Are there any peer-reviewed scientific studies that show gender roles are artificial & that being gay is natural?
Asked by
trents (
72
)
February 13th, 2012
Just some links to scientific studies from peer-reviewed journals. Thanks.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
70 Answers
You want to look in an academic journals database that allows you to search for peer-reviewed journals and tyr keywords such as “homosexuality” and “normal” or “biology” and “sexual orientation.” Don’t confuse gender roles with sexual orientation but do do your own research.
I tried searching two popular scientific peer-reviewed journals (nature and sciencemag), but no luck. Perhaps there are no conclusive studies as of yet, otherwise it would have been published already. That, or I’m just having a hard time finding it.
Are you at college? Go to your library and ask a reference librarian to help you searching the databases. I do suspect the results you are looking for have not been found but you should find some general studies in a wider database search.
“Natural” isn’t going to help you. Of course homosexuality is “natural”. Just about every species on Earth engage in homosexual behavior at least some of the time (and in some cases, almost all of the time), but many animals abandon weak young, kill their rival’s offspring, and other less-than-acceptable-for-humans-type acts, even if we do have similar instincts. Abandon “natural.” It’s a dead-end of logical debate. Natural does not equal correct.
Of course gender roles are artificial. They are (with the exception of basic roles of biology) socially constructed. That doesn’t make them less real.
Any study you find showing the “naturalness” of homosexuality or the “artificialness” of modern gender roles won’t help you advance the debate, only to distort a simple issue with biased interpretations of politically-neutral studies. Stick to philosophy and ideas of freedom and the rights of self-determination. Who cares what’s natural and what’s artificial. If it is what you want, and you aren’t hurting anyone, any act is justifiable.
That said, if this is your general area of interest, read Sex at Dawn for a fascinating history of gender roles and human sexual/social evolution.
Here is an extreme;y in-depth article from the Boston Globe magazine that discusses the current level of the research, names the researchers and discusses their research (which should help you find the journal articles).
I know homosexuality occurs in a long list of animals. You could look up on them, I’m sure someone has done a study on them.
@tedd Yes, some of the researchers named in the article I Linked to are working with gay sheep.
If being gay is natural, how come you can’t procreate?
@BoyWonder Worker bees don’t procreate either, but no one argues that being a worker bee is unnatural.
Response moderated
@Smashley,
Yes, the naturalistic fallacy. I meant in regards to biological-neurological bases instead of natural.
@Smashley wrote, “Of course gender roles are artificial.”
I appreciate your opinion, and I mean no offence, but I’m just interested in scientific facts here.
@marinelife,
I read through it, and that article explains why I wasn’t able to find anything. All those studies were rejected for being inconclusive, hence no peer-review publications. Usually, when they officially discover something it gets approved by the community and gets published.
It looks like there is no evidence for gender role construction either.
@tedd,
Plenty of studies on homosexual animals, but nothing conclusive for humans.
@trents – I think the onus is on proving that gender roles are something other than artificial. That they are somehow inherent. Since there is so much variation currently and historically in gender roles, and given a basic understanding of human social evolution, it seems apparent that the “default” position is to understand gender roles as social constructions tailor made to fit certain social situations. If we are going to indulge ourselves enough to use the term “artificial” in regards to social institutions, then I think artificiality of gender roles has to be the starting position that any study would need to refute or expand upon, rather than the other way around.
@trents You asked about gay being natural, animals are the epitome of natural and exhibit homosexual behavior… You cannot separate that information simply because it is not based on humans. You would be throwing out the entirety of scientific information that shows the incredible links between humans and animals, which would completely negate the idea you have (which I’m suspecting is a fraud premise to stir up tension here) of looking for some kind of scientific proof.
Basically you’re asking for a scientific study (or rather a lack of one) to prove that homosexuality is not natural… and then dismissing scientific studies that prove quite blatantly that it is.
If it was so apparent, I wouldn’t be asking this question, and it wouldn’t be so controversial among the scientific community.
A relevant peer-reviewed study and its abstract.
Influence of genetic factors on human sexual orientation. Review.
