Having older brothers increases men's likelihood of being gay

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
17,258
5,042
Native Land
✟321,432.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Having older brothers tied to being gay, if you're a guy - CNN
(CNN)If you're a guy with an older brother, there's an increased chance you're gay.
Scientists have noticed this pattern in previous research, but now they think they have a biological explanation as to why, and it starts long before birth. The results were published in the journal PNAS on Monday.
The researchers say that if their findings can be replicated, we may know at least one of the biological reasons some men are gay.
(CNN)If you're a guy with an older brother, there's an increased chance you're gay.
Scientists have noticed this pattern in previous research, but now they think they have a biological explanation as to why, and it starts long before birth. The results were published in the journal PNAS on Monday.
The researchers say that if their findings can be replicated, we may know at least one of the biological reasons some men are gay.
Any thoughts on this?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Go Braves

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Firstly, no connection has been established really between the antibody in question and homosexuality. Only that it is found in increasing numbers in younger sons and that gay men have more older brothers on average. So it doesn't really say much.
For again, what of gay men without older brothers whose mothers therefore could never have developed this antibody in the first place? This is why they say "one of the mechanisms" as it cannot explain all gay men.
This therefore has a very low specificity and is thus a fairly useless finding, which would remain very conjectural without massive studies to get sufficient data for anything statistically significant to be found.

However, this is a poisoned chalice for those that support people being born gay. For it says the mother develops an auto-immune response against her foetus, resulting in an antibody that alters the foetus' brain. So in short, it says Homosexuality is a congenital disease on account of the teratogenic effects of an auto-immune response in the mother. Heterosexuality is thus the baseline in the brain that is altered by a pathological process. I doubt many would be happy with that.
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Quick run-through in my mind ... of all the same-sex attracted men I know, many are only children and hardly any have older brothers. And I know quite a few. That's still only anecdotal, but I would doubt this story being a very important factor because of my own observations.
 
Upvote 0

Liza B.

His grace is sufficient
Supporter
Oct 7, 2017
2,491
1,319
Midwest
✟163,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

archer75

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 16, 2016
5,930
4,649
USA
✟253,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure what suggestion was intended (if any) by posting this in TAW...but I guess I can say that - if this is shown to "increase the chances" significantly, anecdotal evidence about only gay children aside - there might be narratives about it other than "guess this means they really are sick."
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,824
36,118
Los Angeles Area
✟820,533.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
That's still only anecdotal, but I would doubt this story being a very important factor because of my own observations.

Do you know more than 302 gay men? Because then your anecdotal information might have a chance of outweighing the data from published studies.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,824
36,118
Los Angeles Area
✟820,533.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
However, this is a poisoned chalice for those that support people being born gay. For it says the mother develops an auto-immune response against her foetus, resulting in an antibody that alters the foetus' brain. So in short, it says Homosexuality is a congenital disease on account of the teratogenic effects of an auto-immune response in the mother. Heterosexuality is thus the baseline in the brain that is altered by a pathological process. I doubt many would be happy with that.

Having multiple children is a pathological process? I'm not sure many people are going to go along with you on that.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,824
36,118
Los Angeles Area
✟820,533.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Do you really want to find out that being a male homosexual is due to something going wrong in the autoimmune response of the mother in utero?

The result, if true, is true regardless of what I think about it. This is how you approach questions with intellectual honesty.

That said, this is not like an on-off switch. Obviously many women have multiple sons who are all straight, and many gay men have no older brothers. At most this is one contributing factor with a measurable physiological basis.

It's also not clear that anything is 'going wrong' with the immune response. All women have these antibodies, even those without any sons at all. What the study found was that women with gay sons had higher levels that those without gay sons (or any sons).

F2.medium.gif
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Do you know more than 302 gay men? Because then your anecdotal information might have a chance of outweighing the data from published studies.
Not more than 302, no.

But quite a few. And I'm not trying to argue against the studies or whatever - this question actually doesn't mean anything to me.

It just seems odd to me personally that if it IS true, and is any kind of a factor st all, that I do know many SSA men and very few of them have even one older brother. The greatest proportion are actually only children, while an almost equal amount have 1-2 older sisters. So I'm just saying that if this is such an important factor, I'd be pretty surprised personally.

