On another thread, the topic of nature versus nurture was raised in reference to its importance in behavioral differences between the sexes. Science has not resolved this question. Apparently there are scientific studies that support and others that disprove the notion that nurture can change fundamental traits and behavioral differences between the two genders.

But regardless of the scientific studies, people tend to hold a strong belief one way or the other on whether typically male or female behavior is a result of nature or nurture.

What I find interesting is that many people hold what seem to be inconsistent beliefs when it comes to gender behavior and gender selection (sexual preference).

Questions for Debate:

(1) If you believe that gender behavior is innate, how then can you in the same breath argue the opposite for gender selection (sexual preference)?

(2) If you believe that gender behavior is learned, how then can you argue that gender selection (sexual preference) is innate?

(3) Or are your views consistent on these two issues?

This is a really good question to discuss, with no easy answers.

I guess the best I can say is that ALL human behavior is a combination of genetics, conditioning, and conscious choice.

For various reasons, I tend to think that gender behavior (whether one tends to act in ways that are "feminine" or "masculine") is a much more complicated question than sexual orientation. For one thing, sexuality is only one part of gender behavior.

An important factor to keep in mind is that there are people who cannot be accurately described as female or male. Here's an organization that supports such individuals:

Intersex Society of North America

My point is this. If it is not always possible to determine, even genetically or anatomically, who is a woman and who is a man, why should we assume that we can determine which behavior is feminine and which behavior is masculine?

As far as sexual orientation goes, the factors that "cause" heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, asexuality, and so on, aren't that important to me. All such orientations are ethically equal, and all should be treated equally by society.

I have noticed these days that the lines seem to blur everywhere when it comes to these issues. People who aren't one sex or another; people who are bisexual; people who used to be homosexual and are now heterosexual and vice verse; people who are asexual. The list goes on. I swear, in the past week I heard about all these cases! So what does that mean? That there is no clear dividing line? Some I am sure would argue that.

Ultimately, I think we have one natural tendency over another. So I don't understand how someone can believe this and not believe that sexual orientation which is an integral (most important part IMO) is natural. And I don't understand the opposite case, where people believe someone can be socialized "male" but not be able to be socialized according to sexual prefernce.

What we have here is another case of politics contaminating science. In the struggle for equality women have already achieved protected status. Certain feminists believe that de-emphasizing the differences between the sexes is an aid in the struggle for female equality.

Gays and lesbians have not yet acquired protective status. In order to achieve this they emphasize the biological component. If they can propagate the belief that sexual orientation is derived biologically, just as race is, they are more likely to achieve protected status.

I am personally of the belief that gender differences and sexual orientation are both about 80% biological.

From www.friesian.com Speaking of the socialization argument for gender differences.

(1) If you believe that gender behavior is innate, how then can you in the same breath argue the opposite for gender selection (sexual preference)?

I'll go with Hugo's take that some percentage of gender behavior and sexual orientation is innate. I have seen one gender faking another gender's behavior, and it's odd. Creepy. Funny if done by a comedian.

It might be possible to prove that sexual orientation is genetic. I'm not seeing much proof that gender selection is a conscious decision. None, actually. I guess it could be faked like behavior, maybe successful if a lesbian fakes being a woman and a gay guy fakes being a man?

(2) If you believe that gender behavior is learned, how then can you argue that gender selection (sexual preference) is innate?

Sexual preference isn't behavior, so I'll argue that. It's a physical response to people, or in simple terms, what turns you on. Behavior comes from this response.

It has something to do with chemicals. Seems the US government now, or is developing, a weapon that would make the opposing forces suddenly crave sex from each other (CNN, yesterday). Conquer by instigating massive orgies? Seems more humane than nerve gas. More embarassing, I am sure. The images this brings up get me chuckling. There needs to be a movie!

(3) Or are your views consistent on these two issues?

Well, I try. Having never made a conscious decision to be hetero, I'm assuming it is an innate thing. I'm willing to believe that about homosexuals. I did make a conscious decision to abandon Biblical rantings on the issue many years ago. Besides STD, which we are all capable of catching and transmitting, I don't see anything wrong with the behavior. Just be careful out there, eh?

