Whatever the true situation about the basis of homosexuality the Left are in a cleft stick. Many argue that homosexuality is genetic and therefore ‘normal’ but then also argue that people are born as a ‘blank slate’ which can be educated by kind-hearted social programmes.
Whatever the true situation about the basis of homosexuality the Left are in a cleft stick. Many argue that homosexuality is genetic and therefore ‘normal’ but then also argue that people are born as a ‘blank slate’ which can be educated by kind-hearted social programmes.
Sharon Overy
11 months ago
I very much enjoyed this, and I think I agree with you, albeit as an ‘outsider’.
Thanks for an interesting read.
Agree – hadn’t heard of the movement written about here. I thought this was interesting: “one’s identity is a process of obsessive self-marketing” – sounds like a perfect topic for a Mary Harrington essay – is ‘identity’ forming and re-forming a type of branding that we’ve learned from being saturated in ever changing marketing concepts?
I think it might go beyond that; as potentially an evolutionary change in consciousness being brought about before our very eyes through our interaction with the internet – seen as a form of mass consciouness via which our selves become reflected and therefore changing us in some fundamental way which we’re only just beginning to grapple with.
I fully understand just how high-flown that might sound. The trouble is, we only have the use of language with which to make a case, and sometimes this can prove inadequate and create misunderstandings.
But as an example, participation in this Comments section, in the same way as using Twitter or Instagram, subtly alters our exposure to and involvement in a hitherto unknown form of reflectiveness. One aspect of this is the way some participants just stop contributing, whilst others change their online identity for different reasons but not always successfully. There’s a hugely accelerated process going on here, whereas before we interacted only through those we met on a day to day basis whilst spending time reading (and latterly, viewing) in a solipsistic way.
It would be impossible for this change to be happening without having an effect on our sense of self, and much more so for online natives, who would find it difficult if not impossible to imagine how a previous iteration of selfhood might exist. Those of us who span this transition find ourselves in a unique position in human history – one never to be repeated in quite the same way. It’s no wonder that many struggle with it.
I very rarely click on suggested links, but decided to give it a try since the subject is so vital. You’ve done a great job with that.
And before too long, no-one will be around who remembers the pre-internet age, which will amplify your article several fold.
So readers may ask: what’s this got to do with whether or not being gay has a biological origin? Insofar as our identities are influenced by environment, it’s got everything to do with it. That’s why any potential biological origin – if it could be determined on a scientific basis – would be a game changer. If not, the rapidly changing nature of our everyday experiences and influences will likely result in ever greater fluidity in how our sense of self is formed, and perhaps re-formed, during the course of our lives.
It used to be said that workers (usually men) defined themselves by their jobs. Now that “jobs for life” hardly exist, that also changes how people view themselves. This subject is so vast, it’s almost too difficult to grasp the impact it has upon us – or, those of us who you rightly point out in your article are engaged with modernity in it’s tech sense; still less than half of humanity. More food for thought.
I gave up reading Bartle’s article after the first few paragraphs and came straight to the comments and was happy to find, first, Steve Murray’s insights, followed by your comment. Like Steve, I followed and read the link for your 2015 article. Very thought provoking.
Thank you for giving us the link to your article. As one who saw my first movie at the age of 7, and television for the first time at the age of 15, I ponder the differences between my ways of being in the world and those of younger generations.
I very rarely click on suggested links, but decided to give it a try since the subject is so vital. You’ve done a great job with that.
And before too long, no-one will be around who remembers the pre-internet age, which will amplify your article several fold.
So readers may ask: what’s this got to do with whether or not being gay has a biological origin? Insofar as our identities are influenced by environment, it’s got everything to do with it. That’s why any potential biological origin – if it could be determined on a scientific basis – would be a game changer. If not, the rapidly changing nature of our everyday experiences and influences will likely result in ever greater fluidity in how our sense of self is formed, and perhaps re-formed, during the course of our lives.
It used to be said that workers (usually men) defined themselves by their jobs. Now that “jobs for life” hardly exist, that also changes how people view themselves. This subject is so vast, it’s almost too difficult to grasp the impact it has upon us – or, those of us who you rightly point out in your article are engaged with modernity in it’s tech sense; still less than half of humanity. More food for thought.
I gave up reading Bartle’s article after the first few paragraphs and came straight to the comments and was happy to find, first, Steve Murray’s insights, followed by your comment. Like Steve, I followed and read the link for your 2015 article. Very thought provoking.
Thank you for giving us the link to your article. As one who saw my first movie at the age of 7, and television for the first time at the age of 15, I ponder the differences between my ways of being in the world and those of younger generations.
I think it might go beyond that; as potentially an evolutionary change in consciousness being brought about before our very eyes through our interaction with the internet – seen as a form of mass consciouness via which our selves become reflected and therefore changing us in some fundamental way which we’re only just beginning to grapple with.
I fully understand just how high-flown that might sound. The trouble is, we only have the use of language with which to make a case, and sometimes this can prove inadequate and create misunderstandings.
But as an example, participation in this Comments section, in the same way as using Twitter or Instagram, subtly alters our exposure to and involvement in a hitherto unknown form of reflectiveness. One aspect of this is the way some participants just stop contributing, whilst others change their online identity for different reasons but not always successfully. There’s a hugely accelerated process going on here, whereas before we interacted only through those we met on a day to day basis whilst spending time reading (and latterly, viewing) in a solipsistic way.
It would be impossible for this change to be happening without having an effect on our sense of self, and much more so for online natives, who would find it difficult if not impossible to imagine how a previous iteration of selfhood might exist. Those of us who span this transition find ourselves in a unique position in human history – one never to be repeated in quite the same way. It’s no wonder that many struggle with it.
Considering that, biologically speaking, the only reason a human is alive is to have sex it feels disproportionately important to the individual. A lot of the other purposes we create for ourselves are a fiction that in some way feeds back to enabling that. It’s understandable that people of all persuasions heavily integrate their sexual preferences into the way they display themselves to the world. But is is just who you fancy. It’s a minuscule part of who you are. Given what you might be capable of it’s a bit depressing to reduce your whole self to it.
“biologically speaking, the only reason a human is alive is to have sex”? Biology doesn’t give us “reasons” for human life, but elucidates and explains the processes by which we live. You might as well say the only reason we eat is to defecate. It’s up to other fields to give the ‘why’ for biology’s ‘how’.
Perhaps I could have said ‘evolutionarily speaking’ but I think you missed my point. All life exists to survive and propagate itself and that’s about it. So much of our behaviour (constructive behaviour, at least) is in aid of that. Of course you can open up the aspect of humans being social primates and there’s a lot to say there. Some people believe that humans have transcended those motivations but that’s a special kind of vanity.
“and that’s about it” – that’s just sad. I think reproduction is pretty important, but certainly not because I feel an obligation to ‘the human race’ or any grand abstraction like that. Caring for children transforms us (as do other things). And that transformation is “the only reason a human is alive.”
Kirk Susong’s absolutely right. It is absurdly reductionist to say that “the only reason a human is alive is to have sex”!
His reply; “You might as well say the only reason we eat is to defecate. It’s up to other fields to give the ‘why’ for biology’s ‘how’.” is also very true.
HOWEVER….. what you surely meant to say was “the only reason a human is alive is to REPRODUCE” And if this is really your belief then, logically speaking homosexuality is the evolutionists equivalent of unforgiveable heresy!
“and that’s about it” – that’s just sad. I think reproduction is pretty important, but certainly not because I feel an obligation to ‘the human race’ or any grand abstraction like that. Caring for children transforms us (as do other things). And that transformation is “the only reason a human is alive.”
Kirk Susong’s absolutely right. It is absurdly reductionist to say that “the only reason a human is alive is to have sex”!
His reply; “You might as well say the only reason we eat is to defecate. It’s up to other fields to give the ‘why’ for biology’s ‘how’.” is also very true.
HOWEVER….. what you surely meant to say was “the only reason a human is alive is to REPRODUCE” And if this is really your belief then, logically speaking homosexuality is the evolutionists equivalent of unforgiveable heresy!
Perhaps I could have said ‘evolutionarily speaking’ but I think you missed my point. All life exists to survive and propagate itself and that’s about it. So much of our behaviour (constructive behaviour, at least) is in aid of that. Of course you can open up the aspect of humans being social primates and there’s a lot to say there. Some people believe that humans have transcended those motivations but that’s a special kind of vanity.
Framing propagation as ‘the only reason a human is alive’ assumes there is a reason for anything. You might as well say gravity is the only reason a human is alive.
“biologically speaking, the only reason a human is alive is to have sex”? Biology doesn’t give us “reasons” for human life, but elucidates and explains the processes by which we live. You might as well say the only reason we eat is to defecate. It’s up to other fields to give the ‘why’ for biology’s ‘how’.
Framing propagation as ‘the only reason a human is alive’ assumes there is a reason for anything. You might as well say gravity is the only reason a human is alive.
Agree – hadn’t heard of the movement written about here. I thought this was interesting: “one’s identity is a process of obsessive self-marketing” – sounds like a perfect topic for a Mary Harrington essay – is ‘identity’ forming and re-forming a type of branding that we’ve learned from being saturated in ever changing marketing concepts?
Considering that, biologically speaking, the only reason a human is alive is to have sex it feels disproportionately important to the individual. A lot of the other purposes we create for ourselves are a fiction that in some way feeds back to enabling that. It’s understandable that people of all persuasions heavily integrate their sexual preferences into the way they display themselves to the world. But is is just who you fancy. It’s a minuscule part of who you are. Given what you might be capable of it’s a bit depressing to reduce your whole self to it.
Last edited 11 months ago by Stu B
Sharon Overy
11 months ago
I very much enjoyed this, and I think I agree with you, albeit as an ‘outsider’.
Thanks for an interesting read.
John Riordan
11 months ago
“For the homosexuals who wrote and contributed to Der Eigene, which included many prominent men of the day — including political journalist Kurt Hiller and the novelist Thomas Mann — all this talk of an inherent hermaphroditic soul was ahistorical and wrongheaded. From Greek antiquity to European aristocracy, they argued, sexual acts between men could be seen as a natural extension of passionate male friendship. To describe this worldview, artist and scholar Elisar von Kupffer coined the term “Lieblingminne” in Der Eigene, combining the virtues of Frundesliebe, love of friends, with Minne, chivalric love.”
Perhaps I’m being cynical but this does rather come across as some sort of metaphysical chat up line by a gay bloke hoping to persuade straight guys to try it out. And my own view is may well be the product of cultural conditioning rather than innate biological bias, but I do nonetheless know what it’s like to be a straight bloke: we cannot be persuaded to become curious in this way: we’re repelled by other men, not merely unattracted.
And this doesn’t involve then being homophobic in case anyone’s wondering: any intelligent straight man can deal perfectly well with the mystery of why other men might find men attractive by the simple exercise of asking themselves what women find attractive about men. “They just do” is not a sufficient answer in this specific context.
A phobia is an irrational fear, so it’s use in the Marxist lexicon of various phobias is incorrect.
A phobia is not a dislike or disapproval of or to be anti something.
Again the Left demonstrate an example of their ignorance of English, science and numeracy
A phobia is an irrational fear, so it’s use in the Marxist lexicon of various phobias is incorrect.
A phobia is not a dislike or disapproval of or to be anti something.
Again the Left demonstrate an example of their ignorance of English, science and numeracy
To me it sounds more like bourgeois people such as Mann trying to persuade *themselves* that being gay was OK.
Some of the *really* smug ones (like the poet Stefan George, if I remember correctly) saw their homosexuality as a mark of the intellectual and cultural superiority which set them apart from the vulgar modern herd.
To me it sounds more like bourgeois people such as Mann trying to persuade *themselves* that being gay was OK.
Some of the *really* smug ones (like the poet Stefan George, if I remember correctly) saw their homosexuality as a mark of the intellectual and cultural superiority which set them apart from the vulgar modern herd.
John Riordan
11 months ago
“For the homosexuals who wrote and contributed to Der Eigene, which included many prominent men of the day — including political journalist Kurt Hiller and the novelist Thomas Mann — all this talk of an inherent hermaphroditic soul was ahistorical and wrongheaded. From Greek antiquity to European aristocracy, they argued, sexual acts between men could be seen as a natural extension of passionate male friendship. To describe this worldview, artist and scholar Elisar von Kupffer coined the term “Lieblingminne” in Der Eigene, combining the virtues of Frundesliebe, love of friends, with Minne, chivalric love.”
Perhaps I’m being cynical but this does rather come across as some sort of metaphysical chat up line by a gay bloke hoping to persuade straight guys to try it out. And my own view is may well be the product of cultural conditioning rather than innate biological bias, but I do nonetheless know what it’s like to be a straight bloke: we cannot be persuaded to become curious in this way: we’re repelled by other men, not merely unattracted.
And this doesn’t involve then being homophobic in case anyone’s wondering: any intelligent straight man can deal perfectly well with the mystery of why other men might find men attractive by the simple exercise of asking themselves what women find attractive about men. “They just do” is not a sufficient answer in this specific context.
Last edited 11 months ago by John Riordan
Stoater D
11 months ago
Who cares ?
I am NOT interested in any of this, what does it matter ?
Douglas Murray, Dave Rubin and David Starkey are gay but so what ?
