likely.
“*Ex*-gay groups [sic] promote a developmental theory of sexuality (as an offshoot of the standard psychological understandings of child relational and sociological development) that they have seen walked out in the lives of many, many men and women, in the light of no substantial evidence of a direct biological causation of homosexuality.”
Peter, please turn in your “analysis” card. Or go back to school and take a class in logic.
There are no objective studies that support the “developmental theory”. None, zilch, nada.
In fact, the closest that you can come to is a increased correlation between cross-gender play among children and gay men. Need I reference you to your comments above that correlation does not identify causation?
“..in the light of no substantial evidence of a direct biological causation of homosexuality..”
This, Peter, is making one of the weakest arguments that you can make. Basically it says “until you can prove me wrong then my unsupported position is right”. That is intellectually the equivalent of saying “God has green ears and there is not substantial evidence that His ears are pink and blue stripes”.
What makes this even more illogical is the fact that “substantial evidence” has been presented and you simply choose not to believe it. A thoughtful, logical, non-hostile observer would look at this study and say “hmmmmm, since all proposed nurture arguments have been eliminated, it sure looks like nature”. Bizarro anti-gay grasp-at-any-straw type people, however, try to find some flaw somewhere in the study, real or imagined, relevant to the results or not, and say “see, no substantial evidence”.
It must get embarrasing trying to defend illogical, irrational, and magical positions.
If I understand you correctly (I’m also taking into account your recent post on the subject at Warren Throckmorton’s site), you’re saying that this study has among other things eliminated the possibility that parental behaviour has any effect on the development of sexual orientation.
Could you tell me why you think this one study is enough to eliminate that possibility, and the need for further research/debate on the subject?
Well, I’m not sure that I’m making that bold of a statement. And certainly there is need for further research on the subject.
But if I understand the study correctly, and if its findings are replicated, it appears that for the subset of gay men for whom there is a correlation between their orientation and the number of older siblings they have (roughly one in seven gay men) it appears that certain environmental factors can be excluded from having a causal relationship with their sexual orientation. Those factors include the presense of older siblings in the household (maternally related or not) and residence with their natural parents.
While this does not prove that those particular men were “born gay”, it does lend credibility to the notion that for some gay men the etiology of their orientation resides in pre-natal influences. And it does suggest that parental behaviors cannot alone explain the increased incidences of gay sons.
Perhaps there is some as-of-yet unproposed environmental explanation that can allow one to dismiss all pre-natal impact, but that becomes increasingly unlikely after this study.
As for the criticism of my “statistics 101” you really are desperate for the above study to prove some form of biological causation. All the study does is prove a correlation between the number of natural older brothers one has and the increased likelihood of being gay. No-one is arguinig with that. What we are arguing with is the assumptions of the causation of homosexuality that are being incorrectly implied from that correlation.
The fact of the matter is that your statement “all proposed nurture arguments have been eliminated” is not true. The problem when you say “this study does not “prove” that the increased incidence of gay sons by birth order is genetic. Or hormonal. Or biological in nature” is that you are ignoring people even on the original post and this comment thread who are saying that very thing.
…you really are desperate for the above study to prove some form of biological causation.
With all due respect Peter, the only comments with a desperate tone seem to be yours. I don’t see any desperation in what Timothy is saying – frustration perhaps because you are not responding to requests but instead keep repeating yourself. I don’t believe any of us has seen the data yet (correct me if I am wrong), so we are discussing the preliminary comments by the researcher. If you have a problem with “the finding absolutely confirms a physical basis,” statement, you need to take that up with Prof. S. Marc Breedlove.
The increase in the likelihood of being gay was seen only in those whose brothers had the same mothers, whether they were raised together or not.
This is Bogaert’s basic conclusion but I’m sure there will be more interesting details in the full study. Inserting your own experience with financial statistics as somehow more authoritative than the opinions of the researchers themselves seems a bit arrogant, and yes a little desperate. This is not the first such study, but it is the first to substantially limit the effect of nurture in the equation. Let’s see how it withstands peer review before we make too many pronouncements.
As for the speculation on causation at the end of the article, the researcher calls that what it is, “a provocative hypothesis”.
Huh? What did Spitzer say about a developmental causation to orientation? If you have some source where he did, please state it. Otherwise I think the good doctor would be annoyed at you dropping his name and claiming he stated something that he did not.
“As for the criticism of my “statistics 101″ you really are desperate for the above study to prove some form of biological causation.”
Nope. Just clarifying that you are either a) not as good an analyst as you seem to think; b) allowing your emotions to cloud your objectivity; or c) attempting to deceive. To claim that there can be causation without correlation seriously challenges your credibility.
“All the study does is prove a correlation between the number of natural older brothers one has and the increased likelihood of being gay.”
No. That’s what Bogaert’s last study did. This one eliminated the known “nurture” variables. You seem to be unaware of that. How could this be?
“The fact of the matter is that your statement “all proposed nurture arguments have been eliminated” is not true.”
Name one. Come up with one good explanation THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE BIOLOGY of why for each subsequent male child there is roughly a 33% increase in the likelihood that this son will be gay. Go ahead. Use your analytical skills.
There may well be a “nurture” basis to this increased likelihood. But so far I haven’t heard one proposed.
On an earlier posting you said “It could be that the more older brothers one has, the more one compares oneself to them and then feels inadequate about one’s own masculinity” but eliminating that supposition was the whole point of this study. It’s hard to understand how you missed this point. Did you get the two studies confused?
