There are more than 20 theories for homosexuality in scientific literature!! Imagine 20 theories of relativity. Or 20 third laws of Newton. Or 20 laws of independent assortment or segregation by Gregor Johann Mendel. Adding further to the chaos is the fact that neither of them provides an answer to this centuries old puzzle. Most of these theories are flawed, incorrect and contradictory to one another.

Some of the so called popular theories can be discussed just to see why they are incorrect or what flaws they have. Some theories belonging to following categories will be explained:

1 Parental relationship

2 Structural Brain Differences and

3 Intra Uterine Hormones

Let’s discuss the related theories one by one.

1 Parental relationship based theory.

Irving Beiber proposed a theory regarding parental relationships in 1962. According to this theory a person becomes homosexual if he has a very loving mother and his father is away or unconcerned.

However the major flaws of the theory are as follows:

1 A mother loves all of her children more or less equally. Then how come all children of such a mother don’t become homosexuals since all are having the same mother and father of all is away or absent.

A loving mother of one child cannot become abusive mother to other. A docile person is always a docile person and an aggressive person is always an aggressive person. Same is true for introverted and extroverted individuals.

Also most of the time the children are born after a gap of many years. So such mother will have one child for many years to love since the next is born. Thus all children (male) should be homosexual of this kind of mother which is not the case.

Further this theory doesn’t explain why some loving mothers turn some children into masculine looking homosexuals and others into feminine homosexuals in a random fashion. In other words, how mother’s love explains feminism of some homosexual males.

Also, the theory doesn’t explain how a loving mother creates bisexuals or asexuals. Theory is silent about female homosexuals. Do they have aggressive mother and loving father? No data is available.

The loving mother theory may be the result of a cognition bias too. Consider the following two scenarios:

Case 1

You see a woman sitting and holding her child in her lap. There is a dog near her and she is caressing the dog lovingly.

Case 2

You see a woman. She is throwing pebbles on a dog.

Now in both cases which woman would you call a loving human?

Obviously mother in case 1 looks like a loving human.

Now consider the cases again with backstories:

Case 1

In case 1, the mother was holding her child. Just then a dog came there. The mother tried to shoo it away. But it didn’t buzz and tried to lick the hands of lady and wagged it’s tail. The mother realised that dog is not harmful but a docile one. She then reciprocated and started rubbing and caressing the dog. You as observer entered at this point and saw the lady holding the child and caressing the dog.

Case 2

In case 2, the mother and child were going somewhere. Just then a dog came there. It started barking aggressively. The child fled in fear. The woman took pebbles and started throwing on the dog. It started running away. You came at this point. You saw the lady hurting the dog.

Now the woman in case 2 is an equally loving human as the woman in case 1. However, love works in reciprocation which if an observer fails to see will misinterpret the nature of two women in these cases. This is a kind of cognition bias.

Same may happen in case of human interactions between a mother and a boy.

If a mother, let’s call her mother 1 tries to cuddle and kiss her boy child let’s call him boy 1, and if he doesn’t like it, doesn’t reciprocate or rather is repelled by such gestures the mother too won’t be engaging in such behaviour much. But if another mother, mother 2, expresses same love gestures to boy 2 who reciprocates the love of his mother and also kisses and cuddles her back, is gentle and docile will be kissed and cuddled more by his mother or in other words will look more loved. The mother 2 will appear to be a more loving mother however her cuddling and kissing are due to reciprocation from the child’s part too.

The mother’s love thus is the effect not the cause in this case.

Homosexual boys have low aggression, more cuddling desires, are less sporty whereas heterosexual boys have higher aggression, less cuddling desire and are more sports loving. These behaviours manifest themselves from the childhood, unlike sexual attraction which comes into play only after puberty. Thus if boy 2 is a homosexual, he will be less aggressive or in other words more docile, can have more empathy, can have a higher desire for kissing and cuddling. He is already homosexual. Due to all other behavioural traits he will be reciprocative to mother’s love. Thus the mother’s love is not the cause of his homosexuality. But because of his homosexuality which has brought to him other female specific traits (apart from SAM like cuddling desire, empathy, docility etc), he himself will be a more loving child and his mother reciprocating to his love will appear a very loving mother.