They should be valued for their intellects and for what they have say.
What needs to be addressed today, is the mutilation of children and young adults by the wicked and depraved ” transgender care ” lobby.
This is true evil.
Don’t read it if you’re not interested, and going on to post two comments on an article you’re apparently indifferent to seems excessive. The article had nothing to say about the trans weirdos so I’m not sure why you tried to crowbar that in.
I ” crowbarred ” it in because it is a current issue and it is ruining people’s lives.
It doesn’t matter that it was not mentioned in the article.
As for the gay issues, really NO-ONE CARES.
Actually, people DO care, even if you don’t.
However….you are SO RIGHT about the Trans Child/self-harming agenda. There is Child abuse masquerading as “Care”. You are not trying to “crowbar that in” since the same Lobbyists insist on connecting them & insist on their connected validity.
Actually, people DO care, even if you don’t.
However….you are SO RIGHT about the Trans Child/self-harming agenda. There is Child abuse masquerading as “Care”. You are not trying to “crowbar that in” since the same Lobbyists insist on connecting them & insist on their connected validity.
I ” crowbarred ” it in because it is a current issue and it is ruining people’s lives.
It doesn’t matter that it was not mentioned in the article.
As for the gay issues, really NO-ONE CARES.
i find that the big importance ‘issue’ of where males want to stick their willies really really boring and irrelevant to anything of real importance – just dont let stupid young people disfigure themselves with drugs and scalpels !!!!
i find that the big importance ‘issue’ of where males want to stick their willies really really boring and irrelevant to anything of real importance – just dont let stupid young people disfigure themselves with drugs and scalpels !!!!
Don’t read it if you’re not interested, and going on to post two comments on an article you’re apparently indifferent to seems excessive. The article had nothing to say about the trans weirdos so I’m not sure why you tried to crowbar that in.
Exactly, who gives a ‘tinkers’s cuss’ as long as it doesn’t scare the horses.
Stoater D
11 months ago
Who cares ?
I am NOT interested in any of this, what does it matter ?
Douglas Murray, Dave Rubin and David Starkey are gay but so what ?
They should be valued for their intellects and for what they have say.
What needs to be addressed today, is the mutilation of children and young adults by the wicked and depraved ” transgender care ” lobby.
This is true evil.
William Shaw
11 months ago
We have one group of activists claiming that people are born sexless and genderless because sex and gender are social constructs.
We have another group who claim sex and gender are immutable and people are born that way.
Personally I don’t care which it is I just wish they’d stop trying to convince others of their point of view and get on with being who they want to be without demanding agreement from everyone else.
Re: “sexless andgenderless”. Well I’ve never met a trans person who thinks sex is a social construct or that they were literally erroneously assigned the wrong sex at birth, nor do we see trans people online making that explicit claim (certainly not those worth taking seriously). It’s a bad-faith strawman slur, pushing the idea that these people are somehow in denial of biology itself,when in fact they’re perfectly aware of what their chromosomes indicate. Gender on the other hand is more complex, culturally, socially and psychologically. Only complete cretins are unable to distinguish between the two…..you’d think? So why this manufactured confusion? It’s deeply unhelpful, leaving the debate trapped in a purgatory of sorts. I think we’re moving closer to solutions, but it’s one hell of a slog. Evolving beyond the Graham Linehans andthe Jessica Yanivs of this world would help.
Julian Farrows: “The whole purpose of this is to confuse and obfuscate, never to explain or enlighten”. Sad but true.
Re: “sexless andgenderless”. Well I’ve never met a trans person who thinks sex is a social construct or that they were literally erroneously assigned the wrong sex at birth, nor do we see trans people online making that explicit claim (certainly not those worth taking seriously). It’s a bad-faith strawman slur, pushing the idea that these people are somehow in denial of biology itself,when in fact they’re perfectly aware of what their chromosomes indicate. Gender on the other hand is more complex, culturally, socially and psychologically. Only complete cretins are unable to distinguish between the two…..you’d think? So why this manufactured confusion? It’s deeply unhelpful, leaving the debate trapped in a purgatory of sorts. I think we’re moving closer to solutions, but it’s one hell of a slog. Evolving beyond the Graham Linehans andthe Jessica Yanivs of this world would help.
Julian Farrows: “The whole purpose of this is to confuse and obfuscate, never to explain or enlighten”. Sad but true.
Last edited 10 months ago by Dee Seejay
William Shaw
11 months ago
We have one group of activists claiming that people are born sexless and genderless because sex and gender are social constructs.
We have another group who claim sex and gender are immutable and people are born that way.
Personally I don’t care which it is I just wish they’d stop trying to convince others of their point of view and get on with being who they want to be without demanding agreement from everyone else.
Last edited 11 months ago by William Shaw
Geoff Wilkes
11 months ago
None of this establishes that homosexuality is or isn’t biological. That’s a question of science, not what this person or that person thought or thinks.
Mr Bartle also seems to underestimate the extent to which Hirschfeld and others are still known and referred to today. At the very least, he fails to distinguish between what scholars know and what the general public knows.
On a minor note, I’d be more impressed by Mr Bartle’s erudition if he knew how to spell “Freundesliebe” and “Kreis.” One such error may be understandable, but two put me in mind of Lady Bracknell.
Thank you for pointing out the errors! I’m not a German speaker and rely on translations, so that is definitely a goof on my part.
As to the whether or not homosexuality is biological, the headline might give off the wrong impression. All our preferences are on some level influenced by our biology. However, when people speak of homosexuality as biological they are usually referring to sexual orientation as being some sort of fixed state, destined from birth.
This doesn’t seem plausible for two reasons. Firstly, looking at the wide variation of documented desire over history doesn’t demonstrate clear groupings of “gay, straight and bisexual” people. Moreover, we seem to intuit many other types of sexual preferences – a shoe fetish or a taste for blondes – aren’t fixed states of who someone is, as they clearly shaped by the environment. Sexual taste is much like your taste in food, there might have been early aversion or perhaps a preference developed over time or likely a combination of both. I think it’s worth taking into account the thoughts of the earliest “homosexuals” (as in, those who were the first to view themselves that way) in testing out our current think.
And you’re absolutely right that looking for biological correlates and possible aetiologies of homosexuality is a scientific question. However, if your categories are flawed, any statistically significant differences in brain scans, clusters of genes or potential influences of testosterone in the womb, are also going to be flawed.
The history of trying to find a clear biological “cause” of homosexuality has produced rather inconsistent results. The current state of the scientific research is to speak less of fixed, innate orientations but of more subtle dispositions in temperament, heavily shaped by environment. I believe the current research fits better with the idea of “taste” as opposed to homosexual “as noun”.
Thanks for your reply.
After I’d read the article, I thought that the headline might be overdoing it, but I had a second look and thought that maybe it wasn’t, for example because you take issue with the view that homosexuals are “born that way.”
I don’t know a lot about this, but I happen to have been reading about some of the late 19th- and early 20th-century stuff lately because I’m thinking of writing something about the 1931 German film “Girls in Uniform,” which has to be considered at least partly from a lesbian viewpoint.
Basically, I don’t think anyone can be sure where homosexuality sits on the nature/nurture spectrum.
I’ll await your next article with the proverbial “considerable interest.”
This theory is extremely controversial (and therefore perfect for UnHerd, LOL)! An innate genetic basis for homosexuality is absolutely crucial for its acceptance in society. If it is innate, it is subject to protection as a human right under the law; if it is merely a “taste”, it can’t be seen as a legal right. After all, my obsession with putting hot sauce on my food surely isn’t the basis for all restaurants being required to offer it to all their customers — as a right!
This is the key to all the “mission creep” that we’re seeing now, whereby every type of sexual “kink” is being presented as an “identity” needing legal protection.
And it would have serious legal implications.
For example, promoting gay and lesbian lifestyles to minors.
Gay conversion therapy could be justified.
Knowing few gays and lesbians (one gay was married with 3 daughters before coming out), I think it is very much nature than nurture.
I would need scientific evidence to change my mind.
And it would have serious legal implications.
For example, promoting gay and lesbian lifestyles to minors.
Gay conversion therapy could be justified.
Knowing few gays and lesbians (one gay was married with 3 daughters before coming out), I think it is very much nature than nurture.
I would need scientific evidence to change my mind.
I have always thought that homosexuality is genetic otherwise why would anyone want to put themselves through the persecution that existed in days of yore, and if it’s a choice then heterosexuals have made the choice to be straight.
I agree – a complete lack of desire for the opposite sex is surely something someone is born with? I do however believe that being bisexual is a llifestyle choice – plenty of us are “bi curious” and have possibly experimented with our own sex.
That is not a very logical answer is it? We know that people are willing to put themselves through all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons! That is not proof of a genetic cause!
Secondly “the choice” element comes in acting-out an appetite. So, no, it does not logically follow that feeling heterosexual is a choice.
I agree – a complete lack of desire for the opposite sex is surely something someone is born with? I do however believe that being bisexual is a llifestyle choice – plenty of us are “bi curious” and have possibly experimented with our own sex.
That is not a very logical answer is it? We know that people are willing to put themselves through all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons! That is not proof of a genetic cause!
Secondly “the choice” element comes in acting-out an appetite. So, no, it does not logically follow that feeling heterosexual is a choice.
Thanks for your reply.
After I’d read the article, I thought that the headline might be overdoing it, but I had a second look and thought that maybe it wasn’t, for example because you take issue with the view that homosexuals are “born that way.”
I don’t know a lot about this, but I happen to have been reading about some of the late 19th- and early 20th-century stuff lately because I’m thinking of writing something about the 1931 German film “Girls in Uniform,” which has to be considered at least partly from a lesbian viewpoint.
Basically, I don’t think anyone can be sure where homosexuality sits on the nature/nurture spectrum.
I’ll await your next article with the proverbial “considerable interest.”
This theory is extremely controversial (and therefore perfect for UnHerd, LOL)! An innate genetic basis for homosexuality is absolutely crucial for its acceptance in society. If it is innate, it is subject to protection as a human right under the law; if it is merely a “taste”, it can’t be seen as a legal right. After all, my obsession with putting hot sauce on my food surely isn’t the basis for all restaurants being required to offer it to all their customers — as a right!
This is the key to all the “mission creep” that we’re seeing now, whereby every type of sexual “kink” is being presented as an “identity” needing legal protection.
I have always thought that homosexuality is genetic otherwise why would anyone want to put themselves through the persecution that existed in days of yore, and if it’s a choice then heterosexuals have made the choice to be straight.
Thank you for pointing out the errors! I’m not a German speaker and rely on translations, so that is definitely a goof on my part.
As to the whether or not homosexuality is biological, the headline might give off the wrong impression. All our preferences are on some level influenced by our biology. However, when people speak of homosexuality as biological they are usually referring to sexual orientation as being some sort of fixed state, destined from birth.
This doesn’t seem plausible for two reasons. Firstly, looking at the wide variation of documented desire over history doesn’t demonstrate clear groupings of “gay, straight and bisexual” people. Moreover, we seem to intuit many other types of sexual preferences – a shoe fetish or a taste for blondes – aren’t fixed states of who someone is, as they clearly shaped by the environment. Sexual taste is much like your taste in food, there might have been early aversion or perhaps a preference developed over time or likely a combination of both. I think it’s worth taking into account the thoughts of the earliest “homosexuals” (as in, those who were the first to view themselves that way) in testing out our current think.
And you’re absolutely right that looking for biological correlates and possible aetiologies of homosexuality is a scientific question. However, if your categories are flawed, any statistically significant differences in brain scans, clusters of genes or potential influences of testosterone in the womb, are also going to be flawed.
The history of trying to find a clear biological “cause” of homosexuality has produced rather inconsistent results. The current state of the scientific research is to speak less of fixed, innate orientations but of more subtle dispositions in temperament, heavily shaped by environment. I believe the current research fits better with the idea of “taste” as opposed to homosexual “as noun”.
Geoff Wilkes
11 months ago
None of this establishes that homosexuality is or isn’t biological. That’s a question of science, not what this person or that person thought or thinks.
Mr Bartle also seems to underestimate the extent to which Hirschfeld and others are still known and referred to today. At the very least, he fails to distinguish between what scholars know and what the general public knows.
On a minor note, I’d be more impressed by Mr Bartle’s erudition if he knew how to spell “Freundesliebe” and “Kreis.” One such error may be understandable, but two put me in mind of Lady Bracknell.
Paul Nathanson
11 months ago
I don’t know what to make of this article. Though not particularly interested in the history of either political or psychological theories about sexuality, I must admit that this aesthetic theory is intriguing.
I can remember having (what I now call) homoerotic feelings even as a schoolboy in grade one. So, if I’m not biologically gay, I must be gay for some reason that’s way beyond any personal choice. Moreover, my family did not correspond to the usual psychiatric theories. Eventually, I did wonder what made me different in this respect from most other people. But being gay, per se, was never a problem for me (except for the fallout from bullies) or even a major interest. It has always been a minor part of my life, mainly as entertainment, but not a significant part of my identity as a person.