As far as hugging other men, as women tend to hug each other, that looks like a learned thing. Men don't hug, unless related somehow. We shake hands, another learned thing.

Could do a whole long list of differences, but the above example is pretty typical of learned behavior. Behavior dictated through hormones -- that's innate stuff, so if testosterone makes a person more aggresive, there you go. Maybe estrogene makes a person crave a house, kids, marriage and so on? From my limited observations, this rings true.

I tend to think that we are what we are pretty much from birth. One study I saw on TV relates hormone levels to aggressiveness, and to a lesser extent, sexuality.
Super males make for good football players, and violent criminals. These would have little or no female hormones in their mix. Normal males have mostly male hormones, and some female. Some males have too little of the male hormone, too much of female, and will be effete looking, acting perhaps, and on occasion, a homosexual. If you ask some women, all us men are pigs to some degree or other. I oink my agreement here.
Same with women. Super female is very domestic, makes for the "perfect" wife, loves to cook, clean, tend kids, etc. Extreme at other end makes the female mannish in appearance and mannerisms, and sometimes lesbian. As for the
"normal" female, it is anyone's guess what that is.
OK, joking aside, those on the far right of true Christianity who want to ostracize, criticize, and harrass those who are different from what they perceive to be God' original design are missing the entire point of the message that Jesus presented, as I understand it. More than tolerance of these and other things that the Christian right is upsetting themselves with, acceptance is what is needed.

Or are your views consistent on these two issues?

I will offer learned life experience verses science for my reasoning and give most relevancies based on watching animal’s verses people. I was raised on a dairy farm in the 1950’ s-60 and during that period the state of the art science caused farmers to transition from keeping an expensive bull with the cows for reproduction and instead rely on artificial insemination to acquire female calf that would produce more milk based on the genetics of the proven sire.

In the transition period I witnessed both situations and when the bull was free with the herd the dominant bull would mount all females in “heat.” However, some females would do the same but when they became in heat the dominant male did what the dominant male does.

Farmers had trouble with nature as bulls from neighboring farms would want to be dominate over both herds and would often break through fences and fight to near exhaustion to win the other herd. I saw two bulls fight like this and then the next week both farmers decided to switch to artificial insemination and took the bull to sales market. I went to the stock market and saw the two bulls that had fought so valiantly just days before now not fighting but due to the stress of the small pen they were taking turns with anal sex.

Back to the bull free farm for another view of a group of females free of dominate male. So how did the farmer know when to call the artificial insemination guy? Now almost all females would mount the female in “heat” and the farmer could determine within hours when to call for frozen semen.

All right I’ll stop rambling about cows now and start rambling on the conclusions I came to. Gay tendency may be increased by stress, social environment, and absence of dominant male or separation from feminine environment inter-reaction. Some people are born homosexual, the genes in the jeans, while others are influenced by social inner-reaction or stress, jail for example.

First of all, a lesbian is not faking being a woman, she is a woman... last I checked you had to have two X chromosomes to be a lesbian. If a person has an XY they are male and therefore not a lesbian. Same goes for males. a gay male is just as male as any man (as in they have XY chromosomes). They may not be as "masculine," as heterosexual males, as in they may not display the culturally sanctioned male behaviors, but they are in fact male and have a penis.

There is a difference between "conscious decision" and "learned behavior" (or the nurture part of the nature/nurture debate). Much learning is done unconsciously. Many things learned, especially early in life (like before most people can remember), are not done consciously or formally. A baby is a sponge and soaks up what it can from its environment. Included in this is the gender norms it is exposed to. This early learning is tempered later-on by new experiences.

This is similar to language-learning. It has been shown that the ability to learn language is genetic -- but the form the language takes is determined by the environment the child is exposed to. Which is why a Chinese baby raised by American parents will grow up to speak American English and not Mandarin.

