To What Extent does Nature Influence Sexual Orientation?

I declare that this essay is my own work and that all sources have been correctly

acknowledged.

International Baccalaureate

31 January, 2017

May 2017

Extended Essay in Psychology

Word Count: 3,703

1
 Abstract

Word Count: 246

The debate over whether society should come to better accept homosexuality

through issues like same-sex marriage peaked my interest in the topic of sexual

orientation. New debates on ideas of legality and acceptance have called into question

the nature of sexual orientation and the discussion of homosexuality through the

biological level of analysis which provided me with an investigation in the field of

psychology. The aim of this investigation was to reach a conclusion about the biological

aspects of homosexuality and whether it is innate or learned. The question that this

essay addresses is “To what extent does nature influence sexual orientation?” In order

to develop a well structured argument, a wide variety and range of sources were used

to learn about and better understand the ideas and rationale of each argument. The

sources ranged from empirical studies, cultural evaluations, and textbooks such as

Introduction to Biological Psychology and ​ after sources were collected, the strengths

and limitations of all articles, books, and studies were assessed and analyzed. After

conducting the research it was concluded that nature plays a significant role in the

sexual orientation of an individual, with greater significance and consistency than

environmental factors. The theories associated with innate homosexuality range from

physical brain makeup to genetics while discrediting the theories supporting the

environmental influences of homosexuality. These findings are significant to the

homosexual community and society as a whole as it teaches us to understand one

another better while building confidence and stronger relationships.

2
 Table of Contents

I. Title Page ______________________________________________________1

II. Abstract _______________________________________________________ 2

III. Table of Contents_________________________________________________3

IV. Introduction_____________________________________________________ 4

V. Homosexuality Defined____________________________________________ 5

VI. Background and Historical Information ______________________________ 6

VII. Nature Versus Nurture __________________________________________ 8

VIII. Nature’s Influence on Homosexuality________________________________ 9

IX. Human Biological Variation________________________________________12

X. Essays on the Theory of Sexuality_________________________________ 13

XI. Environmental Influences_________________________________________ 14

XII. Conclusion_____________________________________________________ 17

XIII. Bibliography___________________________________________________ 19

3
Introduction:

In recent years, homosexuality has become a more intensely debated topic

across the country and around the world. Activist groups have been calling for changes

such as gay marriage, easier adoption policies, and over all equal rights. Despite this

change of view, there are still groups who either wish to suppress, or more extremely,

deny the existence of homosexuals due to religious or moral convictions. The increase

of interest in this topic stems from homosexuality being at the center of many modern

day scandals, scare’s, and stories in the news. With news stories and celebrity

endorsements, support, and condmenation I decided to investigate homosexualtiy with

a focus in psychology for my essay. ​To what extent does nature influence sexual

orientation?

The purpose of this essay is to argue the biological basis of homosexuality

through the works of Freud and other psychologists such as DeVault, LeVay, Strong

and Rosenzweig, and a description of both the nature of homosexuality and the

biological level of analysis. First it is necessary to define homosexuality and give

statistics on the number of individuals who identify as homosexuals. Then to address

this question one must investigate the background and historical information of

homosexuality with acknowledgment to public opinion and stigmatization. Third,

biological level of analysis will be discussed and related to homosexual beliefs and

studies, as well as human biological variation. Then it is necessary to investigate the

works of Sigmund Freud and the points made in his ​“Three Essays on the Theory of

Sexuality”. Finally the counterclaims associated with the topic stating that homosexuality

4
is caused by and attributed to “nurture” or “development and learning” will be

investigated and the influence of them determined.

Homosexuality Defined:

Homosexuality is classified in many different ways and measured on many

different factors. According to Balthazart there are english texts that sometimes include

a discussion of sexual orientation. Some of these studies include LeVay, 1993; 1996:

Strong and DeVault, 1997; Rosenzweig et al., 2004; LeVay and Valente, 2006; Agmo,

2007” (p. xi). These studies have been influential in contributing to the classification of

homosexual tendencies (2011). West (1968) states that “Homosexuality simply means

the experience of being erotically attracted to a member of the same sex, and men or

women who habitually experience strong feelings of this kind are called homosexuals”

(2001, p. 10).

West continues to describe the various forms, or levels, of homosexuality, and

how to classify a homosexual individual based off of their preferences of homosexuality.

West says that homosexuals who engage in sexual acts are called practicing

homosexuals, while exclusive homosexuals are individuals who solely or primarily wish

to have relations with the same-sex. Facultative homosexuals, according to West are

“those who take to homosexual activities only on odd occasions, usually when deprived

of contact with the opposite sex (for instance during imprisonment)” (1968, p. 11).