And yet, all this about “taste” sounds provocative (in a good way). On one hand, I don’t know what it means. On the other hand, I must admit that there might be something in it. My response to male beauty is different, in one way, from my response to female beauty. But I respond also, intensely, to many other forms of beauty. My preoccupation with light, color, melody, words–let alone with art and music–has been a dominant theme in my life for almost all of my 75 years. I’ve changed in many ways over a lifetime, but not in that way. Like Oscar Wilde, I am clearly what many would call an “aesthete.” But precisely what does an aesthetic sensibility have to do with homosexuality? That’s not a rhetorical question. I don’t understand. I’m curious.
Last edited 11 months ago by Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
11 months ago
I don’t know what to make of this article. Though not particularly interested in the history of either political or psychological theories about sexuality, I must admit that this aesthetic theory is intriguing.
I can remember having (what I now call) homoerotic feelings even as a schoolboy in grade one. So, if I’m not biologically gay, I must be gay for some reason that’s way beyond any personal choice. Moreover, my family did not correspond to the usual psychiatric theories. Eventually, I did wonder what made me different in this respect from most other people. But being gay, per se, was never a problem for me (except for the fallout from bullies) or even a major interest. It has always been a minor part of my life, mainly as entertainment, but not a significant part of my identity as a person.
And yet, all this about “taste” sounds provocative (in a good way). On one hand, I don’t know what it means. On the other hand, I must admit that there might be something in it. My response to male beauty is different, in one way, from my response to female beauty. But I respond also, intensely, to many other forms of beauty. My preoccupation with light, color, melody, words–let alone with art and music–has been a dominant theme in my life for almost all of my 75 years. I’ve changed in many ways over a lifetime, but not in that way. Like Oscar Wilde, I am clearly what many would call an “aesthete.” But precisely what does an aesthetic sensibility have to do with homosexuality? That’s not a rhetorical question. I don’t understand. I’m curious.
Last edited 11 months ago by Paul Nathanson
Michael Drucker
11 months ago
IMO this is a superb article. The author writes with sensitivity about a range of opinions with a contagious open-mindedness.
This is what Unherd should be about.
I also note that he has responded to comments with clarity.
Much appreciated.
I wish that all Unherd authors take note.
Michael Drucker
11 months ago
IMO this is a superb article. The author writes with sensitivity about a range of opinions with a contagious open-mindedness.
This is what Unherd should be about.
I also note that he has responded to comments with clarity.
Much appreciated.
I wish that all Unherd authors take note.
Kevin Dee
11 months ago
I enjoyed the article, it’s definitely right to question the biological narrative that is taken as fact these days. One thing I though however that perhaps Der Eigene had to frame homosexuality in a softer way for audiences at the time. Maybe they felt they couldn’t say the only liked men but had to frame it as an extension of friendship in order to justify it.
Kevin Dee
11 months ago
I enjoyed the article, it’s definitely right to question the biological narrative that is taken as fact these days. One thing I though however that perhaps Der Eigene had to frame homosexuality in a softer way for audiences at the time. Maybe they felt they couldn’t say the only liked men but had to frame it as an extension of friendship in order to justify it.
Philip Anderson
11 months ago
In fact, “gay” does have biological underpinnings, as brain scans of homosexual people demonstrate – the brain of people who have a same sex attraction differs from that of a heterosexual of the same sex and shares some attributes with a member of the opposite sex.
In my view, magical thinking is involved in the idea that such a fundamentally different subjective experience should not have objective (biological) correlates in the brain.
Interesting (as a gay man myself) reading all the theories of heterosexuals who have no direct personal experience of the phenomenon though.
It may not have been clear in the piece, but I’m a gay man. As to your reference to brain scans, I talk about it in another comment if you’re interested.
You can’t have it both ways. You claim that being gay has biological underpinnings, yet interested in how so many heterosexuals have theories about it. If it was indeed biological, then it would be scientifically provable, which would preclude the need to be homosexual in order to comment.
What is wrong with you? I do not think Unherd is for you – check out the plethora of intelligent comments on here and observe that your crass remarks stick out like the proverbial sore thumb!
What is wrong with you? I do not think Unherd is for you – check out the plethora of intelligent comments on here and observe that your crass remarks stick out like the proverbial sore thumb!
The fact is no-one really knows why some men turn out to be gay. Some say it is to do with hormone imbalance in the womb, others that it is learned behaviour which seems unlikely.
At the end of day, does it really matter ?
Why does absolutely everything have to be politicised?
The fact is no-one really knows why some men turn out to be gay. Some say it is to do with hormone imbalance in the womb, others that it is learned behaviour which seems unlikely.
At the end of day, does it really matter ?
Why does absolutely everything have to be politicised?
Biological does not necessarily mean genetically determined. As with most other traits, there are genetic effects and there are effects from the gestation period, and environmental things like food, water, chemicals, and radiation (sunlight and cosmic rays), even exposure to other species or diseases, that are all biological. These external influences could tip the primary sexual attraction one way or the other – we just don’t know. However, if you consider something as mundane as foot size, malnutrition, heavy metals, and physical restraints all are known to play a role.
On top of all that is the social environment that makes various behaviors more or less acceptable.
It is quite a stew.
The debate about biology versus environment has no bearing on whether gay activity is healthy or not. The question is whether gay desire is more similar to liking cheese (“healthy”), or to alcohol addiction (“unhealthy”)?
The wider question in which society norms are grounded is whether the undeniable sexualization of society in this century is a good thing or a bad thing, especially as it relates to pornography, human trafficking and childhood education. My opinion is that sexualizing everything is going from bad to worse, driven by a false dichotomy of “if you have the inclination, it must be good”. But good for whom? Therefore is homosexual promiscuity a good thing, or only homosexual monogamy?
Is the assumption behind this that the brain merely decides our behaviour and/or appetites/inclinations?
Is it not also true that the brain is altered & affected by our repetitive behaviours/habits etc? We actually change our brains by the way we live, if I understand the experts correctly.
This being the case, claiming “biological underpinnings” from brain scans is far from conclusive.
Psychological factors, such as a faulty relationship with the same-sex parent have been noted in past studies. That would not be enough per se, but might, among other environmental/social factors be a tip in an individual with other (non?)biological factors….?
What we DO need to separate is the instinct/appetite/pre-disposition (you choose your terminology!) from the “lifestyle choice”. A person who follows their interests here will call themselves “gay”, but a person with the SAME interests who is happy to live celibate, for instance, is rejecting the “gay lifestyle” & may even hate the idea. I’ve noticed these persons refer to themselves as Same-sex-attracted or SSA. Before anyone just bellows, “Oh they’re just gay!”, ask yourself how many vegetarians/vegans are still attracted to the aroma of meat? Does that mean that they are NOT really vegetarians? There is all the difference in the world between what we may FEEL & what we DO. This is an entirely valid distinction.
Also there are plenty of recorded instances of ex-homosexuality. I have read some of their stories. How could that be possible if it were simply biological?
Food for thought. (No pun intended).
It may not have been clear in the piece, but I’m a gay man. As to your reference to brain scans, I talk about it in another comment if you’re interested.
You can’t have it both ways. You claim that being gay has biological underpinnings, yet interested in how so many heterosexuals have theories about it. If it was indeed biological, then it would be scientifically provable, which would preclude the need to be homosexual in order to comment.
Biological does not necessarily mean genetically determined. As with most other traits, there are genetic effects and there are effects from the gestation period, and environmental things like food, water, chemicals, and radiation (sunlight and cosmic rays), even exposure to other species or diseases, that are all biological. These external influences could tip the primary sexual attraction one way or the other – we just don’t know. However, if you consider something as mundane as foot size, malnutrition, heavy metals, and physical restraints all are known to play a role.
On top of all that is the social environment that makes various behaviors more or less acceptable.
It is quite a stew.
The debate about biology versus environment has no bearing on whether gay activity is healthy or not. The question is whether gay desire is more similar to liking cheese (“healthy”), or to alcohol addiction (“unhealthy”)?
The wider question in which society norms are grounded is whether the undeniable sexualization of society in this century is a good thing or a bad thing, especially as it relates to pornography, human trafficking and childhood education. My opinion is that sexualizing everything is going from bad to worse, driven by a false dichotomy of “if you have the inclination, it must be good”. But good for whom? Therefore is homosexual promiscuity a good thing, or only homosexual monogamy?
Is the assumption behind this that the brain merely decides our behaviour and/or appetites/inclinations?
Is it not also true that the brain is altered & affected by our repetitive behaviours/habits etc? We actually change our brains by the way we live, if I understand the experts correctly.
This being the case, claiming “biological underpinnings” from brain scans is far from conclusive.
Psychological factors, such as a faulty relationship with the same-sex parent have been noted in past studies. That would not be enough per se, but might, among other environmental/social factors be a tip in an individual with other (non?)biological factors….?
What we DO need to separate is the instinct/appetite/pre-disposition (you choose your terminology!) from the “lifestyle choice”. A person who follows their interests here will call themselves “gay”, but a person with the SAME interests who is happy to live celibate, for instance, is rejecting the “gay lifestyle” & may even hate the idea. I’ve noticed these persons refer to themselves as Same-sex-attracted or SSA. Before anyone just bellows, “Oh they’re just gay!”, ask yourself how many vegetarians/vegans are still attracted to the aroma of meat? Does that mean that they are NOT really vegetarians? There is all the difference in the world between what we may FEEL & what we DO. This is an entirely valid distinction.
Also there are plenty of recorded instances of ex-homosexuality. I have read some of their stories. How could that be possible if it were simply biological?
Food for thought. (No pun intended).
Philip Anderson
11 months ago
In fact, “gay” does have biological underpinnings, as brain scans of homosexual people demonstrate – the brain of people who have a same sex attraction differs from that of a heterosexual of the same sex and shares some attributes with a member of the opposite sex.
In my view, magical thinking is involved in the idea that such a fundamentally different subjective experience should not have objective (biological) correlates in the brain.
Interesting (as a gay man myself) reading all the theories of heterosexuals who have no direct personal experience of the phenomenon though.
Stuart Adams
11 months ago
This article gets at what I, age 77, have long believed to be true about my own sexual attraction to other males. It is sometimes purely erotic, which is to say I am turned on by how another male looks, carries himself and so on, but it is usually also an expression of the kind of liking that leads to friendship and then becomes an expression of that friendship. I don’t think Lionel Tiger did my generation any favours by getting us to replace Freud’s/Jung’s “latent homosexuality” with his “male bonding” and getting us to dismiss that there is often a sexual element (expressed or not) to affection and friendship between males. As for all of the slicing and dicing of people into ever more categories and the invention of a super-category called “LGBTQUI++” and so on, it’s artificial and serves no one well except for academics and campaigning groups. Such people do not liberate us. They imprison us and they lump us together with others with whom we have nothing whatever in common except for our non-conformity with what some social conservatives call “normal” or “moral”. Walt Whitman was famously a 19th century American writer who was often guided by German writers as he made sense of his own homoerotic attraction to and need for friendship other males.
Last edited 11 months ago by Stuart Adams
Stuart Adams
11 months ago
This article gets at what I, age 77, have long believed to be true about my own sexual attraction to other males. It is sometimes purely erotic, which is to say I am turned on by how another male looks, carries himself and so on, but it is usually also an expression of the kind of liking that leads to friendship and then becomes an expression of that friendship. I don’t think Lionel Tiger did my generation any favours by getting us to replace Freud’s/Jung’s “latent homosexuality” with his “male bonding” and getting us to dismiss that there is often a sexual element (expressed or not) to affection and friendship between males. As for all of the slicing and dicing of people into ever more categories and the invention of a super-category called “LGBTQUI++” and so on, it’s artificial and serves no one well except for academics and campaigning groups. Such people do not liberate us. They imprison us and they lump us together with others with whom we have nothing whatever in common except for our non-conformity with what some social conservatives call “normal” or “moral”. Walt Whitman was famously a 19th century American writer who was often guided by German writers as he made sense of his own homoerotic attraction to and need for friendship other males.
Last edited 11 months ago by Stuart Adams
Christopher Chantrill
11 months ago
Back when I was a lad in 1960s Britland I knew that gayness was a Tory toff thing: Revisiting Brideshead and all that. Don’t ask me how I knew; it was in the air.
But I agree, it’s a delightful thing to have some gay paint the pope’s chapel ceiling of an evening.
And it is fun to visit museums in Athens and realize that all the male marble sculptures are buck naked and all the female marble sculptures are modestly attired in flowing robes. What was with those Ancient Greeks?
Last edited 11 months ago by Christopher Chantrill
For starters try The Aphrodite of Knidos by Praxiteles.
Christopher Chantrill
11 months ago
Back when I was a lad in 1960s Britland I knew that gayness was a Tory toff thing: Revisiting Brideshead and all that. Don’t ask me how I knew; it was in the air.
But I agree, it’s a delightful thing to have some gay paint the pope’s chapel ceiling of an evening.
And it is fun to visit museums in Athens and realize that all the male marble sculptures are buck naked and all the female marble sculptures are modestly attired in flowing robes. What was with those Ancient Greeks?
Last edited 11 months ago by Christopher Chantrill
Doug Mccaully
11 months ago
What an interesting article, though it’ll take me a while to form an opinion on it
Doug Mccaully
11 months ago
What an interesting article, though it’ll take me a while to form an opinion on it
Vici C
11 months ago
It is interesting to note the theory that we are here to reproduce and survive as a species. True, it is the one thing we share with the rest of life on earth. But part of our survival is being a social species. To ensure our survival as a social species, not every body has to reproduce. There will be those who contribute in other ways that enhance our survival, that actually make our survival something we may wish to achieve..