I am sorry, Peter, if I seem to frustrated. But I’m finding it difficult to have a conversation with you. I don’t much like the “yeah, but” method of debate where one simply ignores what the other guy said, reiterates ones unsubstantiated claim, and changes the subject.
I’ve been following this thread with some interest, which has gradually been devolving into consternation. So far neither of you have bothered to quote from the actual study, so I figured I’d give you some links:
Here’s the abstract. It has a link to the full article, but in case that’s too much work, here it is! Beware, it’s in PDF format.
I expect both of you to have read that before you say another word. Don’t worry, it’s only four pages–and the fourth is just a list of endnotes.
Thanks Skemono. I was having trouble earlier in the week finding it (I learned computers by using punch cards).
The article is easy to read and understand. Based on the study:
The most consistent biodemographic correlate of sexual orientation in men is the number of older brothers, and, social and/or rearing factors do not affect men’s sexual orientation development.
I think I stepped too far when I dismissed being raised by the mother. Although this can be deduced from the adopted gay sons, it is not claimed by the researcher and so I cannot make that claim either.
NARTH Psychiatrist Joseph Berger, a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association has observed: “This study is yet another claim based upon superficial research that may be purely coincidental to or entirely unrelated to the conclusion that the researchers are proposing. … It is totally inappropriate for anyone to claim certainty in a study like this because such a claim is obviously political, not scientific in nature.”
“It is totally inappropriate for anyone to claim certainty in a study like this because such a claim is obviously political, not scientific in nature.”
OK, I can breath again. For a moment I thought I wouldn’t stop laughing. NARTH is saying that when a claim is political, you can’t believe the underlying study. NARTH. He he ahahaha.. whew, sorry. Sometimes irony is just too delicious.
Autumn, thanks for the link. Of course TVC is afraid to allow a direct XGW link so you have to copy it to a new browser page.
My favorite quote from TVC’s little blurb was:
“Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons has noted: “In my clinical experience a major issue in regard to older brothers is the rejection a younger brother often experiences from older male siblings. This is particularly the case when the younger brother is not good in sports and is called cruel names by the older brother.” ”
Ummm… did you read the report, Dr. Fitzgibbons, before you started drooling into your soup? The whole point of this study was to see if the presense of older brothers could have an impact on the eventual sexual orientation of younger brothers.
Perhaps you think that in the instances where the brothers were not raised together (adoption, etc.) the older brother was calling the younger brother cruel names by telepathy?
Either you are misquoted, Dr. Fitzgibbons (which, considering that the TVC has the credibility of Ken Lay), or you are an idiot.
Here’s the original NARTH article the TVC wrote their article from:Canadian Psychiatrist Finds Major Flaws In Anthony Bogaert’s Study Of Gay Brothershttps://www.narth.com/docs/bogaert.html–Well, here’s a try on a Tiny URL link to the TVC article: https://tinyurl.com/l7vht — hopefully going through a third party will make the link more accessable.
There is a conceptual leap based upon nothing other than an obvious personal wish/bias, from what may be an interesting chance finding based upon a small population sample to a generalization about the etiology of homosexuality.
You mean, like extrapolating from a few dozen self-proclaimed “ex-gays” to the assumption that the etiology of homosexuality is therefore parental in nature?
It is pretty clear from the NARTH response that they seem freaked about this latest finding. Despite their protestations to the contrary, I believe they really understand the growing strength of evidence that being gay is a biological phenomenon, and are concerned about how that information will undermine their position and professional lives.
Now if we can just get a study completed which determines that children of evangelicals tend to be sexually dysfunctional. . .
I doubt that Fryrear understands the field of probability and statistics, so don’t expect much of a response (if there is a response).
Speaking of denial, I hear there’s still a flat earth society existing today.
Oh, we (sorry, I, it’s just me right now) just left this over at Warren Throckmorton.
Basically… given I’m the first born, how utterly gay gay GAY would have been any younger brother (assuming he was gay).
The World’s first Kinsey 7 ?
Is the World even ready for a K7 ???!!!
Although it is always good when research confirms previous findings, the “older brother” phenomenon has been documented for quite a while. In fact, at the last 3 Pride events in DC, researchers have been actively looking for gay men with gay brothers to further examine the phenomenon, I believe. As a sole son with only an older sister, I was not able to participate (and as I don’t have any older brothers, unless you count the miscarriage my mother had after only a few weeks of pregnancy, I consider myself a rare specimen :-))
Someone just reminded me I am a K7.
He has been sent to bed without dinner. Rude little man…
Actually CPT — I think you may be eligible for these studies provided you know the details. Don’t know about this particular study criterea, but if your Mum lost a male baby, the maternal immune effect still operates.
Haven’t got the study at hand that took this into account (3 years ago?), but knowing you… you prob’ly know which study we mean anyway 🙂 Or will find out.
Oh, my.
I have THREE older brothers. Apparently, I never had a chance. ;>
Since it’s a prenatal thing (apparently), our second adopted son (now five) may escape this dire fate. I suspect his older brother (now nine) will turn out straight*, given his utter and complete disinterest in girls and anything girlish at this point. Little brother – well, at five his main interest in life is tormenting his older brother, which isn’t evidence of anything except being a younger brother.
*Not that there’s anything _wrong_ with that.
I’ll bite.