These facultative homosexuals use homosexuality as a replacement to sexual actions

with the opposite sex. Similar to the use of masturbation in such an instance, this form

5
of homosexuality allows for the individual to go through the motions of a sexual

encounter.

Specific to male homosexuality, there are different roles that are played by the

individuals participating in sodomy or anal sex. “The one who inserts the penis during

the act of sodomy is called the ‘active’ partner, the one who receives it is the ‘passive’

partner. Although these roles are commonly interchanged, (...) Some male

homosexuals preserve a semblance of masculinity by limiting themselves to active

sodomy, and may even deny their perversion by pretending that their partner is nothing

more to them than a poor substitute for a woman” states (West 1968, p. 13-14).

“Passive” men are more commonly portrayed by media than their “Active” counterparts,

causing society to see homosexuality as perverse in a negative sense.

Background and Historical Information:

Homosexuality has been occurring since before the time of the ancient Greeks

and Roman​s. Despite this fact​ it is most helpful to start looking at the history of

homosexuality at this point in time because prior periods lack appropriate

documentation for investigation. According to Boswell, contrary to popular belief

Roman’s did not have laws against homosexuality and only prosecuted homosexuals in

the case that it was “abuse of a free-born citizen; gender is regardless.” (1980, p. 63).

The term “sodomy” was introduced in approximately A.D. 309 to describe

“unnatural sexual behaviors” (Mondimore, 1996, p. 21). Sodomy covered a wide range

of sexual behaviors and not explicitly homosexual acts. According to Mondimore

6
sodomy could mean anything from bestiality to homosexuality to sexual relations with

members of another religion. Sodomy did not refer to the participants of sex necessarily

such as the term homosexuality. A person did not become a sodomite until participating

in an act defined as sodomy. (1996)

The term “Homosexual” did not exist prior to 1869, when it appeared in a

pamphlet that took the form of an open letter to the German minister of justice.

according to Mondimore (1996). Karl Maria Kertbeny, the author of the pamphlet, was

one of the societal members who were beginning to develop the idea of sexual

orientation. Until just under 150 years ago, sexual orientation was not a common term

that people used. Most people opted to steer clear of such topics in conversation which

prevented investigation of what causes homosexuallity.

The lack of investigation into homosexuality caused many people to develop

beliefs that homosexuality was sinful and in the most extreme cases was punishable by

death. This distrust of homosexuals caused them to develop a stigma. A stigma is best

described by Mondimore “He (Erving Goffman) introduced his thoughts with a grisly

explanation of the origin of the word stigma: ‘The Greeks, who were apparently strong

on visual aids, originated the term stigma to refer to bodily signs designed to expose

something as unusual and bad about the moral status of the signifier.... If the visual aid

is missing, the stigma is, at first, invisible. Unlike those stigmatized by their skin color or

physical impairment, these persons are treated as ‘polluted’ only if their invisible stigma

is absent.” (1996, p. 170). This excerpt shows that society’s perception of an individual

7
or their beliefs and morals can cause people to see them differently and even as a

threat to their morals and beliefs.

Nature Versus Nurture

For many years there has been a discussion on the causes of psychological

processes. Researchers have recently determined that the best approach to explaining

such causes is to view them as affected by both nature and nurture. According to

modern day science, ​nature is classified as the individual’s behaviors and make up is

influenced by genes. Nature describes how the individual was made up at birth and to

what extent their actions can be related to that make up. Nurture on the other hand

discusses the way an individual was raised and the implications that their upbringing

has on their life. Factors that could affect an individual that stem from the environment

range from abusive family, sexual abuse, or other traumatic events. Specific to

homosexulaity the environmental factors that could influence it are hotly debated.

With science agreeing that psychological processes and events are influenced by

a combination of both nature and nurture, the question has change from which is the

cause, to which has the most influence. This debate creates the conflict that the essay

addresses “To what extent doe nature influence homosexuality?”. Previously, popular

faiths and belief systems have instilled the idea that homosexuality was influenced

solely by environmental influences. This lead people to the idea that homosexuality was

a choice and could be changed and preventing research on the topic. Now new

8
research is being done to determine the influence of nature and finding new evidence

discussed in the next section.

