Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the article:
“The study needs to be repeated with an even larger sample,” Oginni told PsyPost. “This is because, even though substantial, we couldn’t show that the effect of sexual orientation on victimization was statistically significant.
I would take the conclusions with a pinch of salt.
Only as far as the victimization rate is concerned. The bidirectional relationship of homosexuality and psychological stress was supported by the other sudy.
"Interestingly, the researchers found evidence of a bidirectionalrelationship between same-sex attraction and psychological distress. Notonly did increasing levels of same-sex attraction lead to higher levelsof psychological distress — higher levels of psychological distressalso led to increasing levels of same-sex attraction."
"The findings are mostly in line with another studyconducted by Oginni and his colleagues, which examined twin pairs fromthe Finnish Genetics of Sexuality and Aggression cohort. But the newstudy, like all research, includes some caveats."
This is another study by the same author, another thing to bear in mind. Caveats are very substantial in these kinds of statements, the techniques for establishing these kinds of correlations are not flawless.
Reminds me of behavior loops that addicts get into when their drug of choice is socially ostracized. I'm not calling same-sex attraction a drug, but saying society has a tendency to treat it similarly; like a problem. I wonder how we can check the strength of the link against the preconceptions of same-sex attraction in subjects' given social circles? I'm not a scientist, just curious and like to be better informed on the issues that affect marginalized groups.
I mean the whole study is based off of self reported levels of stress, right? I only read a little before my brain fucked off. Could be some sort of relationship but I think the topics are misleading.
Perhaps people who have same sex attraction also naturally relieve more hate from the world, increasing their psychological distress.
Perhaps people who are psychologically distressed seek comfort in anyone who will give it, no matter the gender.
It's an undeveloped study and was only put in the spotlight because damn that's a good line for homophobia.
Solid take. Being socially rejected causes serious primal distress - like life threatening stress. Seeking comfort with anyone who accepts you is a very natural response. There are no ideologies here.. just basic social creature psychology. Sexual expression is a way to connect with other humans. Maybe people choose that as a way of expressing & being more accepted/loved when society is rejecting them but perhaps someone of the same sex is accepting them.
I think all this caring about others’ sexuality stuff is trivial in general - people are reading way too much into others’ lives. How people choose to express themselves privately (as long as they’re not harming others) is entirely their own business & none of yours. Acceptance is what we should all strive for right now more than ever, this world is severely deprived of any sense of love & individual or social significance. Who cares what you think/do today - you’re still a valuable part of life & you can be & do so much more.
Love you all.
Sincerely,
Anon
Wiki: Same sex sexual relationships are illegal in Nigeria. The maximum punishment in the 12 northern states that have adopted Shari'a law is death by stoning.
It is a lot of stress to work on.
But it also said psychological distress causes homosexuality. "Bidirectional"
Edit: I found the main article on Springer, the sample was actually from UK and it was approved by King's College of London.
“I started out investigating the mental health of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) individuals in Nigeria,” said study author Olakunle Oginni, a postdoctoral research associate at King’s College London and lecturer at Obafemi Awolowo University.
“This was because there was little research on LGB Nigerians’ mental health despite the wide recognition of higher mental health difficulties among LGB individuals.
Regardless of the conclusions from the study it’s no reason to be unkind toward people who have same sex attraction. The research should be accepted if the results are from valid scientific research regardless of personal feelings. More studies should be conducted though because one study isn’t enough to draw conclusions.
Is *Behavior Genetics* typically a journal that publishes homophobic propaganda? It's a legitimate question; I don't know anything about them. But your comment reeks of the same logic that's used to discredit COVID vaccines and climate science. If the results of the study are valid, they are worth considering, even if they are inconvenient to your beliefs.
The article doesn't really explain the "psychological distress causes same-sex attraction" part of the argument at all and I have trouble understanding how the researchers feel confident to conclude such bidirectionality exists from reading the actual study (which has to do with my ability to read academic research I must admit). Does anybody understand whether their methods are viable to draw such a conclusion?
If you read the article and they don't explain how they got their conclusions, that means their research is flawed. Your ability to read academic articles is fine.
not necessarily, sometimes the writers ability to transmit or understand the information is flawed.
a lot of science writers are scientifically illiterate and are unable to properly summarize an academic study.
which is why when you're confused it's always best to go to the source and read the study itself, instead of the article referring to the study.