Personally it seems to me that the implications would not be well-received by people who have an interest in this. Further, what will be the opinion if it becomes possible to receive medical intervention during pregnancy to prevent it?
 
Upvote 0

archer75

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 16, 2016
5,930
4,649
USA
✟253,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
@~Anastasia~ 's question at the end of her post above is certainly relevant.

I must agree with @essentialsaltes - if the only approach you can have (not attributing this to any person on this thread!) to some study from outside one's religion is to either say it confirms what your religion says and is therefore great OR to say it doesn't fit what you expected and is therefore nonsense...you might as well not be talking about it at all, because all you're really saying is "I am perfect." We know we aren't perfect, so anyone who said that would just be stating a blatant falsehood.

Obviously, regardless of what this means, there is more than one way to look at it from inside any set of religious convictions / teachings.

Seems interesting, but I don't have the background in any kind of science to say much.
 
Upvote 0

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
17,258
5,042
Native Land
✟321,432.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Do you really want to find out that being a male homosexual is due to something going wrong in the autoimmune response of the mother in utero?
If it's the truth. Yes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Interesting results. So effectively each younger brother becomes more effeminate than the previous. That might explain my youngest brothers amazing connection with the ladies!! I suppose biologically you only need one dominant male to succeed the father as the leader and the rest will serve other functions within the family and tribe. So there is a practical purpose in the eldest son (me by the way) being the more manly. It does not have to lead to a man being gay but in the culture today it can do.

So one question I would have is what kind of gay man? There are masculine and feminine types. My guess is that gay men, who are so cause their brains are more feminine, will be more likely to be effeminate. Whereas gay men who are the eldest or only children will be less so.

Also another factor seems to me the environmental fact of being more comfortable with male company if you have large numbers of brothers. This will be more impacting for a younger brother cause the eldest brother will be relatively more substantial in the growing phase. Also the eldest brother will be less challenged by his younger brothers until they are grown.

Another question I have is if this is then reversable by hormonal treatment during pregnancy or after birth. Does this mean that some gay men can be cured?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Having multiple children is a pathological process? I'm not sure many people are going to go along with you on that.
That is not what I am saying at all though. Let me try and explain with an analogous situation.

On bloodgroups, some people carry rhesus factor, others don't. That is the + or - added on after the ABO grouping. Now pregnant women exposed to a postive baby that are negative themselves develop antibodies to it. Subsequent Rh+ foetuses will be exposed to antibodies crossing from the maternal to the foetal circulation resulting in miscarriages or intra-uterine growrh restriction in later children. This occurs when maternal antibodies attack foetal red blood cells, resulting in an exacerbation of the foetal hypoxic state. To try and prevent this in subsequent pregnancies or limit antibody formation, we give Rh - mothers Rhogam if we suspect their babies are Rh +. Now this is clearly pathological, as the pregnancy is not supposed to be attacked in this manner.

Likewise, here we have sensitisation of a mother resulting in antibodies crossing to the foetal circulation in subsequent pregnancies. These antibodies then attack proteins required for male brain development, resulting in change in the embryological development of the foetus from factors outside of its own genes and decreasing the levels of a necessary developmental protein. It can quite clearly be construed as a pathological process therefore, akin to Rh sensitisation, which we could theoretically limit by decreasing the maternal antibody levels and sensitisation by pharmacological means. Perhaps some form of corticosteroid would be able to cause sufficient transient immunosuppression, depending when sensitisation occurred. Differing women may have more pronounced production of the antibody, which could then be argued to be an overproduction, an immune disease therefore, and it can be seen as teratogenic if too large amounts cross over to the foetus. A factor outside of the genes of the foetus, and from a basic primigravid womb, is at play.

It is a matter of interpretation. This gives good physiological grounds for labelling homosexuality in men a congenital birth defect though, if people are inclined to see it that way. Hence, it is a two edged sword to those who label homosexuality as a normal variant. As I said though, the research is far from definite and quite suppositional still.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Interesting results. So effectively each younger brother becomes more effeminate than the previous. That might explain my youngest brothers amazing connection with the ladies!! I suppose biologically you only need one dominant male to succeed the father as the leader and the rest will serve other functions within the family and tribe. So there is a practical purpose in the eldest son (me by the way) being the more manly. It does not have to lead to a man being gay but in the culture today it can do.