These points are proven by the case Study of David Reimer, as stated in the

book ​As Nature Made him by John Colapinto, a Canadian born as a male but after an

accident underwent a forced reconstructive surgery to become a female (2001). This

case was crucial in leading to the idea that both nature and nurture played a role in the

psychological development of individuals. Dr. William Reiner was a surgeon who had

taken intersex children and placed them in a certain sex for them to lead a better life.

However when Reiner met a fourteen year old female patient he discovered that his

efforts had been mislead. According to Colapinto “”I had a complete medical workup on

the child done,” says Reiner. Tests revealed that “she” was biologically a he--a 46XY

male who suffered from a rare chromosomal condition that prevents masculine

differentiation of the genitals.” (2001). This case of the girl who rejected her gender

despite environmental influences finding out she was a girl highlights the importance

that nature plays in determining the aspects of an individual’s life. Environmental

influences have little to no effect regarding one’s genetic predisposition in relation to

how an individual behaves and identifies with their assigned gender.

Nature’s Influence on Homosexuality:

Psychology has three levels of analysis in which to look at a topic or issue. The

lense utilized for this essay is the biological level. Philip states that sexual behavior is

determined by physical developmental and hormonal determinants as well as the

9
hypothalamus, and nervous system. Each part plays a role in determining how an

individual behaves sexually, but some parts play a larger role than others (1979).

Physical developmental determinants of behavior occur as the individual matures

and learns about himself and other members of its species. This is best shown in

humans by the discussion of Precocious Puberty. According to Philip “ The innermost

layer of cells (zona reticularis) of the adrenal gland secretes gonadotropiclike steroid

hormones, some of which are called weak and androgens … sometimes, however,

abnormally large amounts of these hormones are secreted, a type of hyperactivity

frequently due to a hormone-secreting tumor of the adrenal cortex.” (1979, pg. 386) This

tumor causing premature puberty highlights the effects of developmental determinants

and explains why one realizes later in life that they are homosexual. Adolescents are

not aware of their sexual desires due to the lack of active hormones in their

predeveloped bodies. This condition rapidly brings the child into development, and while

it causes them to be developed sexually prematurely, it proves that you cannot know

your sexuality until after development.

Next there is the experiential determinants of sexual behavior. This factor

focuses far less on sexual orientation and puts more emphasis on mating. According to

Philip “It seems almost superfluous to point out that sensory stimuli are important in

eliciting sexual behavior.” (1979, p.387). This quote highlights the obvious fact that in

order for organisms to behave sexually they need to be able to experience sensory

perception. Whether it be to see a female is fertile or if it is to cause the male to desire a

sexual encounter in another way, it shows that this form of sexuallity is innate and

10
therefore biological, showing that human sexuality is in fact related to biology and

psychologically associated with the biological level of analysis.

Hormonal determinants are the most biologically based out of the determinants

listed so far. The hormones that drive sexual attraction are located in the gonads,

otherwise known as the testes and the ovaries. Testosterone and estrogen regulate

your reproductive system as well as balance you levels of femininity and masculinity.

“Steroid hormones secreted by the gonads and the cortex (outer covering) of the

adrenal glands are important in the development and display of of sexual behavior, as

well as affecting the emotions and a variety of physiological processes.” (Philips, 1979,

p. 391). Hormones allow an individual to display sexual behavior, once again relating

the idea of human sexuality to the biological level of analysis in psychology.

Neural control of sexual behavior is the part of your sexuality that is controlled by

the nervous system and brain co​rtex. Beech​ experimented with rats in which he gave

them neocortical lesions and then reported the effects. (1940) The results were that rats

who had less than 20 percent of their neocortex destroyed displayed an average sex

drive while those who had more than 60 percent removed did not engage in sexual

relations. According to Phillips the results of this experiment suggest that the neocortex

has an impressive amount of influence in the control of sexual behavior. Additionally,

there is the relationship between the hypothalamus and sexual behavior through sexual

arousal (1979). Brookhart, Dey, and Ranson (1940) showed that small lesions in the

anterior hypothalamus of female guinea pigs would eliminate their sexual arousal.

(Philips, 1979, p. 393). This experiment showed that the hypothalamus, at least the

11
anterior hypothalamus, plays a direct role in sexual arousal and therefore behavior

pinpointing a possible area in the brain that controls sexuality. This suggestion adds to

the claim that human sexuality is not influenced primarily by environment but the

biological aspects of the individual’s genetic and anatomical make up.