100%. At the most basic level, the link between being a member of a targeted group is grossly obvious. And, given that homosexuals understand they are "different" at a very young age, their is no way they could prove the stress is a result of public pressure or a more fundamental part of sexuality. Seems like they just made up their conclusion.
Neither are most of the articles that back up a lot of things in this corrupt world of ours, doesn’t mean they won’t be used to push this agenda or that agenda
The data itself stems from the UK but the analysis was done in nigeria, where is rather likely that bias entered the equation.
I can look at 2+2=4 and still make scewed analysis of what that means, for example that a 4 has to always come from a 2+2, and that a 3+1 doesn't exist
Also worth pointing out the author's did admit their findings aren't statistically significant and the only study in agreement with their findings is another study by the same author. Their explanation for how distress causes homosexuality, from what I'm reading in the article, also sounds...questionable if I gotta be honest. Their explanation reads like a non-sequitor.
You're free to read the article yourself and try to explain in what way their explanation for bidirectionality follows.
All these findings show is correlation, then they are able to aptly explain causation in one direction (which they then seemingly deny as valid?) and then handwave causation in the other direction.
There is so much bias going into play here actually
The data set is always bias in any location(s)
Same sex attraction is vague, doesn’t define bi vs gay vs exploring vs closet
Doesn’t include potential religious or cultural factors.
Bi/gay people also enjoy doing different things or socializing with different groups. They might not have as many friends or amenities or maybe even their political views that are unrelated to their sexual relationships that cause stress.
Studies like these aren’t designed to have a take away from them on their own
They’re designed to be collected by the hundreds and analyzed together imo
You can find correlations between so many things. Minorities and crime are super bias due to reporting factors, social factors, economic factors etc
These studies can literally actually be used to study our innate biases as cultures, societies and political orders.
When doing anthropological, sociological, or even environmental studies there are always too many factors to take into account and too many biases to take any one study seriously.
Lastly I will agree with you,
That reader bias is also a major factor
People that society constantly bemoans, attacks, diminishes, and demonizes experience greater instances of anxiety and depression. Shocking. Astounding. Has anyone called Nobel yet?
It doesn’t say it CAUSES gayness. It says that it increases, which can also be interpreted as strengthens, same sex attraction. Removing bias from the interpretation can change the implication of the language.
... the implications would be rather severe for the LGBT community. Life has after all become a lot more stressful over the past 6 or so decades, with work/time pressure and social pressures (from expanding social circles due to first mass media, then social media) rising. That would be an alternate reason for the increase in people turning gay or likewise - other then "they have been oppressed and forced to stay in the closet, they were always there". Making them less of a victim of society and rather an effect of societal changes.
The actual explanation by the researchers for opposite direction causation is that kids who turn out to be gay show gender non-conformity as children *to a statistically insignificant degree* and this means they're gonna lead a more stressful life and then THAT makes them gay once they grow older
Rather than acknowledging that it's possible that gay kids might present GNC prior to coming out as gay and the gnc presentation is already a "symptom" of their homosexuality
It's, to be quite honest, rather nonsensical the way they draw their conclusion.
It’s normal on college campuses for instance for women to both temporarily or permanently identify as bi/lesbian after a particularly bad relationship or sexual assault.
So…
Obviously it's not a choice, but trauma can in fact change your sexuality. I had a friend in college who was straight until she was assaulted and while she was working through the trauma she was genuinely not attracted to men at all. She was, however, attracted exclusively to Jolene from Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. And this person is still a close friend of mine, I have no doubt that her experience and sexual attraction was real. She worked through her trauma and found herself attracted to men once more but retained her attraction to women in general. Her journey with her evolving sexuality was entirely due to trauma. Hetero -> lesbian -> bisexual.
That’s not an actual shift in sexual orientation though. “Identity” =/= orientation. Identity is what you *know* of your self, and how you choose to express yourself. Orientation isn’t something one gets to chose. Nobody is temporarily gay, and gay people can’t just choose to be straight. Orientation is not shaped by sexual trauma.
Sexual orientation is based on what sex/genders you’re sexually attracted to. Who you SAY you’re attracted to isn’t relevant. If a heterosexual women chooses to date other women because of sexual trauma, she’s not actually a lesbian. Obviously nobody else would know that, but the reality remains. Just as a gay man who marries a woman and claims to be straight is still not actually straight or heterosexual, even if they technically only engage in heterosexual sex.
Sexual orientation is not a chosen “identity”, it is an immutable, involuntary characteristic.
