It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If the theory of "gay male birth order" is correct: What are the implications for Abortion?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:35 PM
A relatively new scientific theory proposes that the chances of being a gay male go up with several percentages with each older brother.
As an exclusively gay male I saw some material on this in other threads and wider documentaries.
While I cannot say it is necessarily true, it did make me think.
I think if it is true it holds profound implications for how humanity practices abortion.

In the two generations before mine the first child was often aborted, because couples and individuals had not reached the level of stability they considered necessary to raise a child.
Sometimes it was still illegal and frowned upon, and many people may have had older siblings in the womb they know nothing about.
But according to the birth order theory concerning gay men, these were the male children most likely to be straight!

I still think nature intended a certain amount of people to be gay, but I sometimes wonder if the abortion of the first born can unbalance this.
If the birth-order theory is true, then perhaps the abortion of the first-born male child should become illegal.

I saw a documentary recently, I think it was called "The Making of Me".
It was about a gay man who also researches all these scientific theories.
He had the classic gay characteristics, which I can also identify with.
He had gender non-conforming traits as a child (played with dolls and female friends mostly), his brain-scan showed feminized areas, and his speech center and language abilities were above even the female average.

Like myself he found out that he had a brother that never lived.
He thought he was an only child, but found out his mom had miscarried before.
I thought I was a second brother, but due to stigma it was withheld from myself until fairly late that I was actually a third.

Of course birth order can only account for a percentage of gay men.
But what if there is some truth to the theory, and because so many first babies were aborted we now see the male children being increasingly gay, and the first straight majority that went "missing" no longer outnumber us according to nature?

Doesn't the birth order theory have implications for aborting the first born?
If the womb gets more allergic to males with each male pregnancy, then doesn't he have the strongest chance of being straight?

Of course it wasn't my fault how heterosexuals ordered their lives.
Even Jesus said some are made eunuchs in the womb.
It was not my choice, and I'm glad I'm here.
I still feel natural, I just wonder sometimes whether the previous generations haven't caused some kind of imbalance in a ratio.
edit on 29-9-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:46 PM
The gay birth order theory can be seen in this cartoon (for example):
This cartoon which challenges religious moralism on homosexuality through "science" was included in the thread and this inspired my current thread.

The theory can also eventually be found in the last segments (part 6) of the "Making of Me" documentary, where the researcher discovers he is not actually an only child as he had assumed.
However, it is advised to view the whole program for context.

edit on 29-9-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:46 PM
It talks about birth order, not pregnancy order, so if a woman is pregnant 9 times with males and aborts the first 8 of them, then delivers the 9th baby that 9th pregnancy will result in the first-born male, so i would assume this boy would not be gay. I think it has more to do with differences in raising the kids than anything else. Maybe the youngest boy in the family finds it more difficult to compete with the older boys. Or maybe by this time the dad is tired of teaching all the boys how to play baseball and football and the youngest male ends up spending more time with his mom.

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:48 PM
I'm sorry but this sounds like total bull#.

Your birth order determines your attraction to your own sex? Is this backed by legitimate data or is this just some pseudo-science nonsense?

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:52 PM
6 boys here all normal ,Funny saying it that way now isnt it.
as for males that have to much estrgian simply solution to that is testorian given to them .
as for the ones who choise to live with it well the planet is over poplated anyway less babys born would help with that

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:58 PM
in a nutshell, pregnancy vs birth order is the bigger issue, it all has to do with stressors on the pregnancy from the time of conception, and that include sperm quality, too.

long and short of it, any stressor on sperm quality, conception, or embryonic development (pregnancy) may cause deviation from usual response of XY embryo/fetus to testosterone.

i believe the OP is pointing out one such stressor has shown to be increasing pregnancies and or births (either case, stress on the reproductive system) with each pregnancy/birth the odds of homosexual brain increase as compared to the previous siblings or would be siblings.

abnormal? not really since evolution relies on diversity

and of course there are lot of first children/pregnancies that are homosexual, 1 in 10 anyhow you take it regardless or birth/pregancy order, bigger picture overall so imo the higher change based on sequence may be there and even proven, but it hardly means anything, pyschologically, socially, and spiritually

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:12 PM
The way I understand it is that every fetus is female until about two months.
Then the male fetus produces testosterone, which masculinizes that fetus.

The female womb can handle this foreign intrusion at first.
But with each further male child her body may react by producing an over-flow of female hormones.
This may affect the brain of the male child, but nothing else.
(Quite on the contrary, gay men on average have bigger penises - or so I've read in scientific books - so nature never closes a door without opening a window! But I won't discuss that issue here further.)

Now, if that is all even partly true, then aborting the first born with the biggest chance of being heterosexual can have serious implications over time to procreation within a group, and social structure.

If the theory is even slightly true, it can have similar implications to countries that abort or kill girl-children at birth.

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:39 PM

Originally posted by illuminatislave
I'm sorry but this sounds like total bull#.

Your birth order determines your attraction to your own sex? Is this backed by legitimate data or is this just some pseudo-science nonsense?

I think its more of a linear logic conclusion based in science in addition to obvious trends among homosexual men.

Actually, now that I think about it, the only gay eldest child that I know that isn't an only child also has a gay younger brother. Of the others I know (which is more than I can count) none are the eldest.

It's actually a pretty interesting theory.

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:56 PM
I personally know of a family where the 1st born from the first pregnancy is gay.
From the second pregnancy and birth the boy is straight.
There were no more after that.

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 06:04 PM

Bearman and Brückner (2008) argue that studies showing a fraternal birth order effect have used nonrepresentative samples and/or indirect reports on siblings’ sexual orientation. Their analysis, focusing on opposite-sex twins, did not find an association "between same-sex attraction and number of older siblings, older brothers, or older sisters".[16] A study by Francis (2008), using the same Add Health survey but with broader analysis, saw a very weak correlation of male same-sex attraction with having multiple older brothers (but did find a significant negative correlation of male same-sex attraction with having older sisters.)[17][
(from Wikipedia - Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation)

One study is not a good basis for a scientific theory, especially when the authors admits he "saw a very weak correlation of male same-sex attraction with having multiple older brothers". The Francis study (which is the basis for this claim) contradicts the Bearman and Bruckner study, which really begs the question, why offer this hypothesis on such weak evidence?
edit on 29-9-2011 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Not having read the theorists or the apparent critics that you quoted from the Wikipedia article, and their exact conclusions, I cannot say it is "weak", or why they posit it.

All I can say is it is posited in virtually popular culture at present.
Although I'd like to think most people would understand it as a number crunching exercise, rather than a rule.
Whatever causes male homosexuality may be influenced by fraternal order, but it is not necessarily the only cause.
It could actually be symptom of something else entirely, or sometimes work in a paradoxical order.

What is more concerning to myself is the unintended (or perhaps intended) social consequences of such theories.

If birth order confers certain socially desirable traits (even by the slightest statistical chance) it could alter the entire abortion debate.

edit on 29-9-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

top topics


log in