Because the learning is not remembered many assume that the way they turned out is "natural" or genetic. This is not necessarily so. I believe that there is some genetics in it, but that many gender norms are learned behavior. This is because gender norms vary so widely from culture to culture and that there are different ranges of gender options available in different cultures. In many Native American cultures there was a defined gender for women who were more "manly" or men who were more "womanly." In India there is a third gender option. Hijras are castrated men who live as women. While these men/women are not considered normal, they do have a defined, sanctioned role within the culture.

In addition, gender roles are capable of changing as can be seen in America today. Today it is acceptable for a woman to work outside the home and to define herself as something other than a "homemaker". Why is this? Because gender roles are not innate, they can change just as all culturally-influenced behaviors change.

I also see sexual preference (as in homosexual, heterosexual, etc) as different in nature from gender role. Homosexuality is a phenomena in all cultures. Cultures sanction homosexuality to a greater or lesser extent (from the ancient Greeks, who saw homosexual love as the highest form, to puritanical Americans who condemn it as an abomination). Because homosexuality is cross-cultural this leads me to believe that it may be a genetically-influenced behavior. Again, I believe there is an interaction between genes and environment (it is not strictly one or the other, but a combination of both). Interesting studies have been done into homosexuality showing that stress on a male child in the womb leads to an increasing chance the male will develop homosexual (a finding I find interesting. I will be interested to see how this research turns out in the future).

Interesting studies have been done into homosexuality showing that stress on a male child in the womb leads to an increasing chance the male will develop homosexual (a finding I find interesting. I will be interested to see how this research turns out in the future).

I think I remember something along that line, but it was stress on the mother during pregnancy, not just stress on the child while in the womb, one being connected to the other, of course. If mom is upset, or sick, or whatever, a certain amount of stress could be felt by the child she is carrying.
There seemed to be a marked increase in homosexuals born to European mothers during and shortly after WW2.

When was the last time you actually checked that little physical fact that you assume to be the case?

The trouble with gender definitions that rely on purely physical characteristics is that there are always some counter-examples that fall outwith the definition used, that include or exclude individuals you didn't intend. For example, there are many more than the usual two chromosome patterns possible, e.g. XXY, XXX, XO, XYY, XXYY, XXXY, and XXXXY for which it would surely be a major headache to come up with appropriate gender pronouns if we didn't just accept that those people belong to the gender they most resemble and identify with. As well as the alternative chromosome combinations, it's also possible for an individual to have the chromosomal makeup usual for the sex opposite to that which their genitals indicates at birth. That is, some people have XY chromosomes like a male, but because the Y is not expressed they appear physically female. Other people have XX chromosomes, but appear male because part of the Y chromosome is translocated to the X chromosome. XX males have the normal reproductive equipment for a male, and their sexual orientation and gender self-identification percentages as group are no different to the typical XY male population. The main differences between XX males and their XY counterparts is that XX males are usually shorter (within the typical female range), and are infertile. However, by the simple XY=male XX=female definition, those XX males, who have a normal penis, male body shape and hair growth patterns, and generally identify as male gendered as often as their XY counterparts do, would be considered women. If they took a female partner, they'd be considered a lesbian. It doesn't really work does it?

Unless you've actually had your chromosome makeup established by a doctor, you may just find you're one of those people for whom it's not what they had supposed based on physical clues.