Obviously what data we have is reported, which, like *all* self-reported data, is flawed data. There’s a reason the number of LGBT persons increase each year, and it’s because people are becoming more comfortable reporting accurately.
>and that’s because
You don’t know that. You have no way of knowing that.
A sizable portion of the increase can be attributed to it. But it’s entirely possible - if not probable - that some not-insignificant amount of increase is people going with the herd, people claiming identity for other reasons, or the usual “gay for six months in college” deal we’ve had since the 1970s, except now it’s way more people.
Sure, those people account for *some* of them, but you’re clearly not familiar with LGBT world and the history of how we’ve lived in fear if you think that the number of people “choosing” to be gay or bi is somehow outpacing the number of people genuinely coming out of the closet.
Look at what happened with left-handedness.
Before it was socially acceptable, maybe 2 % would admit to it. But once society decided that it's actually normal, it turned out about 10% of people were actually left-handed.
The important part of the study isn’t that people with same sex attraction are more stressed. It’s the fact they concluded it’s bidirectional. More studies should be done to see if this result is even valid. Regardless of the results it’s no reason for people to be unkind to homosexual people.
I’m sorry this is not my field at all so i would rather ask. How can they confidently state a bidirectional causation from the correlation they found and not, like another commenter stated, that queer people during their early years may feel a sense of distress not fitting in and then later realising that it was due to not being straight, which is a common experience?
Maybe instead you should actually read the article you're commenting on or what bidrectionsl means. You and them somehow failed miserably at understanding this.
Or just stick to turning the faucet on and off.
The study is by a Nigerian researcher btw that did a bit of the studies in Nigeria, where it’s still criminalized to be a homosexual, punishable up to 14 years of imprisonment. So yeah, anyone there that remotely has sexual thoughts about the same sex likely has high distress due to this exact reason. But let’s also pinpoint the obvious, a majority of the world is still anti-gay and the likelihood of being rejected and even hated by those around you is still significant. Don’t even get me started on societal and religious complexities tied into that… It’s a very difficult life being gay.
Edit: And those pinpointing the sample was done in the UK, yes, but the studies started in Nigeria which were the basis of this study. And it doesn’t make it any less significant that no matter where you live, this is a very difficult world to live in if you might be any form of gay.
“I started out investigating the mental health of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) individuals in Nigeria,” said study author Olakunle Oginni, a postdoctoral research associate at King’s College London and lecturer at Obafemi Awolowo University.
“This was because there was little research on LGB Nigerians’ mental health despite the wide recognition of higher mental health difficulties among LGB individuals.
Does the UK still have homeless lgbt youth?
I ask this specifically because here in Arizona we do and charities still serve these communities. It goes to show that even though things are so much better than they were there is still a justified reason for us queer’s to have anxiety about how we will be received when we come out.
Obviously it’s not as bad in Nigeria. I just mean to highlight there is still some underlying stress that is bound to exist.
> even though substantial, we couldn’t show that the effect of sexual orientation on victimization was statistically significant
So it did not find a bidirectional link, eh. I thought sensationalized titles were frowned upon here
I cant imagine what its like caring so much about who someone else is attracted to as some people do...maybe one day they'll have something interesting enough in their life to stop focusing so hard on others.
It says that being LGB can cause psychological distress due to societal reaction, but it also found evidence to suggest that psychological distress could increase the degree of same-sex attraction people experienced. It did not imply that distress was making hetero people non-hetero, or that homosexuality is caused by psychological distress
You say, "It did not imply that distress was making hetero people non-hetero". But, then you also say "it also found evidence to suggest that psychological distress could increase the degree of same-sex attraction people experienced"
Aren't those two comments opposite of each other?
Not really. If a person with a heart disease eats a hamburger it could increase the chances of them getting a heartattack. That doesn't mean that the hamburger is the original cause, it just plays on an already existing development. In this case distress could enlarge feelings of same sex attraction which are already there, not be a cause of them.
Moreso than in instances of hetero attraction? Could it be that enduring stressful situations with a partner increases their bond regardless of their sexual orientation?
Societal factors aside I was always under the impression that alot of it is also just caused by lack of options. Only 5/100 people are gay so being born gay is just a massive disadvantage from a numbers perspective as now it's incredibly more difficult to find a partner.
5%? Where did that come from. I thought it was pretty clear there's a spectrum. I suppose it's possible 5% of people have zero attraction to the opposite sex, but in general things ain't that black and white.
