• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay dads' brains show activity akin to both parents': study

How could that possibly even begin to bear out any truth? The "gay-Uncle" has been thoroughly debunked as utter nonsense.

Tim-

I don't think that the studies had looked into the causality. They had only found significant results to the point. But if you are really interested I am sure you will find more in the world wide web.
 
FYI on the 'gay uncle' to everyone else:

Assume humans were hunter & gathers that lived in small groups of 100-150 people at some point in our history. During that pre-modern medical era, child mortality rates are 40%+ and thus require the nomadic kin groups to produce large numbers of offspring per fertile couple. This requirement causes the group's age to be weighted towards children. The weighting primarily affects the groups' ability to gather food, defend itself from dangers, move through its territory; i.e. survive, due to the large amounts of needy children.

Suppose then that there is a biological/environmental tendency, eh, 1/20th of the time, to produce a smaller group of individuals that never reproduces. These individuals do not dedicate themselves to child rearing, but rather are open to engage in the activities that the parents/elders of the group cannot handle. They tilt the group's age back towards capable adults. Thus kin groups with this ability to produce non-reproducing individuals have a better chance of flourishing and surviving.

It's a theory.

Neat little story. :)
 
As to this study... In my experience on this subject (Brain science) when men and or women for that matter take on opposite gender roles, the brain patterns almost always tend to mimic each other, both heterosexually and homosexually.


The only thing you can conclude from any study of this primitive nature is that our brains appear to be born to adapt. ;)


What I find striking from this study and any like it though is that these social researchers aren't doing themselves any favors, because showing adaptability whether emotionally or sexually adds to the environmental causation argument for sexuality. I'd like to see this done on young adults without children to compare data.


Tim-

No, this is referring to how hormones affect how brain structures develop in utero. This isn't about brain plasticity / learned behavior.
eg:



Sexual hormones and the brain: an essential alliance for sexual identity and sexual orientation (2010)

"The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb.
There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation."


Royal College of Psychiatrists
"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment."




Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait. (2008)

The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.
"This is the most robust measure so far of cerebral differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects," she says.

Previous studies have also shown differences in brain architecture and activity between gay and straight people, but most relied on people's responses to sexuality driven cues that could have been learned, such as rating the attractiveness of male or female faces.

To get round this, Savic and her colleague, Per Lindström, chose to measure brain parameters likely to have been fixed at birth.

"That was the whole point of the study, to show parameters that differ, but which couldn't be altered by learning or cognitive processes," says Savic.

"This study demonstrates that homosexuals of both sexes show strong cross-sex shifts in brain symmetry," says Qazi Rahman, a leading researcher on sexual orientation at Queen Mary college, University of London, UK.

"The connectivity differences reported in the amygdala are striking."

"Paradoxically, it's more informative to look at things that have no direct connection with sexual orientation, and that's where this study scores," says Simon LeVay, a prominent US author who in 1991 reported finding differences(pdf) in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus between straight and gay men.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403.full.pdf+html
 
Last edited:
From an article in the Journal of Marriage and Family a few years ago:


How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? - Biblarz - 2010 - Journal of Marriage and Family - Wiley Online Library
Volume 72, Issue 1, pages 3–22, February 2010

"The entrenched conviction that children need both a mother and a father inflames culture wars over single motherhood, divorce, gay marriage, and gay parenting. Research to date, however, does not support this claim. Contrary to popular belief, studies have not shown that "compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children" (Popenoe, quoted in Center for Marriage and Family, p. 1).


Research has not identified any gender-exclusive parenting abilities (with the partial exception of lactation). Our analysis confirms an emerging consensus among prominent researchers of fathering and child development. The third edition of Lamb's (1997) authoritative anthology directly reversed the inaugural volume's premise when it concluded that "very little about the gender of the parent seems to be distinctly important" (p. 10). Likewise, in Fatherneed, Pruett (2000), a prominent advocate of involved fathering, confided, "I also now realize that most of the enduring parental skills are probably, in the end, not dependent on gender" (p. 18)."
 
"The entrenched conviction that children need both a mother and a father inflames culture wars over single motherhood, divorce, gay marriage, and gay parenting. Research to date, however, does not support this claim. Contrary to popular belief, studies have not shown that "compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children" (Popenoe, quoted in Center for Marriage and Family, p. 1).
Not surprising, given that nobody has conducted any studies that would show such a thing -- I'll be sure to file this one away with "studies have not shown that children are better off being raised by their married, biological parents than by a pair of gay kangaroos."
 
Rachel was hot for him, if I remember that episode right. Freddie Prinze Junior played the nanny. I don't think he was gay.