Vici C
11 months ago
It is interesting to note the theory that we are here to reproduce and survive as a species. True, it is the one thing we share with the rest of life on earth. But part of our survival is being a social species. To ensure our survival as a social species, not every body has to reproduce. There will be those who contribute in other ways that enhance our survival, that actually make our survival something we may wish to achieve..
Roland Jeffery
11 months ago
A great read, Jarryd.
And – since the LGBTQ movement switched off its collective brain and went tribal – all too rare a discussion. Where we have come from is such a useful perspective on where we are—and might go.
Roland Jeffery
11 months ago
A great read, Jarryd.
And – since the LGBTQ movement switched off its collective brain and went tribal – all too rare a discussion. Where we have come from is such a useful perspective on where we are—and might go.
Ross Madgwick
11 months ago
Who considers it an ‘identity’? What a load of rubbish. Most people consider it an innate orientation in the same way as heterosexuality – which it most definitely is.
Who considers it an ‘identity’? What a load of rubbish. Most people consider it an innate orientation in the same way as heterosexuality – which it most definitely is.
Tom More
11 months ago
There is no such thing a “homosexual” nor a “heterosexual. There is mature and immature sexual behavior with our reproductive organs. Sodomy has killed over a million young men in the west, and the CDC points out accidentally that it cannot be performed “naturally”, safely.
As in the term universe, or version, we speak of meaning or norms. Perversion is going against our healthy natural norms. It is a perverse behavior by definition as indeed reality defines us.
So now we rob children of their relationships with their own bodies in our “schools”. Groomers. Dare to speak plainly.
Tom More
11 months ago
There is no such thing a “homosexual” nor a “heterosexual. There is mature and immature sexual behavior with our reproductive organs. Sodomy has killed over a million young men in the west, and the CDC points out accidentally that it cannot be performed “naturally”, safely.
As in the term universe, or version, we speak of meaning or norms. Perversion is going against our healthy natural norms. It is a perverse behavior by definition as indeed reality defines us.
So now we rob children of their relationships with their own bodies in our “schools”. Groomers. Dare to speak plainly.
Frank McCusker
11 months ago
Being straight or gay is instinctive, and you’re born the way you are. A reality that proponents of gay conversion therapies struggle to accept. And, regrettably, a minority of condescending middle-class urban bi folk assume that everyone else is like them.
Not singling out your comment, but there’s a common mistake I think people make in assuming that “not biological” means “voluntary” or “capable of change”.
Most of our developed preferences can’t be changed, and trying to change them causes considerable distress with little reward. Imagine having a lifelong disgust (or strong disinterest) in cheese but prevailing social norms tell you that cheese eating was morally necessary.
You might give it a go but it wouldn’t be pleasant, and living a double life where you had to grin and bear it would drive you mad.
It’s a difficult question to answer because of lack of data. Are there more homosexuals now in a more permissive age than a century ago? No way of knowing. Are children raised by homosexuals more likely to be gay?
Who knows?
It doesn’t seem to me to be a developed preference in the same way that drinking ale or consuming dairy products is in England.
I would say there is if anything a gender difference at work. All the gay men I have ever known have never been anything else, whereas I have encountered a fair number of women who have been in heterosexual relationships and have later entered lesbian ones. I get the feeling male sexuality is more ‘fixed’ in this sense, but it’s purely subjective – I have very little evidence for this assumption.
Actually, where food preferences are concerned, your gut biome can have a role in changing your tastes. When you start eating a lot of fresh vegetables, changes to your biome literally make them start to taste better to you! It sounds crazy, but it’s real. I suspect it’s some sort of biological adaptation. But I don’t think it has anything to do with sexual preferences…I’m just saying that the analogy may not work scientifically.
My whole life I hated brussels sprouts; they were always served boiled and mushy in my childhood. I avoided them like the plague. Then my wife started roasting them, and suddenly I thought they were great. Now I’ve discovered that even boiled brussels sprouts aren’t so bad.
How in the world would social scientists attempt to determine if it were possible for ‘developed preferences’ to change? I think tastes and preferences change all the time, as we age, as our circumstances change, as our experiences shape us.
I’ve already commented that I’ve always thought homosexuality is biological, but your analogy about cheese and sex doesn’t work. Sex hormones creating the desire for sex are very, very powerful and not to be denied, unlike a taste for cheese.
Who says that sex desires are “not to be denied”? We deny them all the time. There are MANY occasions when we restrain ourselves in this respect – at least I hope so! Also, some celibate people have lived very successful, happy, constructive lives – better than the Hugh Heffners of this world, certainly!
It is so typical of 21stC self-obsession & entitlement mentality to demand that our appetites “cannot be denied”.
They CAN be & (if we’re not going to behave like animals) often SHOULD be.
That’s what being grown-up is often all about.
If homosexuality was biological at source, then there would be comparative numbers of “dedicated h.sexuality in the ‘Animal kingdom’. But there is not.
Who says that sex desires are “not to be denied”? We deny them all the time. There are MANY occasions when we restrain ourselves in this respect – at least I hope so! Also, some celibate people have lived very successful, happy, constructive lives – better than the Hugh Heffners of this world, certainly!
It is so typical of 21stC self-obsession & entitlement mentality to demand that our appetites “cannot be denied”.
They CAN be & (if we’re not going to behave like animals) often SHOULD be.
That’s what being grown-up is often all about.
If homosexuality was biological at source, then there would be comparative numbers of “dedicated h.sexuality in the ‘Animal kingdom’. But there is not.
It’s a difficult question to answer because of lack of data. Are there more homosexuals now in a more permissive age than a century ago? No way of knowing. Are children raised by homosexuals more likely to be gay?
Who knows?
It doesn’t seem to me to be a developed preference in the same way that drinking ale or consuming dairy products is in England.
I would say there is if anything a gender difference at work. All the gay men I have ever known have never been anything else, whereas I have encountered a fair number of women who have been in heterosexual relationships and have later entered lesbian ones. I get the feeling male sexuality is more ‘fixed’ in this sense, but it’s purely subjective – I have very little evidence for this assumption.
Actually, where food preferences are concerned, your gut biome can have a role in changing your tastes. When you start eating a lot of fresh vegetables, changes to your biome literally make them start to taste better to you! It sounds crazy, but it’s real. I suspect it’s some sort of biological adaptation. But I don’t think it has anything to do with sexual preferences…I’m just saying that the analogy may not work scientifically.
My whole life I hated brussels sprouts; they were always served boiled and mushy in my childhood. I avoided them like the plague. Then my wife started roasting them, and suddenly I thought they were great. Now I’ve discovered that even boiled brussels sprouts aren’t so bad.
How in the world would social scientists attempt to determine if it were possible for ‘developed preferences’ to change? I think tastes and preferences change all the time, as we age, as our circumstances change, as our experiences shape us.
I’ve already commented that I’ve always thought homosexuality is biological, but your analogy about cheese and sex doesn’t work. Sex hormones creating the desire for sex are very, very powerful and not to be denied, unlike a taste for cheese.
What is labelled “gay conversion therapy” by the Stonewall lobbyists is often nothing of the kind.
If someone has a whole set of questions about their sexual feelings -of any kind- and goes to seek pastoral help or counselling and if the parties consulted do not necessarily recommend the full LGBTQ+ response in EVERY case then they are labelled as “Conversion Therapists”.
If you want to see “Conversion Therapy” being attempted just check out the “Trans or Drag Storytime” Events being foisted on very young children in schools & libraries! or most of the events during “Pride Month” for that matter!
Such blatant propaganda is usually practised by “condescending middle-class urban folk” who assume that everyone needs to be lectured on “Correct” gender-ideology.
To simply state “you are born that way” is to regurgitate the trendy dogma (popular amongst the condescending PC Police) and sidesteps the whole article (& most of the comments!) so far!
Not singling out your comment, but there’s a common mistake I think people make in assuming that “not biological” means “voluntary” or “capable of change”.
Most of our developed preferences can’t be changed, and trying to change them causes considerable distress with little reward. Imagine having a lifelong disgust (or strong disinterest) in cheese but prevailing social norms tell you that cheese eating was morally necessary.
You might give it a go but it wouldn’t be pleasant, and living a double life where you had to grin and bear it would drive you mad.
What is labelled “gay conversion therapy” by the Stonewall lobbyists is often nothing of the kind.
If someone has a whole set of questions about their sexual feelings -of any kind- and goes to seek pastoral help or counselling and if the parties consulted do not necessarily recommend the full LGBTQ+ response in EVERY case then they are labelled as “Conversion Therapists”.
If you want to see “Conversion Therapy” being attempted just check out the “Trans or Drag Storytime” Events being foisted on very young children in schools & libraries! or most of the events during “Pride Month” for that matter!
Such blatant propaganda is usually practised by “condescending middle-class urban folk” who assume that everyone needs to be lectured on “Correct” gender-ideology.
To simply state “you are born that way” is to regurgitate the trendy dogma (popular amongst the condescending PC Police) and sidesteps the whole article (& most of the comments!) so far!
Frank McCusker
11 months ago
Being straight or gay is instinctive, and you’re born the way you are. A reality that proponents of gay conversion therapies struggle to accept. And, regrettably, a minority of condescending middle-class urban bi folk assume that everyone else is like them.
Nicky Samengo-Turner
11 months ago
i am bored witless and irritated beyond belief by having gay stuck in my face on unheard as well as everywhere else in nubritn hewkay.. Why don’t all the gay whingers please just get on with their lives and stop their mincing moaning?
I am never quite sure why it matters to anyone other than the actual person concerned whom an individual sleeps with. Or why they need to share it with everyone else!
Exactly – as far as I’m concerned it’s a matter of civil liberties – your sex life is none of my business, as long as you keep it out of the public square.
Exactly – as far as I’m concerned it’s a matter of civil liberties – your sex life is none of my business, as long as you keep it out of the public square.
Here’s a tip: The headline usually gives you an idea of what the article is about, so that you can decide not to read it.
Any reply to this would be your fifth comment on the article, which I think would make more than anyone except the author himself, who is civil and informative.
I am never quite sure why it matters to anyone other than the actual person concerned whom an individual sleeps with. Or why they need to share it with everyone else!
Here’s a tip: The headline usually gives you an idea of what the article is about, so that you can decide not to read it.
Any reply to this would be your fifth comment on the article, which I think would make more than anyone except the author himself, who is civil and informative.
If you’re so bored perhaps you should not come back, please.
Nicky Samengo-Turner
11 months ago
i am bored witless and irritated beyond belief by having gay stuck in my face on unheard as well as everywhere else in nubritn hewkay.. Why don’t all the gay whingers please just get on with their lives and stop their mincing moaning?
Whatever the true situation about the basis of homosexuality the Left are in a cleft stick. Many argue that homosexuality is genetic and therefore ‘normal’ but then also argue that people are born as a ‘blank slate’ which can be educated by kind-hearted social programmes.
I don’t get why it’s a Left/right” issue?
As a generalisation ‘the right’ do not make the ‘blank slate’ assumption. They generally believe that people are flawed.
It shouldn’t be but it is.
As a generalisation ‘the right’ do not make the ‘blank slate’ assumption. They generally believe that people are flawed.
It shouldn’t be but it is.
I don’t get why it’s a Left/right” issue?
Whatever the true situation about the basis of homosexuality the Left are in a cleft stick. Many argue that homosexuality is genetic and therefore ‘normal’ but then also argue that people are born as a ‘blank slate’ which can be educated by kind-hearted social programmes.
I very much enjoyed this, and I think I agree with you, albeit as an ‘outsider’.
Thanks for an interesting read.
Agree – hadn’t heard of the movement written about here. I thought this was interesting: “one’s identity is a process of obsessive self-marketing” – sounds like a perfect topic for a Mary Harrington essay – is ‘identity’ forming and re-forming a type of branding that we’ve learned from being saturated in ever changing marketing concepts?
I think it might go beyond that; as potentially an evolutionary change in consciousness being brought about before our very eyes through our interaction with the internet – seen as a form of mass consciouness via which our selves become reflected and therefore changing us in some fundamental way which we’re only just beginning to grapple with.
I fully understand just how high-flown that might sound. The trouble is, we only have the use of language with which to make a case, and sometimes this can prove inadequate and create misunderstandings.
But as an example, participation in this Comments section, in the same way as using Twitter or Instagram, subtly alters our exposure to and involvement in a hitherto unknown form of reflectiveness. One aspect of this is the way some participants just stop contributing, whilst others change their online identity for different reasons but not always successfully. There’s a hugely accelerated process going on here, whereas before we interacted only through those we met on a day to day basis whilst spending time reading (and latterly, viewing) in a solipsistic way.
It would be impossible for this change to be happening without having an effect on our sense of self, and much more so for online natives, who would find it difficult if not impossible to imagine how a previous iteration of selfhood might exist. Those of us who span this transition find ourselves in a unique position in human history – one never to be repeated in quite the same way. It’s no wonder that many struggle with it.