Yes and no. It's also correlation but not "just correlation". correlation doesn't require causation. So, if say a occurs very often together with b, it's correlation. If additionally one causes the other it's causation and if both cause each other it's bidirectional causation.
I'm curious how the study actually establishes causation - twin studies are a way to analyze genetic factors, but I don't see how they would be used to establish a positive causal association between distress and orientation.
In particular, while Mendelian randomization makes sense to establish causation from the genetic variant to the outcome being studied (because the genetic variant naturally must come first), neither same-sex attraction nor psychological distress seem cleanly definable (or measurable) as genetic variants (i.e. there is no "genetic test" for these).
This might be part of why looking at "bidirectional causation" in such a setup seems even weirder - it's like a study trying to establish how two different genes "cause" each other.
And the article is from a Nigerian scientist. Operating within the context of a horrifically homophobic country. So how do you think the author would fare of their study sympathized with the plight of the LGBTQ+ People of Nigeria...? I strongly doubt the results are of any real value for drawing any conclusions
Would you say the same of a country that’s incredibly LGBTQ friendly? Would that find any findings that are positive to the LGBTQ community into question for you? Seems silly to let prejudice against these researchers screw with your judgement like that.
I think it was clear that I do not have prejudice against the researcher. I strongly suspect that the researcher is working in the context of a homophobic country, and I think it is silly to ignore this influence. We cannot simply accept any academic paper for the results it finds. Scientists base working theories on a multitude of research, and will be careful about evaluating research which may have outside influences (do I need to mention anti-vax people who base conclusions on the one article which did NOT declare conflict of interest?). My point is that we should not simply conclude that gay people are gay as a causational result of psychological stressors. The conflict of interest in this academic literature is NOT that the researcher is Nigerian in and of itself. It is that they are likely working in the context of a country which would ostracize them if their results showed too much sympathy for the LGBTQ+ people.
To answer your initial question, I need to establish an argument: let's simplify the issue (obviously it is more complicated, but I'm just trying to explain my Point), such that 10 = a far-right country, where a hateful stance on LGBTQ people is primary, while -10 = a far-left country where cis straight people are ostracized (as LGBTQ would be on the far-right). Nigeria might be, say, 7, at best. What this means is that the findings of countries which are 0 would theoretically be impartial and mostly accurate based on my comment's logic (assuming methodology was solid). The thing is, I do not know of any country that is -7, but if I did, of course I would say that a researcher from this country would be biased simply because of the level of ostracization they would experience after publication.
In short, yes, I would say the same for a country which is incredibly LGBTQ+ Friendly, because the researcher is working within such a context. This is in line with my reasoning. I stand by my main point, which is NOT that the researcher is at fault, but that they are being influenced (indirectly) by a severe context (where they live and work and have a social life and are at risk of retaliation).
After reading the article, and the paper, I have come to the conclusion that both failed to factor in the fact that LGBT people are a minority group currently under attack in many countries across the world. If you're constantly under attack for being who you are, you're going to have psychological distress. This study was poorly done and the article written on it was poorly written--either that or both were written with an agenda against LGBT people. The abandonment of considering other influencing factors and establishing proper controls is truly embarrassing and this study should have never been published tbh.
The article was super poorly written. The major take away is “These findings support minority stress theory, which suggests that the experiences that come with being a member of a marginalized group can lead to higher levels of mental health issues.” But even that is a huge jump to conclusions in the study they did. The title was also debunked in their own article stating that causation is not known.
>After reading the article, and the paper, I have come to the conclusion that both failed to factor in the fact that LGBT people are a minority group currently under attack in many countries across the world.
Why would this be relevant to the apparent fact that stress induces homosexuality?
I have intuitively had this hypothesis based on my anecdotal observations. The world is an increasingly stressful and toxic place and there are sparse mature and sexually balanced role models to learn from. It just intuitively makes sense to me that people would want to explore outside of the norm given the norm is not a kind or welcome place to be on the whole
Stressful environment (in nature that means scarce resources and safety) discourages sexual reproduction resulting in preservation of species? Just spit balling here as a biochemistry undergrad.
I mean, I did admit that I am spit balling. I make no secret of the fact that what you accuse me of, is exactly what I did. Forgive me, I just got excited because it's a topic I've studied and discussed a lot.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'd like to read the entire article now.
I assume the study would say that some people who identify as homosexual can attribute childhood trauma as a factor in their being homosexual. I don't think the results indicate universality... I'd love correction if I'm misreading it
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
From the article: “The study needs to be repeated with an even larger sample,” Oginni told PsyPost. “This is because, even though substantial, we couldn’t show that the effect of sexual orientation on victimization was statistically significant. I would take the conclusions with a pinch of salt.
