31st March 2003, 9:05 PM
Dentists... who needs'em.
I recently did a report on whether homosexuality is biological or psychological. My conclusion was that both may play factors in the trait.
A scientist by the name of Simon LeVay examined the brains from 41 corpses, many of which from people who had succumbed to AIDS. Out of these, 19 were from homosexual men, 16 were heterosexual men, and the other six were from heterosexual women. LeVay studied the physiology of these brains, more specifically, a cell group known as the INAH, which is divided into 4 parts (INAH 1, 2, 3, 4). His hypothesis was that he could find a physical trait that showed a person's sexual attraction to men or women. LeVay found that the size of the INAH 3 in heterosexual and homosexual men varied significantly; he found that the INAH 3 in homesexual men was sized more closely to that in heterosexual women.
Although these results evidently point to homosexuality being a biological trait, the experiment has been repeated with differing results. LeVay himself admitted that the size of the INAH 3 could have been affected by the cause of death in his experimental brains.
Here's more food for thought: two men by the name of Bailey and Pillard conducted a statistical study of homosexuality among identical twins. They found cases of identical twins seperated from birth, and noted their sexuality. They found that there was a 50% trend of both twins being homosexual. We all know that identical twins are, well, biologically identical. Therefore, this is a common argument that homosexuality is not purely biological, as this number should be 100%. However, at the same time, 50% is still a pretty good trend... is it so unreasonable to think that homosexuality may not be purely biological, but could hold a biological predisposition?
Now, let's look at the other side: advocates that homosexuality is There's an organization called NARTH, or National Association of Reasearch and Therapy for Homosexuals. A major representative of this organization is Neil Whitehead. He argues that homosexuals hold common personality traits, such as suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This is shown by statistical study not only in America, but other countries that he claims or homosexuality-tolerant, such as the Netherlands. Therefore, these personality traits aren't necessarily caused by being raised in a homophobic community.
He also claims that the NARTH has had patients that have been successfully transmuted from homosexual to heterosexual, through whatever therapy they offer. Most psychologist's results with such a therapy (as changing sexuality) have been extremely unsuccessful, however. Another biologist, a homosexual man by the name of Chandler Burr, argues that a faux homosexuality could be caused by a person's psychological growth. He claims that any homosexuality who's sexual orientation could be transformed had never been truly homosexual to begin with.
Burr also has arguments agains homosexuals having similar personality traits by bringing up an experiment conducted when homosexuality had still been thought of as a disease. This experiment was conducted in 1956 by a psychologist named Evelyn Hooker, and it was set up like this: two groups of thirty people are evaluated, one group composed of homosexual males, the other of heterosexual males. These evaluations were a double blind study, and it included a Rorschach test and another test where the subject makes a picture by using cut-out figures. These tests were then shown to three other psychologists who had no knowledge of the patients or which group member had received what test. These three psychologists, interestingly, could not conclude which tests were given to heterosexuals and which were given to homosexuals.
Our good friend Neil Whitehead rebuts this by arguing that the patients Evelyn Hooker selected weren't gender-atypical or emotionally disturbed. That's a pretty dumb rebuttal, though, because the patients were still homosexual, weren't they? That disproves the notion that all homosexuals are emotionally-disturbed or gender atypical.
There you actually have some facts, and you can decide for yourself where homosexuality is truly caused. In my personal opinion, based on my research, I think biology plays a homosexual predisposition in people, but doesn't necessarily dictate where that person's sexuality may be oriented.
Here are some links to my areas of research:
Simon LeVay's experiment: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/u...levay.html
Chandler Burr article: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jun/burr2.htm
Neil Whitehead article: http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
E-mails exchanged by Chandler Burr and Darryl Bem (two researchers in the area), compiled by Maggie Hieneman: http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/policy/...rylbem.htm
I recently did a report on whether homosexuality is biological or psychological. My conclusion was that both may play factors in the trait.
A scientist by the name of Simon LeVay examined the brains from 41 corpses, many of which from people who had succumbed to AIDS. Out of these, 19 were from homosexual men, 16 were heterosexual men, and the other six were from heterosexual women. LeVay studied the physiology of these brains, more specifically, a cell group known as the INAH, which is divided into 4 parts (INAH 1, 2, 3, 4). His hypothesis was that he could find a physical trait that showed a person's sexual attraction to men or women. LeVay found that the size of the INAH 3 in heterosexual and homosexual men varied significantly; he found that the INAH 3 in homesexual men was sized more closely to that in heterosexual women.
Although these results evidently point to homosexuality being a biological trait, the experiment has been repeated with differing results. LeVay himself admitted that the size of the INAH 3 could have been affected by the cause of death in his experimental brains.
Here's more food for thought: two men by the name of Bailey and Pillard conducted a statistical study of homosexuality among identical twins. They found cases of identical twins seperated from birth, and noted their sexuality. They found that there was a 50% trend of both twins being homosexual. We all know that identical twins are, well, biologically identical. Therefore, this is a common argument that homosexuality is not purely biological, as this number should be 100%. However, at the same time, 50% is still a pretty good trend... is it so unreasonable to think that homosexuality may not be purely biological, but could hold a biological predisposition?
Now, let's look at the other side: advocates that homosexuality is There's an organization called NARTH, or National Association of Reasearch and Therapy for Homosexuals. A major representative of this organization is Neil Whitehead. He argues that homosexuals hold common personality traits, such as suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This is shown by statistical study not only in America, but other countries that he claims or homosexuality-tolerant, such as the Netherlands. Therefore, these personality traits aren't necessarily caused by being raised in a homophobic community.
He also claims that the NARTH has had patients that have been successfully transmuted from homosexual to heterosexual, through whatever therapy they offer. Most psychologist's results with such a therapy (as changing sexuality) have been extremely unsuccessful, however. Another biologist, a homosexual man by the name of Chandler Burr, argues that a faux homosexuality could be caused by a person's psychological growth. He claims that any homosexuality who's sexual orientation could be transformed had never been truly homosexual to begin with.
Burr also has arguments agains homosexuals having similar personality traits by bringing up an experiment conducted when homosexuality had still been thought of as a disease. This experiment was conducted in 1956 by a psychologist named Evelyn Hooker, and it was set up like this: two groups of thirty people are evaluated, one group composed of homosexual males, the other of heterosexual males. These evaluations were a double blind study, and it included a Rorschach test and another test where the subject makes a picture by using cut-out figures. These tests were then shown to three other psychologists who had no knowledge of the patients or which group member had received what test. These three psychologists, interestingly, could not conclude which tests were given to heterosexuals and which were given to homosexuals.
Our good friend Neil Whitehead rebuts this by arguing that the patients Evelyn Hooker selected weren't gender-atypical or emotionally disturbed. That's a pretty dumb rebuttal, though, because the patients were still homosexual, weren't they? That disproves the notion that all homosexuals are emotionally-disturbed or gender atypical.
There you actually have some facts, and you can decide for yourself where homosexuality is truly caused. In my personal opinion, based on my research, I think biology plays a homosexual predisposition in people, but doesn't necessarily dictate where that person's sexuality may be oriented.
Here are some links to my areas of research:
Simon LeVay's experiment: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/u...levay.html
Chandler Burr article: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jun/burr2.htm
Neil Whitehead article: http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
E-mails exchanged by Chandler Burr and Darryl Bem (two researchers in the area), compiled by Maggie Hieneman: http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/policy/...rylbem.htm