Finally, ​Siddhartha Mukherjee discusses genetic make up and homosexuality in

his book ​The Gene: an Intimate History. According to Mukherjee Dean Hamer, a

researcher at the National Cancer Institute discovered a pattern in the family trees of

gay men participating in his 1993 study (2016). There was a trend for the maternal side

of a family to have more homosexual men than the paternal side, meaning that uncles,

cousins, and great-uncles on the mom’s side of the family could be receiving a genetic

inclination to homosexuality through the X chromosome given to a son by his mother.

By carefully examining the X chromosome and using the Human Genome Project as

guidance, Hamer found a stretch shared by 33 of the men that could affect sexual

orientation known as Xq28 (Mukherjee, 2016, 376-377). The discovery of the pattern in

family trees and the shared DNA on the X chromosome is the newest, and most

convincing evidence that homosexuality does have a genetic basis. This evidence

became even stronger when it was supported by A. R. Sanders et al. (2015) which

found a similar link to the X chromosome.

Human Biological Variation:

LeVay (1991) researched the anterior hypothalamus comparing the sizes of

males, females and homosexuals. This part of the brain is correlated with what Mielke

12
calls “male typical sexual behavior.” LeVay discovered that the male anterior

hypothalamus is much larger than the female and homosexual’s (Mielke, 2006). This is

one of the biological variations that support the idea that homosexuality is biologically

based. This study is once again a correlation and not a causation and should be viewed

as merely a possible genetic connection.

As discussed in the previous section, Hamer et al. (1993) discovered a “pattern

in the rates of concordance among male relatives of self-identified male homosexuals.”

(Mielke, 2006, p. 339). This pattern became even stronger and noticeable when viewing

the male relatives related through the maternal line. These men had higher rates of

homosexuality than did those related paternally. This shows that there is a genetic basis

for homosexuality and that it has the potential to be passed down through the sex

chromosomes, specifically the X chromosome given by the mother. Nature’s influence

in this aspect becomes much more clear as it is not only related through genetics, but

also by human variation showing how a genetic condition that prevents reproduction

can still be passed onto offspring.

Essays on the Theory of Sexuality:

In 1905 Sigmund Freud published his famous “Three Essays on the Theory of

Sexuality”. Within these essays Freud discusses Sexual Aberrations, Infantile Sexuality,

and the Transformations of Puberty. According to Freud, “The fact of the existence of

sexual needs in human beings and animals is expressed in biology by the assumption

of a ‘sexual instinct’, on the analogy of the instinct of nutrition, that is of hunger.” (1905,

13
p. 135). In this excerpt Freud is saying that all living creatures possess sexual needs

that are comparable to the needs of nutrition, and comparing sex drive to hunger. This

description of Freud goes on to describe homosexuals as inverts and discusses the

levels of inverts to be absolute (exclusive) or contingent (facultative).

Freud is one of the first individuals to argue that humans were not born

heterosexual. Freud believed that we are born bisexual and that our experiences shape

us in order to decide if we remain bisexual or become homosexual or heterosexual.

While this can be used to argue that environment influences sexuality, it is important to

remember that this theory says we are born a specific sexuality and the individual

chooses their sexual orientation based off those environmental influences. When this

theory is connected to those of Beech, LeVay, and Hamer et al., Freud’s argument can

be used to prove the biological basis of homosexuality as well.

Environmental Influences

There are numerous counterclaims associated with the belief that homosexuality

has a biological basis. These arguments use studies that discuss environmental factors

that have simply a possibility of affecting sexuality but are not guaranteed to do so. In

her book ​The Biology of Homosexuality, Jacques Balthazart has a chapter in which she

discusses environmental factors that could possibly influence sexual orientation.

Balthazart discusses studies on early sexual experience, child-parent relationships, and

social constructivism (2011). All of these arguments are flawed and do not prove true in

every instance.

14
 According to Balthazart “One could imagine a young boy, involved in a pedophile

relationship with an adult male, experiencing sexual pleasure and consequently

developing as homosexual and finding sexual pleasure in the company of men

(Churchill, 1967; Cameron & Cameron, 1995).” (2011, p. 12) This concept is similar to

that of animal imprinting in the early stages of a young offsprings life studied by Lorenz

(1937) and Lorenz (1950). This explanation however is not concrete evidence for the

explanation of homosexuality. There are societies across the world who encourage

homosexual relations among adolescent boys. According to Balthazart, these societies

encourage homosexuality for different reasons, one being implemented in order to

preserve the virginity of girls. Encouraging homosexual relations at a young age has not

shown a change in the rate of homosexuality in those countries. “The first sexual

experiences of these young boys does not seem to significantly affect their future sexual

orientation.” (Balthazart, 2001, p. 13).