Yes, agree. We’re ‘imprinting’ to two dimensional screens whose sole purpose is to keep us ‘hook’. Without a doubt, it’s transformed and continues to transform our understanding of ‘self’. I took a swing at this some years ago. See: https://raisethehammer.org/article/2593/the_boob_tube:_three_generations_talk_tv
I very rarely click on suggested links, but decided to give it a try since the subject is so vital. You’ve done a great job with that.
And before too long, no-one will be around who remembers the pre-internet age, which will amplify your article several fold.
So readers may ask: what’s this got to do with whether or not being gay has a biological origin? Insofar as our identities are influenced by environment, it’s got everything to do with it. That’s why any potential biological origin – if it could be determined on a scientific basis – would be a game changer. If not, the rapidly changing nature of our everyday experiences and influences will likely result in ever greater fluidity in how our sense of self is formed, and perhaps re-formed, during the course of our lives.
It used to be said that workers (usually men) defined themselves by their jobs. Now that “jobs for life” hardly exist, that also changes how people view themselves. This subject is so vast, it’s almost too difficult to grasp the impact it has upon us – or, those of us who you rightly point out in your article are engaged with modernity in it’s tech sense; still less than half of humanity. More food for thought.
I gave up reading Bartle’s article after the first few paragraphs and came straight to the comments and was happy to find, first, Steve Murray’s insights, followed by your comment. Like Steve, I followed and read the link for your 2015 article. Very thought provoking.
Thank you for giving us the link to your article. As one who saw my first movie at the age of 7, and television for the first time at the age of 15, I ponder the differences between my ways of being in the world and those of younger generations.
I very rarely click on suggested links, but decided to give it a try since the subject is so vital. You’ve done a great job with that.
And before too long, no-one will be around who remembers the pre-internet age, which will amplify your article several fold.
So readers may ask: what’s this got to do with whether or not being gay has a biological origin? Insofar as our identities are influenced by environment, it’s got everything to do with it. That’s why any potential biological origin – if it could be determined on a scientific basis – would be a game changer. If not, the rapidly changing nature of our everyday experiences and influences will likely result in ever greater fluidity in how our sense of self is formed, and perhaps re-formed, during the course of our lives.
It used to be said that workers (usually men) defined themselves by their jobs. Now that “jobs for life” hardly exist, that also changes how people view themselves. This subject is so vast, it’s almost too difficult to grasp the impact it has upon us – or, those of us who you rightly point out in your article are engaged with modernity in it’s tech sense; still less than half of humanity. More food for thought.
I gave up reading Bartle’s article after the first few paragraphs and came straight to the comments and was happy to find, first, Steve Murray’s insights, followed by your comment. Like Steve, I followed and read the link for your 2015 article. Very thought provoking.
Thank you for giving us the link to your article. As one who saw my first movie at the age of 7, and television for the first time at the age of 15, I ponder the differences between my ways of being in the world and those of younger generations.
Yes, agree. We’re ‘imprinting’ to two dimensional screens whose sole purpose is to keep us ‘hook’. Without a doubt, it’s transformed and continues to transform our understanding of ‘self’. I took a swing at this some years ago. See: https://raisethehammer.org/article/2593/the_boob_tube:_three_generations_talk_tv
I think it might go beyond that; as potentially an evolutionary change in consciousness being brought about before our very eyes through our interaction with the internet – seen as a form of mass consciouness via which our selves become reflected and therefore changing us in some fundamental way which we’re only just beginning to grapple with.
I fully understand just how high-flown that might sound. The trouble is, we only have the use of language with which to make a case, and sometimes this can prove inadequate and create misunderstandings.
But as an example, participation in this Comments section, in the same way as using Twitter or Instagram, subtly alters our exposure to and involvement in a hitherto unknown form of reflectiveness. One aspect of this is the way some participants just stop contributing, whilst others change their online identity for different reasons but not always successfully. There’s a hugely accelerated process going on here, whereas before we interacted only through those we met on a day to day basis whilst spending time reading (and latterly, viewing) in a solipsistic way.
It would be impossible for this change to be happening without having an effect on our sense of self, and much more so for online natives, who would find it difficult if not impossible to imagine how a previous iteration of selfhood might exist. Those of us who span this transition find ourselves in a unique position in human history – one never to be repeated in quite the same way. It’s no wonder that many struggle with it.
Considering that, biologically speaking, the only reason a human is alive is to have sex it feels disproportionately important to the individual. A lot of the other purposes we create for ourselves are a fiction that in some way feeds back to enabling that. It’s understandable that people of all persuasions heavily integrate their sexual preferences into the way they display themselves to the world. But is is just who you fancy. It’s a minuscule part of who you are. Given what you might be capable of it’s a bit depressing to reduce your whole self to it.
“biologically speaking, the only reason a human is alive is to have sex”? Biology doesn’t give us “reasons” for human life, but elucidates and explains the processes by which we live. You might as well say the only reason we eat is to defecate. It’s up to other fields to give the ‘why’ for biology’s ‘how’.
Perhaps I could have said ‘evolutionarily speaking’ but I think you missed my point. All life exists to survive and propagate itself and that’s about it. So much of our behaviour (constructive behaviour, at least) is in aid of that. Of course you can open up the aspect of humans being social primates and there’s a lot to say there. Some people believe that humans have transcended those motivations but that’s a special kind of vanity.
“and that’s about it” – that’s just sad. I think reproduction is pretty important, but certainly not because I feel an obligation to ‘the human race’ or any grand abstraction like that. Caring for children transforms us (as do other things). And that transformation is “the only reason a human is alive.”
Teilhard de Chardin would say we exist to enrich life on earth, which is become more complex and more interconnected as time goes by.
Kirk Susong’s absolutely right. It is absurdly reductionist to say that “the only reason a human is alive is to have sex”!
His reply; “You might as well say the only reason we eat is to defecate. It’s up to other fields to give the ‘why’ for biology’s ‘how’.” is also very true.
HOWEVER….. what you surely meant to say was “the only reason a human is alive is to REPRODUCE” And if this is really your belief then, logically speaking homosexuality is the evolutionists equivalent of unforgiveable heresy!
“and that’s about it” – that’s just sad. I think reproduction is pretty important, but certainly not because I feel an obligation to ‘the human race’ or any grand abstraction like that. Caring for children transforms us (as do other things). And that transformation is “the only reason a human is alive.”
Teilhard de Chardin would say we exist to enrich life on earth, which is become more complex and more interconnected as time goes by.
Kirk Susong’s absolutely right. It is absurdly reductionist to say that “the only reason a human is alive is to have sex”!
His reply; “You might as well say the only reason we eat is to defecate. It’s up to other fields to give the ‘why’ for biology’s ‘how’.” is also very true.
HOWEVER….. what you surely meant to say was “the only reason a human is alive is to REPRODUCE” And if this is really your belief then, logically speaking homosexuality is the evolutionists equivalent of unforgiveable heresy!
Perhaps I could have said ‘evolutionarily speaking’ but I think you missed my point. All life exists to survive and propagate itself and that’s about it. So much of our behaviour (constructive behaviour, at least) is in aid of that. Of course you can open up the aspect of humans being social primates and there’s a lot to say there. Some people believe that humans have transcended those motivations but that’s a special kind of vanity.
Framing propagation as ‘the only reason a human is alive’ assumes there is a reason for anything. You might as well say gravity is the only reason a human is alive.
“biologically speaking, the only reason a human is alive is to have sex”? Biology doesn’t give us “reasons” for human life, but elucidates and explains the processes by which we live. You might as well say the only reason we eat is to defecate. It’s up to other fields to give the ‘why’ for biology’s ‘how’.
Framing propagation as ‘the only reason a human is alive’ assumes there is a reason for anything. You might as well say gravity is the only reason a human is alive.
Agree – hadn’t heard of the movement written about here. I thought this was interesting: “one’s identity is a process of obsessive self-marketing” – sounds like a perfect topic for a Mary Harrington essay – is ‘identity’ forming and re-forming a type of branding that we’ve learned from being saturated in ever changing marketing concepts?
Considering that, biologically speaking, the only reason a human is alive is to have sex it feels disproportionately important to the individual. A lot of the other purposes we create for ourselves are a fiction that in some way feeds back to enabling that. It’s understandable that people of all persuasions heavily integrate their sexual preferences into the way they display themselves to the world. But is is just who you fancy. It’s a minuscule part of who you are. Given what you might be capable of it’s a bit depressing to reduce your whole self to it.
I very much enjoyed this, and I think I agree with you, albeit as an ‘outsider’.
Thanks for an interesting read.
“For the homosexuals who wrote and contributed to Der Eigene, which included many prominent men of the day — including political journalist Kurt Hiller and the novelist Thomas Mann — all this talk of an inherent hermaphroditic soul was ahistorical and wrongheaded. From Greek antiquity to European aristocracy, they argued, sexual acts between men could be seen as a natural extension of passionate male friendship. To describe this worldview, artist and scholar Elisar von Kupffer coined the term “Lieblingminne” in Der Eigene, combining the virtues of Frundesliebe, love of friends, with Minne, chivalric love.”
Perhaps I’m being cynical but this does rather come across as some sort of metaphysical chat up line by a gay bloke hoping to persuade straight guys to try it out. And my own view is may well be the product of cultural conditioning rather than innate biological bias, but I do nonetheless know what it’s like to be a straight bloke: we cannot be persuaded to become curious in this way: we’re repelled by other men, not merely unattracted.
And this doesn’t involve then being homophobic in case anyone’s wondering: any intelligent straight man can deal perfectly well with the mystery of why other men might find men attractive by the simple exercise of asking themselves what women find attractive about men. “They just do” is not a sufficient answer in this specific context.
Homophobic means ” Fear of one”
A phobia is an irrational fear, so it’s use in the Marxist lexicon of various phobias is incorrect.
A phobia is not a dislike or disapproval of or to be anti something.
Again the Left demonstrate an example of their ignorance of English, science and numeracy
Trying to make everything “left” as way of invalidation is very tedious.
No it’s not, it is just the way it is.
The Left are obsessed with identity politics.
Do you deny that, Miss Bossy ?
No it’s not, it is just the way it is.
The Left are obsessed with identity politics.
Do you deny that, Miss Bossy ?
Trying to make everything “left” as way of invalidation is very tedious.
fact mr poove!
Botty bandit is a far better expression.
A phobia is an irrational fear, so it’s use in the Marxist lexicon of various phobias is incorrect.
A phobia is not a dislike or disapproval of or to be anti something.
Again the Left demonstrate an example of their ignorance of English, science and numeracy
fact mr poove!
Botty bandit is a far better expression.
To me it sounds more like bourgeois people such as Mann trying to persuade *themselves* that being gay was OK.
Some of the *really* smug ones (like the poet Stefan George, if I remember correctly) saw their homosexuality as a mark of the intellectual and cultural superiority which set them apart from the vulgar modern herd.
Smugger even?
Smugger even?
Homophobic means ” Fear of one”
To me it sounds more like bourgeois people such as Mann trying to persuade *themselves* that being gay was OK.
Some of the *really* smug ones (like the poet Stefan George, if I remember correctly) saw their homosexuality as a mark of the intellectual and cultural superiority which set them apart from the vulgar modern herd.
“For the homosexuals who wrote and contributed to Der Eigene, which included many prominent men of the day — including political journalist Kurt Hiller and the novelist Thomas Mann — all this talk of an inherent hermaphroditic soul was ahistorical and wrongheaded. From Greek antiquity to European aristocracy, they argued, sexual acts between men could be seen as a natural extension of passionate male friendship. To describe this worldview, artist and scholar Elisar von Kupffer coined the term “Lieblingminne” in Der Eigene, combining the virtues of Frundesliebe, love of friends, with Minne, chivalric love.”
Perhaps I’m being cynical but this does rather come across as some sort of metaphysical chat up line by a gay bloke hoping to persuade straight guys to try it out. And my own view is may well be the product of cultural conditioning rather than innate biological bias, but I do nonetheless know what it’s like to be a straight bloke: we cannot be persuaded to become curious in this way: we’re repelled by other men, not merely unattracted.
And this doesn’t involve then being homophobic in case anyone’s wondering: any intelligent straight man can deal perfectly well with the mystery of why other men might find men attractive by the simple exercise of asking themselves what women find attractive about men. “They just do” is not a sufficient answer in this specific context.
Who cares ?
I am NOT interested in any of this, what does it matter ?
Douglas Murray, Dave Rubin and David Starkey are gay but so what ?
They should be valued for their intellects and for what they have say.
What needs to be addressed today, is the mutilation of children and young adults by the wicked and depraved ” transgender care ” lobby.
This is true evil.
Why mark my post down ?
Explain, if you are capable of doing so ?
Don’t read it if you’re not interested, and going on to post two comments on an article you’re apparently indifferent to seems excessive. The article had nothing to say about the trans weirdos so I’m not sure why you tried to crowbar that in.
I ” crowbarred ” it in because it is a current issue and it is ruining people’s lives.
It doesn’t matter that it was not mentioned in the article.
As for the gay issues, really NO-ONE CARES.
“crowbarred”! Great, old expression.
Reminds me of what did the constipated Charter Accountant do? Worked it out with a pencil.
Speak for yourself as far as caring goes.
I always do and don’t be so sanctimonious.