This research doesn’t prove either way because the causation of the homosexuality wasn’t studied. All the research does is *observe* that younger brothers are more likely to be homosexual, but there is NO biological data to go alongside to show why. That means that when he says “It might be like the maternal immune response that can occur when a mother has Rh-negative blood but her fetus has Rh-positive blood” that statement is plucked out of thin air. I could say “It could be that the more older brothers one has, the more one compares oneself to them and then feels inadequate about one’s own masculinity”, but without any evidence to prove that I’m just whistling up a path of my own choosing.
The closest we get is the observation that “increase in the likelihood of being gay was seen only in those whose brothers had the same mothers, whether they were raised together or not, he said. Men raised with several older step- or adopted brothers do not have an increased chance of being gay”, but the research is incomplete. There is no data as to what point in the gay child’s life the step-family enters. The “nurture” effect could already have taken place before the step-brothers join the family.
Don’t get me wrong; research like this is really useful, but we need to read it through a correct lens. It seems as thought there are gaps in the dataset that need to be filled in order to support the hypothesis presented by the researchers
True Peter — if they had asked if they felt less masculine, and it could be accurately determined rather than being imposed by a latter day therapist. (Pun intended, but not about you). But that’s been done before. And dead end.
The good — horrid — thing about such hard science research is that is doesn’t rely on what people claim to be. One is either born with an older brother, or one is not.
The real implication is that FAMILY ENVIRONMENT will have nothing to do with the subject, and can actually be measured and proved; wishful thinking ignored. The family environment (I have little doubt) may be enough to freak the gay kid out, but it doesn’t make the kid gay.
And where, oh where, does that place some people 🙂
One of the arguments against a biological basis for orientation is the notion that evolution would weed out the gene and not pass it on to succeeding generations. I’ve been thinking about thise for the past week or so, even before this latest study.
This observation about birth order and male homosexuality could relate to a need in earlier social structures.
If we recall that until very recently (in evolutionary terms) human existence was tied to clan structure, with a strong male leader. It makes sense to me that there could be an advantage to having less threat for dominance and for access to females from younger male siblings. It could be that those genes that did not result in warring males within a family could have an advantage.
In other words, those women whose sons did not fight over females may have had more descendents from the fewer males than those whose sons killed each other. The younger brothers might have served as allies for older brothers rather than a threat.
I’ve not really worked this through yet, but I think there may be something there.
Robert, you made me laugh. Needed that.
Ain’t they a blessing, and a curse. Or, as the grandmother claims, “a reward for my sins, I’m glad to say” 🙂
“I can’t wait for the religious right to make up their own explanations for this.”
I’ll be interested in seeing Warren Throckmorton’s take on this. I know in the past he’s acknowledged that there does seem to be some pre-natal effect relating to older brothers.
However, until he lets us know, I suspect it will be that there are some predisposition in some younger brothers towards feminization and it is the environmental (society, family’s, etc.) response to that feminization that leads to homosexuality. I’m guessing that he’ll say that this is both avoidable and recoverable.
Obviously, I don’t buy into the two step process but since it would be a strawman argument to debate what I’m GUESSING would be Throckmorton’s position, I’ll leave it at that.
However, Warren, I do look forward to your input.
GD,
I think you misunderstand the point I’m making. Take for example the issue of the step-families. It could be that having older step-brothers has no effect because it’s a biological thing. OR it could be that having older step-brothers has no effect because the nurture element of homosexuality occurs in the years before the step-family forms. The research doesn’t have data to examine this and therefore one CAN’T make the suposition that the step-family data supports a biological causation.
The reseach DOESN’T prove that family environment doesn’t affect sexuality. Rather it shows that the addition of step-brothers to the family has no additional effect to the presence of biological brothers. That’s two entirely different things. Whether the effect of biological older brothers produces a nurture or nature causation effect is not shown by the study.
Sorry to be so pedantic, but I have a degree in hard sums specialising in stats, and I used to work in the banking industry doing stats, so I’m used to examining data-sets and discerning what they do (and don’t) say.
Timothy, that’s interesting. In a wolf pack, only the dominant male and female breed. The rest of the pack – including the males – all take part in raising the pups. There may be an evolutionary symmetry there.
Also Timothy — let’s not forget the last bit of research that presented mothers with gay children as having more than the average number of children. Hence, nett positive child bearing. Italy 2005, damn, I know you’ll ask me to go find that ref.
And if evolutionary efficiency, rather than sufficiency, was all that mattered we would have a less flipping organs that we actually do have. It’s a struggle of the fittest, not a struggle of the perfect.
Otherwise we’d have better eyes. Blame The Great Designer… S/He got it right with squid, but bummed out with humans… 🙂
S’OK Peter O, did understand.
Haven’t read the thing (yeah, not normal for us) but I understand this study was specifically designed to factor in the step-relationship factor etc.
It didn’t run through the fathers — just the mothers. Yeah, same old story /snort
“My mother made me a homesexual.”
“Really? If I get her the wool, would she make me one too?”
(sorry U.S. people, a very old and very Anglo joke)
Even if a biological factor can be proven conclusively, the people who insist that ex-gay is the way (and that same-gender loving people are sinful) will not change their tune.
As one of my ex-gay handlers (the director of a large ex-gay program) once told us in session when he admitted that he didn’t know if gayness was caused by nature or nurture. He stated hat even if it were a genetic issue, a gay gene, he would still fight it (and insist that others fight too).
He then taught us that Indians (aka Native Americans, First Nation People) have a genetic disposition to alcoholism. Should they embrace their alcoholism and have drunk pride parades? No!
