Homosexuality May Start in the Womb

See silly rabbit, some of us are just BORN FABULOUS!!!!

originally posted by: markosity1973
M'ehh, born this way or nurtured into existence. What does it really matter anyways?

Either way we're here we're queer and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I can't wait for the day homosexuality becomes as newsworthy as a cat stuck in a tree.

No, wait a cat stuck in a tree IS interesting lol

Oh and raedar, welcome to the fray my dear

This topic is born this way + nurtured into existence,but the nurture is before birth.

I wouldn't go as far to use the words gay or homosexual. I think a better term is feminisation. It has been well known for the last 30 years that the feminine turning hormone oestrogen has been present in the water and food supply. What we are seeing now (the feminisation of males in the uterus and as developing young people) is the direct result of wide spread use of oestrogen in the family planning environment. This hormone cannot be dissipated and builds up in the environment and therefore the water table and the food chain.

My uneducated opinion on it is that of course it starts when the brain is developing. For what ever reason the chemicals in the brain are compromised by something. This causes the brains confusion because then it doesn't know if a male is male or if a female is female and the wrong hormones start getting produced. I believe it to be some sort of chemical imbalance in the brain, not a sexual preference or a socially-learnt thing. From natures standpoint, homosexuality would be against everything that nature is, which is reproduction. It was thought for the longest time in psychology that homosexuals were mentally ill and they had treatments for it but they were forced to abandon it and classified it as a sexual preference instead of a mental illness.

But I get the jist of what you're saying about population control. The problem with that is we can't access how much homosexuality was around in early humans VS now to get any real data that at some point someone started manipulating the chemicals in the brains of fetus' through what ever means.

Homosexuality is not nurture, its nature.

I don't believe external chemical or pollution or vaccine is the cause because that would mean Homosexuality is a modern thing,


I heavily lean toward abnormal chemical production from the norm in the womb, thought i can't really assign why.



it could might as well be a genetic code in our DNA, when a person with this code meets up with a person with codes, the chance of a child with abnormal chemical distribution is higher.

Probably I didn't go far enough with my first post. When a fully grown developed male adult wants to change his sexuality to female the medics blitz his body with female hormones notably oestrogen. No matter what he wants or feels his body responds to these hormones and gradually turns bodily into a female and in some instancies boosts the female tendencies in the brain. This is fact. Now drip feed(oestrogen) a foetus through the mother and after when developing bodily and mentally and you have the scenario where more males are being born with female traits. I do not think this was planned for population control per say but as usual the result of drugs being widely used without the evidence of long term affects.

As a gay man, I firmly believe it's part biological, part environmental.

Until science tells me otherwise that's the stance I take. Human sexuality is far too malleable to be purely biological.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
As a gay man, I firmly believe it's part biological, part environmental.

Until science tells me otherwise that's the stance I take. Human sexuality is far too malleable to be purely biological.

~Tenth

Do you mean, it needs to have some biological precursors initially and with some added environment stimuli it give the product.. or are you saying that someone can truly become gay from environmental stimuli alone?

i disagree with the latter.

a reply to: luciddream

I agree with your first statement. I think biologically we are programmed to go one way or another, but that environmental factors can push those boundaries.

Pansexuals and bisexuals are enough proof of that if you ask me.

~Tenth

originally posted by: candlestick

originally posted by: markosity1973
M'ehh, born this way or nurtured into existence. What does it really matter anyways?

Either way we're here we're queer and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I can't wait for the day homosexuality becomes as newsworthy as a cat stuck in a tree.

No, wait a cat stuck in a tree IS interesting lol

Oh and raedar, welcome to the fray my dear

This topic is born this way + nurtured into existence,but the nurture is before birth.

Apologies if you felt I was being disrespectful.

The point I was trying to get across is that when this kind of debate is no longer newsworthy we will have reached acceptance in society.

I agree with tenth, we're born with a predisposition and the environment we're brought up in seals our fate. There is too much anecdotal evidence like the fact that when a child is raised by gay people is no more likely than anyone else to be gay to disprove nurture exclusively as the cause. Likewise there just isn't enough concrete evidence to suggest we are born gay and that is that. Extremely effeminate straight men and those straight guys into cross dressing are but two examples that slap the born this way theory in the face too.

