Danger in the Womb

Okay. Some researchers have too much time & money on their hands. Dingo urine, that makes sense. This doesn't. There is an article on the BBC website with the title:

Womb environment 'makes men gay'

Now, according to a Canadian study, a man's sexual orientation may be determined by conditions in the womb. Supposedly, previous research has revealed the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay. But the reason for this phenomenon has yet to be discovered.
New research has been published in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, trying to discover this phenomenon. The lead researcher, Anthony Bogaert studied 944 heterosexual and homosexual men with either:

• “biological” brothers - that is share the same mother
• “non-biological” brothers - that is adopted, step or half siblings

Bogaert found a link between the number of older brothers & homosexuality only existed when the siblings shared the same mother. And he found the amount of time the guy spent being raised with older brothers did not affect their sexual orientation. So he writes in the journal:

If rearing or social factors associated with older male siblings underlies the fraternal birth-order effect [the link between the number of older brothers and male homosexuality], then the number of non-biological older brothers should predict men's sexual orientation, but they do not ... These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men

And now to the crux of the article, which had my jaw drop. Bogaert suggests the effect is probably the result of a “maternal memory” in the womb for male births. He suggests a woman's body may see a male fetus as “foreign”, which prompts an immune reaction. This reaction may grow progressively stronger with each male child. The antibodies created might affect the developing brain of a male fetus.

In an accompanying article, scientists from Michigan State University state:

These data strengthen the notion that the common denominator between biological brothers, the mother, provides a prenatal environment that fosters homosexuality in her younger sons. But the question of mechanism remains.

What a complete piece of utter shite! These researchers are getting grant money for this bogus research and publishing it. And even worse, the gay activists jump on this, like Andy Forrest, a spokesman for Stonewall, a gay rights group. He says:

Increasingly, credible evidence appears to indicate that being gay is genetically determined rather than being a so-called lifestyle choice. It adds further weight to the argument that lesbian and gay people should be treated equally in society and not discriminated against for something that's just as inherent as skin colour.

Excluding this piece of shite can't explain lesbians, it does not explain many gay men, including myself. I am the first born. Some gay men I know are not only first born but only children. So there weren't any antibodies in my mother's system when I was conceived.

Also, I feel a thread of misogyny in this study. A male fetus is considered “foreign”. Please, give me a break. But I can see a linkage here that some researchers would use: the Rhesus factor. Something I quite familiar with.

I am O+, my mother is O-. So when I was gestating in her womb, antibodies formed because I was seen as a foreign body. This, in the end, caused any O+ fetuses to be attacked and aborted. My mother lost two children before my sister came about She is O- so the antibodies did nothing. Then there were two more children that were lost because of the Rhesus factor.

So yes, there are physical situations where the mother's system builds antibodies. But antibodies just because the fetus is male? What is it that would cause this reaction? Also, antibodies, from my knowledge, kill the 'foreign' bodies, not affect the bodies. As I just mentioned, my mother lost 4 babies because of the Rhesus factor. So the idea that antibodies ‘changes’ the brain of a fetus sounds just absurd. And, it does not explain a broad spectrum of gay men, let alone gay women.

In some way, I can understand the importance of showing that homosexuality is nature not nurture. For some people, they believe it will mitigate the homophobia out there. For me, that is utter bullcrap.

Homophobia will still exist if it can be proven, without a doubt, being gay is a natural occurrence. We are dealing with an irrational reaction. Prejudice against groups like the Jews or African-Americans are long running and not matter what is said, people still hate them. It isn't going to change with homophobia.

What frustrates me about some of the gay activists is they believe that showing gay is natural and with some education, homophobia will be eliminated. This naive view drives me crazy. There are people out there, doing research, trying to prove black people are inferior because of the size of their cranium. There are people who still hold onto The Protocols of the Elders of Zion even though it has been consistently shown to be a hoax and forgery.

Anti-Semitism has been around for over 2000 years and be it education or discussion, I don't see it changing in the future. It is the same for prejudice against blacks, Muslims, Christians, whatever.

I really like how Elisabeth Young-Bruehl defines prejudice in The Anatomy of Prejudice. She breaks them into three basic categories:

• obsessional,
• hysterical,
• narcissistic.

Obsesssional prejudice, by her definition, sees its objects as omnipresent conspirators or enemies set on one’s destruction. Hysterical prejudice interprets the hated individuals as “other”, as inferior, and as sexually threatening. Those who suffer from narcissistic prejudice cannot tolerate the idea that there exists people who are not like them.

Within these categories, one can see anti-Semitism, racism and sexism. For Young-Bruehl, she argues that homophobia, alone of all prejudices, fits into all of these categories.

Homosexuals are all-purpose “victims”. To many, they are clannish and dangerous, like Jews. They are sexually obsessed and predatory like people of colour. They are like women and therefore are not real men.

Homophobia has take various forms and arise from many sources over the vast time we have been on this planet. Over time, homophobia has been invented, fostered and supported by different agencies of society including religion, government, law and science. It tends to bring out a special venom when people imagine a threat to the security of gender roles, of religious doctrine, or of the state & society. And we shouldn’t forget the sexual safety and health of the individual.

To conclusively show that being gay is in the genes isn’t going to change anything. Being natural is not going to change the argument that it is better that a child be brought up by a man & a woman. Being natural is not going to get rid of the disgust many men have at the thought of gay sex. Being natural is not going to rid of the inherent threat straight guys feel around gay men; believing that the fag beside them is trying to get him into bed.

And education isn’t going to change anything. There are segments of the gay culture that are clannish. There are groups who are sexually obsessed and predatory. There are some that are just like women. And they help reinforce the stereotype and prejudice.

Of course, there are just as many heterosexuals that fit the above categories but they do not fit in the equation. When I bring this up, it is quickly dismissed as irrelevant.

Sorry, if you want to point to the bath-houses, I can point to the places straight people gather to have group-sex and orgies. You cannot point to a gay man who is hitting on a straight man, hoping to get him in the sack without pointing to a straight guy doing the same thing with a woman.

Agreed one of the major stumbling blocks we have is how so many gay people want to define themselves only by the sexuality. This narrow-minded focus hurts any kind of advancement of the average gay man or woman.

Sexuality is an important part of a person, that I do not deny. But the majority of heterosexuals do not see themselves as just heterosexual. There is more to them than just who they fuck. For me, it is the same thing for me.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I am gay. And I am white. I was born left-handed but forced to be right-handed. I am a researcher. I am a writer. I get severe migraines. I will be 49 this year. These things define me as much as who I want to sleep with.

Yes, as a gay man, I would like to have conclusive proof that my sexuality was not a choice. I know it wasn’t. Then I can dismiss any argument thrown at me about being unnatural. But it isn’t going to change anyone’s opinion of who am I. I will still be part of a minority that people spit upon, want to curb my rights and prefer I not talk about my dates.

Research should be unbiased and focused on getting to a truth or solution. It should not be clouded by an agenda. Yet any research, pro or con, on homosexuality is tainted with an agenda. And should be viewed that way.

All I can say to Anthony Bogaert is that your research says nothing about me. And for me, what I have read, it is shite. I know that there were no antibodies in my mother’s system that ‘adjusted’ my brain chemistry.

But I do know, she flew to Canada when she was about 6 months pregnant, to emigrate here. Maybe it was something about the cabin pressure in the airplane. Or the change of climate she encountered. Or the stress moving to a new country.

This is making me wonder. Maybe I have the basis of a research project here. Oh, I could get some grant money for this. If Anthony Bogaert can get money to do his research on a dumb idea, why can’t I?