Biological Sexuality Signaling - Essay Sample

Introduction

The question of whether sexual orientation is chosen or depends in part or not on our biology has aroused much interest in recent public debates on homosexuality. Biological arguments assert that genetic factors and hormones may influence sexual orientation (Balthazart, 2020; Sanders et al., 2017). Other scientific research results and accumulated evidence assert that there is no correlation between biology and sexual orientation and that environmental and social causes are instead at play (Bailey et al., 2016; Mayer & McHugh, 2016). However, it is important to ask whether, indeed, that question needs to be investigated or not. The truth is that the answer to this question has been subjective on predetermined cultural and political narratives and beliefs. If homosexuality is not chosen, it is not lawful to punish or discriminate individuals considered to have "unconventional" sexual orientations. It might seem, then, that showing that there are biological factors that make one tend not to be heterosexual could contribute to their social acceptance, to normalize the condition of not heterosexual. On the other hand, when it is published that there are biological factors related to homosexuality, groups of opinion appear who suggest that, in such a case, homosexuality is "curable." If they are not "cured", it is their responsibility (or their parents, or the health system). Therefore, in the end, it is a chosen condition, and therefore non-heterosexuals are responsible for their condition.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Genetic factors are involved in the likelihood of developing a homosexual sexual orientation (Balthazart, 2020). Studies of family genealogies, the tendency for homosexual persons to appear within the same family, as well as research comparing homozygous and heterozygous twins indicate a particular contribution of genes in the propensity to recognize oneself as homosexual in adulthood (Sanders et al., 2017). About a third of the variability found in character is due to genetic effects, the genetic effect being somewhat more important in male than female homosexuality. This means that although environmental factors have greater weight, the importance of genetics is not negligible.

In addition to studies to detect genetic effects carried out traditionally (genealogical and twin analyzes), whole genome sequencing studies have been carried out in search of the precise location of the genetic variants that contribute to human homosexuality (Sanders et al., 2017). Like almost any complex trait, this does not appear to be dependent on the effect of one or two genes, but on the small contribution to the trait of hundreds or thousands of genes. Analysis of the genome of more than 10,000 people indicates that two chromosomal regions are most strongly linked to the probability of being considered homosexual (Balthazart, 2020). Again, and considering both sets of experiments, it seems clear that the individual's genetics contributes, in part, to the development in the individual of a homosexual orientation.

Contrary to the biological explanation, other studies have not found any correlation between biology and sexual orientation. These studies argue that cataloging sex as biological and gender as psychosocial makes it impossible to properly understand reality, as it remains entangled in the traditional categorical networks of opposition between inheritance-environment, nature-nurture, biology-culture (Bailey et al., 2016). To begin with, in reality, there are no such discrete and separate categories, a male-female sexual dimorphism, but a sexual polymorphism. Thus, in addition to the more harmonious correspondence between the different levels, genetic, endocrinological, physiological, neurological, present in men and women, there are also discrepancies between the levels indicated in more minority cases of vagueness, bisexuality, and sex change (Bailey et al., 2016). Second, this sexual polymorphism is shaped throughout a person's life and is experienced differently in unique and unrepeatable identities. Each person structures their self, makes their own sexualized corporeity their own, and is more or less aware of their way of perceiving, thinking, feeling, and acting as a human being. Third, the person experiences their sexuality in specific socio-cultural contexts, assuming and externalizing certain roles, stereotypes, and prejudices.

Discussion Questions

The common question that arises on the biology of homosexuality is whether sexual orientation is primarily the result of social experiences or the result of biological factors (neurological, endocrine, anatomical, physiological, or genetic), or the result of a relationship between both. In other words: Is there a biology of homosexuality?; Is there scientific evidence about the causes of homosexuality or what were once considered "evidence" were, ultimately, just prejudices? In short, we can ask ourselves, what is the point of discovering once and for all how homosexuality is created and produced? Is this question not similar to others such as: Why are we here? What is the origin of life? Or why do we inhabit the planet? Can biology alone answer these questions?

Biology is the science that studies living things or life itself. Although this view currently has an interdisciplinary perspective, in other times, it was understood in isolation, which corresponded to the tradition in the human culture of trying to understand phenomena in isolation. Without a consensus on whether there is a scientific relationship between sexuality and biology, there is always going to be people who, either under one premise (sexuality has biological causes) or under the other (sexuality does not depend on biology), will use arguments to try to "redirect" them to the supposedly correct path of heterosexuality. In this regard, individuals should not be afraid to know the truth and understand the causes of their sexual orientation. Regardless of what the results demonstrate, no argument about whether a behavior has a higher or lower biological component should be used to define whether it is correct or otherwise. That is a decision of society, which is made collectively (not necessarily explicit). Incorrect and natural are not the opposite poles of the same dimension. It is a mistake to link people's rights to how "natural" their behavior is.

References

Bailey, J. M., Vasey, P. L., Diamond, L. M., Breedlove, S. M., Vilain, E., & Epprecht, M. (2016). Sexual orientation, controversy, and science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(2), 45-101. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1529100616637616

Balthazart, J. (2020). Sexual partner preference in animals and humans. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.03.024

Mayer, L. S., & McHugh, P. R. (2016). Sexuality and gender: Findings from the biological, psychological, and social sciences. The New Atlantis, 10-143. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf

Sanders, A. R., Beecham, G. W., Guo, S., Dawood, K., Rieger, G., Badner, J. A., ... & Gejman, P. V. (2017). Genome-wide association study of male sexual orientation. Scientific reports, 7(1), 1-6. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15736-4?fbclid=IwAR181QTdP3cEB_y01DqtYX3Q3dj-mCHqUyeoWZHo9V5h-xiomGaSWVeXPhw