Dan alluded to this study in a post a couple days ago, and now the BBC is reporting a more complete picture. I have to admit that when I first read Dan’s post, I assumed it was a sociological connection, not a biological one (even though Dan does quote the doctor saying it is biologic). But this BBC report is much more clear about the biological implications behind how a man becomes gay.
Previous research had revealed the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay, but the reason for this phenomenon was unknown. But a Canadian study has shown that the effect is most likely down to biological rather than social factors. The research is published in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Professor Anthony Bogaert from Brock University in Ontario, Canada, studied 944 heterosexual and homosexual men with either “biological” brothers, in this case those who share the same mother, or “non-biological” brothers, that is, adopted, step or half siblings.
He found the link between the number of older brothers and homosexuality only existed when the siblings shared the same mother. The amount of time the individual spent being raised with older brothers did not affect their sexual orientation.
Writing in the journal, Professor Bogaert said: “If rearing or social factors associated with older male siblings underlies the fraternal birth-order effect [the link between the number of older brothers and male homosexuality], then the number of non-biological older brothers should predict men’s sexual orientation, but they do not.
“These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men.”
He suggests the effect is probably the result of a “maternal memory” in the womb for male births. A woman’s body may see a male fetus as “foreign”, he says, prompting an immune reaction which may grow progressively stronger with each male child. The antibodies created may affect the developing male brain.
Hey, this is pretty fascinating stuff… if only still a theory since there was no biological study done here. But it sure does make sense.
Now… and here’s the fun part… how does the Gay Left now reconcile its historic, increasingly vocal and unavowed support of “abortion-on-demand rights” as also being intertwined with “Gay Rights”?
Speaking as someone from the Gay Left would (or should if they had principles): If a mother knew there were a biological increase in her baby being born gay…why not have the right to abort that baby? Or treat the suggested “antibodies” with a pre-natal genetic therapy to “cure” the gayness before it is born?
That seems to be the only intellectually honest position the Gay Left could have. Otherwise the Gay Rights movement should become stridently Pro Life in order to stop the soon-to-be Gay Abortions-On-Demand.