Found it on Friends Wiki:

Ross and Rachel are looking for a new nanny and Ross is surprised when a male nanny named Sandy has applied. Rachel loves him and despite Ross being uncomfortable with it, allows her to hire him. Sandy is shown to be overly sensitive, crying after they hire him and crying with Rachel when he explains how he propsed to his fiance. He also plays the flute and holds puppet shows. Joey also takes a liking to him. Ross eventually fires him because he's too sensitive but ends up confiding in him after explaining how his dad was tough on him as a kid for playing with dinosaurs instead of sports.



But even better, I found this. Did you know there is a website where you can find a "manny" in NYC?

NYC Mannies

Yea, that was more my take on it. Rachel wanted him as a nanny real bad, I don't think she was hot for him. They never indicated he was gay, only in touch with his nurturing feminine side.

Men don't have to be gay to be sensitive or as capable of raising children as single parents, though it's not as common. I live next to a recently divorced young guy and his 5-6yr old boy screams his brains out, while the father just tries to placate him, with no discipline. The little boy is confused and upset about his parents not living together, but there comes a point when you've got to say 'enough' with the temper tantrums.

This guy isn't sensitive or a Manny, he's a wet piece of milk-toast.
 
No, this is referring to how hormones affect how brain structures develop in utero. This isn't about brain plasticity / learned behavior.
eg:

No, the study made great effort to point out that it had NO freaking idea how or if hormones in pre and post natal development play any significant role in the similarities detected. Further, the areas looked at in the brain are areas that are most certainly affected by learning and cognitive processes if we assume emotional response to stimuli are cognitive. We also know that these areas of the brain are "lit-up" in sub-conscious states, and there has been a great deal of debate as to the significance of our sub-conscious on our cognitive states. In all, although interesting, the study fails in it's methodology because it cannot control for known variables because the variables are not known to begin with; that is, hormonal influence on these areas and brain development, and how cognition, sub-conscious or otherwise, manifests and permeates throughout the brain.


Tim-
 
Bleh. Id be bullied and shunned even more than I already am if I had two gay parents. I'm sure they'd be capable parents, but until the stigma is gone heterosexual parents are the better alternative (in my opinion).

Except many of these kids are adopted out of our abysmal foster care or from single parent trailer trash. If you think growing up in that environment is better, i don't know what to tell ya. Also your classmates, if they found out, would get used to it and bored and move on to the next target. It's the 'weird' kids that get bullied endlessly.
 
No, the study made great effort to point out that it had NO freaking idea how or if hormones in pre and post natal development play any significant role in the similarities detected. Further, the areas looked at in the brain are areas that are most certainly affected by learning and cognitive processes if we assume emotional response to stimuli are cognitive. We also know that these areas of the brain are "lit-up" in sub-conscious states, and there has been a great deal of debate as to the significance of our sub-conscious on our cognitive states. In all, although interesting, the study fails in it's methodology because it cannot control for known variables because the variables are not known to begin with; that is, hormonal influence on these areas and brain development, and how cognition, sub-conscious or otherwise, manifests and permeates throughout the brain.


Tim-

This particular study doesn't address the prenatal hormones (i don't know why he said so), but plenty of others have done so for years now, in various species. We're pretty damn sure that excess estrogen does lead to effeminate behavior and almost certainly these hormones combine with genetics to trigger homosexuality. It's disingenuous to ridicule this study under the pretense that the variables aren't known and then suggest the study also does "no favors" to the born gay theory. Fact is the emotional changes in these gay parents at middle age has *nothing* to do with prenatal hormones and some 'gay gene'

There are obvious limits to 'adapting' our brains, else we'd just will ourselves to live forever. You've certainly a long ways to go to prove that young kids undergo similar emotional change that makes them gay and then for some reason cannot 'adapt' their brain to become hetero at any future time.

If anything, i can see cultural and environment factors influencing the extent of effeminate/stereotypical behavior, since i know from experience that can and does in fact change over time, but i see no evidence anything postnatal affects the orientation itself.
 
Last edited:
This article makes the claim that "gay men" are more attuned parents than either sex of the heterosexual alone. Interesting?

Not necessarily. Take another look at the last paragraph in your quote.

This study doesn't necessarily show that this trait is innate -- although some brain differences in gay people are, and there might be a component of that in here somewhere. But rather, it says that their brain configures this way over time as the two parents share the roles more evenly.

Our brains are changing all the time based on what we do, so here's my question.

Do the less extreme gender expectations and divisions of gay relationships, and thus the more equal sharing of parenting duties, cause more balanced parenting and more balanced brains for each parent? That's the real question this is presenting.

I'd like to see whether similar role sharing in heterosexual couples causes the same brain building. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't, at least to some degree.

