iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Talk Nerdy To Me: The Gay Brain (VIDEO)

First Posted: 11/04/11 10:27 AM ET Updated: 11/09/11 05:59 PM ET

Based on comments following my last post, it seems that the conversation has shifted from a broad discussion about whether or not human sexuality at large is innate to a specific analysis about the nature vs. nurture of LGBT orientation, attitude, and lifestyle. So, let's talk about this.

I acknowledge that it is both arrogant and naïve to assume that this is purely a scientific problem. It is multidimensional. It must be discussed in terms of biological, evolutionary, psychological, environmental, and socio-cultural correlates. Science is not an island. It does not exist in a vacuum. Even though the outcomes of scientific studies should be unimpressed upon by societal or even moral influence, the discussion of results gained are not. Science is done by scientists. Scientists are people. People have biases. Scientists try not to, but they aren't robots. Along the same vein, scientists must fund their work, which basically means begging for grant money any place it is available. Often times to get that money you have to please the right people. And those people, not being scientists, likely have an agenda. They aren't likely interested in learning about something purely for the sake of curiosity. Curiosity can be very expensive. This is not a perfect scenario by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyway, today's discussion was inspired by this comment:

2011-11-04-Screenshot20111103at2.02.29PM.png

Well, Sapphire, I don't know how to tell you this, but you are wrong. Scientists have found mountains of evidence to support the theory (yes, I said theory) that homosexuality is innate. Let's look at a small sliver of this evidence from a biological (anatomical/physiological and genetic) perspective.

As far back as 1992, a study by Allen and Gorski showed significant differences in the size of the anterior commissure in gay men, straight men, and straight women. The anterior commissure is a bundle of fibers (significantly smaller than the corpus callosum) that connects neurons in one hemisphere to the other. It specifically connects the temporal lobes, including the two amygdala, and it carries olfactory (smell) information and pain signals. The amygdala, if you recall from my Science of Fear post, is the region where frightening and other highly emotional memories are encoded. This will be important in a moment when we discuss another study. But back to Allen and Gorski's investigation, they found that the midsagittal plane of the anterior commissure was 18% larger in homosexual men than it was in heterosexual women and a full 34% larger in gay men than in straight men. This structure is not known to have any role in reproductive functioning, so the authors posit that factors involved in early development are producing a sexual orientation dimorphism (anatomical difference) in human brains.

The latter study only focused on the brains of gay men. What about lesbian brains? More recently, a study by Swedish researcher Ivanka Savik revealed that brain structures differ in areas involved in emotion, mood, anxiety, and aggressiveness in gay and straight individuals of both sexes. In fact, lesbian brains look more like those of straight men in these regions, and gay men's brains look more like those of straight women. One major difference seen is that of a slight asymmetry in the brains of straight men and gay women, wherein the right hemisphere is larger. In the brains of straight women and gay men, the cortices are largely symmetrical. Looking back at the amygdala, Savik demonstrated that in straight women and gay men, the amygdala had stronger connections to regions involved in fear and anxiety processing, whereas in straight men and gay women, the amygdala fed mostly into fight-or-flight areas. This is an important distinction because many published studies have shown that rates of depression are significantly higher in women than men, and new research is showing trends in that direction for gay men. We should be cautious about determining the causal factors involved however, because as we know, gay men are often the targets of bullying and experience alienation especially in adolescence.

In general, it is unknown if differences in brain anatomy and physiology between homosexual and heterosexual individuals are inherited or are related to hormonal changes in utero. The available evidence does point to the fact that genes seem to be a player in whether or not we grow up to be gay.

In 1993, Dean Hamer found that a patch of DNA called Xq28, which is inherited through the maternal line (on the X chromosome), appeared to be a genetic marker for homosexuality. In 1999, George Rice published research that refuted Hamer's finding. The search for the gay gene continues, but many researchers agree that homosexuality does appear to have a genetic foundation, even if it cannot be precisely pinpointed. This is because many published studies have shown higher concordance rates in monozygotic (MZ) twins than in dizygotic (DZ) twins. MZ twins are identical twins. They share the same DNA. DZ twins are fraternal twins. They are only as genetically similar as any two siblings; they just happened to be gestated and born at the same time. Although concordance rates of homosexuality are significantly higher in MZ twins, they are not 100%. Why is this? Identical twins may have the exact same DNA, but gene expression and activity may vary among them due to environmental and epigenetic factors. Lastly, a researcher named William Reiner looked at a group of boys who were underwent gender reassignment surgery in infancy because they had gender malformations. At the time, reassignment to female genitalia was an easier surgery, so that's what was done. Psychological influences didn't seem to factor into the surgeons' decisions for some reason. Anyway, all of the study participants grew up to be attracted to women, even though they were raised as girls and most had no idea that the surgery had taken place. If societal influence can "turn you gay," as so many commenters have claimed, shouldn't it have turned these gender-reassigned girls straight?

