Nature vs Nurture

The nurture side of the debate states gender is essentially a product of socialisation. It is dependent on environmental experiences. Family upbringing and society’s expectation would therefore play an important role in gender. This would then mean that most boys learn to behave masculine and girls learn to behave a feminine way. The nurture argument can explain why some people, adopt the gender role not expected of their sex. In theory, a feminine boy would have had some experiences that had led him to acquire a different gender role from most boys. If gender roles are nurtured, it also explains why an individual’s gender may change over time as

Subjecting individuals to such traumas can prove to have a psychological hold on people who have to endure such horrific episodes in their lives. Sexual trauma and early exposure to sexual activity is another argument in the quest to determine the roots to homosexuality. There are so many young girls today that start out with sexual activity at an early age; some as early as ten years old. Over time these young ladies are exposed to sexual activity such as oral sex, group sex, and same-sex gratification. They have allowed themselves to be misused by men, for lack of guidance, and find that blaming the men for their broken hearts is an easy way to act on their curiosities about same-sex relations.

In his article, “Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture,” Johnson points out that there were numerous studies to determine whether or not homosexuality has a genetic cause. According to his article, many scientists are coming closer to find a gene for homosexuality. However, there are also many opposing theories that the environment a child is raised or that the role parents play in raising their children influences their sexual preference (Johnson). Johnson’s article concludes that “no theory or experiment has led to a definite answer.” Since science has not advanced enough to determine if homosexuality has a genetic cause, I hypothesize both certain genetic influence and our environmental factors makes us predisposed for certain sexual preference. The interesting question is to what degree each force has in influencing our sexual preference. The article “Is personality more nature or nurture? Behavioral and

Being asked if the writer believes homosexuality is nature or nurture, biologically, all living things were meant to reproduce. In order to reproduce, opposite reproductive parts must come together. Take a look at humans: a male and female are needed in order to create a child. An egg and a sperm are the key components of reproducing. It is impossible for a male and a male, or a female and a female to have sexual intercourse and create a child. Advances in technology may allow it to happen in the future, but as for now, it is impossible. Naturally, a male and female

Nature vs. Nurture is one of the most prevalent theories in psychology and biology; scientists previously believed that personality traits were derived from either genetics or environmental elements, but more recently have concluded that both factors play a role in the expression of genes. However, the influences of genetics and environmental factors on sexual orientation is still a controversial topic which is currently being discussed in both psychological and biological debates. While many researchers agree that both factors have pivotal influences on the determination of sexual orientation, there are others who feel that either environment, or genetics play a role but not both. Personally, I feel that both genetics and environmental cues affect sexuality. While genetics may make a person more inclined towards a certain sexual identity, ultimately social factors and experiences also play a role in the determination of sexual orientation.

Charles Darwin famously said, “We do not even in the least know the final cause of sexuality. The whole subject is hidden in darkness” (Ryu). Since the beginning of time, there have been questions revolving around the topic of sexual orientation. Within the past few decades, homosexuality is becoming more mainstream and socially acceptable as more people begin to examine their gender identity and sexual preferences. Scientists researched to determine the cause of sexual orientation; however, two opposing sides have formed around the issue: nature (inherited genes and biology) versus nurture (the environment). Proponents of nature argue sexual orientation is biological and genetic; whereas proponents of nurture argue sexual orientation is non-biological, environmental, and socially constructed.

The study of the development of sexual orientation has transformed greatly in the past few decades. Beliefs such as homosexual attraction being a choice and homosexuality being the result of faulty psychological development caused by sexual abuse and other troubling childhood experiences have been labelled as prejudice, incorrect and have been discarded by most scientists. But what does cause a person to develop one sexual orientation over another? The truth is that the exact causes for the development of a particular sexual orientation have not been discovered yet. A lot of research has been conducted to determine the influence of genetics, hormones, development, and social and cultural influences. These studies have led many to believe that biology and environment play a complex role in forming a person’s sexual preference. This goes along with what has been discussed in class regarding nature vs. nurture; what determines sexual orientation more than likely lies somewhere on the spectrum between the two extremes of nature and nurture.