If it does, it says an awful lot about the work our culture has to do yet on gender relations.
 
Here's a so called "brain" study that says gay men and heterosexual women have similarly shaped brains. Does this mean that gay men are cognitively equivalent to women?



Gay men and heterosexual women have similarly shaped brains, research shows | Science | The Guardian

I thought it all looked familiar...your article is from 2008. Certain components could be the same like hemisphere size or hormones, but "cognitively identical" is so broad, who knows.

To answer your other ?, I'm sure there'll come a day when orientation can be known from birth or even before with MRI or PET or whatever and that'll open some ethics debate. Last i heard though the next 'breakthru' was some experiment on sheep fetus sexuality, not humans.
 
Except many of these kids are adopted out of our abysmal foster care or from single parent trailer trash. If you think growing up in that environment is better, i don't know what to tell ya. Also your classmates, if they found out, would get used to it and bored and move on to the next target. It's the 'weird' kids that get bullied endlessly.
I did not allude to being raise in a trailer park was a better alternative (note that I said "heterosexual parents"). It is a good thing that children are being adopted, my only suggestion was that those who were raised by homosexual parents would be more prone to bullying. Due to the parents raising more egalitarian children (in the homosexual parent household)...egalitarianism IS "wierd behavior" here. Supporting gay rights where I live results in being shunned, accused of being homosexual yourself, and overall teasing for years. That's simply for supporting homosexual you, let alone having two same-gender parents. I wonder where some of the studies were conducted... I'm not against gay parents, at all.
 
No, the study made great effort to point out that it had NO freaking idea how or if hormones in pre and post natal development play any significant role in the similarities detected. Further, the areas looked at in the brain are areas that are most certainly affected by learning and cognitive processes if we assume emotional response to stimuli are cognitive. We also know that these areas of the brain are "lit-up" in sub-conscious states, and there has been a great deal of debate as to the significance of our sub-conscious on our cognitive states. In all, although interesting, the study fails in it's methodology because it cannot control for known variables because the variables are not known to begin with; that is, hormonal influence on these areas and brain development, and how cognition, sub-conscious or otherwise, manifests and permeates throughout the brain.


Tim-

I was responding to your comment about "showing adaptability whether emotionally or sexually adds to the environmental causation argument for sexuality".

It doesn't.
 
Last edited:
Except many of these kids are adopted out of our abysmal foster care or from single parent trailer trash. If you think growing up in that environment is better, i don't know what to tell ya. Also your classmates, if they found out, would get used to it and bored and move on to the next target. It's the 'weird' kids that get bullied endlessly.

I've always been confused about this idea that having "different than normal" parents gets a child significantly more teasing than simply being weird yourself in some way. If we went with that logic, that having abnormal parents because it could lead to extra teasing is a valid reason for not allowing certain sets of parents to raise/adopt children, then that would mean that interracial couples should not be raising children, certainly not allowed to adopt children. Couples of certain religions or with no religion at all in some places should not be allowed to raise or adopt children. That is why this logic, that a person's parents leads to them being so badly teased that it overrides a couple's right to raise children is so failed because it isn't true to begin with and it is highly discriminatory against way more people than just same sex couples.
 
Also in our convoluted and high pressure 'publish or perish' world, it is getting tougher and tougher for the ever increasing number of advanced degree candidates to find something new and unique as the topic of their dissertations or to be published in a scholarly journal. As a result they are really streeeeeeetching for subject matter. And it doesn't matter how small the sample used or what the researcher's conclusion is, it seems to pass for science these days.

I remain convinced that gay parents can be very good parents and sometimes living with gay parents is the best situation for the child. And I will continue to be convinced that there is far more scientific study and evidence to show that children overall thrive best with a loving male AND female role model in the home than in any other circumstance. And the traditional family should be encouraged, supported, and considered the norm for that reason.

Actually the traditional family, as Americans understand it, is incredibly unnatural and a very recent occurance in human history. That is why I find the "pro traditional" arguments to be rather ludicrous. Humans naturally form families of extended families living together or tribes and it is that set up which leads to the best outcome for children. This notion of the nuclear family that lives seperately from the rest of the family is not the healthiest situation for children, and yet people want to spout this ridiculous line of A mother and A father role is where children thrive best based on nothing more than statistics of nuclear families compared to single parent families. It is not the "best' for children.
 
What I find striking from this study and any like it though is that these social researchers aren't doing themselves any favors, because showing adaptability whether emotionally or sexually adds to the environmental causation argument for sexuality. I'd like to see this done on young adults without children to compare data.