Obviously, the nature-nurture question involving sexual orientation is an extremely complicated topic with varying lines of available evidence. Even though biologists have yet to discover a gay gene, from a scientific perspective, genetic, hormonal, and structural-anatomical data show that homosexuality is definitely rooted in our biology. But what does this mean from an evolutionary perspective? Let me know what you think so that we can talk nerdy about that next.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST EDUCATION

Based on comments following my last post, it seems that the conversation has shifted from a broad discussion about whether or not human sexuality at large is innate to a specific analysis about the na...
Based on comments following my last post, it seems that the conversation has shifted from a broad discussion about whether or not human sexuality at large is innate to a specific analysis about the na...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,368
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (14 total)
09:02 PM on 12/07/2011
This is a very interesting question... I think human sexuality comes from both, nature, and circumstance... I believe some were born LGBT, and some have had such terrible experiences with the opposite sex, that they chose to open the door to a different way... Every door a person chooses to open in their life becomes an option. That is just my opinion ;-)
12:39 AM on 11/10/2011
I would have liked to hear your thoughts on the possibility that most of the things you discussed could be the result of hormonal exposure in utero. Aside from the twin studies (which have a very lost concordance if I recall correctly) most if not all of the differences can result from hormone exposure.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NOSarahFailin2012
03:21 PM on 11/07/2011
That is one of the cutest girls I've seen all year. Btw I AM a lesbian :3
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John LaVoy
09:31 AM on 11/07/2011
Here's a standard description of two key ideas. Homosexuality is unquestionably natural. It has existed in every culture at every point in history. It exists outside the human race in what we weirdly call the "natural" world. Those who suggest homosexuality is not natural are really trying to find a more neutral way of expressing a biased point of view.

One other hand, homosexuality is not in any way "normal." Normal is a statistical concept defined as "what most people do". Most people are not carry an inherent negative connotation. Being rich is not normal. Being a great athlete is not normal. Being really good looking is not normal. SO why do people who dream of being rich, athletic and good looking think being gay is bad because it isn't normal. Its just another case of people trying to hijack a neutral or even elevated expression to describe their personal discomfort.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
10:53 AM on 11/07/2011
The problem with importing a mathematical/statistical term into the realm of human behaviour and general discussion is that while that which doesn't conform to the trend in stats isn't called "abnormal"...it is in discussions of human behaviour.

From there, it is a hop-skip and a jump to "unnatural"...and all of the social-darwinist nastiness associated with that kind of rhetoric.

We are all normal in some ways, and outside the norm in others. Which is why I think the discussion is irrelevant at best and dangerous at worst.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Talossa
Liberal. Pro-Israel. Recovering atheist.
02:00 AM on 11/13/2011
> "outside the human race in what we weirdly call the "natural" world"

Very well stated!
photo
Tracy Fortune
Geek, mother, fair & compassionate ;^)
06:28 AM on 11/07/2011
The major problem I have with the nurture/nature argument is that it seems to dictate a lose/lose to me as a lesbian, a human being, & an individual.

If it could be proven as nurture- the whack-jobs of the world would never cease to find a way to prevent me. If it is nature, the whack-jobs will work towards a way to "fix" the gene "they" believe is not to their liking.

To me, how I am & who I choose to love & to be attracted to, is not one bit anyone's business except me & my partner.

The slippery slope begins when you pass your power off to another to judge & to dictate their views onto others. Same-sex attraction is no different than any other minority- and ought to be no more threatening.

The issue, I believe, is the folk who feel their own ambiguity, sub-consciously, and are frightened by it to the point they move to eradicate it in order not to deal with their own issues (better to blame & vilify the minority to make it "go away"). No one worries about suddenly waking to find they are now Jewish or black (other minorities who experience bias)- but there is nothing stopping the realization that one might be gay?