Even though it is biological, that natural urge needs to be fought or it will destory the person (and the community–a slippery slope that I imagine ultimately leads to casinos).
In the same way, he concluded, if there is a gay gene, it is a BAD gene, a defect, an inborn sinful inclination that needs to be overcome–scientific proof of a sinful nature.
So many things wrong with his teaching that I have no idea where to begin.
One of the arguments against a biological basis for orientation is the notion that evolution would weed out the gene and not pass it on to succeeding generations. I’ve been thinking about thise for the past week or so, even before this latest study.
I had a post up on my blog, entitled Peacocks and Homosexuals, that discussed that:
https://brucegarrett.com/brucelog/240
Basically, from the peacock study: if you don’t pass on your genes, but you help your siblings pass on theirs, then your family genes get passed on and that is enough. If a trait is recessive, not everyone has to express it, for it to get passed on. Far in the human past, those groups who had a few individuals who forgo reproduction in favor of helping the rest survive, may have had a survival edge over groups that didn’t.
Homosexual members in the family or tribe, provided they’re accepted and given a place in the social structure, not having offspring of their own, could see to the needs of the whole, and that I think is the survival edge that makes homosexuality make sense from an evolutionary point of view. If the youngest sibling effect turns out to be real, I think that fits in nicely.
I’m mom’s only and dad’s oldest. I’ve noticed over the course of my life that of the guys I’ve dated, about half of them were middle brothers, and half youngest.
Peter O,
“OR it could be that having older step-brothers has no effect because the nurture element of homosexuality occurs in the years before the step-family forms.”
You are making an over-reaching assumption: that step-families are created AFTER the birth of younger children. This seems counter-intuitive. If we are talking about younger siblings, it seems much more likely that these boys are born into families in which there are children of the father by a previous marriage rather than later-merged families.
I would think it odd if that was not taken into consideration (what relevance would it be to the study if the child had older brothers that he gained when he was eight?). I wonder why you assume that the researchers are less likely to see the obvious than you or I.
Until such time as you actually read the study, disputing the results by challenging factors that (most likely) are not present are nothing but strawman arguments.
If you have some evidence that this study included older step-brothers that were added at some later date, present it. Otherwise, don’t claim it.
Peterson Toscano said:
Even if a biological factor can be proven conclusively, the people who insist that ex-gay is the way (and that same-gender loving people are sinful) will not change their tune.
I had almost exactly the same discussion earlier today. There will always be a fall back position no matter how much data becomes available. But hopefully, along the way, a lot of reasonable people will understand and change their views. For a select group however, I suspect you are correct that this will never been the case.
David Roberts
Peterson…
Even if a biological factor can be proven conclusively, the people who insist that ex-gay is the way (and that same-gender loving people are sinful) will not change their tune.
The fact that race (or those characteristics we usually ascribe to race) is genetic sure hasn’t mollified racists has it?
I’ve heard the comparison to alcoholism before. But there is a wee difference between consuming alcohol and having sex. You raise a group of humans in an isolated part of the world with no contact with nor knowledge of alcohol and you won’t see them spontaneously build a still. But put the boys and the girls together at the right age, and they’ll be making babies whether you told them anything about sex or not.
Sex isn’t a human invention, it’s an instinct older then the fish, let alone the mammals, let alone the primates. And it is intricately woven into our consciousness; in particular, into our need for intimate companionship. Human children have long childhoods and it makes sense that sex would not only produce babies, but also create a deep, intimate bond between a couple. The sex drive is different in that fundamental way from alcohol addiction. It’s an urge that springs from the process of life. That part of ourselves isn’t a blackboard anyone can just erase and re-write.
You can break the bottle to heal yourself. But you can’t break your heart to heal yourself.
Bruce, that was beautifully stated.
TK,
Once again I think I’m slightly misunderstood. I’m not saying that the step-families were post child-birth of the gay child, rather I’m saying that the study doesn’t address that point and so to use it to argue in favour of nurture doesn’t totally work.
And please don’t get me wrong on this. There have been a number of pieces of research recently that seem to point more and more to some kind of nature element in sexual orientation. All I’m doing is asking us to be careful that we claim with conviction what the research does actually say RATHER than what it *might* say.
Peterson / Bruce – The alcoholism thing is very interesting, far less for the comparison over the relative morality of the two activities (alcohol consumption / homosexual activity) and far more to do with the question of whether anything that is natural is necessarily moral. Interesting.
I think the main reason the exgays world objects to the biological origin theory of homosexuality is not so much the “right or wrong” of it, but the argument about whether it can be changed. For them, their whole reparative therapy model is built on the position that it’s a psychological problem which can be “fixed” through therapy.
If homosexuality is genetic, then the Moberley Model dies and so does NARTH.
“I’m saying that the study doesn’t address that point and so to use it to argue in favour of nurture doesn’t totally work.”
From the limited amount I’ve read, there is NOTHING to suggest that the study DID NOT address the point of biological brothers being present in the family at birth. It appears that the point of the study was to determine whether nurture could be eliminated from the equation of incidences of younger gay sons. It would seem to me that a study designed to determine if older brothers had a socializing impact that differed between birth mothers, they would keep the other situations the same.
To claim that they did not keep the other factors the same, and then to claim that this makes the study ineffective for determining what they set out to determine is a very strong claim.
Support it or stop making it.
“The alcoholism thing is very interesting, far less for the comparison over the relative morality of the two activities (alcohol consumption / homosexual activity) and far more to do with the question of whether anything that is natural is necessarily moral. Interesting.”