Author(s): Rodriguez-Larralde, A (Rodriguez-Larralde, Alvaro)1; Paradisi, I (Paradisi, Irene)1
Source: INVESTIGACION CLINICA Volume: 50 Issue: 3 Pages: 377–391 Published: SEP 2009
Human sexual orientation is a complex trait, influenced by several genes, experiential and sociocultural factors. These elements interact and produce a typical pattern of sexual orientation towards the opposite sex. Some exceptions exist, like bisexuality and homosexuality, which seem to be more frequent in males than females. Traditional methods for the genetic study of behavior multifactorial characteristics consist in detecting the presence of familial aggregation. In order to identify the importance of genetic and environmental factors in this aggregation, the concordance of the trait for mononzygotic and dizygotic twins and for adopted sibs, reared together and apart, is compared. These types of studies have shown that familial aggregation is stronger for male than for female homosexuality. Based on the threshold method for multifactorial traits, and varying the frequency of homosexuality in the population between 4 and 10%, heritability estimates between 0.27 and 0.76 have been obtained. In 1993, linkage between homosexuality and chromosomal region Xq28 based on molecular approaches was reported. Nevertheless, this was not confirmed in later studies. Recently, a wide search of the genome has given significant or close to significant linkage values with regions 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26, which need to be studied more closely. Deviation in the proportion of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexuals seems to favor the presence of genes related with sexual orientation in this chromosome. There is still much to be known about the genetics of human homosexuality.
@trents It isn’t controversial among the scientific community. Not in the slightest.
Humans are animals. I don’t understand why you seperate the two.
@tedd,
So what are you trying to say, that since homosexuality is natural in the animal kingdom, so it’s obviously genetic in humans? Well if that is the case, then the scientific community wouldn’t be having such a difficult time proving that, yet every study was found to be inconclusive and rejected by the community.
Did you read the article? Every study was inclusive. It would take me 2 seconds to find the study on a peer-reviewed journal if there was actually a conclusive one.
@trents You didn’t link an article. I’m telling you what I know as an active member of the scientific community (I’m an analytical chemist with experience in researching DNA), that there is most definitely no controversy in the Scientific Community about homosexuality. It is natural, end of story, as far as the SC is concerned.
What I’m saying is that since it occurs naturally in animals, it most definitely could be occurring naturally in humans as well. As far as science is concerned, humans are animals, so there is no distinction other than higher functions. There is no difficulty proving it, I just did, end of story.
Let me ask right off the bat, what is the extent of your scientific education/training?
@tedd,
Marinelife linked the article.
I’m sorry, I’m just not interested in your personal opinion, no offence. I’m specifically looking for peer-reviewed publications. Popular journals like nature magazine, sciencemag, etc…
Uh, we just spoke about this… What does homosexual genes in mice have to do with humans?
@trents….. facepalm….. Well for starters the second article isn’t dealing with mice. But as far as what it has to do with humans…. You share 99%+ of your genome with mice, they’re an animal and you are an animal.
The question you just asked me is akin to asking “Well what does avian flu have to do with humans???”
Most scientists who do research in this field of study are often disregarded with the common excuse of “they’re trying to further their agenda.” Which may be why so many of the studies you’ve seen seem to be inconclusive or are not peer reviewed. In a way, this is a bit of a black sheep topic. Personally, I disagree that it’s solely genetic and am a strong believer that nurture and experience can play just as a significant, if not sometimes greater, role as nature (genetics if you will).
@King_Pariah The furthering their agenda crap is what gets me. It’s ironic how when an expert says something an idiot with no experience on the topic disagrees with… suddenly they’re furthering their agenda.
The next time my doctor tells me I’m sick with the flu I’m going to let him know I just think he’s furthering his agenda.
@tedd,
Then why is it so hard for you to link me to the same type of peer-reviewed study on homosexual genes in humans?
Why did you link me to mice?
@tedd,
Doctors work for money, so it is possible for them to push their agenda. The sicker you’re, the more he/she makes.
Most genetic research involves switching the genes on and off, then inserting the genes into animal zygotes and observing the effect of the gene in the resulting animal.
This is not done with humans because it is illegal.
LeVay cautioned against misinterpreting his findings in a 1994 interview: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. The INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women’s sexual behavior.”
[4] Some critics of LeVay questioned the accuracy and appropriateness of his measurements, saying that the structures are difficult to see in tissue slices and that he measured in volume rather than cell count.[5] Nancy Ordover wrote in her 2003 book American Eugenics that LeVay has been criticized for “his small sample size and for compiling inadequate sexual histories.”[6] link
You sure you don’t want me to explain math to you?
I’m not sure why this has gotten so heated; I had the feeling that the OP was looking to do research, not pushing an agenda.
Sigh… DNA this, DNA that, go look at epigenetics for crying out loud. If someone could link some material to trents it’d be appreciated, I’m on mobile and can’t do it.
@trents Lol… You seriously have no idea wtf you’re talking about, and it shows so badly it hurts. You don’t understand the very basics of research, especially the genetic variety. The man found that homosexuals had smaller hypothalami than their heterosexual counterparts, consistently acrossed his study. That does not certifiably say that genetics causes homosexuality, because that’s not how science works. All it does is points to the correlation and provide a theory that can then be tested.