Imho- this has a lot to do with the hate/fear mongering...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
10:54 AM on 11/07/2011
Deep self h8red is the source of all h8red IMHO.

Great post.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Cara Santa Maria
HuffPost Science Correspondent
04:44 AM on 11/07/2011
I am so excited by the energy and participation on this piece! I wish I could keep up with all of your comments and respond to each one. Unfortunately, there is an overwhelming number of responses here and I've only had the time to read them. Please bear in mind that LGBT issues can be sensitive and should be treated with respect and care. That being said, this is not a political post, nor was it intended to inflame any personal beliefs. This post was written from a scientific perspective for an audience who is striving to think more scientifically about the world. Let's look at the evidence and make decisions based on fact, not feeling, to the best of our ability. I hope you all will continue to join me in this exciting conversation!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:54 PM on 11/28/2011
I will follow and I enjoyed your point on something that is, as you say "sensitive", yes, but can't be discounted as "not normal"---absolutely,not. Thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Micheal Anderson
When the Rebels become the Tyrants
12:39 AM on 11/07/2011
Soon as they identify anything it will be targeted by conservatives.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KaraC
Trans lesbian, atheist and humanist
11:25 PM on 11/06/2011
I agree that even if it is a choice, that is irrelevant to it being a fundamental right to be gay, lesbian or whatever. However the scientific evidence mounts that some combination of genetic and in-utero factors produce the brain difference that have been observed in LGBT people. What is undeniably a choice is to be a bigot.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Micheal Anderson
When the Rebels become the Tyrants
12:39 AM on 11/07/2011
Religion is a choice too but no one is talking about forcing people away from that.

Well, not many people anyway, heh.
01:12 AM on 11/07/2011
Transgendered...enough said.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KaraC
Trans lesbian, atheist and humanist
02:05 AM on 11/07/2011
The force of your rational, logical and coherent argument is clearly too much for me. I concede defeat in the face of such brilliant debating.

Thank you for proving my point about bigotry though.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
10:54 AM on 11/07/2011
On your way to being banned, IMHO.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
05:07 PM on 11/06/2011
The research is irrelevant. Not only are people allowed to self-determine in a democracy, it is the FOUNDATION of our FREEDOM.

Even if gay were a choice, it is a choice that is guaranteed by the constitutions of liberal democracies everywhere.

Only deeply big/oted people, stuck in bronze age mythologies attempt to push the church, and their misanthropic morality into the state.

It has no place in our discourse, this cancer of the mind, this twisted logic that defames ways of being, and priviliges a status quo.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HermaO
Conservatism is intellectual laziness.
03:14 PM on 11/06/2011
I don't like the idea of research being made to understand why some people are gay and not straight. Because there hasn't been any research made on why people are straight, like it's the only way people should be.
Because this being such an interrogation means that there is something wrong with gay people. With us. That we have to find out why we are like this, if there is a biological reason. Because a biological reason could be "cured". I don't care about the reason why I am attracted to my girlfriend, why I like pineapples and hate mushrooms.
I am who I am, I like who I am, and I don't want to change. And nobody should care, nobody should want me to change either.
Syllogizer
Barely Left of Pobedonostsev
04:52 PM on 11/06/2011
To put it bluntly, why should anyone CARE that you " don't like the idea of research being made to understand why some people are gay and not straight."?

Certainty your 'because' isn't good enough to be a reason.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Micheal Anderson
When the Rebels become the Tyrants
12:40 AM on 11/07/2011
And yet you feel that someone should care what you think.
photo
Tracy Fortune
Geek, mother, fair & compassionate ;^)
09:26 AM on 11/07/2011
Exactly- very well said....

Cheers!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TeraWatt60
Cogito Ergo Sum
02:02 PM on 11/06/2011
This whole notion is ridiculous. Gay men simply are and we have existed in all cultures, all time periods and in all areas of the world. Claiming that it is a "choice" is insane and b.igoted when every single gay male will tell you that we started noticing boys at the same time our straight counterparts started noticing girls...no conscious thought required. Claiming that "environmental" factors cause it is again ridiculous and b.igoted since no one consistent "factor" has ever been proven universally true. Many of us are "functional" with women and often have produced children , I myself managed to do this in college (trying to be straight was just a "phase") . Suffice it to say, there is simply no reason to really care one way or the other any more than one should care if someone is right or left handed
03:32 PM on 11/06/2011
So you like using the word bigot to prove what point exactly? Our bodies were made to function in a specific way. Men were not made to function sexually with men, nor women with women, but rather men were made to function sexually with women. A male penis is designed to function with a woman, period. That is natural. Homosexuality is unnatural because it abandons the natural function of the human body. Even homosexual activists are honest about the fact that homosexuality is not natural, or normal. Lesbian activist Camille Paglia, for example, offered the following observations:

