(CBS) There are few issues as hotly contested — and as poorly understood — as the question of what makes a person gay or straight. It's not only a political, social, and religious question but also a scientific question, one that might someday have an actual, provable answer.
The handful of scientists who work in this under-funded and politically charged field will tell you: That answer is a long way off. But as Lesley Stahl reports, their efforts are already yielding tantalizing clues. One focus of their research is twins.
The bedrooms of 9-year-old twins Adam and Jared couldn't be more different. Jared's room is decked out with camouflage, airplanes, and military toys, while Adam's room sports a pastel canopy, stuffed animals, and white horses.
When Stahl came for a visit, Jared was eager to show her his G.I. Joe collection. "I have ones that say like Marine and SWAT. And then that's where I keep all the guns for 'em," he explained.
Adam was also proud to show off his toys. "This is one of my dolls. Bratz baby," he said.
Adam wears pinkish-purple nail polish, adorned with stars and diamonds.
Asked if he went to school like that, Adam says, "Uh-huh. I just showed them my nails, and they were like, 'Why did you do that?'"
Adam's behavior is called childhood gender nonconformity, meaning a child whose interests and behaviors are more typical of the opposite sex.
To read the rest of the article:
www.cbsnews.com/stories/20...85230.shtml
The handful of scientists who work in this under-funded and politically charged field will tell you: That answer is a long way off. But as Lesley Stahl reports, their efforts are already yielding tantalizing clues. One focus of their research is twins.
The bedrooms of 9-year-old twins Adam and Jared couldn't be more different. Jared's room is decked out with camouflage, airplanes, and military toys, while Adam's room sports a pastel canopy, stuffed animals, and white horses.
When Stahl came for a visit, Jared was eager to show her his G.I. Joe collection. "I have ones that say like Marine and SWAT. And then that's where I keep all the guns for 'em," he explained.
Adam was also proud to show off his toys. "This is one of my dolls. Bratz baby," he said.
Adam wears pinkish-purple nail polish, adorned with stars and diamonds.
Asked if he went to school like that, Adam says, "Uh-huh. I just showed them my nails, and they were like, 'Why did you do that?'"
Adam's behavior is called childhood gender nonconformity, meaning a child whose interests and behaviors are more typical of the opposite sex.
To read the rest of the article:
www.cbsnews.com/stories/20...85230.shtml
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
-
Re: The Science of Sexual Orientation: Gender Nonconformity
Wed, April 26, 2006 - 11:46 PMlittle Adam sounds like he's transgender. funny they left out that discussion entirely.
-
Re: The Science of Sexual Orientation: Gender Nonconformity
Thu, April 27, 2006 - 7:06 AMI got pissed off at about page #3. Are they saying that theres a barbie doll gene and a toy firetruck gene? Gender Expression is completely taught. You dont jump out of the womb knowing its "gender appropriate" to wear pants.
And besides, if gender expression had anything to do with sexual orientation, Prince would be the biggest 'mo out there. Clearly these scientists need to go back to the drawing board. -
-
Re: The Science of Sexual Orientation: Gender Nonconformity
Thu, April 27, 2006 - 8:07 AMtheir so-called science is totally culture bound and we know our culture to be heteronormative, binary, homophobic and so on. the science of it is one perspective, each queer kid's story is another, equally important to this emerging inquiry, check out the history and reliability of the DSM (diagnostic statistical manual) for a peek into how really unscientific the sciences of the mind really are.
-
Re: The Science of Sexual Orientation: Gender Nonconformity
Thu, April 27, 2006 - 2:58 PMRichard:
> I got pissed off at about page #3.
> Are they saying that theres a barbie doll gene and a toy firetruck gene?
Yah, I hear ya, Richard. Personally I don't think that can ever be
a scientifically drawn conclusion.
> Gender Expression is completely taught.
But by the same token, I don't think this statement is true either.
Although I was born "apparently male" (they were wrong) I was
clearly favouring "girl toys" at a pre-verbal age without any prompting
at ALL from anybody. And I wasn't at all interested in the boys' games.
I clearly remember being SO disappointed when I didn't get an Easter dress! :(
> You dont jump out of the womb knowing its "gender appropriate" to wear pants.
AND... This is true as well. My parents had to forcefully socialize me as
a male because without that constant "guidance" (more like coercion)
I would quickly revert to "girlish" behaviour. I've spent decades in my
adult years undoing the damage done by male socialization in my youth.
I would never go so far as to say it was 'genetic', but it was certainly
clearly my preference from a very early age to be socially female.
Peace and Blessings,
~Jessa~ -
-
Re: The Science of Sexual Orientation: Gender Nonconformity
Thu, April 27, 2006 - 4:05 PM> But by the same token, I don't think this statement is true either.
> Although I was born "apparently male" (they were wrong) I was
> clearly favouring "girl toys" at a pre-verbal age without any prompting
> at ALL from anybody. And I wasn't at all interested in the boys' games.