Genetics play a pivotal role in this debate that has been raging over the past year. However, I agree with Sir Winston Churchill in his saying that "... A like makes it half way around the world while the truth is still putting on it's pants..." I believe that this myth was fabricated by some sort of Gay Pride Extremest who was at a rally in Seattle creating an uproar for being a champion of "equal rights." It is disgusting to even accept the lie that people are born this way, people are not born homosexual, they are born with a hair color... certainly not a lifestyle automatically programmed.
The debate is moot in the sense that it can neither be proven nor disproved. Until a homosexual volunteers to have their body dissected to give us an idea what their DNA and brain matter is composed of I fear the truth shall not be known. Plus this whole "You're born gay" debate has no fiber, and because people tend to believe things they cannot prove (point proven: alien spacecraft,) it is a comfort to them to know it was not a choice.
I am passionately outspoken on all my views and attacking my views without knowing my reasons is just moronic. To explain my views I shall attempt to be as formal and remain decent: Homosexual men and women enjoy the thought that they were born how they have chosen to live their lives. This is not so. Human-beings, my self included, look for someone else to blame in our problems. To these men and women who have chosen to accept this theory it is now easier to blame the combination of their parents DNA and genetics that made them. When you were a teenager did you not blame your parents for your misgivings?
Now that they are grown and can make choices on whom they desire to love it seems more aptly suited for them not to take responsiblity and just be content with themselves, the truth is that those who devised this theory of being born homosexual are the ones who are regretful and looking for someone with which to lay blame for their actions and choices. It has always been easier to belive things that can neither be proved nor disproved. It has always ben easier to blame someone else for your actions. It has now never been easier to live in our world and be homosexual because of this theory that parents are to blame for spawning you and in some bizarre tragedy their combination of bodily codings have made you homosexual. It would in no way change my opinion, the rights of marriage are sacred and belong to those only naturally capable to produce offspring. Marriage is a bonding with two purposes: to love your partner and spend your life with them, and to produce children. Can homosexual couples produce with aide of science? Full rights of union do not belong to those people who cannot contribute to the continuation of our world through bearing children.



I wrote this for a closed debate on whether science could prove the gene making homosexuality a lifestyle not a choice and whether if would sway my opinion on the rights of marriage of homosexuals. I hope it can still contribute.

I was born a male, and I'm now a grown man. I grew up comfortable with being male, but during my teen years I became obsessed with the notion of having sex with older men. I dabbled in homosexuality for many years - mostly seedy anonymous sex in public places. Eventually I could no longer endure the self-loathing which this caused me to feel, and so I decided to become a 'woman'. My gender will always be male and my chromosomes will always be XY but I am determined to forge ahead regardless.

My new status as a 'woman' will lend some measure of respectability to my enjoyment of sex with males, and serve to reduce my self-loathing. My preference is exclusively for giving oral sex, so matters anatomical will never have a high priority for me, although at some point I will probably consider surgery. My major concern is my Adam's apple, which is very prominent even by male standards, and regardless of how many drugs I take and how much surgery I have this will always be a problem, and a major indicator of my real gender.

My role model in life is Nadia Almada, formerly Jorge Almada. If I can ever attain the level of feminity which he has achieved, and if I can ever be as pretty as him then I will be a happy 'girl' indeed.

I think that this whole thread, and much of the debate on sexuality, is based on a false dichotomy. Several, in fact.

Firstly, there is much empirical evidence to indicate that gender behaviour and gender selection are not closely linked - I bet everybody here knows a straight woman who isn't very "feminine", or maybe a straight man who is positively camp (and maybe uses it as a seduction tool on women!).

If you know more than one or two homosexuals of either gender, you will probably be able to identify gay men who think and behave in a "normal" masculine way, and ones who seem far more "feminine". Many straight men, when they are hurling abuse at gays the come across (no pun intended), loudly speculate about "which one is the woman, or do they take it in turns".

Similarly there are "butch" and "lipstick" lesbians.

My apologies for any offence caused - I use these slang terms to illustrate that this is an already recognised phenomenon, and not some revolutionary concept I have cooked up myself.

The second false dicotomy is that between innate and learned behaviour. The underlying assumption here, and in most nature vs nurture debates on sexual preference, is that all innate behaviour is involuntary, and all learned behaviour is a conscious choice and can be "unlearned".

On this latter point, one of the earliest observations of animal learning was "imprinting" on a parent - the first large moving object seen by a hatching bird is treated as the parent until adulthood. Once imprinting has taken place (fully), it cannot generally be unlearned.

Some species, and some individual animals, imprint so firmly on an alien species that they grow up behaving as if they think they belong to that species. Again, we don't have to look at abstruse scientific studies for supporting evidence - most of us will know of someone's pet dog (or cat, etc.) that seems to think that it's a human being.