"Homosexuality is not 'normal' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait...."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TeraWatt60
Cogito Ergo Sum
05:49 PM on 11/06/2011
Actually homosexuality exists in all animal species and ,in primates, is not done simply for procreation but as a way of bonding members of a group to one another.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

In addition homosexuality goes far beyond simply physical sex. It might surprise you to know that gay couples actually love each other as deeply as straight couples and in some societies it was encouraged in their military because it was thought they would fight harder rather than retreat in front of their partners.

By definition, homosexuality is natural because it is an innate trait among a percentage of the population. Claiming it is otherwise IS b.igotry and is an attempt to lessen the humanity of gay people.
Supposedly quoting Camille Paglia out of context and or selectively does not support your argument.

If you must stick to the mere physical aspects of sexuality , a sign of a VERY limited or neurotic mind, it sounds like you think even heterosexual sex unless there is a possibility of pregnancy is somehow "unnatural" and  would condemn heterosexuals unable to reproduce as "unnatural" plus anything that does not involve "mechanical" v@ginal sex. That sounds like a personal issue on your part and or something you should seek help overcoming...I'm sure your partner would appreciate it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
06:01 PM on 11/06/2011
Nope. Not even close.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lambdin1
What's this?
11:38 AM on 11/06/2011
Lets face it we are special. And if scientist do find a gene some straight will try to change us! Unknown to scientist we keep a lot of things well hidden, you'll be at this for years!
Syllogizer
Barely Left of Pobedonostsev
04:32 PM on 11/06/2011
That's the Catch-22. If they find a "gay gene" (or group), it makes it easier for activists to claim, "we were born this way, it is natural for us". But it also makes it more likely mothers will abort their children if they find out they carry the gene.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
giftsthatpurr
zestful life
04:59 PM on 11/06/2011
Quite a slam against women/mothers dontcha think?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
05:09 PM on 11/06/2011
.That makes you happy, I imagine.
11:22 AM on 11/06/2011
Homosexual behavior is not exclusive to "gay" people. With almost 30 million men in prison in America, there may be more heterosexuals practicing homosexuality than Gays. However, almost all of these inmates will revert to heterosexuality once released. And with them all arguments for an environmental cause of homosexual behavior.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
01:09 PM on 11/06/2011
Peagleville, there are 2,418,352 people in prison in the US. I don't know where you found the other nearly 38 million from. Given your knowledge on the subject, I feel free to ignore your opinion of who is and who isn't gay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
photo
ydnas639
I want my country forward
05:08 PM on 11/06/2011
Peabrain lives inside the bigot bubble. Pity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
01:10 PM on 11/06/2011
Oops, I should have said I don't know where you found the other nearly 28 million from, pardon me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TeraWatt60
Cogito Ergo Sum
01:50 PM on 11/06/2011
His little black book perhaps?
01:28 AM on 11/06/2011
If heterosexual behavior produces offspring and homosexual behavior does not, then how can it be said that homosexuals are born that way since their genetic tendencies would have died out long ago through natural selection? If this is not the case, can you please explain the mechanism by which “homosexual genes” aid in survivability and are then passed on to descendants?
04:27 AM on 11/06/2011
One could be genetically predisposed to becoming a homosexual but have environmental, societal pressures to act heterosexual. Just because someone is homosexual doesn't mean we don't have maternal /paternal instincts and won't act upon those instincts to have children. The only way homosexual tendencies could "die out" as you say, is if homosexuals are allowed to actually live out our lives to our normal conclusion without societal pressure to behave like heterosexuals when it comes to mating AND if homosexuals were sterilized and prevented from reproducing thereby preventing the gay gene from being passed on to the next generation. Since none of these things have actually happened then we will continue to reproduce gay and bisexual people.
02:26 PM on 11/06/2011
First of all there is no "gay gene". It's unfounded and unproven. Therefore it can not be passed on to another generation or person as you claim. To carry the excuse that homosexuality is genetically based to its logical conclusion, then men born with a natural attraction to young boys should also be considered as having a legitimate sexual orientation with its accompanying moral propriety. Or, are we to say that only homosexual attraction is genetic and morally good where pedophilia is not? If so, why the double standard?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dirk1
Same Sex Married
10:41 AM on 11/06/2011
The answer is quite simple.
Mother Nature invariably takes one of three positions regarding genetic variation from the norm.
The variation promotes survival of children to reproductive age, she keeps it.
The variation is irrelevant, she ignores it.
The variation reduces the survival rate of children to reproductive age, she kills it.