The question at hand is whether or not it is more beneficial for a person with gender dysphoria to be able to express the gender for which they identify with at a young age, or later, in adulthood.

Sociological and psychological factors are the biggest contributors in establishing the development of diverse sexual orientation in humans. Sexual orientation refres to an individuals pattern of attaction physically, emotionally, sexually and romantically to other people. These patters are usually identified as hetrosexual(attraction to the opposite gender), homosexual(attraction to the same gender), bisexual(attraction to both gender), and lastly “questioning” ( individuals who are not yet certain of which gender they’re attracted to). Traditional theories state that many people become gay due to the influence of social factors and a matter of choice. For Example, a mother can influence a son to become feminine which can result and change

Another hypothesis that stems from the theory of inclusive fitness is the parental-manipulation hypothesis. Instead of helping to increase the reproductive success of one’s siblings, the existence of homosexual individuals may serve to help their parents. The parental-manipulation hypothesis suggests that parents manipulate their children to become homosexual, sacrifice their reproduction and assist in raising offspring of relatives in exchange for inclusive fitness benefits (Trivers, 1974). If the hypothesis holds true, parents may manipulate selected offspring to become homosexual and take non-reproductive roles, and assist in raising siblings or the offspring of siblings.

The consequences of gender change can be disastrous for a human being. That’s what happened to Bruce Reimer. He was born a completely normal boy. But after a circumcision, he had his genitalia completely destroyed. His mother was desperate and didn’t know what to do until she met “John Money, who was a psychologist and sexologist well-known for his specialized research in sexual identity. Money was a professor of pediatrics and medical psychology at Johns Hopkins University, from 1951 until his death.” (Duffy, J. 1999) He was a psychologist not a surgeon. He convinced Bruce’s parents to change him into a girl through surgery. John Money, a sex researcher wanted to do an experiment and

Given the multitude of factors that can influence homosexuality, it makes senses that there would be many different genetic affects that influence homosexuality. Many of the genetic factors discussed in this section will be referred to as “gay genes” because it is difficult to pin point which genes are causing variations. One such “gay gene” is found to influence the reproductive fitness of its heterosexual carriers. Homosexuality is seen as a disadvantage in men, as they are not able to reproduce, but this gene is a win-win per say for both heterosexual and homosexual males. This gene, when present in abundance, will appear in individuals as homosexuality, but when carried at a lower level, it will not appear as homosexuality. It will, however, give the individual more feminine characteristics such as kindness and tenderness as well as more feminized faces that are attractive to females. All these feminine features allow the heterosexual individuals with these genes to have a greater reproductive fitness, making the burden on the homosexual individuals smaller because their genes have a greater chance of passing through when their siblings reproduce. This is one way to explain how homosexuality is still present today, because even though the homosexuals did not reproduce, their siblings with attractive features likely reproduced more to make up for them (Zietsch, 2008). To explain how this gene works, there are two different methods proposed.

After weighing and researching both the socio-cultural and the biological side of the debate, and especially after reading the John/ Joan article, I would defenetly have to say that gender role development is biological. "John/ Joan" was clearly a male and was for the most part behaving the way a typical man would, showing that regardless of the way Joan was being raised, Johns identity still stayed dominant (as did baby X in Gould's article). John was born a male, and after having the sex change operation due to a botched circumsisim, still had a male pattern of thinking and feeling. I truly believe after everything I read, that this side of the debate must be true. "Children's understanding

Through the biological perspective of deviance, sociologists have linked homosexuality to hormones, genes and the brain (Taylor, Thio & Schwartz, 2013). Hormonal theory does not describe a cause of homosexuality. Genetic Theory describes the cause of homosexuality as people being born gay. The brain theory is much more in depth about the cause of homosexuality. It states that the size of a person’s hypothalamus will cause them to be homosexual or not. Gay’s hypothalamuses were less than half of the size of straights'.

Born Gay or Chose to be that way: the Reason and Science Behind Sexual Orientation.