In another view of environmental influences, unisex schools have also not shown

an effect on the sexual orientation of adolescents. When placed into unisex schools the

probability of the adolecents to become facultative homsexuals for the time of their

education increases. “It is well known that voluntary homosexual relations occur more

frequently in a unisex education environment.” (Balthazart, 2011, p.14). Men who have

attended unisex schools show the same rate of homosexuality amongst them as

students who attended mixed schools, despite their early aged exposure to facultative

homosexuality.

15
 Child-parent relationships are commonly considered an important factor when it

comes to determining if a child is, or will become, a homosexual. It is believed that when

a boy is extremely close with his mother and distant from his father, he is or will become

a homosexual man. Despite Freud and Blanchard (1938) stating that this environmental

effect is true, the study was limited by failing to take into account “parental attitudes of

indifference or hostility toward a child” (Balthazart, 2011, p.15). These attitudes may be

an explanation in some cases, but Balthazart urges us to remember that correlation is

not causation, meaning that these relationships may be due to how the parent reacts to

the child’s behavior when it fails to meet their expectations (Balthazart 2011).

According to Balthazart “ social constructivism refers to a current of

contemporary sociology that envisages social reality and social phenomena as being

“built,” i.e., created, institutionalized, and later turned into traditions.” (2011, p. 16). This

theory states that the three most common and accepted sexual orientations, hetero-,

homo-, and bisexual, are in fact created by society and therefore have no biological or

cognitive basis. This is disproven due to the fact that the theory would have to therefore

apply to other categorizations such as gender. When attempting to apply this theory to

gender, Balthazart reminds the reader that “Although gender role is largely socially

determined, as noted at the beginning of the book, sex steroids also clearly have an

influence in some aspects of gender role.” (2011, p. 17).

Other claims are explored by Balthazart specifically investigate environment and

education. When discussing environmental influences Balthazart says that “early

experience could be traumatic and aversive (e.g., rape of a girl by a man) and induce a

16
repulsion for members of the same sex as the perpetrator of the assault” (2011, p. 13)

This description of an event is the only idea that supports the environmental influence

on homosexuality and accepts it to be valid. This point is correct because it shows that

trauma has an effect on the brain and our ability to interact socially, showing that it is an

abnormal occurrence that can result in homosexuality.

Conclusion:

Homosexuality is constantly a debate due to the movement for equal rights for

homosexual individuals, and the changing in attitudes of society. However, whether or

not it is ethical is not the true question. ​Through the works of Freud and other

psychologists, and an investigation into the nature of homosexuality and biological

psychology, the extent to which nature influences homosexuality, s​ociety is changing

and the viewpoints are beginning to reflect a more positive light. With research

extracting more proof about the biological basis of homosexuality, society’s viewpoints

have evolved more quickly.

This discovery of information through studies such as LeVay (1991), Hamer et al.

(1993), and ​A. R. Sanders et al. (2015), have increased the understanding of the role

nature on homosexuality. This is important because studies such as these not only

allow us to become more accepting as a society, but to learn more about our genetics

and the numerous ways in which we are made unique.​ The findings of modern day

science that support my claim are influential in today’s society as they are contributing

to the evolution of thoughts and beliefs. With the idea that homosexuality is not learned

17
but genetic, individuals are becoming more open to and understanding of the

homosexual community.

18
Bibliography

Balthazart, J. (2011). ​The biology of homosexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Boswell, J. (1980). ​Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in

Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth
Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Colapinto, J. (2000). ​As nature made him: The boy who was raised as a girl. New York:
HarperCollins.

Freud, S., Strachey, J., Freud, A., Strachey, A., & Tyson, A. (1960). ​The standard
edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. London:
Hogarth Press.

Groves, P. M., & Schlesinger, K. (1979). ​Introduction to biological psychology.

Dubuque, IA: W.C. Brown.

Kalat, J. W. (2001). ​Biological psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning

Mielke, J. H., Konigsberg, L. W., & Relethford, J. (2006). ​Human biological variation.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Mondimore, F. M. (1996). ​A natural history of homosexuality. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Myers, D. G. (2011). ​Myer's Psychology for AP. New York, NY: Worth.

Pronk, P., Vriend, J., & Hart, H. (1993). ​Against nature?: Types of moral argumentation
regarding homosexuality. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

Sexual Orientation and Health Among U.S. Adults: National ... (2014, July 15).
Retrieved July 16, 2016, from
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data​/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf

West, D. J. (1968). ​Homosexuality. Chicago: Aldine Pub.

19