I always do and don’t be so sanctimonious.
Actually, people DO care, even if you don’t.
However….you are SO RIGHT about the Trans Child/self-harming agenda. There is Child abuse masquerading as “Care”. You are not trying to “crowbar that in” since the same Lobbyists insist on connecting them & insist on their connected validity.
“crowbarred”! Great, old expression.
Reminds me of what did the constipated Charter Accountant do? Worked it out with a pencil.
Speak for yourself as far as caring goes.
Actually, people DO care, even if you don’t.
However….you are SO RIGHT about the Trans Child/self-harming agenda. There is Child abuse masquerading as “Care”. You are not trying to “crowbar that in” since the same Lobbyists insist on connecting them & insist on their connected validity.
I ” crowbarred ” it in because it is a current issue and it is ruining people’s lives.
It doesn’t matter that it was not mentioned in the article.
As for the gay issues, really NO-ONE CARES.
Exactly and I adore Prof Starkey and so admire Douglas Murray
Exactly, who gives a ‘tinkers’s cuss’ as long as it doesn’t scare the horses.
i find that the big importance ‘issue’ of where males want to stick their willies really really boring and irrelevant to anything of real importance – just dont let stupid young people disfigure themselves with drugs and scalpels !!!!
I’m afraid it’s too late even for that, Charles. The horses have been told that the merest whinny of disapproval is verboten.
i find that the big importance ‘issue’ of where males want to stick their willies really really boring and irrelevant to anything of real importance – just dont let stupid young people disfigure themselves with drugs and scalpels !!!!
I’m afraid it’s too late even for that, Charles. The horses have been told that the merest whinny of disapproval is verboten.
Why mark my post down ?
Explain, if you are capable of doing so ?
Don’t read it if you’re not interested, and going on to post two comments on an article you’re apparently indifferent to seems excessive. The article had nothing to say about the trans weirdos so I’m not sure why you tried to crowbar that in.
Exactly and I adore Prof Starkey and so admire Douglas Murray
Exactly, who gives a ‘tinkers’s cuss’ as long as it doesn’t scare the horses.
Who cares ?
I am NOT interested in any of this, what does it matter ?
Douglas Murray, Dave Rubin and David Starkey are gay but so what ?
They should be valued for their intellects and for what they have say.
What needs to be addressed today, is the mutilation of children and young adults by the wicked and depraved ” transgender care ” lobby.
This is true evil.
We have one group of activists claiming that people are born sexless and genderless because sex and gender are social constructs.
We have another group who claim sex and gender are immutable and people are born that way.
Personally I don’t care which it is I just wish they’d stop trying to convince others of their point of view and get on with being who they want to be without demanding agreement from everyone else.
The whole purpose of this is to confuse and obfuscate, never to explain or enlighten.
Re: “sexless and genderless”. Well I’ve never met a trans person who thinks sex is a social construct or that they were literally erroneously assigned the wrong sex at birth, nor do we see trans people online making that explicit claim (certainly not those worth taking seriously). It’s a bad-faith strawman slur, pushing the idea that these people are somehow in denial of biology itself, when in fact they’re perfectly aware of what their chromosomes indicate. Gender on the other hand is more complex, culturally, socially and psychologically. Only complete cretins are unable to distinguish between the two…..you’d think? So why this manufactured confusion? It’s deeply unhelpful, leaving the debate trapped in a purgatory of sorts. I think we’re moving closer to solutions, but it’s one hell of a slog. Evolving beyond the Graham Linehans and the Jessica Yanivs of this world would help.
Julian Farrows: “The whole purpose of this is to confuse and obfuscate, never to explain or enlighten”. Sad but true.
The whole purpose of this is to confuse and obfuscate, never to explain or enlighten.
Re: “sexless and genderless”. Well I’ve never met a trans person who thinks sex is a social construct or that they were literally erroneously assigned the wrong sex at birth, nor do we see trans people online making that explicit claim (certainly not those worth taking seriously). It’s a bad-faith strawman slur, pushing the idea that these people are somehow in denial of biology itself, when in fact they’re perfectly aware of what their chromosomes indicate. Gender on the other hand is more complex, culturally, socially and psychologically. Only complete cretins are unable to distinguish between the two…..you’d think? So why this manufactured confusion? It’s deeply unhelpful, leaving the debate trapped in a purgatory of sorts. I think we’re moving closer to solutions, but it’s one hell of a slog. Evolving beyond the Graham Linehans and the Jessica Yanivs of this world would help.
Julian Farrows: “The whole purpose of this is to confuse and obfuscate, never to explain or enlighten”. Sad but true.
We have one group of activists claiming that people are born sexless and genderless because sex and gender are social constructs.
We have another group who claim sex and gender are immutable and people are born that way.
Personally I don’t care which it is I just wish they’d stop trying to convince others of their point of view and get on with being who they want to be without demanding agreement from everyone else.
None of this establishes that homosexuality is or isn’t biological. That’s a question of science, not what this person or that person thought or thinks.
Mr Bartle also seems to underestimate the extent to which Hirschfeld and others are still known and referred to today. At the very least, he fails to distinguish between what scholars know and what the general public knows.
On a minor note, I’d be more impressed by Mr Bartle’s erudition if he knew how to spell “Freundesliebe” and “Kreis.” One such error may be understandable, but two put me in mind of Lady Bracknell.
Thank you for pointing out the errors! I’m not a German speaker and rely on translations, so that is definitely a goof on my part.
As to the whether or not homosexuality is biological, the headline might give off the wrong impression. All our preferences are on some level influenced by our biology. However, when people speak of homosexuality as biological they are usually referring to sexual orientation as being some sort of fixed state, destined from birth.
This doesn’t seem plausible for two reasons. Firstly, looking at the wide variation of documented desire over history doesn’t demonstrate clear groupings of “gay, straight and bisexual” people. Moreover, we seem to intuit many other types of sexual preferences – a shoe fetish or a taste for blondes – aren’t fixed states of who someone is, as they clearly shaped by the environment. Sexual taste is much like your taste in food, there might have been early aversion or perhaps a preference developed over time or likely a combination of both. I think it’s worth taking into account the thoughts of the earliest “homosexuals” (as in, those who were the first to view themselves that way) in testing out our current think.
And you’re absolutely right that looking for biological correlates and possible aetiologies of homosexuality is a scientific question. However, if your categories are flawed, any statistically significant differences in brain scans, clusters of genes or potential influences of testosterone in the womb, are also going to be flawed.
The history of trying to find a clear biological “cause” of homosexuality has produced rather inconsistent results. The current state of the scientific research is to speak less of fixed, innate orientations but of more subtle dispositions in temperament, heavily shaped by environment. I believe the current research fits better with the idea of “taste” as opposed to homosexual “as noun”.
I go for environment but sometimes inherited.
Given how much I love Nd enjoy women and all that they are, I just feel sorry for gays…..And thank God that I am not one.
How any man can forsake the vagina for some smelly hairy unwashed man’s dung trumpet ?
The Left have no sense of humour.
what has woke done?… just rectum…
what has woke done?… just rectum…
Great! SO glad I wound up at least 7 !!!
The Left have no sense of humour.
Great! SO glad I wound up at least 7 !!!
How any man can forsake the vagina for some smelly hairy unwashed man’s dung trumpet ?
Thanks for your reply.
After I’d read the article, I thought that the headline might be overdoing it, but I had a second look and thought that maybe it wasn’t, for example because you take issue with the view that homosexuals are “born that way.”
I don’t know a lot about this, but I happen to have been reading about some of the late 19th- and early 20th-century stuff lately because I’m thinking of writing something about the 1931 German film “Girls in Uniform,” which has to be considered at least partly from a lesbian viewpoint.
Basically, I don’t think anyone can be sure where homosexuality sits on the nature/nurture spectrum.
I’ll await your next article with the proverbial “considerable interest.”
This theory is extremely controversial (and therefore perfect for UnHerd, LOL)! An innate genetic basis for homosexuality is absolutely crucial for its acceptance in society. If it is innate, it is subject to protection as a human right under the law; if it is merely a “taste”, it can’t be seen as a legal right. After all, my obsession with putting hot sauce on my food surely isn’t the basis for all restaurants being required to offer it to all their customers — as a right!
This is the key to all the “mission creep” that we’re seeing now, whereby every type of sexual “kink” is being presented as an “identity” needing legal protection.
And it would have serious legal implications.
For example, promoting gay and lesbian lifestyles to minors.
Gay conversion therapy could be justified.
Knowing few gays and lesbians (one gay was married with 3 daughters before coming out), I think it is very much nature than nurture.
I would need scientific evidence to change my mind.
And it would have serious legal implications.
For example, promoting gay and lesbian lifestyles to minors.
Gay conversion therapy could be justified.
Knowing few gays and lesbians (one gay was married with 3 daughters before coming out), I think it is very much nature than nurture.
I would need scientific evidence to change my mind.
I have always thought that homosexuality is genetic otherwise why would anyone want to put themselves through the persecution that existed in days of yore, and if it’s a choice then heterosexuals have made the choice to be straight.
I agree – a complete lack of desire for the opposite sex is surely something someone is born with? I do however believe that being bisexual is a llifestyle choice – plenty of us are “bi curious” and have possibly experimented with our own sex.
Some are curious, for sure.
But plenty?
Some are curious, for sure.
But plenty?
That is not a very logical answer is it? We know that people are willing to put themselves through all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons! That is not proof of a genetic cause!
Secondly “the choice” element comes in acting-out an appetite. So, no, it does not logically follow that feeling heterosexual is a choice.
I agree – a complete lack of desire for the opposite sex is surely something someone is born with? I do however believe that being bisexual is a llifestyle choice – plenty of us are “bi curious” and have possibly experimented with our own sex.
That is not a very logical answer is it? We know that people are willing to put themselves through all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons! That is not proof of a genetic cause!
Secondly “the choice” element comes in acting-out an appetite. So, no, it does not logically follow that feeling heterosexual is a choice.
I go for environment but sometimes inherited.
Given how much I love Nd enjoy women and all that they are, I just feel sorry for gays…..And thank God that I am not one.
Thanks for your reply.
After I’d read the article, I thought that the headline might be overdoing it, but I had a second look and thought that maybe it wasn’t, for example because you take issue with the view that homosexuals are “born that way.”
I don’t know a lot about this, but I happen to have been reading about some of the late 19th- and early 20th-century stuff lately because I’m thinking of writing something about the 1931 German film “Girls in Uniform,” which has to be considered at least partly from a lesbian viewpoint.
Basically, I don’t think anyone can be sure where homosexuality sits on the nature/nurture spectrum.
I’ll await your next article with the proverbial “considerable interest.”
This theory is extremely controversial (and therefore perfect for UnHerd, LOL)! An innate genetic basis for homosexuality is absolutely crucial for its acceptance in society. If it is innate, it is subject to protection as a human right under the law; if it is merely a “taste”, it can’t be seen as a legal right. After all, my obsession with putting hot sauce on my food surely isn’t the basis for all restaurants being required to offer it to all their customers — as a right!
This is the key to all the “mission creep” that we’re seeing now, whereby every type of sexual “kink” is being presented as an “identity” needing legal protection.
I have always thought that homosexuality is genetic otherwise why would anyone want to put themselves through the persecution that existed in days of yore, and if it’s a choice then heterosexuals have made the choice to be straight.
Thank you for pointing out the errors! I’m not a German speaker and rely on translations, so that is definitely a goof on my part.
As to the whether or not homosexuality is biological, the headline might give off the wrong impression. All our preferences are on some level influenced by our biology. However, when people speak of homosexuality as biological they are usually referring to sexual orientation as being some sort of fixed state, destined from birth.
This doesn’t seem plausible for two reasons. Firstly, looking at the wide variation of documented desire over history doesn’t demonstrate clear groupings of “gay, straight and bisexual” people. Moreover, we seem to intuit many other types of sexual preferences – a shoe fetish or a taste for blondes – aren’t fixed states of who someone is, as they clearly shaped by the environment. Sexual taste is much like your taste in food, there might have been early aversion or perhaps a preference developed over time or likely a combination of both. I think it’s worth taking into account the thoughts of the earliest “homosexuals” (as in, those who were the first to view themselves that way) in testing out our current think.
And you’re absolutely right that looking for biological correlates and possible aetiologies of homosexuality is a scientific question. However, if your categories are flawed, any statistically significant differences in brain scans, clusters of genes or potential influences of testosterone in the womb, are also going to be flawed.
The history of trying to find a clear biological “cause” of homosexuality has produced rather inconsistent results. The current state of the scientific research is to speak less of fixed, innate orientations but of more subtle dispositions in temperament, heavily shaped by environment. I believe the current research fits better with the idea of “taste” as opposed to homosexual “as noun”.
None of this establishes that homosexuality is or isn’t biological. That’s a question of science, not what this person or that person thought or thinks.
Mr Bartle also seems to underestimate the extent to which Hirschfeld and others are still known and referred to today. At the very least, he fails to distinguish between what scholars know and what the general public knows.
On a minor note, I’d be more impressed by Mr Bartle’s erudition if he knew how to spell “Freundesliebe” and “Kreis.” One such error may be understandable, but two put me in mind of Lady Bracknell.
