homosexuality: nature or nurture?

1. December 17, 2013
Philippine history on homosexuality is divided into three eras. In pre-Hispanic era,
homosexuals were termed as Bayoguin, Bayok, Agi-ngin, Asog-bido, and Binabae. They were
labeled as gender crossers more than cross dressers because of their “women-like” actions and
attire. During Spanish period, the term Bayoguin was changed into “Bakla” which means
confused. This is due to gender rationalization and patriarchal society practiced during this time.
“Kabaklaan” in this time can somehow be corrected through whatever persuasive, brutally loving
means. But for the Catholic Church, homosexuality is a form of sodomy. In American regime,
public education and mass media linked sexuality to the perspective of psychological studies.
Homosexuality was then defined as same sex attraction. (Garcia 2004)
Ancient Greeks have also a wealthy history about homosexuality shown from the
dialogues of Plato and through their works of art. Early Greeks believed that gender issue is
more of a preference rather than a moral issue. However, in Rome, homosexuality has a negative
viewpoint due to social and economic turmoil and the Christianity that dominated the empire.
During the fourth and fifth century, Christian view already allowed procreative sex. As time goes
by, the thought of homosexuality became worst that it came to a point that all that commits this
immorality was put to death. By 18th and 19th century, advancement in science laid the discussion
of homosexuality in the field of medicine which accounts sexuality as innate or biologically
driven. This application gave homosexuals credibility and more public exposure. In the 20 th
century, homosexuals eventually became more acceptable in the society. (Pickett 2002)
Arguments were then formed concerning the issues on homosexuality. Essentialist’s
views sexual attraction as an observation rather than a creation. On the other hand, Social
constructionism of McIntosh and Focault states that class relation, human sciences and other
historically constructed forces make sexual categories and identities. Social constructionism
emphasizes that natural sexuality doesn’t exist and all sexual understandings are constructed and
mediated by cultural understandings. (Pickett 2002)
Debates on whether homosexuality is created and influenced by environment or a result
of one’s biology and genetics are still an issue for many sociologists of today. The studies of
Karen Hooker show that there is a zero correlation between social determinism and
homosexuality. The psychological test for biological determinism of Hooker concluded that
homosexuality was neither a mental disorder nor a moral depravity. In 1990 and 1991, the
studies of Swaab, Le Vay, and Allen account that there are structural differences between the
brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals and they concluded that the difference in anatomy was
not a product of environmental influence but rather a prenatal development and structural
differentiation. (Johnson 2003)
Some embryologists believe that premature embryos all start out as female and if
chromosomes of the fetus are meant to be male, the addition of hormone, called androgens, alters
the embryo. Dr. Ward, who is studying on sexual behavior, determines that if the baby carries
“XY” chromosomes (male chromosome) and fated to be a male, testosterone needs to activate
the hypothalamus. This phase of “defemination” is critical for it can affect the baby’s
chromosome on becoming a fully male. (Eden 2011)

2. Sociologist, in contrast, argues that biological view at homosexuality is unjustified. Van
Wyk and Geist found out that intense sexual preferences and feelings of arousal and pleasure or
discomfort associated with those experiences were the strongest precursors of sexual orientation.
Socio-behaviorists argue that if homosexuality is genetically dictated, then homosexual practices
will be identical or similar in all cultures. Sexual dimorphism occurs during puberty and experts
will have a hard time identifying structural differences among homosexual and heterosexual
brains since there may be a substantial overlap. (Whitehead, Whitehead 1999)
Psycho-social development stages displays that heterosexuality is vividly not genetically
mandated. A survey of adult homosexuals show lots of deficits in several of these developmental
stages and suggests that homosexuality is cultural and environmental rather than genetic. Genes
doesn’t determine gender and its influence it only minor in homosexuality cases. Social and
family paths leading to homosexuality are significant than that of genetic paths. (Whitehead,
Whitehead. Revised 2010)
Until now, there is still no solid explanation to what causes homosexuality. Is it a product
of human nature or is it influenced by the environment? According to the book “My Genes Made
Me Do It”, there is no cause to homosexuality. No single genetic, hormonal, social or
environmental factor is predominant. There are similar themes like childhood gender nonconformity, sexual abuse, peer, etc. that makes individual personal responses the single
overriding factor. No matter what leads someone to be a homosexual, it is their choice.
By: cyndecataloctocan

3. References:
1. Pickett, Bren. “Homosexuality”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Spring 2011
edition). Edward N. Zalta (editor). 6 August 2002. Weblog. 21 November 2013.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/#Con
2. Johnson, Ryan D. “Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture”. All Psych Journal. 30 April
2003. 18 November 2013. http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
3. Whitehead, Briar and Niel Whitehead. “Path Analysis: Social Factors do lead to
Sexuality”. My Genes Made Me Do It: A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation.
Lafayette, LA. Huntington House, 1999. 211 -22
4. Eden, Dan. “Homosexuality is Not a Choice”. View Zone. 2011. 21 November 2013.
http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html
5. Garcia, Niel J. “Male Homosexuality in the Philippines: A Short History”. IIAS
Newsletter.
#35.
November
2004.
21
November
2013.
http://www.iias.nl/nl/35/IIAS_NL35_13.pdf
6. Sechrest, Lee and Louis Flores. “Homosexuality in the Philippines and the United States:
The Handwriting on the Wall”. The Journal of Social Psychology. 1969. 21 November
2013. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1969.9922380#preview
7. Martin, A.C. “What it’s Like To Be Gay in the Philippines?” Thought Catalog. 13 june
2013. 21 November 2013. http://thoughtcatalog.com/a-c-martin/2013/06/what-its-like-tobe-gay-in-the-philippines/
8. Starr, Barry. “Understanding Genetics”. The Tech Museum of Innovation. 22 December
2005. Department of Genetics, Stanford School of Medicine. 21 November 2013.
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask368
9. Modi M, Sarna J, Sharma A, Marfatia Y.S. “Homosexuality”. Indian J Sex Transm Dis.
2008.
21
November
2103.
Weblog
Post.
http://www.ijstd.org/text.asp?2008/29/1/54/42723.
10. Lovgren, Stefan. “Sexy Smells Different for Gays”. National Geographic News. 28
October
2010.
21
November
2103.
http://www.news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html