You wanted proof of a study that supports the theory of homosexuality being genetic, and I gave you one.
@janbb If he’s doing research he could start by opening a damned science book. It’s like trying to explain classical literature to someone who barely understands the alphabet.
Alright, it looks like i’m beating a dead horse here. I’ll find my answers elsewhere.
@trents lol… I gave you four studies that support/suggest homosexuality is natural. Yet you’ve discounted everyone of them because you’ve let your own agenda influence you. Just sad.
Looks like you created a belief and now you are looking to science to back up your belief. That is not the way to the truth.
Can you be more specific about what you’re looking for? What would constitute evidence that gender roles are artificial or that being gay is natural, in your mind?
The asker has closed his account.
@thorninmud LOL I’m not a bee, I’m a human being and I’m asking my question to another human being. You ARE a human being and not a bee, correct? BTW, I didn’t know worker bees were homosexual. I believe they procreate with the Queen. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I love that when it comes to questioning the nature of homosexuality I can’t seem to get a straight answer (no pun intended lol) I ask about apples and I get oranges. Why when asking about humans, which CLEARLY this is about the human race, I’m seeing references to insects and animals? Is this the best defense you have? Gay mice? Gay bees? Really? **waiting for someone to hit me with an off-topic response…3…2…**
@BoyWonder, I’m confused, are you also @trents?
I ask this as a serious question, not to make a point: Do you think that other research done on animals does not apply to humans? For instance, in developing new drug therapies, do you think that testing them on animals first is 100% meaningless and provides 0 evidence for whether they will work in humans?
@BoyWonder
Worker bees are all female, and the only bees that breed in a hive are the queen and select male drones.
None of the worker bees will ever breed, in fact, they do not even have functional reproductive organs.
@nikipedia Why do I have to be another person for having a view that differs from you? And to answer your question, you’re moving across different species. Those are not grounds for an effective experiment. Would you test a dog-dewormer on a cat?
@ragingloli Um…that would be similar to an infertile woman. But you get an E for effort so thanks for that.
@BoyWonder, is there anything that would convince you that experiments on animals often do tell us a great deal about humans? For instance, if I showed you evidence that a medication to treat a disease in an animal also treats that disease in a human, would you believe that we can sometimes translate findings in animals to information about humans?
@BoyWonder Would you say that masturbation is not natural, because it doesn’t contribute to procreation?
@BoyWonder
Worker bees are supposed to be infertile.
@BoyWonder, sure. I selected the statin drugs as an example, because they include the most widely prescribed pharmaceutical drug on the planet, Lipitor. If you would like examples from other classes of drugs, please let me know and I would be happy to oblige.
In 2003, an article was published by Nature Reviews describing the history of statin development. I have linked the full text there, but here is a summary:
About 100 years ago, doctors started to think that cholesterol could be linked to heart disease. They observed patients for a while, and became more convinced of this hypothesis. In order to treat heart disease caused by cholesterol, scientists started to look for drugs that could lower cholesterol. They hypothesized that blocking cholesterol synthesis by reducing levels of an important enzyme, 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-CoA (HMG-CoA) would decrease cholesterol, in turn decreasing heart disease.
Chemists were able to synthesize a drug that would do just that. However, doctors did not just test the drug out on any willing person. Instead, the cholesterol-lowering drugs were tested on rabbits, monkeys, and dogs. Only when it was shown to be safe and effective in these animals was the first human trial initiated.
The reason that I offered to provide evidence in any drug class you name is because this is how all drugs are developed. No FDA-approved drug will ever be tested on humans until it has been proven both safe and effective in animals. So, nearly every drug you take, every drug you have taken, and every drug you will take, was shown to be effective in animals before any human was ever prescribed it.
You do realize that this field of study has only gotten widespread serious research into it recently? Once it was pretty much accepted that there’s like what, 1,500 species known to have homosexual interactions and with the realization that the answers doesn’t lie solely in DNA (hence why I brought up epigenetics which itself is a very young science persay) after finally unlocking the human genome did anyone start really considering and funding research to find out if it was really genetic. Ad as you can see, these sort of experiments always start with “animals” that are similar to us humans genetically. They found that it does show in these critters recently so only recently have they started watching humans. Also remember that tampering with human genetics and epigenetics is pretty much considered unethical so this step of research is going to take time. Give science a chance before bashing it, will you?
@nikipedia: I’m assuming that The side effects were not prevalent in these rabbits, or else testers would have discovered that Lipitor can cause severe muscle pain and in some cases, renal failure. Not to mention that Lipitor can have more serious side effects when in contact with other drugs. Have they tried giving these rabbits other drugs in combination to see if those other adverse effects present itself? That still doesn’t sound like an experiment I want to put my trust in.