I don’t know what to make of this article. Though not particularly interested in the history of either political or psychological theories about sexuality, I must admit that this aesthetic theory is intriguing.
I can remember having (what I now call) homoerotic feelings even as a schoolboy in grade one. So, if I’m not biologically gay, I must be gay for some reason that’s way beyond any personal choice. Moreover, my family did not correspond to the usual psychiatric theories. Eventually, I did wonder what made me different in this respect from most other people. But being gay, per se, was never a problem for me (except for the fallout from bullies) or even a major interest. It has always been a minor part of my life, mainly as entertainment, but not a significant part of my identity as a person.
And yet, all this about “taste” sounds provocative (in a good way). On one hand, I don’t know what it means. On the other hand, I must admit that there might be something in it. My response to male beauty is different, in one way, from my response to female beauty. But I respond also, intensely, to many other forms of beauty. My preoccupation with light, color, melody, words–let alone with art and music–has been a dominant theme in my life for almost all of my 75 years. I’ve changed in many ways over a lifetime, but not in that way. Like Oscar Wilde, I am clearly what many would call an “aesthete.” But precisely what does an aesthetic sensibility have to do with homosexuality? That’s not a rhetorical question. I don’t understand. I’m curious.
I don’t know what to make of this article. Though not particularly interested in the history of either political or psychological theories about sexuality, I must admit that this aesthetic theory is intriguing.
I can remember having (what I now call) homoerotic feelings even as a schoolboy in grade one. So, if I’m not biologically gay, I must be gay for some reason that’s way beyond any personal choice. Moreover, my family did not correspond to the usual psychiatric theories. Eventually, I did wonder what made me different in this respect from most other people. But being gay, per se, was never a problem for me (except for the fallout from bullies) or even a major interest. It has always been a minor part of my life, mainly as entertainment, but not a significant part of my identity as a person.
And yet, all this about “taste” sounds provocative (in a good way). On one hand, I don’t know what it means. On the other hand, I must admit that there might be something in it. My response to male beauty is different, in one way, from my response to female beauty. But I respond also, intensely, to many other forms of beauty. My preoccupation with light, color, melody, words–let alone with art and music–has been a dominant theme in my life for almost all of my 75 years. I’ve changed in many ways over a lifetime, but not in that way. Like Oscar Wilde, I am clearly what many would call an “aesthete.” But precisely what does an aesthetic sensibility have to do with homosexuality? That’s not a rhetorical question. I don’t understand. I’m curious.
IMO this is a superb article. The author writes with sensitivity about a range of opinions with a contagious open-mindedness.
This is what Unherd should be about.
I also note that he has responded to comments with clarity.
Much appreciated.
I wish that all Unherd authors take note.
IMO this is a superb article. The author writes with sensitivity about a range of opinions with a contagious open-mindedness.
This is what Unherd should be about.
I also note that he has responded to comments with clarity.
Much appreciated.
I wish that all Unherd authors take note.
I enjoyed the article, it’s definitely right to question the biological narrative that is taken as fact these days. One thing I though however that perhaps Der Eigene had to frame homosexuality in a softer way for audiences at the time. Maybe they felt they couldn’t say the only liked men but had to frame it as an extension of friendship in order to justify it.
I enjoyed the article, it’s definitely right to question the biological narrative that is taken as fact these days. One thing I though however that perhaps Der Eigene had to frame homosexuality in a softer way for audiences at the time. Maybe they felt they couldn’t say the only liked men but had to frame it as an extension of friendship in order to justify it.
In fact, “gay” does have biological underpinnings, as brain scans of homosexual people demonstrate – the brain of people who have a same sex attraction differs from that of a heterosexual of the same sex and shares some attributes with a member of the opposite sex.
In my view, magical thinking is involved in the idea that such a fundamentally different subjective experience should not have objective (biological) correlates in the brain.
Interesting (as a gay man myself) reading all the theories of heterosexuals who have no direct personal experience of the phenomenon though.
It may not have been clear in the piece, but I’m a gay man. As to your reference to brain scans, I talk about it in another comment if you’re interested.
Yes, I’m interested, where is it?
Yes, I’m interested, where is it?
You can’t have it both ways. You claim that being gay has biological underpinnings, yet interested in how so many heterosexuals have theories about it. If it was indeed biological, then it would be scientifically provable, which would preclude the need to be homosexual in order to comment.
cant have it both ways? You can with a strap on ?
The late Ernest Marples MP used to enjoy being sodomised with a broom handle, whilst dressed as a schoolgirl, by a ‘Miss Bunny’.*
(* A juicy fact that late, lamentable, Lord Denning failed to tell us.)
Charles you are entertaining, but behave yourself….
Charles you are entertaining, but behave yourself….
Your comments are yucky, Nicky.
What is wrong with you? I do not think Unherd is for you – check out the plethora of intelligent comments on here and observe that your crass remarks stick out like the proverbial sore thumb!
The late Ernest Marples MP used to enjoy being sodomised with a broom handle, whilst dressed as a schoolgirl, by a ‘Miss Bunny’.*
(* A juicy fact that late, lamentable, Lord Denning failed to tell us.)
Your comments are yucky, Nicky.
What is wrong with you? I do not think Unherd is for you – check out the plethora of intelligent comments on here and observe that your crass remarks stick out like the proverbial sore thumb!
The fact is no-one really knows why some men turn out to be gay. Some say it is to do with hormone imbalance in the womb, others that it is learned behaviour which seems unlikely.
At the end of day, does it really matter ?
Why does absolutely everything have to be politicised?
cant have it both ways? You can with a strap on ?
The fact is no-one really knows why some men turn out to be gay. Some say it is to do with hormone imbalance in the womb, others that it is learned behaviour which seems unlikely.
At the end of day, does it really matter ?
Why does absolutely everything have to be politicised?
Biological does not necessarily mean genetically determined. As with most other traits, there are genetic effects and there are effects from the gestation period, and environmental things like food, water, chemicals, and radiation (sunlight and cosmic rays), even exposure to other species or diseases, that are all biological. These external influences could tip the primary sexual attraction one way or the other – we just don’t know. However, if you consider something as mundane as foot size, malnutrition, heavy metals, and physical restraints all are known to play a role.
On top of all that is the social environment that makes various behaviors more or less acceptable.
It is quite a stew.
The debate about biology versus environment has no bearing on whether gay activity is healthy or not. The question is whether gay desire is more similar to liking cheese (“healthy”), or to alcohol addiction (“unhealthy”)?
The wider question in which society norms are grounded is whether the undeniable sexualization of society in this century is a good thing or a bad thing, especially as it relates to pornography, human trafficking and childhood education. My opinion is that sexualizing everything is going from bad to worse, driven by a false dichotomy of “if you have the inclination, it must be good”. But good for whom? Therefore is homosexual promiscuity a good thing, or only homosexual monogamy?
Gay is a male Irish name
QED: The late Gay Byrne, 1934-2019.
QED: The late Gay Byrne, 1934-2019.
If we all limited ourselves to commenting about only what we know from direct personal experience, these exchanges of ideas would be awfully boring.
Speak for yourself.
You just told me to “speak for yourself”.
Speak for yourself.
You just told me to “speak for yourself”.
Is the assumption behind this that the brain merely decides our behaviour and/or appetites/inclinations?
Is it not also true that the brain is altered & affected by our repetitive behaviours/habits etc? We actually change our brains by the way we live, if I understand the experts correctly.
This being the case, claiming “biological underpinnings” from brain scans is far from conclusive.
Psychological factors, such as a faulty relationship with the same-sex parent have been noted in past studies. That would not be enough per se, but might, among other environmental/social factors be a tip in an individual with other (non?)biological factors….?
What we DO need to separate is the instinct/appetite/pre-disposition (you choose your terminology!) from the “lifestyle choice”. A person who follows their interests here will call themselves “gay”, but a person with the SAME interests who is happy to live celibate, for instance, is rejecting the “gay lifestyle” & may even hate the idea. I’ve noticed these persons refer to themselves as Same-sex-attracted or SSA. Before anyone just bellows, “Oh they’re just gay!”, ask yourself how many vegetarians/vegans are still attracted to the aroma of meat? Does that mean that they are NOT really vegetarians? There is all the difference in the world between what we may FEEL & what we DO. This is an entirely valid distinction.
Also there are plenty of recorded instances of ex-homosexuality. I have read some of their stories. How could that be possible if it were simply biological?
Food for thought. (No pun intended).
You might want to consider stress testing those “ex-homosexuals”. And the “happy” celibate gays who “hate the idea”.
You might want to consider stress testing those “ex-homosexuals”. And the “happy” celibate gays who “hate the idea”.
It may not have been clear in the piece, but I’m a gay man. As to your reference to brain scans, I talk about it in another comment if you’re interested.
You can’t have it both ways. You claim that being gay has biological underpinnings, yet interested in how so many heterosexuals have theories about it. If it was indeed biological, then it would be scientifically provable, which would preclude the need to be homosexual in order to comment.
Biological does not necessarily mean genetically determined. As with most other traits, there are genetic effects and there are effects from the gestation period, and environmental things like food, water, chemicals, and radiation (sunlight and cosmic rays), even exposure to other species or diseases, that are all biological. These external influences could tip the primary sexual attraction one way or the other – we just don’t know. However, if you consider something as mundane as foot size, malnutrition, heavy metals, and physical restraints all are known to play a role.
On top of all that is the social environment that makes various behaviors more or less acceptable.
It is quite a stew.
The debate about biology versus environment has no bearing on whether gay activity is healthy or not. The question is whether gay desire is more similar to liking cheese (“healthy”), or to alcohol addiction (“unhealthy”)?
The wider question in which society norms are grounded is whether the undeniable sexualization of society in this century is a good thing or a bad thing, especially as it relates to pornography, human trafficking and childhood education. My opinion is that sexualizing everything is going from bad to worse, driven by a false dichotomy of “if you have the inclination, it must be good”. But good for whom? Therefore is homosexual promiscuity a good thing, or only homosexual monogamy?
Gay is a male Irish name
If we all limited ourselves to commenting about only what we know from direct personal experience, these exchanges of ideas would be awfully boring.
Is the assumption behind this that the brain merely decides our behaviour and/or appetites/inclinations?
Is it not also true that the brain is altered & affected by our repetitive behaviours/habits etc? We actually change our brains by the way we live, if I understand the experts correctly.
This being the case, claiming “biological underpinnings” from brain scans is far from conclusive.
Psychological factors, such as a faulty relationship with the same-sex parent have been noted in past studies. That would not be enough per se, but might, among other environmental/social factors be a tip in an individual with other (non?)biological factors….?
What we DO need to separate is the instinct/appetite/pre-disposition (you choose your terminology!) from the “lifestyle choice”. A person who follows their interests here will call themselves “gay”, but a person with the SAME interests who is happy to live celibate, for instance, is rejecting the “gay lifestyle” & may even hate the idea. I’ve noticed these persons refer to themselves as Same-sex-attracted or SSA. Before anyone just bellows, “Oh they’re just gay!”, ask yourself how many vegetarians/vegans are still attracted to the aroma of meat? Does that mean that they are NOT really vegetarians? There is all the difference in the world between what we may FEEL & what we DO. This is an entirely valid distinction.
Also there are plenty of recorded instances of ex-homosexuality. I have read some of their stories. How could that be possible if it were simply biological?
Food for thought. (No pun intended).
In fact, “gay” does have biological underpinnings, as brain scans of homosexual people demonstrate – the brain of people who have a same sex attraction differs from that of a heterosexual of the same sex and shares some attributes with a member of the opposite sex.
In my view, magical thinking is involved in the idea that such a fundamentally different subjective experience should not have objective (biological) correlates in the brain.
Interesting (as a gay man myself) reading all the theories of heterosexuals who have no direct personal experience of the phenomenon though.
This article gets at what I, age 77, have long believed to be true about my own sexual attraction to other males. It is sometimes purely erotic, which is to say I am turned on by how another male looks, carries himself and so on, but it is usually also an expression of the kind of liking that leads to friendship and then becomes an expression of that friendship. I don’t think Lionel Tiger did my generation any favours by getting us to replace Freud’s/Jung’s “latent homosexuality” with his “male bonding” and getting us to dismiss that there is often a sexual element (expressed or not) to affection and friendship between males. As for all of the slicing and dicing of people into ever more categories and the invention of a super-category called “LGBTQUI++” and so on, it’s artificial and serves no one well except for academics and campaigning groups. Such people do not liberate us. They imprison us and they lump us together with others with whom we have nothing whatever in common except for our non-conformity with what some social conservatives call “normal” or “moral”. Walt Whitman was famously a 19th century American writer who was often guided by German writers as he made sense of his own homoerotic attraction to and need for friendship other males.
This article gets at what I, age 77, have long believed to be true about my own sexual attraction to other males. It is sometimes purely erotic, which is to say I am turned on by how another male looks, carries himself and so on, but it is usually also an expression of the kind of liking that leads to friendship and then becomes an expression of that friendship. I don’t think Lionel Tiger did my generation any favours by getting us to replace Freud’s/Jung’s “latent homosexuality” with his “male bonding” and getting us to dismiss that there is often a sexual element (expressed or not) to affection and friendship between males. As for all of the slicing and dicing of people into ever more categories and the invention of a super-category called “LGBTQUI++” and so on, it’s artificial and serves no one well except for academics and campaigning groups. Such people do not liberate us. They imprison us and they lump us together with others with whom we have nothing whatever in common except for our non-conformity with what some social conservatives call “normal” or “moral”. Walt Whitman was famously a 19th century American writer who was often guided by German writers as he made sense of his own homoerotic attraction to and need for friendship other males.