Yes it is interesting. For millenia alcoholism was not considered immoral. Getting drunk repetitively, while frowned on, was not immoral (provided you were not violent and it did not impact your ability to provide for your family). And yet just this year the Southern Baptist Church voted that anyone who consumed alcohol in moderation (or even on rare occasion such as a wedding) could not be a minister or leader in the church. Interesting.
Then again, so very many things have been considered immoral over the years. Some things that seem completely natural (such as wearing clothes that are relevant to your climate) take on overtones of morality with immigrant communities. Another example might be the length of a person’s hair (lots of Biblical quotes there but most of them are now ignored).
I really think “morality” has less to do with religion than it has to do with culture, economics, and social positioning. Ethics, on the other hand, seem to hold onto some meaning and are less subjective.
Come on guys. Evangelical Christians are not big fans of Darwinism. They will not endorse ANY (purely) biological theories of behavior. They cite a “soul” that no evolutionary psychologist would find it worthwhile to mention.
And a Darwinist would be happy to theorize on both the biological origins of homosexuality and the biological origins of homophobia.
Steve:
Not necessairly. Instead of closing shop, they could also follow the old (but more factual) steps of the antigay endocrinologist Gunter Dorner; perhaps by regulating the mother’s environment conditions during pregnancy, or advocate chemical castration. I don’t think they’d go as far as advocating James Watson’s ideas on the subject though, since it involves abortion.
Like I said before there’s an easy (and certainly unethical) way of removing unwanted sexual attractions: chemical castration and lobotomy. Dorner studied the method of lobotomy performed on pedophiles in the 1960s, which he considered a success. Fortunately the practice came to a near stop in the 70s dur to ethical issues.
Which reminds me of a longtime question, how many ex-gays would be willing to go under the knife to remove unwanted same-sex attractions? Can anyone here answer this question?
The same researcher (Bogaert) reported on some similar work back in 1996 which showed that each additional older brother increased the odds of homosexuality by 33%:
https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/153/1/27
These studies could be used to support the hypothesis that pre-natal hormones are having an influence, as also suggested by twin and triplet studies.
And as to the evolutionary reasoning behind why gay folk keep cropping up in the gene pool, there are a number of studies which show increased fecundity of relatives of gay men. e.g.
Female relatives of gay men had more children on average than female relatives of straight men. The effect was only seen on their mother’s side of the family:
Camperio Ciani A. et al
Evidence for the influence of a genetic factor on both the likelihood of male homosexuality and the female fecundity.
Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, vol. 26(3), pp. 151, 2003.
and
“We found increased fecundity in the relatives of gay men and this is one explanation of how a genetic influence might persist in spite of reduced reproductive fitness in the gay phenotype.” [note that this was only one of a number of possible explanations]:
King, M. et al
Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Feb;34(1):117-22.
“OR it could be that having older step-brothers has no effect because the nurture element of homosexuality occurs in the years before the step-family forms.”
You are making an over-reaching assumption: that step-families are created AFTER the birth of younger children. This seems counter-intuitive. If we are talking about younger siblings, it seems much more likely that these boys are born into families in which there are children of the father by a previous marriage rather than later-merged families.
If I am reading the reports on the subject correctly, the study also includes adoption, in addition to step-families, to argue that only a biological explanation could be the basis for the finding.
From the article:
Dr. Tim Dailey’s ‘scientific’ credentials:
Dr. Dailey received his bachelors’ degree in Bible and Theology from Moody Bible Institute, his M.A. in Theological Studies at Wheaton College, and his Ph.D. in Religion from Marquette University. In addition, Dr. Dailey has completed graduate study at the University of Wisconsin; Milwaukee; Jerusalem University College; Jerusalem; and Hebrew University; Jerusalem.
TK,
I think you miss the point. I’m simply criticising the study from a statistics point of view. The study shows that older brothers increases the likelihood that a male child is homosexual but:
i) To use it to statistically suggest that there might be a hormonal precursor to homosexuality is an invalid stastistical judgement to make because the data on the presence of the specific hormones in the mother has not been collected.
ii) The research DOESN’T make any allowance for when the adoptive/step family creation occured, which therefore draws into suspicion the results drawn from it in this regard.
I’m not coming from this from any pro/anti perspective. Rather I’m simply assessing the research as presented with my “hard sums” hat on. I used to get paid (quite a bit as it happens as I was good at it) to do this kind of analysis and thinking.
A MUCH better piece of research is the paper a few months back looking at chromosomal variations in mothers and “gay” children. That paper (I forget for the moment who did the research) shows a much clearer link between a biological factor in the mother (chromosomes) and a behavioural trait in the son (homosexuality) and should be taken very seriously (and certainly much more seriously then this more recent paper).
Let me add one more thing to clarify. Two basic things we need to get sorted:
i) It is a basic statistical premise that you cannot draw a conclusion about the effect of an input variable upon the dependent variable when the input variable data is not available.
ii) Statistical correlation does not prove causality, merely correlation
I.e. I have a dataset of fathers and sons with a dummy flag for whether the father support the Chicago Bulls, whether the father has a Chicago Bulls T-Shirt and whether the son supports the Chicago Bulls. So the Data Set looks a bit like this:
#, F Sup CB, F CB T, S Sup CB
1, 1, 1, 1
2, 0, 1, 1
3, 1, 1, 1
4, 0, 0, 0
…
Now – analysing the data we find a strong correlation between the Father supporting the Bulls and the Son supporting the Bulls. It is reasonable to surmise from our understanding of family dynamics that the Father supporting the Bulls is the causation of the Son supporting the Bulls.