However these traits may appear in a heterosexual boy too as we know by now the law that gender specific traits are known to switch positions and express in opposite gender. Such a heterosexual boy too will love his mother more in comparison to other heterosexual boys and his mother will also reciprocate. This is why many heterosexual males feel proud to identify themselves as mamma’s boys.

In fact, most mothers in society are loving mothers only. Their children don’t become homosexuals because of their love because mother’s love is not the cause of homosexuality but erroneous gene silencing of genes behind a number of gender specific traits is.

The other major question is how a loving mother turns a child into bisexual? And how her love turns a child into asexual? Or are they born to less loving or non-loving mother? If father’s absence is taken as criteria then children of all the soldiers should be homosexuals which is not the case.

Precisely, this is a wrong theory.

2 Structural Brain Differences

There are many studies which are based on structural brain differences among homosexuals. But most popular is from Savic and Lindstrom which says homosexual men and heterosexual women have symmetrical left and right cerebral hemispheres whereas heterosexual men and homosexual women have asymmetrical hemispheres. In them the right hemisphere is bigger than the left.

Now there is a very big problem in this theory and with all other theories which consider the size of any organ or brain or any metric measurement as the cause of a gender related differential behaviour.

Let me cite some scenarios to explain:

1 Let a researcher takes height of 1000 men and 1000 women and concludes that the average height of male is 6 feet and of female is 5.8 feet. Now this is a different kind of study and is reporting in terms of averages. But is it impossible to look at a bigger population sample and produce a female of 6.5 or even 7 feet or a male who is 3 or 4 feet. The averages or statistics here are obvious lies.

In a similar fashion there were fewer people in the above study related with brain differences among homosexuals and heterosexuals. But if we increase the population sample size, isn’t it possible that someone can find a homosexual man with larger left or larger right hemisphere which will defy the average size of the population. In a similar line can’t one find a heterosexual male with symmetrical halves!

Size of cerebral hemisphere is a discontinuous trait. It follows a normal distribution. Thus people with larger hemispheres and smaller hemispheres will be extremely rare but they exist. In behavioural studies and experiments nothing can rely on average because then how can one explain the exceptions which will be found on the extremes.

If average IQ of human is 120, then how will one explain the IQ of Einstein based upon averages?

Similarly other behavioural traits like aggression, intelligence, anxiety, empathy can never be explained in this way.

Females are known to have higher anxiety but there can be females who are super confident with a very low anxiety level and vice versa for males.

Finally a question can be asked — is it the symmetrical size of the cerebral hemisphere which makes someone a homosexual male or is it the homosexuality of a male which creates difference in the sizes of cerebral hemispheres? Which is the cause and which is the effect?

Further cerebral hemisphere performs so many functions. It has so many lobes. So out of thousands of functions why only sexual preferences changes.

And what about the sizes or symmetries of amygdala or limbic system or hypothalamus etc.

Why homosexual males are less aggressive and thus more docile?

The theory is just focussing on the size and doesn’t give a specific answer.

Another argument against this theory can be stated. Just like cerebral hemispheres design, it is known that homosexual males (who have feminine walking manner) and heterosexual females have wider and curvy pelvic girdle. So is a wider and curvy pelvic girdle makes one a homosexual male as a symmetrical cerebral hemisphere does as per this theory.

Or is it other way round?

If you have read this book carefully I have cited many examples of gender specific traits (GST) which switch their positions frequently.

A homosexual male can have low musculature but he can have higher musculature too.

A homosexual male can have low aggression but he can have high aggression too.

All of it will depend on differential and erroneous gene silencing.

The size of cerebral hemisphere just falls in this bracket. It can be considered just another gender specific trait (GST) which can switch position the way the other GSTs do.

The major blow to this theory comes in the form of bisexuality. What kind of cerebral hemispheres do bisexual males or females have?