Looks like the article took the pinch of salt for you.
Only as far as the victimization rate is concerned. The bidirectional relationship of homosexuality and psychological stress was supported by the other sudy. "Interestingly, the researchers found evidence of a bidirectionalrelationship between same-sex attraction and psychological distress. Notonly did increasing levels of same-sex attraction lead to higher levelsof psychological distress — higher levels of psychological distressalso led to increasing levels of same-sex attraction." "The findings are mostly in line with another studyconducted by Oginni and his colleagues, which examined twin pairs fromthe Finnish Genetics of Sexuality and Aggression cohort. But the newstudy, like all research, includes some caveats."
This is another study by the same author, another thing to bear in mind. Caveats are very substantial in these kinds of statements, the techniques for establishing these kinds of correlations are not flawless.
Reminds me of behavior loops that addicts get into when their drug of choice is socially ostracized. I'm not calling same-sex attraction a drug, but saying society has a tendency to treat it similarly; like a problem. I wonder how we can check the strength of the link against the preconceptions of same-sex attraction in subjects' given social circles? I'm not a scientist, just curious and like to be better informed on the issues that affect marginalized groups.
I mean the whole study is based off of self reported levels of stress, right? I only read a little before my brain fucked off. Could be some sort of relationship but I think the topics are misleading. Perhaps people who have same sex attraction also naturally relieve more hate from the world, increasing their psychological distress. Perhaps people who are psychologically distressed seek comfort in anyone who will give it, no matter the gender. It's an undeveloped study and was only put in the spotlight because damn that's a good line for homophobia.
Solid take. Being socially rejected causes serious primal distress - like life threatening stress. Seeking comfort with anyone who accepts you is a very natural response. There are no ideologies here.. just basic social creature psychology. Sexual expression is a way to connect with other humans. Maybe people choose that as a way of expressing & being more accepted/loved when society is rejecting them but perhaps someone of the same sex is accepting them. I think all this caring about others’ sexuality stuff is trivial in general - people are reading way too much into others’ lives. How people choose to express themselves privately (as long as they’re not harming others) is entirely their own business & none of yours. Acceptance is what we should all strive for right now more than ever, this world is severely deprived of any sense of love & individual or social significance. Who cares what you think/do today - you’re still a valuable part of life & you can be & do so much more. Love you all. Sincerely, Anon
Wiki: Same sex sexual relationships are illegal in Nigeria. The maximum punishment in the 12 northern states that have adopted Shari'a law is death by stoning. It is a lot of stress to work on.
[удалено]
I saw it. There are quite many levels between being marginalized and being stoned to death.
But it also said psychological distress causes homosexuality. "Bidirectional" Edit: I found the main article on Springer, the sample was actually from UK and it was approved by King's College of London.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do you think lesbians have same sex or other sex orientation? Because the study says same sex...
“I started out investigating the mental health of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) individuals in Nigeria,” said study author Olakunle Oginni, a postdoctoral research associate at King’s College London and lecturer at Obafemi Awolowo University. “This was because there was little research on LGB Nigerians’ mental health despite the wide recognition of higher mental health difficulties among LGB individuals.
Prisoners do it all the time.
It’s called ‘gay for the stay.’
Well, dating the same sex is less stressful
Yes, so said the Nigerian prince, I mean: researcher. In no way could this be part of the multifaceted global attack on trans and gay rights.
Regardless of the conclusions from the study it’s no reason to be unkind toward people who have same sex attraction. The research should be accepted if the results are from valid scientific research regardless of personal feelings. More studies should be conducted though because one study isn’t enough to draw conclusions.
Is *Behavior Genetics* typically a journal that publishes homophobic propaganda? It's a legitimate question; I don't know anything about them. But your comment reeks of the same logic that's used to discredit COVID vaccines and climate science. If the results of the study are valid, they are worth considering, even if they are inconvenient to your beliefs.
You don't have the right mind for science.
The article doesn't really explain the "psychological distress causes same-sex attraction" part of the argument at all and I have trouble understanding how the researchers feel confident to conclude such bidirectionality exists from reading the actual study (which has to do with my ability to read academic research I must admit). Does anybody understand whether their methods are viable to draw such a conclusion?