We've all heard of the apocryphal child raised by wild animals that remains wild no matter how much schooling and re-education it gets, or the antelope raised by lions that grows up thinking it's a lion (usually only to be eaten by a another, less-confused lion).

This is all learned behaviour. It isn't consciously learned - no antelope is born behaving like a lion - but once learned, it's as hard-wired as much as any innate characteristic.

Given that we don't yet fully understand how human sexuality's gender prefences come about, maybe some kind of imprinting process takes place here too? Imprinting certainly seems to play some part in human sexuality - most fetishes have roots in childhood (the shoe fetishist who remembers some enjoyable childhood sexual experience involving shoes, or whatever), and we know that a big predisposing factor in child abuse is having been abused as a child oneself.

So maybe sexual preference is "learned" in a way that cannot afterwards be changed (or not easily or voluntarily)?

Or maybe the whole areas of gender behaviour and gender preference are not only not directly linked (as explored above), but not simplistically either/or nature or nurture? Instead, perhaps a more complex and subtle interplay of genetics, conscious learning, and unconscious learning takes place?

Surely such an explanation would fit the (almost endless) spectra of gender preferences and gender behaviours better than "is gay"/"is straight", "acts female"/"acts male" dichotomies, linked or otherwise?

The problem with the questions is that they make a big assumption... that gender behavior and sexual orientation (what I assume you mean by "preference") are inseparable. I do not believe that you can choose your sexual orientation. I do believe that gender behavior can be altered right down to sexual activity. I know that sounds contradictory, but it isn't really. Sexual orientation is biological... and I believe this "programming", for lack of a better word, occurs sometime before birth -- genetic, hormonal... I don't know (though I am impressed by the evidence pointing to prenatal hormonal effects). Gender behavior is much more complicated as it can be affected to any number of degrees (significantly or insignificantly) by environment -- social, familial, etc...

Ol Sarge's "bull" analogy is a good example of this. His jail reference is also a good one. Heterosexuals in sexually restrictive environments, like prison or a gender specific school, in absence of the opposite sex tend, more than in other situations, to exhibit homosexual behavior due to the stresses they are under. Does this mean that they have become homosexual as regards their sexual orientation? No. They are merely exhibiting homosexual behavior. Sexual behavior is too complex to assume an inseparable connection between gender behavior and sexual orientation.

You assert that sexual orientation is biological and programmed. That is not at all clear from science. In fact it is one of the most hotly disputed issues around. I don't see how you can believe that sexual orientation or preference is programmed when it is so complex, but then go on to say that gender behavior can so easily be affected by environment. I see no reason why you are willing to assume the effect of the environment on behavior but not preference.

I stated that I believe this to be the case -- meaning that I accept the theory that it is biological. I never asserted that it was the case. There is a difference. Yes, this is a hotly disputed issue.




First, sexual orientation can be programmed and still be complex. As long as the result occurs prenatally then it is biological regardless of its complexity. Gender behavior is also complex. Your questions assume an inseparable link between the two. I stated that there is too much involved to assume an inseparable link.

Second... Easily? Where did I state easily? Are the stresses of prison easy? Are the stresses an adolescent child is under in a single-sex boarding school during a process of major sexual maturation easy?



There is much more evidence to support an environmental effect on sexual behavior.

For example, when you take a close look at same-sex parenting you will see changes in behavior, but not, statistically, any affect on orientation.

Article on politicization of same-sex research.


These environmental effects are behavioral and not associated with sexual orientation. Can you point to any evidence that sexual orientation is affected?

I believe that sexual orientation is innate. Many people opposed to homosexuality believe the same thing. They believe that we are all innately of a heterosexual orientation and that homosexuality is not a sexual orientation, it is a behavioral choice. I would argue that most people who take issue with homosexuality feel this way.

sexual orientation is innate. homosexuality is nothin' more than a trend. and in our current generation... it's quite a popular trend. via cycle/pendulum effect over the course of time homosexuality will become very scarce. thus startin' the cycle over again.

sexual orientation will ALWAYS be innate as long as babies are born w/ unique physical characteristics.