So one question I would have is what kind of gay man? There are masculine and feminine types. My guess is that gay men, who are so cause their brains are more feminine, will be more likely to be effeminate. Whereas gay men who are the eldest or only children will be less so.

Also another factor seems to me the environmental fact of being more comfortable with male company if you have large numbers of brothers. This will be more impacting for a younger brother cause the eldest brother will be relatively more substantial in the growing phase. Also the eldest brother will be less challenged by his younger brothers until they are grown.

Another question I have is if this is then reversable by hormonal treatment during pregnancy or after birth. Does this mean that some gay men can be cured?
You raise good points.

It does not mean that gay men could be cured, as it would thus be a insult to the developing foetal brain. That development would not be repairable and would be permanent. It would thus be analogous to Cerebral Palsy therefore, as a birth defect or early insult to the brain.
It could perhaps be prevented then, through decreasing maternal antibody levels or preventing sensitisation in the first place, pharmacologically.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That is not what I am saying at all though. Let me try and explain with an analogous situation.

On bloodgroups, some people carry rhesus factor, others don't. That is the + or - added on after the ABO grouping. Now pregnant women exposed to a postive baby that are negative themselves develop antibodies to it. Subsequent Rh+ foetuses will be exposed to antibodies crossing from the maternal to the foetal circulation resulting in miscarriages or intra-uterine growrh restriction in later children. This occurs when maternal antibodies attack foetal red blood cells, resulting in an exacerbation of the foetal hypoxic state. To try and prevent this in subsequent pregnancies or limit antibody formation, we give Rh - mothers Rhogam if we suspect their babies are Rh +. Now this is clearly pathological, as the pregnancy is not supposed to be attacked in this manner.

Likewise, here we have sensitisation of a mother resulting in antibodies crossing to the foetal circulation in subsequent pregnancies. These antibodies then attack proteins required for male brain development, resulting in change in the embryological development of the foetus from factors outside of its own genes and decreasing the levels of a necessary developmental protein. It can quite clearly be construed as a pathological process therefore, akin to Rh sensitisation, which we could theoretically limit by decreasing the maternal antibody levels and sensitisation by pharmacological means. Perhaps some form of corticosteroid would be able to cause sufficient transient immunosuppression, depending when sensitisation occurred. Differing women may have more pronounced production of the antibody, which could then be argued to be an overproduction, an immune disease therefore, and it can be seen as teratogenic if too large amounts cross over to the foetus. A factor outside of the genes of the foetus, and from a basic primigravid womb, is at play.

It is a matter of interpretation. This gives good physiological grounds for labelling homosexuality in men a congenital birth defect though, if people are inclined to see it that way. Hence, it is a two edged sword to those who label homosexuality as a normal variant. As I said though, the research is far from definite and quite suppositional still.

Is it a pathology or a normal natural process though? Is it the case that some women have sons unaffected by this and some do not?
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You raise good points.

It does not mean that gay men could be cured, as it would thus be a insult to the developing foetal brain. That development would not be repairable and would be permanent. It would thus be analogous to Cerebral Palsy therefore, as a birth defect or early insult to the brain.
It could perhaps be prevented then, through decreasing maternal antibody levels or preventing sensitisation in the first place, pharmacologically.

So a Muslim King anxious to avoid a gay population could give pills to his women to counter this effect and to masculinise their children. These manly warriors can then grow up to conquer an increasingly effeminate Western culture. I wonder if the same pill could be freely bought by a Western woman who wants a manly boy in her local Pharmaceutical.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Is it a pathology or a normal natural process though? Is it the case that some women have sons unaffected by this and some do not?
What is a 'natural process'? Embryology is very complex. Smoking causing placental insufficiency is a natural response to smoke inhalation, but is of course a pathological process. Likewise, Rh sensitisation is natural, but we see it as pathological since it results in growth restriction and miscarriage.
So we can interpret it as natural or as pathological, depending how fancy takes us.
Pathology is an abstract term, that depends on context. Some argue Autism to be pathological, others a normal variant. It depends how we define Normal, before we can determine what deviates from it. In Embryology, normal development is usually based on a primigravid (ie first-time) mother, not exposed to teratogens with normal blood pressure and blood glucose. Based on that standard, we could certainly make the argument that an antibody in subsequent pregnancies that affects male brain development by decreasing the levels of a required protein, is pathological.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0