There is hard evidence that the genetic coding for male homosexuality is passed on through the mother, there is hard evidence that the genetic coding is of the mother and not of the homosexual child. In fact, there are several studies (not conclusive, but consistent) that offspring of gay men have the same 90/10 split in sexual orientation as offspring of heterosexual men.

There is also well demonstrated evidence, peer reviewed and reliable that those families which produce gay males also produce a higher rate of children who survive to reproduce.

The links to all these studies are scattered throughout this discussion, I won't repeat them for the 1,000th time.

The simple answer to your question is, we homosexuals result in more children surviving to reproduce therefor Mother Nature keeps us around.
Any man can make a baby in less than two minutes. It takes a real man, whether gay or straight to stick around and raise that child to maturity. We gays, in the role of uncles, siblings, cousins, teachers, police, doctors - all the roles where we are overrepresented - are just exactly that, the men who stick around to protect and help raise the kids.
03:19 PM on 11/06/2011
Scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have failed. So who are these "peers" who have successfully reviewed such conclusions? Dean Hamer, Simon LeVay, or Alfred Kinsey? Those are just three of the well known researchers to be found as liars. As you probably know they were also homosexual. Sexuality is greatly influenced by environment, and the role of genetics is, in the end, very limited. The result is, you being a homosexual, weren't created by another homosexual. Your "survival" is not genetic, you can only make more of your kind by learning or teaching it somehow.
So you're saying mother nature keeps gays around to help raise children in the form of related and unrelated people? That doesn't make sense, considering children are usually raised by a mother and father. Homosexuals are not needed in any way shape or form to help along with child rearing.
01:33 AM on 11/06/2011
Science trying to become a new Tower of Babel will fail, as all towers of babel. Just as evolutionists start with a false premise, and build on it; it stands to reason that its conclusions will be faulty and inaccurate. To deal with this "gay" issue without considering the spiritual component is like trying to do surgery with flint stones. Something as relatively abnormal as homosexuality should be also looked at as a mutation. Cara mentioned looking at homosexuality from an evolutionary point of view. If they are willing to look at it from that angle, how can I trust their conclusion until they prove evolution to be true? Today's prevailing scientific thought regards evolution as fact purely on faith. Yet, geology shows us that cows came from cows; all things came from things like themselves. The science of DNA/genetics has shown us we all came from one woman and one man. Yet evolutionists are still suggesting "fish to philosophers." The Bible answers questions evolution can't begin to approach; yet on the same basis of faith science may continually build theories on shelved theories. A purely existential view of homosexuality will paint perversions with glamorous scientific nomenclature; but failing to accomplish anything for science, morality or humanity. .
01:05 AM on 11/06/2011
Fanned, Faved!!!!!!!!
03:42 AM on 11/06/2011
Tovlogos,
You state (as if fact) that homosexuality is "abnormal" and "should be looked at as a mutation." This is your opinion -- unsubstantiated. Homosexuality is in fact found in over 450 species. Funny thing is: homophobia is found in only one.
03:37 PM on 11/06/2011
You use the weak argument that homosexuality is normal because animals may do it. Aren't we as humans held to higher standards? Animals do a lot of gross, detesting things we humans do not do. And BTW, homophobia is a made up word. No one fears men who sleep with men. They may detest it, but not fear it. This is the homosexuals opinion, unsubstantiated.
Syllogizer
Barely Left of Pobedonostsev
04:40 PM on 11/06/2011
No, even if defined in a purely statistical sense, it is clearly 'abnormal'. And it is pretty obvious that it interferes in the natural goal of propagation of the species, which qualifies it for being called 'unnatural' as well.

And no, its mere existence (as the behavior, not the inclination) in 450 species does NOT prove it iseither 'natural' OR 'normal'.