Let's define "nurture." In doing so we can not simply say it is the environment that the child is reared in. The environment encompasses that physical space the fetus and child occupy in progressing towards maturity, and doesn't merely consist of those social factors the child encounters subsequent to birth. Nurture, let us say, is the social interaction the child has between parents and others in his life. The word "environment" encompasses both the nature and nurture definitions.
Let's look at the fetal environment.
The fetus's environment can be assaulted, for example, by the administration of diethylstibestrol. This non-estradiol hormone was prescribed to pregnant women from 1938-1971, before it was found to cause increased genital abnormalities in male offspring...as well as showing a clear correlation with homosexuality in male children. It had other complications as well, and was finally yanked from the market.
A mother's antibodies might adversly influence the child's sexual orientation. Male homosexuals often (more often than is typical of the general population) have male older brothers. One theory postulates that a mother's antibody response to the first child's androgens subsequently influences the second son's development by binding up his testosterone during key phases of fetal growth. While the overall "maleness" of the child might not be effected, the sexual orientation of the child might well be.
If we suggest that homosexuality is caused merely by the social influences of society, then we must ask why gay males often have different fingerprint patterns than those of straight males. Gay male fingerprint patterns more typically match those of heterosexual women. As fingerprints are formed the 16th week in the womb, this suggests a genetic influence...or possibly an in-utero infuence similar to those described above.
One wonders why gay males tend to be smaller as adults and have a lower birth weight than the typical heterosexual male. How is this influenced by the nurturance, or lack thereof, of the family? Currently I teach a nine year old who is extraordinarily effeminate (four out of five such children turn out gay) and he can not do a sit up and is atypically weak and small...weaker in fact than the girls his age. He is a second son, and his brother is strong and athletic.
We must also look at the finger length ratios of many lesbians, which differ from heterosexual women and pattern after those of males (both gay and straight), and ask how such physical differences are accounted for by how the lesbian was reared. Social explanations are not easily forthcoming.
We must ask ourselves why gay males are more often left handed than heterosexuals as a group...and why their anterior commisures in their brains are sized more like those of women, and why their brain patterns mimic those of women. Why, for instance, do gay men navigate like women, using landmarks rather than the global referencing used by straight males? Is this attributable to some flaw in rearing? Or do we consider map reading methodology a correlation of a moral failing?
What of those children born intersexual? By these I mean they have various forms of noticeable hermaphroditism...they may be genetically female, but have what appears to be a penis and undescended testicles, or they may be genetically male and have what appears to be a vulva, or a penis that is malformed to the point of being somewhere between a vulva and a penis.
They might be born with an ovary and a testicle...or gonads that are part ovary, part testicle. How do we raise them? Do we raise them in accordance with their chromosomal profile? If so, what then if they're sexual orientation and sexual identity is opposite of that which we've determined? Can we easily condemn a child for their sexual orientation when it isn't so clear as to what they were in the first place?
We seek simplicity in our increasingly complex world. Sexually categorizing people is, at first blush, a simple thing to do. We look to the genitals and therein lies the answer...we think. Human sexuality, however, is far too complex to so easily pigeonhole our passions.
Even among those strictly heterosexual we find a diversity of interests that range from strange to the boringly familiar; from the popular to the perverse. Sexual tastes--particularly in America--are as varied as hair color and skin tone and height. The simplicity that we seek isn't forthcoming, now matter how we yearn for it...though we sadly find that condemnation is always readily at hand. If we can't level the population to our standard, we can cast vitriol. It is far easier than empathy, and for some, preferable to thinking.
Regards,
Steve