Logic dictates that the truth therefore lies somewhere in between i.e. some if us are born with a trigger due to something that happens between conception and birth that is tripped somewhere along the developmental path.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
................ Maybe that's why the population of gays in cities " seems" to be higher..... The more we group togather. The more gay people we will have.

I think its because gay people are escaping the scrutiny of smaller towns and cities, friends and family, what i mean is in bigger cities a gay person has greater anonymity.

And, there are more gay people there.

I think we are ALL the same in some respect...all light beings in different
containers (male & female bodies). I hate labels & I think everyone should
be & feel free to love who ever they love...without the container we are
all the same.

Why do people need to find an excuse in science? Homosexuality
has always been around, there is no excuse as far as I am concerned
as I except everyone based on them being a good being...no relation
to sexuality or color...I am glad that rights for gays are now happening
but it is sad that there was a fight in the 1st place. We are ALL equal.
Just me 2 cents.

Cheers
Ektar
Ektar

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
As a gay man, I firmly believe it's part biological, part environmental.

Until science tells me otherwise that's the stance I take. Human sexuality is far too malleable to be purely biological.

~Tenth

I think there are degrees. I support the sliding scale theory. I think there are straight/gay humans born to the far ends of the scale that no matter the society or environment they are going to be who they were born to be.

That being said, I think the majority of people fall in the middle. I honestly believe if it weren't for society taboos far more people would be naturally bi-sexual.

Recent readings suggest we aren't just born, then everything stops developing. The body/mind/chemicals continue developing throughout our life.

I do believe we are who we are born, but continue developing.

a reply to: candlestick

IIRC . . . a mother carrying a boy . . .

WHO has a LOT OF STRESS the first trimester

has a 20% greater than average chance of raising a homosexual son.

Nevertheless . . . just as with predispositions to alcoholism, smoking, obesity . . .

predispositions do not force a drink into the hand; a cigarette into the mouth or food down the hatch.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Can you provide your source for this information?

~Tenth

I think there could be different causes for different people.

As a gay male I find the birth-order theory quite convincing (since I did have two older brothers), and although it's not predictive, apparently the chances go up 30 percent for each male child being gay in the birth order, and there may be a slight hormonal feminizing reaction to the male fetus in the womb.
However, there's very little else that is feminized, except apparently a larger language center closer to that of women.
The point for me is that it was never a choice, and it's an orientation I'm aware of, not necessarily a specific sexual act (that is, I can choose which men to sleep with and how, or maybe none at all, but I can't change my attraction to "manly" men).

I do find that there's a whole range of sexual varieties that require unpacking, and especially in the humanities - with their focus on social constructivism and feminism - there's increasing work on an array of attractions and sexual identities.
Many variations once lumped under "gay and lesbian" are now scrutinized, and although the bisexual is part of the "LGBTI" banner, popularly it is still straining to free itself as an identity that was once considered even rarer than the "homosexual", but at a closer look it seems more like a majority behavior.
"Biopia" is now seen as an analogy to "myopia", in the way that the bisexuality is stereotyped or contained.
The male bisexual was often seen as too cowardly to come out of the closet fully, or even with suspicion by gay men in the times when homophobic laws allowed unspoken sexual abuse and violence towards gay men (particularly since sexual abuse by "normal men" in power was not uncommon in prisons, the military or police raids on gay clubs).
Astoundingly, male bisexuality was often labelled under "gay", and celebrities like Freddie Mercury (clearly bisexual), or even movies like "Brokeback Mountain" (clearly bisexual men) were commonly described by both many heterosexual and homosexual commentators as "gay", rather than bisexual.
In the US, it seemed white male bisexuality was really a tragedy of a "gay man" trapped in the closet, while for ethnic men it was living on the edgy and risky "down low".

Even under HIV prevention the reference is to men who have sex with men (msm), rather than bisexuals.
For women bisexuality seems to have been accepted more as a norm, although usually associated with excess, like Madonna or (in South Africa) Brenda Fassie.
Lesbianism, and its explanation, has been less of a cultural focus than than gay men (also for homophobes), and the exclusive lesbian has thus also lacked the political visibility of the exclusive gay male.
That may change in South Africa, where lesbophobia, or the "corrective rape" of lesbians seems to be a bigger problem than violence against gay men.