> I clearly remember being SO disappointed when I didn't get an Easter dress! :(
Well I think it was girl-gender-appropriate behavior that was natural for you. Not specifically the artifacts... When a young boy goes to a toy store and says he wants a barbie doll, simply because he hasnt yet observed the differences between the genders, I think thats different from when someone sees others of their preferred gender acting in a certain way, and wants to also act that way. Do you agree?
Back to the article, im a big science geek, and im not about stifling the pursuit of science, but the conclusions to be drawn from the gender and sexual orientation nature vs. nurture debate could be used as a tool of opression. There are serious morality concerns that I think the scientists are totally skirting around here. I would much rather that people accept me for who I am, rather than try to determine why I am who I am. -
-
Re: The Science of Sexual Orientation: Gender Nonconformity
Sun, April 30, 2006 - 10:29 PMAh, yes, I agree with you completely that the Nature vs. Nurture arguements can be used to bludgeon people with. . . but so can lots of things. I found the article interesting in that it didn't seem (to me) to be willing to jump to all kinds of conclusions, but was willing to show different perspectives.
Again, the first paragraph out of the gate says that if there IS a nature vs. nurture answer, we won't know it any time soon. I thought the article was fairly sympathetic when compared to the rhetoric seen in previous years labeling such behavior and orientation as sick and perverted and wrong. I am hopeful that learning why people are the way they are will make more people more understanding, rather than judgemental. -
-
Re: The Science of Sexual Orientation: Gender Nonconformity
Mon, May 1, 2006 - 9:30 AM>> Again, the first paragraph out of the gate says that if there IS a nature vs. nurture answer, we won't know it any time soon.
this is because the either/or "versus" take on this subject is TOTAL BULLSHIT.
most reputable scientists recognize that BOTH nature AND nurture play some role.
even if you have the genetic potential to be Arnold Schwarzenegger, you've still got to lift weights and have the right diet.
some scientists now theorize that a mother's in utero hormone levels may play a crucial role in the development of sexualization in children's brains before we're even born. and these hormone levels in the uterus involve BOTH nature (biochemicals, brain structures) AND nurture (the fetus' external environment). . .
"science" and the alleged causes of sexual orientation and gender identity have nothing whatsoever to contribute to the discussion of civil rights. even if sexual orientation and gender identity were 100% nurture, they could still be protected under laws which recognize other characteristics like a person's religion, creed and national origin which have NO genetic or biological components. . . racist scientists continue to argue that people of color are biologically inferior, but no politicians take their arguments seriously these days. in the past, fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson even used the Bible to support racism and segregation until those positions became politically incorrect. . . .
from my perspective, people who insist that they are "born Gay" are conceding to religious fundamentalists that it's not OK to be Queer unless it's something that we didn't choose. but being Queer involves nature, nurture AND CHOICE. cause we **choose** whether or not we are willing to accept and affirm ourselves and our desires as healthy, normal, and fulfilling. . .
besides, even if it were possible for a few people to change their sexual orientations, we shouldn't be expected to. that's like demanding that everyone should have to convert to Christianity. . . .
-
-
-
-
-
Re: The Science of Sexual Orientation: Gender Nonconformity
Wed, May 10, 2006 - 10:23 AMThe thing that I latched on to in all of this, and was a wonderful moment of affirmation, was the whole "the older brother effect" thing:
"The more older brothers a man has, the greater that man's chance of being gay...the numbers are significant: for every older brother a man has, his chances of being gay increase by one third. Older sisters make no difference, and there's no corresponding effect for lesbians. A first-born son has about a 2 percent chance of being gay, and the numbers rise from there. The theory is it happens in the womb.
Somehow, the mother's body is remembering how many boys she's carried before. The favorite hypothesis is that the mother may be making antibodies when she sees a boy the first time, and then affect subsequent boys when she carries them in utero.
One of the things we've only found out lately is that older brothers affect a boy only if the boy is right-handed. If the boy is left-handed, if his brain is organized in a left-handed fashion, it doesn't matter how many older brothers he has, his probability of being gay is just like the rest of the population."
This is something I've seen again and again, and it was a little thrill to know that my observations are backed up by the studies.
The other pet theory that I have - which will probably never get validated - is that the Mormon population, which has been relatively genetically isolated, carries a genetic marker for queerdom. I'm constantly amazed at the numbers of queer ex-Mormon boys I run into - they seem to be a major export from Utah! -
-
Re: The Science of Sexual Orientation: Gender Nonconformity
Wed, May 10, 2006 - 2:26 PMPosition in the family determines a lot.
Often pressure on the first child, especially for boys, is so extreme as to prohibit deviance from familial expectations. Often a first child crubmles under the pressure, at which time a second child may assume the first child's role.
So it makes sense that children later in the birth order might feel more free to come out as queer.
I suppose a left-handed child could upset the birth oder roles significantly also...
-
