The biological theory of the origin of sexual orientation proposes various ideas about the etiology of this sexual behavior. One of the most famous is called the Neurohormonal Theory. For instance, Bailey, Dunne, and Martin describe this theory by saying that “homosexual people have been subject to atypical levels of hormones in development [in the womb], thus causing sex-atypical neural differentiation” (524). In addition, Throckmorton states that “in straight men, the right hemisphere is greater than the left and in women, they are equal…the hemispheres are the same size in gay men and for lesbians, the right is larger than the left” (“Study Examines” 2). On top of that, Diamond describes different studies that revealed significant differences
…show more content…
This is a vital fact, since it confirms that there is a biological background for sexual orientation. On the other hand, other biologists opt for evolutionary and genetic models to explain the origins of sexual orientation. For example, Burri, Spector, and Rahman argue that the genes influencing homosexuality “confer a reproductive benefit to heterosexual carriers” (1004). In other words, the authors are attributing sexual orientation to survival of the fittest. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally, this gives an advantage to heterosexuals in respect to survival. The statement is certainly harsh, indeed, and it may imply that homosexuals are not fit to survive, but it is just a theory created to supplement the fact that so many genetic factors influence sexual orientation. For instance, Niklas Langstrom and Qazi Rahman conducted a study of almost four thousand twin pairs and concluded that “35 percent of the differences between men in same-sex behavior are accounted by genetics…For women, genetics explained roughly 18 percent of the variation in same-sex behavior” (Nauert …show more content…
Frisch concludes that “prenatal factors alone cannot account for the variation in human sexual orientations…environmental and biological factors work together to influence sexual attractions and behaviors” (qtd. in Throckmorton, “Environmental Factors” 2). Likewise, Langstrom says that genetic factors and the unique social environments play the important roles in sexual orientation (Throckmorton, “Multiple Factors” 1). On top of that, Rebecca Plante, in her book Sexuality in Context: A Social Perspective, argues that everything about sex is too complex to argue for only one influence, when referring to the origin of sexual orientation (26). In sum, the scientific community seems to have reached a consensus about the origin of sexual orientation. After all, Diamond states, “biology sets a predisposition, the bias to an orientation” (24). In other words, biological factors predispose an individual to have a certain sexual orientation, but the environmental factors that affect that person will determine if the predisposition manifests or not. Furthermore, the origin of sexual orientation becomes crucial when it directly affects the perceptions society has about
This is a vital fact, since it confirms that there is a biological background for sexual orientation. On the other hand, other biologists opt for evolutionary and genetic models to explain the origins of sexual orientation. For example, Burri, Spector, and Rahman argue that the genes influencing homosexuality “confer a reproductive benefit to heterosexual carriers” (1004). In other words, the authors are attributing sexual orientation to survival of the fittest. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally, this gives an advantage to heterosexuals in respect to survival. The statement is certainly harsh, indeed, and it may imply that homosexuals are not fit to survive, but it is just a theory created to supplement the fact that so many genetic factors influence sexual orientation. For instance, Niklas Langstrom and Qazi Rahman conducted a study of almost four thousand twin pairs and concluded that “35 percent of the differences between men in same-sex behavior are accounted by genetics…For women, genetics explained roughly 18 percent of the variation in same-sex behavior” (Nauert …show more content…
Frisch concludes that “prenatal factors alone cannot account for the variation in human sexual orientations…environmental and biological factors work together to influence sexual attractions and behaviors” (qtd. in Throckmorton, “Environmental Factors” 2). Likewise, Langstrom says that genetic factors and the unique social environments play the important roles in sexual orientation (Throckmorton, “Multiple Factors” 1). On top of that, Rebecca Plante, in her book Sexuality in Context: A Social Perspective, argues that everything about sex is too complex to argue for only one influence, when referring to the origin of sexual orientation (26). In sum, the scientific community seems to have reached a consensus about the origin of sexual orientation. After all, Diamond states, “biology sets a predisposition, the bias to an orientation” (24). In other words, biological factors predispose an individual to have a certain sexual orientation, but the environmental factors that affect that person will determine if the predisposition manifests or not. Furthermore, the origin of sexual orientation becomes crucial when it directly affects the perceptions society has about