Suffice to say that when especially heterosexist, patriarchal state homophobia decreases as a common enemy, a more liberal discourse allows for all kinds of identities to emerge that differ from the "traditional" gay and lesbian identity.
Queer studies, that look at all kinds of transgressive moments and attractions in literature, for example, are more popular than older gay and lesbian studies.
In fact, just being a gay male is almost reactionary, rather than liberating these days.
Class, race and gender differences may begin to split communities, and self definition becomes increasingly painstaking and important.
In South Africa (since same-sex marriage was legalized in 2006) the bigger gay parades in the cities have been partly abandoned as elitist, while smaller marches proliferate in the largely black townships.
There's all kinds of debates and accusations that gay prides have been too white and middle class, and they've ignored the rape of black lesbians in the townships, although as a white gay male I also fear that commenting on this will also make me a "racist", and I'd rather focus on my own conceptual community.

How do we explain bisexuality?
Perhaps every individual on the planet has their own unique sexuality.

To add on the specifically gay minority debate, I also find the case of a young man who turned gay after a stroke very interesting.
en.wikipedia.org...
Not only did he turn gay, but also very "stereotypically gay" (from a rugby playing banker to a somewhat camp hairdresser).
At first nobody believed him (even his boyfriend), but he later found other people who experienced significant personality changes after a stroke.
Many who had such strokes changed careers (even if they don't usually change sexual orientation, they are often subsequently rejected by their spouses, friends and families) from a construction worker to an artist, for example, and one therapist dealing with such cases claimed he did have a patient who also turned from gay to straight after a stroke.
These are often accompanied with complete personality changes, not just sexual orientation (it may show that sexual orientation goes with other personality traits), although it is a very rare phenomenon.

It certainly doesn't offer any form of "treatment" either way, since the brain is far too little understood to mess with it that way deliberately, but that kind of finitude of one personality and orientation to another (rather than just repression, for example via religion) is actually a frightening prospect for the individual and his or her social milieu.

We still like to put to things into clearly marked binaries based on recognizable classes of people, but we should get used to the idea that we may soon have a proliferation of sexualities and identities apart from "gay" or "straight".
I could think of many people who use the terms "gay" or "straight" to define themselves, but in reality they are bisexual to various degrees.
Yet, even in the West with all its gender rights, few people adopt the label "bisexual".

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Not safely re anonymity . . .

IIRC, personal communication Professor XYZ . . . 35+ years ago.

I can see if I can find such on the net . . . seems like I've run across it since.

a reply to: BO XIAN
I think that's an interesting view, although I guess religion is for the religious.
Ironically, this is also one area where there could be further studies on predispositions in some people towards religiosity (even if no specific religion is biological, there may be genetic or mental factors towards fundamentalism in individuals across the religions).

I suppose alcohol, tobacco or bad foods are all external temptations, but the vast majority of us have eyes, and ears and nerve endings attached to our bodies that make sexuality innate to our very embodied experience.
As long as the body is healthy and fed, sexual stimulation is the next most innate drive it can give me.

Of course, if one chooses to follow a religion (not just Christianity) that becomes problematic and constrained.

According to the New Testament, if one even looks with lust at a woman one has already committed adultery as a religious mind-crime.
That's what Jesus apparently said about being straight (Matt 5:28).
I really pity straight guys in that belief.
They must literally stick out their eyes and sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor, and denounce their families.

One pities people with a fundamentalist religiosity disorder, because the prognosis for people and countries (like Saudi Arabia) is not what most Western people would consider socially good.
It's nothing that most people would like to live under in its horrific entirety.
In that sense, religion could also be seen as a social disorder which none of us are born with, but we might have a strong genetic predisposition towards it.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
I'm repeating what I heard while getting my psychology degree ...

Children born to mothers who were in high stress during pregnancy ... like the London Blitz ... have a higher percentage of homosexual children born to them then the general public.

It's a chemical thing during pregnancy.

That one I heard about is most German gay born in WW2 last few years ,but I can't find back the research ...They believe is great pressure effected the hormone from the mother.

It seem like a natural strategies for war ,base on my observation, gay people more dislike war then normal people.

originally posted by: crayzeed I do not think this was planned for population control per say but as usual the result of drugs being widely used without the evidence of long term affects.

I didn't said there's a plan for create more gays ,but elites would like more gays.

At least we know that Aids, std's are biological,
. . . seems that mother nature is homophobic too.

__________________