However, we also find a very strong correlation between the Father having a Bulls T-Shirt and the Son supporting the Bulls. Does that mean that the Father having a Bulls T-Shirt causes the Son to support the Bulls?
The answer is no – further step analysis shows that the Bulls supporting Father is the most dominant factor and once you include that data and THEN look at the effect of the father having a Bulls T-Shirt there is almost no additional effect on the son supporting the Bulls.
What we have here are two variables (T-Shirt wearing and Son supporting) which depend on the first (Father supporting). However, because the dependencies are closely related, THOUGH INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER, wrongly analysing the data might lead one to assume that the Father wearing a t-shirt caused the son to support the Bulls, because there is such a high correlation between them.
I’m afraid to say these are the basic kinds of statistical errors made when trying to analyse these types of research. We need to be very careful not to imply that correlation (or non-correlation) necessarily implies causation (or non-causation in the case of the older step/adoptive-brothers).
One statistical OBSERVATION is absolutely clear given the large amount of research done, namely that younger brothers are more likely to exhibit homosexual attraction and behaviour. However the leap from that observation to a statement on causation is a step that needs very clear data and a constant reminding of the chief statistical analytical fact that many ignore:
Correlation DOES NOT IMPLY causation
Non-correlation DOES NOT IMPLY non-causation
One more clarification.
There are a number of conditions in children (e.g. Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD), the condition covered in the film Lorenzo’s Oil) where there is an observable link between a biological condition in the mother and the symptom in the child. In the case of ALD there is an easily observable correlation between a faulty gene in the child (interestingly enough found on Xq28, the same place Hamer thought he’d found genetic causation of homosexuality, research that has since been discredited) and the mother bearing a gene that is passed on recessively.
However, and this is the crucial point, although you can make the observation about the correlation of the two seperate bits of data (faulty Xq28 in the child and the recessive gene in the mother), that doesn’t prove biological causation. The proof of biological causation is when we observe the actual genetic handover of material from mother to son and can trace it through the whole gestation of the child and then it’s upbrining. Once we can show observationaly that the defective chromosome is passed onto the child, AND THAT THERE IS NO OTHER INFLUENCE ON THAT GENE ONCE PRESENT IN THE CHILD, only then can we claim biological causation. Up till that point we simply have an observation of a correlation, not a causation. For example, it could be that the Xq28 section that is passed on is the perfect one from the father, but
some other factor inherited from the mother triggers the defect while the child is in the womb. It could be that some enviromental factor triggers the defect (not likely I know but I raise the example to show the variety of possibilities). The bottom line is that without the clear scientific evidence of the chain of causation all that we have is observation.
And yes, we do know that ALD is caused by a recessive gene handed onto the child – but we know that because we can observe the entire biological chain of causation.
It’s a subtle statistical / scientific point but it’s vitally important.
So basically, anti-gay Christian gropes evoke a theory they don’t even believe in, just to denounce homosexuality. [sarcasm]That makes so much sense.[/sarcasm]
No Audrey, it’s a bit more subtle. *Ex*-gay groups [sic] promote a developmental theory of sexuality (as an offshoot of the standard psychological understandings of child relational and sociological development) that they have seen walked out in the lives of many, many men and women, in the light of no substantial evidence of a direct biological causation of homosexuality.
…AND THAT THERE IS NO OTHER INFLUENCE ON THAT GENE ONCE PRESENT IN THE CHILD…
Okay…I’m a little fuzzy about your concept of genetic causation here. If the gene needs to be present for the effect to occur, even if that effect still needs an environmental factor or two to prompt it along, then how do you say that the trait is not genetic in nature? It seems to me it must be, or else the genes must be irrelevant. But if the genes are irrelevant, then why are they associated with the trait?
I don’t see how you can demonstrate that a trait is associated with a gene, and yet say the trait is not genetically influenced. Genes either play a roll or they don’t. And if they don’t, then why the correlation? I don’t think genes like to hang out with certain people with certain traits just because they happen to like those kinds of people.
You know…when Newton presented his work on gravity, he was criticized that he hadn’t explained how gravity actually worked. It was a very intricate and precise model for how it worked, but it was all based on observation of how the planets moved, not how the force was transmitted. He never saw that, and nobody ever has since. In point of fact, they’re still arguing about how gravity actually works.
Peter O
“ii) The research DOESN’T make any allowance for when the adoptive/step family creation occured”
PROVE IT !!!
Prove that it DOESN’T make those allowances. Where’s your source? Have you read the report?
I keep saying that you have to prove this and instead of supporting your claim you just keep repeating it. Unless you are able to support this claim, I will request that Daniel remove any future posts on this thread that makes this unsubstantiated claim.
Further, Peter, for someone claiming to be a stats guy you totally missed it on your Chicago Bulls analogy.
This study did not attempt to prove causation but to eliminate a possible causation. This study made no claim that sexual orientation is genetic or hormonal or even pre-natal, but rather said that these were more likely because it eliminated one alternate theory.
And you are completely wrong when you say that “Non-correlation DOES NOT IMPLY non-causation”. Yes it DOES.
You can have correlation without causation but you CANNOT have causation without correlation. If a causes b, then by definition where you have b, there will be a statistically higher observation of a.
