Homosexuality: the quality or characteristic of being sexually or romantically attracted to people of one’s own sex. We typically consider these traits as being a social construct. Back in the olden days of cavemen, homosexuality was anything but socially acceptable. Feeling attraction towards someone of your own sex? Scandalous! Nowadays, though, society is much more accepting, and more and more individuals have placed themselves under the label of homosexuality. People often assume that this means more people are deciding to become homosexual, but in reality, that’s not true at all! In this article, we will explore the psychology and biology behind homosexuality and discover why and how this phenomenon occurs in humans and other animals. Can you believe that homosexuality was even discovered in insects? That’s crazy! And now, let’s dive into the fun stuff.
First, let’s discuss the psychological aspects of homosexuality. There are a number of theories aiming to pinpoint the origins of homosexuality, and while older theories once tried (and failed) to pathologize homosexuality, modern psychology recognizes it as a natural variation of human sexuality. The first objective study of homosexuality, published in 1897, was conducted by Havelock Ellis. He argued that homosexuality was inborn and not something that could be changed through psychoanalysis. Sigmund Freud went further, suggesting that all humans are innately bisexual, with sexual orientation shaped by life experiences. In contrast, Sandor Rado theorized that heterosexuality was the natural state and that homosexuality developed as a phobic response. Some early speculations of the origins of homosexuality have theorized that homosexuality is a result of dysfunctional family dynamics or environmental factors that affected the psyche of the affected individuals, but studies conducted by Evelyn Hooker later confirmed that homosexual individuals showed no psychological differences from heterosexual individuals, leading to the American Psychiatric Association’s removal of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). In addition, studies have found no evidence that homosexual and heterosexual individuals were raised in different environments, putting down the theory of upbringing being the root of homosexuality. One of the more plausible perspectives is the fraternal birth order effect, which proposes that men with more older brothers have a higher likelihood of being homosexual. This is thought to be due to immune responses in the mother’s body during pregnancy, subtly affecting brain development. Overall, though, psychologists no longer view homosexuality as a disorder but rather as a natural variation in human sexuality. The most reasonable theories acknowledge that sexual orientation is not a simple choice or the result of parenting but rather a mix of biological and social influences that shape an individual’s identity over time.
That leads us to the science of homosexuality in biology. Multiple scientific findings support the existence of homosexuality, and they are looking much more plausible than most psychological theories. Simon LeVay looked for anatomical differences in brain structure between homosexual and heterosexual individuals. He found that the INAH3 region of the brain’s hypothalamus, responsible for male sexual attraction, was smaller in homosexual men when compared to heterosexual men. Males typically have larger INAH3 regions when compared to females, so some researchers have posited that male homosexuality is partially caused by males developing a smaller INAH3 region similar to that found in the female brain. This strongly suggests that homosexuality is far from a behavior that is learned, but rather an innate part of an individual’s identity.
Other researchers have reached similar conclusions. Dietrich Dorner investigated how hormones affected sexuality in rats and found that female rats exposed prenatally to high levels of androgens exhibited masculine mating habits. This is yet another biological factor that appears to affect sexual orientation and further proves that homosexuality is far from a social construct. Fetuses who were exposed to higher prenatal androgen levels might have been predisposed to homosexuality. This idea of fetal hormone levels affecting sexual orientation also leads to an interesting observation: babies born during times of war were more likely to be sexually nonconforming because mothers had higher levels of stress hormones during pregnancy due to the war. Since elevated levels of hormones like androgens during pregnancy are correlated with homosexuality, the changes in hormones from wartime stress lead to an increased frequency of homosexual children.
Whether homosexuality is genetically linked and passed down through generations is a hotly debated topic in the scientific community. One genetic certainty is that homosexuality appears to be linked with the presence of certain genes. Hamer analyzed any genetic factors that appeared to affect homosexuality and found that it was closely correlated with 5 genetic markers on the X chromosome. Some scientists point to this and claim that these genes are what cause someone to be homosexual. However, other researchers like Satinover have stressed avoiding jumping to conclusions and emphasized that correlation does not always mean causation. He contends that these genetic factors were only one of many factors affecting one’s sexual orientation and cautioned against concluding that homosexuality is mostly determined by genetics.
Homosexuality is widely accepted to be determined by one’s biology. While some on the political spectrum might assert that people only change their sexuality due to personal preference or social pressure, this claim has no scientific merit. We must stop disregarding the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports the biological basis of sexual orientation and accept that sexuality is part of one’s identity. We must build a society that respects individuals for who they are, regardless of sexual orientation.
Sources:
Gulia, K. K., and H. N. Mallick. “Homosexuality: A Dilemma in Discourse!” Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, vol. 54, no. 1, 2010, pp. 5–20, https://www.ijpp.com/IJPP%20archives/2010_54_1/5-20.pdf.
Kertbeny KM. Paragraph 143 des Preussichen Strafgesetzebuches vom 14/4-1851 und seine Aufrechterhaltung als Paragraph 152 im Entwurf eines Strafgesetzbuches fur den Norddeutschen Bundes, Leipzig, 1869. Reprinted in Jahrbuch fur Sexuelle Zwischenstufen 1905;
7: pp. 1–66. 2. Percy WA. III, “Reconsiderations about Greek Homosexualities,” in Same-Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West, ed. B. C. Verstraete and V. Provencal, Harrington Park Press, 2005; pp. 47–48.
Thorp J. The social construction of homosexuality. Available Online. 8 April 2003. http://www.fordham. edu/halsall/med/thorp.html