The controversial debate over the aetiology of sexual orientation often takes a dichotomous stance with one side supporting an innate, biological view, and the other as being acquired environmentally. Recently the focus has shifted towards an exploration into innate, biological origins such as genetics and endocrinology, as potential influences on homosexual development. Society tends to fall into the fallacy of thinking that behaviour is an either-or phenomenon, and that these factors are mutually exclusive. It should become apparent throughout this evaluation that this oversimplification of dividing development into distinct categories is too simplistic, and much more appropriate to view its development as an interaction between the two.
…show more content…
Firstly they all fall into the delusive rational that homosexuality is a categorical phenomenon. Not only in respect of sexual orientation in general, but also in terms of the failure to appreciate the varying degrees within the category claimed as “homosexual” such as the extent of same sex fantasies, attractions and behaviours (Kinnish, Strassberg & Turner, 2005). Instead many focus solely on behaviour. This failure to appreciate the dimensionality of homosexuality limits us in our appreciation of understanding the extent to which differences in innate aspects vary for differing degrees of homosexuality. It also makes us question the validity of research findings so far. If a study discovers an influence only affecting sexual behaviour, does this equivocate to sexual orientation, or is it imperative to include all psychological and physical components? The diversity of sexual orientation is perhaps why understanding its aetiology is so problematic. In this field of study, it can also be problematic to obtain honest and reliable findings, as homosexuality may be deemed socially unacceptable. Individuals may therefore be reluctant to express their true feelings and desires, thus potentially affecting the accuracy of research findings. In addition as this discussion has solely focused on male homosexuality, we are unable to extrapolate these findings to understanding the aetiology of homosexuality in females. This is a major limitation, and deems an inconclusive stance to the evaluation of being gay is innate for the general term of the word ‘gay’, as we have only explored one part of the story. Moreover, our inability to manipulate variables, and the impossibility of either controlling the environment or isolating individuals from the effects of our environment, means that we are unable to confidently and conclusively determine causation from these observations, and instead associations
Firstly they all fall into the delusive rational that homosexuality is a categorical phenomenon. Not only in respect of sexual orientation in general, but also in terms of the failure to appreciate the varying degrees within the category claimed as “homosexual” such as the extent of same sex fantasies, attractions and behaviours (Kinnish, Strassberg & Turner, 2005). Instead many focus solely on behaviour. This failure to appreciate the dimensionality of homosexuality limits us in our appreciation of understanding the extent to which differences in innate aspects vary for differing degrees of homosexuality. It also makes us question the validity of research findings so far. If a study discovers an influence only affecting sexual behaviour, does this equivocate to sexual orientation, or is it imperative to include all psychological and physical components? The diversity of sexual orientation is perhaps why understanding its aetiology is so problematic. In this field of study, it can also be problematic to obtain honest and reliable findings, as homosexuality may be deemed socially unacceptable. Individuals may therefore be reluctant to express their true feelings and desires, thus potentially affecting the accuracy of research findings. In addition as this discussion has solely focused on male homosexuality, we are unable to extrapolate these findings to understanding the aetiology of homosexuality in females. This is a major limitation, and deems an inconclusive stance to the evaluation of being gay is innate for the general term of the word ‘gay’, as we have only explored one part of the story. Moreover, our inability to manipulate variables, and the impossibility of either controlling the environment or isolating individuals from the effects of our environment, means that we are unable to confidently and conclusively determine causation from these observations, and instead associations