To use your example, Bulls-fans dads have a causal relationship with Bulls-fans sons. Thus when you observe Bulls-fan sons and Bulls-fans fathers, there’s going to be a correlation. If there’s no correlation, there’s no causation.
It has been observed that there is an increase in gay likelihood based on male birth order. If one were to argue that the “cause” for the observation is the presence of older brothers in the family dynamic, then by definition one must observe (at least statistically) the presense of older brothers. However, this study showed that the increase in gay younger sons was observable whether or not the older brothers were present.
Hence, we can remove “present older brothers” as the explanation for the observation. No correlation equals no causation.
Second, some might argue that the birth order might have something to do with the father or perhaps the standing (postition within the total children) in the family. So a comparison was made and it was determined that whether the father had previous sons or whether there were adopted children or other non-maternal older male siblings, it did not have an observable impact on the statistical results.
Hence, if there’s no correlation with older non-maternal male siblings, these too may be eliminated as a source of causation.
You seem to think that the researchers missed some point about at what moment the step-brothers became part of the equation. But you have presented nothing to show that this was missed.
Further, if step-brothers were not shown to impact the observation, then why do you think that the entry of step-brothers into the family is relevant? Assuming that the researchers were total dolts and not a genious like you, and assuming that they missed the boat and did not differentiate between step brothers at birth and step-brothers that the gay son did not hear about until he was 50, as long as the step-brothers DID NOT MAKE AN IMPACT on the observed increase in gay sons, then this is a completely immaterial distinction.
In other words, if there was NO correlation between fathers wearing Bulls T-Shirts and sons supporting the Bulls, then it really doesn’t matter if the T-Shirt says “Bulls” on the front or the back.
Third, “raised by mother” was shown to have no correlation.
Finally, this study does not “prove” that the increased incidence of gay sons by birth order is genetic. Or hormonal. Or biological in nature. But it does eliminate attitudes of mother, presense of brothers, and total number of older male persons.
Perhaps there’s some other as-yet-unproposed idea of what could result in an increased observance of gay sons based on male birth order, but I’ve not heard it from you or anyone else. Pre-natal causes are seeming more and more likely.
Peter O,
“*Ex*-gay groups [sic] promote a developmental theory of sexuality (as an offshoot of the standard psychological understandings of child relational and sociological development) that they have seen walked out in the lives of many, many men and women, in the light of no substantial evidence of a direct biological causation of homosexuality.”
Peter, please turn in your “analysis” card. Or go back to school and take a class in logic.
There are no objective studies that support the “developmental theory”. None, zilch, nada.
In fact, the closest that you can come to is a increased correlation between cross-gender play among children and gay men. Need I reference you to your comments above that correlation does not identify causation?
“..in the light of no substantial evidence of a direct biological causation of homosexuality..”
This, Peter, is making one of the weakest arguments that you can make. Basically it says “until you can prove me wrong then my unsupported position is right”. That is intellectually the equivalent of saying “God has green ears and there is not substantial evidence that His ears are pink and blue stripes”.
What makes this even more illogical is the fact that “substantial evidence” has been presented and you simply choose not to believe it. A thoughtful, logical, non-hostile observer would look at this study and say “hmmmmm, since all proposed nurture arguments have been eliminated, it sure looks like nature”. Bizarro anti-gay grasp-at-any-straw type people, however, try to find some flaw somewhere in the study, real or imagined, relevant to the results or not, and say “see, no substantial evidence”.
It must get embarrasing trying to defend illogical, irrational, and magical positions.
Timothy,
If I understand you correctly (I’m also taking into account your recent post on the subject at Warren Throckmorton’s site), you’re saying that this study has among other things eliminated the possibility that parental behaviour has any effect on the development of sexual orientation.
Could you tell me why you think this one study is enough to eliminate that possibility, and the need for further research/debate on the subject?
Well, I’m not sure that I’m making that bold of a statement. And certainly there is need for further research on the subject.
But if I understand the study correctly, and if its findings are replicated, it appears that for the subset of gay men for whom there is a correlation between their orientation and the number of older siblings they have (roughly one in seven gay men) it appears that certain environmental factors can be excluded from having a causal relationship with their sexual orientation. Those factors include the presense of older siblings in the household (maternally related or not) and residence with their natural parents.
While this does not prove that those particular men were “born gay”, it does lend credibility to the notion that for some gay men the etiology of their orientation resides in pre-natal influences. And it does suggest that parental behaviors cannot alone explain the increased incidences of gay sons.
Perhaps there is some as-of-yet unproposed environmental explanation that can allow one to dismiss all pre-natal impact, but that becomes increasingly unlikely after this study.
TK,
Spitzer.
As for the criticism of my “statistics 101” you really are desperate for the above study to prove some form of biological causation. All the study does is prove a correlation between the number of natural older brothers one has and the increased likelihood of being gay. No-one is arguinig with that. What we are arguing with is the assumptions of the causation of homosexuality that are being incorrectly implied from that correlation.
The fact of the matter is that your statement “all proposed nurture arguments have been eliminated” is not true. The problem when you say “this study does not “prove” that the increased incidence of gay sons by birth order is genetic. Or hormonal. Or biological in nature” is that you are ignoring people even on the original post and this comment thread who are saying that very thing.
Peter O said:
…you really are desperate for the above study to prove some form of biological causation.
With all due respect Peter, the only comments with a desperate tone seem to be yours. I don’t see any desperation in what Timothy is saying – frustration perhaps because you are not responding to requests but instead keep repeating yourself. I don’t believe any of us has seen the data yet (correct me if I am wrong), so we are discussing the preliminary comments by the researcher. If you have a problem with “the finding absolutely confirms a physical basis,” statement, you need to take that up with Prof. S. Marc Breedlove.