Tim-

I'm unclear why that would be a bad thing. I've got a gay brother. I have no idea, and don't really care, WHY he's gay. What I do know is he's not ever going to be straight. He tried, and he just IS gay - the reason why a mystery but functionally irrelevant. I suspect there is a bit of genetics and environment - for example, the studies seem to show that if one twin is gay, the other is more LIKELY to be gay but is often straight. But I just see no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed once set, at least for more than a VERY tiny minority of individuals. And it's that latter observation that drives my conclusions about public policy for homosexuals.
 
Not necessarily. Take another look at the last paragraph in your quote.

This study doesn't necessarily show that this trait is innate -- although some brain differences in gay people are, and there might be a component of that in here somewhere. But rather, it says that their brain configures this way over time as the two parents share the roles more evenly.

Our brains are changing all the time based on what we do, so here's my question.

Do the less extreme gender expectations and divisions of gay relationships, and thus the more equal sharing of parenting duties, cause more balanced parenting and more balanced brains for each parent? That's the real question this is presenting.

I'd like to see whether similar role sharing in heterosexual couples causes the same brain building. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't, at least to some degree.

If it does, it says an awful lot about the work our culture has to do yet on gender relations.

One clue: in gay fathers, but not heterosexual ones, the brain also had extra communication lines between emotional and cognitive structures. The more time a man spent as primary caregiver, the greater the connectivity. It was as if playing both parental roles caused the brain to integrate the structures required for each.


I'm looking at the last paragraph in the OP quote and it says, "in gay fathers, not heterosexual ones" as if they studied both? Maybe gay fathers are more attuned to their feminine, nurturing side allowing for more of the emotional and cognitive structures suited for playing both parental roles?
 
No, the study made great effort to point out that it had NO freaking idea how or if hormones in pre and post natal development play any significant role in the similarities detected. Further, the areas looked at in the brain are areas that are most certainly affected by learning and cognitive processes if we assume emotional response to stimuli are cognitive. We also know that these areas of the brain are "lit-up" in sub-conscious states, and there has been a great deal of debate as to the significance of our sub-conscious on our cognitive states. In all, although interesting, the study fails in it's methodology because it cannot control for known variables because the variables are not known to begin with; that is, hormonal influence on these areas and brain development, and how cognition, sub-conscious or otherwise, manifests and permeates throughout the brain.


Tim-


Well if it occurs, either way it's involuntary. And according to the study, it does occur and provides supporting nurturing and child-rearing behavior.
 
Bleh. Id be bullied and shunned even more than I already am if I had two gay parents. I'm sure they'd be capable parents, but until the stigma is gone heterosexual parents are the better alternative (in my opinion).

It's not about 'if'. Or choices. If you are a kid with gay parents, that's not something you can change.

And gays are not going to stop having families, so again, it's not going to go away.

More knowlege is good.
 
This particular study doesn't address the prenatal hormones (i don't know why he said so), but plenty of others have done so for years now, in various species. We're pretty damn sure that excess estrogen does lead to effeminate behavior and almost certainly these hormones combine with genetics to trigger homosexuality. It's disingenuous to ridicule this study under the pretense that the variables aren't known and then suggest the study also does "no favors" to the born gay theory. Fact is the emotional changes in these gay parents at middle age has *nothing* to do with prenatal hormones and some 'gay gene'

There are obvious limits to 'adapting' our brains, else we'd just will ourselves to live forever. You've certainly a long ways to go to prove that young kids undergo similar emotional change that makes them gay and then for some reason cannot 'adapt' their brain to become hetero at any future time.

If anything, i can see cultural and environment factors influencing the extent of effeminate/stereotypical behavior, since i know from experience that can and does in fact change over time, but i see no evidence anything postnatal affects the orientation itself.

This has been my theory for years, even before it was made public. Had alot of biology classes and studied crowd stress in wildlife.

Anyway, I wasnt aware that they had identified the hormones...do you have any links that show they believe it's estrogen? I understand that you said it's still being researched.

And have they identified any stage(s) during fetal development when they believe the hormones have affect/the most affect? I'd be interested in reading your sources.
 
I'm looking at the last paragraph in the OP quote and it says, "in gay fathers, not heterosexual ones" as if they studied both? Maybe gay fathers are more attuned to their feminine, nurturing side allowing for more of the emotional and cognitive structures suited for playing both parental roles?

Well, that's the division I've pointed out -- how a hetero man or woman is expected or allowed to parent is different, and far more limiting. So are they spending time doing their gender roles, or spending it just being what the kid needs?

I dunno, I'd imagine it depends on the gay guy. But I always find it a little funny when people attribute this to "femininity," given the very cold realism that many women usually face relationships and children with (and not without good reason -- they're the ones asked to give up everything). However, what we clearly see here is that neither normative role is balanced, and there's every possibility it's not natural either.
 
Back
Top Bottom