When a bisexual male is thinking about other male sexually, both of his cerebral hemispheres becomes symmetrical and of equal size. But when the same bisexual male thinks about a female, does his right cerebral hemisphere swells and become larger in size? Brain has never been reported to exhibit such a ridiculous feat.

3 Intra uterine hormones based theory:

According to this theory homosexuality arises due to hormonal imbalances. However following objections can be raised against this theory:

i) Molecular basis

The theory just says that due to imbalance of hormones during gestation altered neuron differentiation occurs in the embryo which results in homosexuality. However why only brain gets affected and not other organs like liver, kidney and pancreas etc, theory doesn’t explain. Even it doesn’t specify which neurons of which brain part are affected. Further how the hormones cause these changes at molecular level of genes and DNA has also not been explained.

ii) Why all boys don’t become homosexual?

It is known that out of many sons born to a mother only one (in most cases) is homosexual and he can be elder or younger.

Here the question arises that why only one boy becomes homosexual? Does hormonal imbalance occurs at the time of pregnancy of one child only? However, all hormones are coded by genes. If there is a defect in gene leading to overproduction or under production of hormone, this will remain same in all pregnancies of that particular female. The genetic propensity of the mother for hormonal imbalance should cause hormonal imbalance in all the pregnancies and thus all of her boys should be homosexuals which again is not the case.

Another question is how the hormonal imbalance during these pregnancies was measured? The surveys are conducted with adult homosexuals so how one can examine the hormones level during their gestation period inside their mother.

iii) Why only sexual preference is altered?

Even if brain is affected due to hormonal imbalances, why only one trait of brain specifically is affected i.e sexual attraction. Why the homosexual person doesn’t become retard? Why there is no affect on intellect, perception, cognition, motor functions or any other functions of hypothalamus like control of sleep, hunger, thirst, satiety etc.

iv) Feminism in Homosexuals

Why some homosexuals become feminist? What kind of hormonal imbalance makes one homosexual masculine while other as feminine? How the pelvic girdle gets changed or how feminine hand movements arises? The theory fails to explain.

v) No bad effects on mother

If hormones are secreted more or less there should be corresponding conditions in mothers too.

If there is more estrogen in body it may cause irregular menstrual periods, mood swings, headaches, swelling in the breasts, decreased sex drive etc.

Similarly If there is more testosterone it may cause balding, acnes, huge muscle mass, large clitoris, deepening of voice, facial hairs etc

Increase or decrease of any hormone in body causes some disorders. But no such co-relation has been observed or reported in mothers of homosexuals. All of them seem to be quite healthy.

vi) Bisexuality and Asexuality

Even if we assume a certain kind of imbalance (more or less estrogen and testosterone may be) which make someone homosexual, it is difficult to imagine an imbalance which will turn someone into bisexual. What kind of imbalance will give rise to both kinds of sexual attraction? The imbalance cannot be present in two alternate forms at the same time i.e hormones cannot be low or high at the same time to bring about this kind of sexual attraction.

Similarly, the theory cannot explain asexuality. Does asexuality arises due to absence of the particular hormones which seems impossible because this will lead to other disorders in the embryo too.

In fact no theory takes into account the existence of bisexuality or asexuality. It seems that researchers have simply considered people identifying as bisexuals as homosexuals. Thus no mention of bisexuality in all homosexuality related studies is found. Similarly asexuality was not taken into account in these studies. Researchers have failed to see any link between all of these basic sexualities. Hence major emphasis in literature is found to be given to homosexuality only.

From above discussion it is clear that every theory related to homosexuality till date is suffering from major limitations and flaws. Not a single theory can explain the questions or objections raised above. However theory based upon gender specific traits switching positions due to erroneous gene silencing can explain all these questions or objections. It doesn’t only explain how genders (heterosexuality) are created by creating gender specific differences but at the same time explains the cause of homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality.

Note: This is just one Chapter from the Amazon (Kindle) E-Book. Grab your FREE copy HERE.

Blog: Read FREE chapters on blog — Principles Of Sexuality.

Originally published at sexualityprinciples.blogspot.com on November 29, 2017.