Back when I was a lad in 1960s Britland I knew that gayness was a Tory toff thing: Revisiting Brideshead and all that. Don’t ask me how I knew; it was in the air.
But I agree, it’s a delightful thing to have some gay paint the pope’s chapel ceiling of an evening.
And it is fun to visit museums in Athens and realize that all the male marble sculptures are buck naked and all the female marble sculptures are modestly attired in flowing robes. What was with those Ancient Greeks?
For starters try The Aphrodite of Knidos by Praxiteles.
For starters try The Aphrodite of Knidos by Praxiteles.
Back when I was a lad in 1960s Britland I knew that gayness was a Tory toff thing: Revisiting Brideshead and all that. Don’t ask me how I knew; it was in the air.
But I agree, it’s a delightful thing to have some gay paint the pope’s chapel ceiling of an evening.
And it is fun to visit museums in Athens and realize that all the male marble sculptures are buck naked and all the female marble sculptures are modestly attired in flowing robes. What was with those Ancient Greeks?
What an interesting article, though it’ll take me a while to form an opinion on it
What an interesting article, though it’ll take me a while to form an opinion on it
It is interesting to note the theory that we are here to reproduce and survive as a species. True, it is the one thing we share with the rest of life on earth. But part of our survival is being a social species. To ensure our survival as a social species, not every body has to reproduce. There will be those who contribute in other ways that enhance our survival, that actually make our survival something we may wish to achieve..
It is interesting to note the theory that we are here to reproduce and survive as a species. True, it is the one thing we share with the rest of life on earth. But part of our survival is being a social species. To ensure our survival as a social species, not every body has to reproduce. There will be those who contribute in other ways that enhance our survival, that actually make our survival something we may wish to achieve..
A great read, Jarryd.
And – since the LGBTQ movement switched off its collective brain and went tribal – all too rare a discussion. Where we have come from is such a useful perspective on where we are—and might go.
A great read, Jarryd.
And – since the LGBTQ movement switched off its collective brain and went tribal – all too rare a discussion. Where we have come from is such a useful perspective on where we are—and might go.
Who considers it an ‘identity’? What a load of rubbish. Most people consider it an innate orientation in the same way as heterosexuality – which it most definitely is.
or not…….hence the article & long discussion………..
or not…….hence the article & long discussion………..
Who considers it an ‘identity’? What a load of rubbish. Most people consider it an innate orientation in the same way as heterosexuality – which it most definitely is.
There is no such thing a “homosexual” nor a “heterosexual. There is mature and immature sexual behavior with our reproductive organs. Sodomy has killed over a million young men in the west, and the CDC points out accidentally that it cannot be performed “naturally”, safely.
As in the term universe, or version, we speak of meaning or norms. Perversion is going against our healthy natural norms. It is a perverse behavior by definition as indeed reality defines us.
So now we rob children of their relationships with their own bodies in our “schools”. Groomers. Dare to speak plainly.
There is no such thing a “homosexual” nor a “heterosexual. There is mature and immature sexual behavior with our reproductive organs. Sodomy has killed over a million young men in the west, and the CDC points out accidentally that it cannot be performed “naturally”, safely.
As in the term universe, or version, we speak of meaning or norms. Perversion is going against our healthy natural norms. It is a perverse behavior by definition as indeed reality defines us.
So now we rob children of their relationships with their own bodies in our “schools”. Groomers. Dare to speak plainly.
Being straight or gay is instinctive, and you’re born the way you are. A reality that proponents of gay conversion therapies struggle to accept. And, regrettably, a minority of condescending middle-class urban bi folk assume that everyone else is like them.
Not singling out your comment, but there’s a common mistake I think people make in assuming that “not biological” means “voluntary” or “capable of change”.
Most of our developed preferences can’t be changed, and trying to change them causes considerable distress with little reward. Imagine having a lifelong disgust (or strong disinterest) in cheese but prevailing social norms tell you that cheese eating was morally necessary.
You might give it a go but it wouldn’t be pleasant, and living a double life where you had to grin and bear it would drive you mad.
It’s a difficult question to answer because of lack of data. Are there more homosexuals now in a more permissive age than a century ago? No way of knowing. Are children raised by homosexuals more likely to be gay?
Who knows?
It doesn’t seem to me to be a developed preference in the same way that drinking ale or consuming dairy products is in England.
I would say there is if anything a gender difference at work. All the gay men I have ever known have never been anything else, whereas I have encountered a fair number of women who have been in heterosexual relationships and have later entered lesbian ones. I get the feeling male sexuality is more ‘fixed’ in this sense, but it’s purely subjective – I have very little evidence for this assumption.
Isn’t that just being bisexual? Men do the same thing.
No, it’s very rare.
No, it’s very rare.
Choosing lesbian is, for many I know, an act of resistance.
Isn’t that just being bisexual? Men do the same thing.
Choosing lesbian is, for many I know, an act of resistance.
Actually, where food preferences are concerned, your gut biome can have a role in changing your tastes. When you start eating a lot of fresh vegetables, changes to your biome literally make them start to taste better to you! It sounds crazy, but it’s real. I suspect it’s some sort of biological adaptation. But I don’t think it has anything to do with sexual preferences…I’m just saying that the analogy may not work scientifically.
with no shooting or hunting at this time of year, pieces give such good winding up sport.. more like fishing, I Suppose?
with no shooting or hunting at this time of year, pieces give such good winding up sport.. more like fishing, I Suppose?
My whole life I hated brussels sprouts; they were always served boiled and mushy in my childhood. I avoided them like the plague. Then my wife started roasting them, and suddenly I thought they were great. Now I’ve discovered that even boiled brussels sprouts aren’t so bad.
How in the world would social scientists attempt to determine if it were possible for ‘developed preferences’ to change? I think tastes and preferences change all the time, as we age, as our circumstances change, as our experiences shape us.
I’ve already commented that I’ve always thought homosexuality is biological, but your analogy about cheese and sex doesn’t work. Sex hormones creating the desire for sex are very, very powerful and not to be denied, unlike a taste for cheese.
Who says that sex desires are “not to be denied”? We deny them all the time. There are MANY occasions when we restrain ourselves in this respect – at least I hope so! Also, some celibate people have lived very successful, happy, constructive lives – better than the Hugh Heffners of this world, certainly!
It is so typical of 21stC self-obsession & entitlement mentality to demand that our appetites “cannot be denied”.
They CAN be & (if we’re not going to behave like animals) often SHOULD be.
That’s what being grown-up is often all about.
If homosexuality was biological at source, then there would be comparative numbers of “dedicated h.sexuality in the ‘Animal kingdom’. But there is not.
Who says that sex desires are “not to be denied”? We deny them all the time. There are MANY occasions when we restrain ourselves in this respect – at least I hope so! Also, some celibate people have lived very successful, happy, constructive lives – better than the Hugh Heffners of this world, certainly!
It is so typical of 21stC self-obsession & entitlement mentality to demand that our appetites “cannot be denied”.
They CAN be & (if we’re not going to behave like animals) often SHOULD be.
That’s what being grown-up is often all about.
If homosexuality was biological at source, then there would be comparative numbers of “dedicated h.sexuality in the ‘Animal kingdom’. But there is not.
It’s a difficult question to answer because of lack of data. Are there more homosexuals now in a more permissive age than a century ago? No way of knowing. Are children raised by homosexuals more likely to be gay?
Who knows?
It doesn’t seem to me to be a developed preference in the same way that drinking ale or consuming dairy products is in England.
I would say there is if anything a gender difference at work. All the gay men I have ever known have never been anything else, whereas I have encountered a fair number of women who have been in heterosexual relationships and have later entered lesbian ones. I get the feeling male sexuality is more ‘fixed’ in this sense, but it’s purely subjective – I have very little evidence for this assumption.
Actually, where food preferences are concerned, your gut biome can have a role in changing your tastes. When you start eating a lot of fresh vegetables, changes to your biome literally make them start to taste better to you! It sounds crazy, but it’s real. I suspect it’s some sort of biological adaptation. But I don’t think it has anything to do with sexual preferences…I’m just saying that the analogy may not work scientifically.
My whole life I hated brussels sprouts; they were always served boiled and mushy in my childhood. I avoided them like the plague. Then my wife started roasting them, and suddenly I thought they were great. Now I’ve discovered that even boiled brussels sprouts aren’t so bad.
How in the world would social scientists attempt to determine if it were possible for ‘developed preferences’ to change? I think tastes and preferences change all the time, as we age, as our circumstances change, as our experiences shape us.
I’ve already commented that I’ve always thought homosexuality is biological, but your analogy about cheese and sex doesn’t work. Sex hormones creating the desire for sex are very, very powerful and not to be denied, unlike a taste for cheese.
What is labelled “gay conversion therapy” by the Stonewall lobbyists is often nothing of the kind.
If someone has a whole set of questions about their sexual feelings -of any kind- and goes to seek pastoral help or counselling and if the parties consulted do not necessarily recommend the full LGBTQ+ response in EVERY case then they are labelled as “Conversion Therapists”.
If you want to see “Conversion Therapy” being attempted just check out the “Trans or Drag Storytime” Events being foisted on very young children in schools & libraries! or most of the events during “Pride Month” for that matter!
Such blatant propaganda is usually practised by “condescending middle-class urban folk” who assume that everyone needs to be lectured on “Correct” gender-ideology.
To simply state “you are born that way” is to regurgitate the trendy dogma (popular amongst the condescending PC Police) and sidesteps the whole article (& most of the comments!) so far!
Not singling out your comment, but there’s a common mistake I think people make in assuming that “not biological” means “voluntary” or “capable of change”.
Most of our developed preferences can’t be changed, and trying to change them causes considerable distress with little reward. Imagine having a lifelong disgust (or strong disinterest) in cheese but prevailing social norms tell you that cheese eating was morally necessary.
You might give it a go but it wouldn’t be pleasant, and living a double life where you had to grin and bear it would drive you mad.
What is labelled “gay conversion therapy” by the Stonewall lobbyists is often nothing of the kind.
If someone has a whole set of questions about their sexual feelings -of any kind- and goes to seek pastoral help or counselling and if the parties consulted do not necessarily recommend the full LGBTQ+ response in EVERY case then they are labelled as “Conversion Therapists”.
If you want to see “Conversion Therapy” being attempted just check out the “Trans or Drag Storytime” Events being foisted on very young children in schools & libraries! or most of the events during “Pride Month” for that matter!
Such blatant propaganda is usually practised by “condescending middle-class urban folk” who assume that everyone needs to be lectured on “Correct” gender-ideology.
To simply state “you are born that way” is to regurgitate the trendy dogma (popular amongst the condescending PC Police) and sidesteps the whole article (& most of the comments!) so far!
Being straight or gay is instinctive, and you’re born the way you are. A reality that proponents of gay conversion therapies struggle to accept. And, regrettably, a minority of condescending middle-class urban bi folk assume that everyone else is like them.
i am bored witless and irritated beyond belief by having gay stuck in my face on unheard as well as everywhere else in nubritn hewkay.. Why don’t all the gay whingers please just get on with their lives and stop their mincing moaning?
I am never quite sure why it matters to anyone other than the actual person concerned whom an individual sleeps with. Or why they need to share it with everyone else!
Exactly – as far as I’m concerned it’s a matter of civil liberties – your sex life is none of my business, as long as you keep it out of the public square.
what has sleeping got to do with it?!!!
Because it’s entertaining !
Exactly – as far as I’m concerned it’s a matter of civil liberties – your sex life is none of my business, as long as you keep it out of the public square.
what has sleeping got to do with it?!!!
Because it’s entertaining !
Here’s a tip: The headline usually gives you an idea of what the article is about, so that you can decide not to read it.
Any reply to this would be your fifth comment on the article, which I think would make more than anyone except the author himself, who is civil and informative.
Get your primary school English teacher to correct your last meaningless epithet?
Clearly, you have no sense of humour.
Get over yourself.
Get your primary school English teacher to correct your last meaningless epithet?
Clearly, you have no sense of humour.
Get over yourself.
If you’re so bored perhaps you should not come back, please.
Don’t order people around.
Who do you think you are ?
A bossy old scold who fled this “sceptered isle” some fifty years ago and more.
A bossy old scold who fled this “sceptered isle” some fifty years ago and more.
Don’t order people around.
Who do you think you are ?
I am never quite sure why it matters to anyone other than the actual person concerned whom an individual sleeps with. Or why they need to share it with everyone else!
Here’s a tip: The headline usually gives you an idea of what the article is about, so that you can decide not to read it.
Any reply to this would be your fifth comment on the article, which I think would make more than anyone except the author himself, who is civil and informative.
If you’re so bored perhaps you should not come back, please.
i am bored witless and irritated beyond belief by having gay stuck in my face on unheard as well as everywhere else in nubritn hewkay.. Why don’t all the gay whingers please just get on with their lives and stop their mincing moaning?