The increase in the likelihood of being gay was seen only in those whose brothers had the same mothers, whether they were raised together or not.
This is Bogaert’s basic conclusion but I’m sure there will be more interesting details in the full study. Inserting your own experience with financial statistics as somehow more authoritative than the opinions of the researchers themselves seems a bit arrogant, and yes a little desperate. This is not the first such study, but it is the first to substantially limit the effect of nurture in the equation. Let’s see how it withstands peer review before we make too many pronouncements.
As for the speculation on causation at the end of the article, the researcher calls that what it is, “a provocative hypothesis”.
David Roberts
Peter O,
“Spitzer.”
Huh? What did Spitzer say about a developmental causation to orientation? If you have some source where he did, please state it. Otherwise I think the good doctor would be annoyed at you dropping his name and claiming he stated something that he did not.
“As for the criticism of my “statistics 101″ you really are desperate for the above study to prove some form of biological causation.”
Nope. Just clarifying that you are either a) not as good an analyst as you seem to think; b) allowing your emotions to cloud your objectivity; or c) attempting to deceive. To claim that there can be causation without correlation seriously challenges your credibility.
“All the study does is prove a correlation between the number of natural older brothers one has and the increased likelihood of being gay.”
No. That’s what Bogaert’s last study did. This one eliminated the known “nurture” variables. You seem to be unaware of that. How could this be?
“The fact of the matter is that your statement “all proposed nurture arguments have been eliminated” is not true.”
Name one. Come up with one good explanation THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE BIOLOGY of why for each subsequent male child there is roughly a 33% increase in the likelihood that this son will be gay. Go ahead. Use your analytical skills.
There may well be a “nurture” basis to this increased likelihood. But so far I haven’t heard one proposed.
On an earlier posting you said “It could be that the more older brothers one has, the more one compares oneself to them and then feels inadequate about one’s own masculinity” but eliminating that supposition was the whole point of this study. It’s hard to understand how you missed this point. Did you get the two studies confused?
I am sorry, Peter, if I seem to frustrated. But I’m finding it difficult to have a conversation with you. I don’t much like the “yeah, but” method of debate where one simply ignores what the other guy said, reiterates ones unsubstantiated claim, and changes the subject.
I’ve been following this thread with some interest, which has gradually been devolving into consternation. So far neither of you have bothered to quote from the actual study, so I figured I’d give you some links:
Here’s the abstract. It has a link to the full article, but in case that’s too much work, here it is! Beware, it’s in PDF format.
I expect both of you to have read that before you say another word. Don’t worry, it’s only four pages–and the fourth is just a list of endnotes.
Thanks Skemono. I was having trouble earlier in the week finding it (I learned computers by using punch cards).
The article is easy to read and understand. Based on the study:
The most consistent biodemographic correlate of sexual orientation in men is the number of older brothers, and, social and/or rearing factors do not affect men’s sexual orientation development.
I think I stepped too far when I dismissed being raised by the mother. Although this can be deduced from the adopted gay sons, it is not claimed by the researcher and so I cannot make that claim either.
Another Study Pushes ‘Born Gay’ Urban Legend
July 6, 2006
Traditional Values Coalition
Excerpt:
“It is totally inappropriate for anyone to claim certainty in a study like this because such a claim is obviously political, not scientific in nature.”
OK, I can breath again. For a moment I thought I wouldn’t stop laughing. NARTH is saying that when a claim is political, you can’t believe the underlying study. NARTH. He he ahahaha.. whew, sorry. Sometimes irony is just too delicious.
Autumn, thanks for the link. Of course TVC is afraid to allow a direct XGW link so you have to copy it to a new browser page.
My favorite quote from TVC’s little blurb was:
“Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons has noted: “In my clinical experience a major issue in regard to older brothers is the rejection a younger brother often experiences from older male siblings. This is particularly the case when the younger brother is not good in sports and is called cruel names by the older brother.” ”
Ummm… did you read the report, Dr. Fitzgibbons, before you started drooling into your soup? The whole point of this study was to see if the presense of older brothers could have an impact on the eventual sexual orientation of younger brothers.
Perhaps you think that in the instances where the brothers were not raised together (adoption, etc.) the older brother was calling the younger brother cruel names by telepathy?
Either you are misquoted, Dr. Fitzgibbons (which, considering that the TVC has the credibility of Ken Lay), or you are an idiot.
Here’s the original NARTH article the TVC wrote their article from:Canadian Psychiatrist Finds Major Flaws In Anthony Bogaert’s Study Of Gay Brothershttps://www.narth.com/docs/bogaert.html–Well, here’s a try on a Tiny URL link to the TVC article: https://tinyurl.com/l7vht — hopefully going through a third party will make the link more accessable.
From the NARTH response:
There is a conceptual leap based upon nothing other than an obvious personal wish/bias, from what may be an interesting chance finding based upon a small population sample to a generalization about the etiology of homosexuality.
You mean, like extrapolating from a few dozen self-proclaimed “ex-gays” to the assumption that the etiology of homosexuality is therefore parental in nature?
It is pretty clear from the NARTH response that they seem freaked about this latest finding. Despite their protestations to the contrary, I believe they really understand the growing strength of evidence that being gay is a biological phenomenon, and are concerned about how that information will undermine their position and professional lives.