Homosexuality and the c section

GAAman

Hi folks, just a quick-ish one here.

Does anyone know of a study done where the hypothesis was due to not passing through the vagina the person had a higher proclivity to homosexuality?

It is in my head and i do not know if it was a lecturer who said it or someone else, google returns nothing or very little and was hoping someone here could help

JuliusCaesar

What's the hypothesis? What's the c section? (I presume you're not talking about Caesarean sections )

sitstill

Do you mean caesarian section?

GAAman

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

What's the hypothesis? What's the c section? (I presume you're not talking about Caesarean sections )

sitstill wrote: »

Do you mean caesarian section?

I did indeed mean cesarean sections, to be honest i do not know of any other connotation of c section but i have edited the original post to reflect it

o1s1n

Therefore by the same hypothesis, a girl born naturally should also have a higher proclivity to lesbianism...?

GAAman

o1s1n wrote: »

Therefore by the same hypothesis, a girl born naturally should also have a higher proclivity to lesbianism...?

Actually that seemed a bit cheeky apologies o1s1n

I am guessing it would be an older study, was possibly geared towards male homosexuality but i have started a thread in the g/l/b forum to see the numbers if they will help

sitstill

Well I'd like to learn more about this.

I'm gay and so are 2 of my close friends. We were all premature and born by c-section.

GAAman

sitstill wrote: »

Well I'd like to learn more about this.

I'm gay and so are 2 of my close friends. We were all premature and born by c-section.

Hi sitstill, would you mind saying what sex you and your friends are? If you would be more comfortable pm'ing me please do

jaffa20

Ridiculous tbh. I don't see how there could be any possible link and i think you misheard a lecturer.

Odysseus

GAAman, when you have this being said, what module or modality of therapy what the lecture in?

accel

I just looked through the premier journal of sexuality (Archives of Sexual Behavior) and couldn't find 1 reference to this since 1972 (when the articles were put online.) Homosexuality has been found to be largely genetic (Michael Bailey's research) and there are also prenatal hormone imbalances that contribute to it as well. Birth order (consecutive male children) also has a significant effect on the likelihood someone will be gay (If you have multiple older brothers w/o sisters, the odds go up). No evidence for "birth type" has emerged in the literature.

I'm a PhD student in psych (in the states) - not studying the sexual part of psychology really -- but I've never heard this informally either. So, I'm pretty sure the theory you heard was just made up. It's sounds like some neo-Freudian thing to be honest (passing through the vagina confers some kind of sexual response in an infant? ugh...)...and the Freudians have a questionable empirical base.

hotspur

Let's not groundlessly associate this with Freudian or other psychoanalytic theory.

Also if there is a correlation between birth order and homosexuality then due to the fact that there's a correlation between birth order and cesarean (more are 1st births) then logically there would be a correlation between cesarean and homosexuality.

But the important point would be that if such a correlation exists then it is uninteresting in any way and merely the result of confounding variables. Any regression analysis would be bound to find that cesarean would not account for any extra variance beyond other variables which it correlates with.

accel

hotspur wrote: »

Let's not groundlessly associate this with Freudian or other psychoanalytic theory.

I was just saying it sounds Freudian off the top of my head...conversationally. I dont know that it is its root. Freud was the father of many things in psychology, incuding a variety of theories about sexual relationships w/ parents - so it just sounded like that (passing thru the vagina of your mother is just something that sounds like he'd enjoy discussing). It was just sort of a joke I was making given that I don't take Freud that seriously. I don't have anything against Freud...it's hard to make a joke about it online I guess. Sorry if it came across offensive. Really, what I was trying to say (and what i should have just said) was that I don't see any theoretical argument for this to be true. If there was one, what literature would it come from?

hotspur wrote: »

Also if there is a correlation between birth order and homosexuality then due to the fact that there's a correlation between birth order and cesarean (more are 1st births) then logically there would be a correlation between cesarean and homosexuality.

I do not follow... if more cesarians are done on 1st births, the original poster thinks these children are more likely to be gay, then the important fact is the research actually shows the opposite.

Children born later down the line (consecutive males, to be specific) are more likely to be gay. Also, the correlation w/ birth order has to do w/ the fact that male children are "seen" as an external parasite to the mother's immune system due to the Y chromosome (the mother is XX, naturally)...and antibodies are made to certain elements of the child's unfamiliar genetic structure, including the factors that masculinize the brain. (It's more complicated than that but I don't have all the details at my fingertips at the moment) The first male child would be less likely to be exposed to these antibodies since they are produced after the pregnancy, most likely. Subsequent male children would be more likely to be exposed, since they would develop after exposure to the first male "parasite"... (aka Y chromosome unfamiliarities). Not all women obviously create these antibodies, but thats been the explanation for the strange odds ratio increase of gay men who have consecutive older brothers...and also it doesn't happen w/ lesbians who are XX.

hotspur wrote: »

But the important point would be that if such a correlation exists then it is uninteresting in any way and merely the result of confounding variables. Any regression analysis would be bound to find that cesarean would not account for any extra variance beyond other variables which it correlates with.

Yeah, if it even was significant, Im sure someone would've published something by now...in a major journal like Archives. Perhaps someone published something in a non-peer reviewed place & that's where this got started.

Red Hand

I've heard it said that people born through C section were more likely to have breathing problems/asthma in infancy/childhood since their chests aren't squeezed through the passage through the birth canal, which would expel out all the amniotic fluid.

That makes sense...how homosexuality would tie with C sections is another thing.

Cinful

GAAman wrote: »

Homosexuality and the c section...

It is in my head and i do not know if it was a lecturer who said it or someone else

Are you confusing C-sections? In lab we take C-sections of brain tissue (cross-sections) for analysis. Your lecturer was probably referring to cross-sections not cesarean birth?

Brain cross sections of interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus have suggested differences. Link: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;253/5023/1034. But caution should be exercised when interpreting results. The samples were small and subject to associated limitations.

Odysseus

hotspur wrote: »

Let's not groundlessly associate this with Freudian or other psychoanalytic theory.

I wouldn't say groundlessly Hotspur, my inital thoughts when I read this was the work of Otto Rank, one of Freud's inital followers. He developed a theory around the trauma of birth, so it could somehow be connected to that. If I remember correctly that was the start of a break between Rank and Freud. However, I never really read much of Rank so I can't really comment much on it, I did a small bit years ago but to long ago to remember. That's why I was asking in what context was the comment made as there maybe some connection back to Rank's work. However, your right that you couldn't really call it psychoanalysis, but it is conected to it in a historical sense.