@thorninmud: Of course it’s natural to touch yourself. We all have to touch ourselves when we take a shower, right? I was talking about PROCREATION. Because we can’t procreate by ourselves, correct?
@ragingloli: Ok, thanks for that too? You have a passion for bees, that’s awesome!
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
@BoyWonder, you asked for evidence showing that drugs that work in animals also work in humans, which I provided. No one has argued that rodents or non-human primates are humans. The argument is that we are similar enough in some ways to derive some information. I have clearly demonstrated this is true.
If all animal research constitues experiments you don’t want to put your trust in, as you say, don’t ever take any medication again, and don’t ever get surgery or have an x-ray, CAT scan, or MRI.
Let’s be clear on something…if I decide to take medicine, I’ll take it because I hope it will make me feel better, not because a monkey took it and it made the monkey feel better, but that’s just me. If you choose to do that, well more power to you. And I clearly stated, which you seem to have no defense for, that Lipitor is NOT 100% safe and maybe if they did more extensive tests on these animals then they would have discovered that. Or did they already discover it by performing the added experiments which I suggested (combining drugs) because this in fact does pose a threat to physiological health in humans. Half of what you said was right but the other half was dead wrong. Sorry.
Furthermore could you maybe provide evidence from a more recent source? A source from 9 years ago is pretty outdated considering all the wondrous developments which have taken place in the pharmaceutical field as of late. Thanks! :)
Right back at you trents, or should i say BoyWonder?
That’s very funny. Trust me, I don’t give up as easily as your friend trents did. So whenever you’re ready to come out from behind the curtain to present valid arguments with valid support, I’m all ears, eyes, whatever. If not, then good day. :)
You’ve made it clear at this point that you’re unwilling to listen to valid arguments with valid support. I sincerely hope that will change for you.
I think there are two possible explanations. One is that you are being willfully ignorant, and pretending that you don’t understand the explanations you’ve been given, when you really do.
The other is that you really do not understand logical inferences, or scientific research. I genuinely do not intend this as an insult, and I hope that you will consider the possibility that you are having trouble grasping some important basic principles of logical reasoning, but that this could be resolved with careful study.
Maybe in your mind you believe what you say is correct. I have covered my bases in disproving that which you have suggested. It’s not my fault you have no rebuttal for my counter-arguments. You should stick to what you know or present deeper and more updated research. What you’re saying is misguided, misleading, and is dangerous to those who don’t know better. I say this not to insult you either but to educate. The whole world just won’t agree with you. Sorry.
I have carefully examined your research. Perhaps you need to carefully examine the hazardous side effects of Lipitor before you hold your crusade on how wonderful the drug is when in fact, it really isn’t. Aside from that, you changed the subject of the original question and now can’t even articulate a valid argument on the subject you changed it to. I rest my case. I consider this thread ‘unfollowed.’
No wonder it’s taking you so long to get your PhD, @nikipedia. I mean, if you can’t even tell what’s natural from what’s unnatural, well…
I can’t even figure out what this is about any more and I’m a fairly smart person.
”@thorninmud LOL I’m not a bee, I’m a human being and I’m asking my question to another human being. You ARE a human being and not a bee, correct? BTW, I didn’t know worker bees were homosexual. I believe they procreate with the Queen. Correct me if I’m wrong.” That statement gives a VERY strong impression that you are indeed trents. In which case I’ll proceed to my next statement. A source from 9 years ago is pretty outdated which is probably why you shouldn’t be talking about a 1994 study, TRENTS since it’s well over a decade old thus, “outdated.”
I do believe it’s been pointed out that most of these animal studies were reported on between 2006–2007. Where it’s questionably okay to mess around with the genetics of animals, it’s deemed UNETHICAL to do so with the human genome and epigenome hence why this has to be a LONG term study to watch it naturally in humans.
I assure you I am NOT this trents person you speak of. But I see where this is going. You’re resorting to petty claims in an attempt to annoy me and that just shows your level of maturity. It’s highly unimpressive. It’s questionably okay to mess around with animals’ genetics? LOL. Make up your mind sir. Is it okay or is it not? I thought you folks were animal lovers, I would have thought the latter. All this talk of mice, monkeys, rabbits and bees.
BTW, I don’t have time for 2 Fluther accounts. That guy had 72 Lurves, I have way more. Face it, you don’t really think I’m that person, you’re just trying to get me to say something that would possibly get me banned because my ability to articulate my points upsets you. Nice try :)
Okay, I relent and take you at your word that you are not trents. And you thought we all were animal lovers? that’s cute.
No, you’re cuter. You’re a cupcake :)
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