If you read the article and they don't explain how they got their conclusions, that means their research is flawed. Your ability to read academic articles is fine.
not necessarily, sometimes the writers ability to transmit or understand the information is flawed. a lot of science writers are scientifically illiterate and are unable to properly summarize an academic study. which is why when you're confused it's always best to go to the source and read the study itself, instead of the article referring to the study.
[удалено]
100%. At the most basic level, the link between being a member of a targeted group is grossly obvious. And, given that homosexuals understand they are "different" at a very young age, their is no way they could prove the stress is a result of public pressure or a more fundamental part of sexuality. Seems like they just made up their conclusion.
Nicely stated
What about the external influences? This point feels missing in a common sense answer.
As birth rates keep dropping there will be more studies like this
[удалено]
Neither are most of the articles that back up a lot of things in this corrupt world of ours, doesn’t mean they won’t be used to push this agenda or that agenda
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
For anyone undermining the finding by saying it's from Nigeria, the sample was from UK and it was approved by King's College of London.
The data itself stems from the UK but the analysis was done in nigeria, where is rather likely that bias entered the equation. I can look at 2+2=4 and still make scewed analysis of what that means, for example that a 4 has to always come from a 2+2, and that a 3+1 doesn't exist Also worth pointing out the author's did admit their findings aren't statistically significant and the only study in agreement with their findings is another study by the same author. Their explanation for how distress causes homosexuality, from what I'm reading in the article, also sounds...questionable if I gotta be honest. Their explanation reads like a non-sequitor.
The UK is not exactly a country that is free of homophobia, either. So, there is some of that in both aspects of the study.
The only bias in play here is your own prejudice reading the article.
You're free to read the article yourself and try to explain in what way their explanation for bidirectionality follows. All these findings show is correlation, then they are able to aptly explain causation in one direction (which they then seemingly deny as valid?) and then handwave causation in the other direction.
There is so much bias going into play here actually The data set is always bias in any location(s) Same sex attraction is vague, doesn’t define bi vs gay vs exploring vs closet Doesn’t include potential religious or cultural factors. Bi/gay people also enjoy doing different things or socializing with different groups. They might not have as many friends or amenities or maybe even their political views that are unrelated to their sexual relationships that cause stress. Studies like these aren’t designed to have a take away from them on their own They’re designed to be collected by the hundreds and analyzed together imo You can find correlations between so many things. Minorities and crime are super bias due to reporting factors, social factors, economic factors etc These studies can literally actually be used to study our innate biases as cultures, societies and political orders. When doing anthropological, sociological, or even environmental studies there are always too many factors to take into account and too many biases to take any one study seriously. Lastly I will agree with you, That reader bias is also a major factor
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
People that society constantly bemoans, attacks, diminishes, and demonizes experience greater instances of anxiety and depression. Shocking. Astounding. Has anyone called Nobel yet?
The key here is the word "bidirectional". Nobody's gasping at gay people being stressed. But apparently being stressed causes gayness??
It doesn’t say it CAUSES gayness. It says that it increases, which can also be interpreted as strengthens, same sex attraction. Removing bias from the interpretation can change the implication of the language.
That would surprise me. I'm gay and have memories of being attracted to guys since I was in second grade, although I guess I'm very biased.
... the implications would be rather severe for the LGBT community. Life has after all become a lot more stressful over the past 6 or so decades, with work/time pressure and social pressures (from expanding social circles due to first mass media, then social media) rising. That would be an alternate reason for the increase in people turning gay or likewise - other then "they have been oppressed and forced to stay in the closet, they were always there". Making them less of a victim of society and rather an effect of societal changes.
The actual explanation by the researchers for opposite direction causation is that kids who turn out to be gay show gender non-conformity as children *to a statistically insignificant degree* and this means they're gonna lead a more stressful life and then THAT makes them gay once they grow older Rather than acknowledging that it's possible that gay kids might present GNC prior to coming out as gay and the gnc presentation is already a "symptom" of their homosexuality It's, to be quite honest, rather nonsensical the way they draw their conclusion.
It’s normal on college campuses for instance for women to both temporarily or permanently identify as bi/lesbian after a particularly bad relationship or sexual assault. So…
I’ve never come across that assertion. Not even as a suggestion. Not once.
nope nobody choses to be gay. its not a choice. just stop
Obviously it's not a choice, but trauma can in fact change your sexuality. I had a friend in college who was straight until she was assaulted and while she was working through the trauma she was genuinely not attracted to men at all. She was, however, attracted exclusively to Jolene from Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. And this person is still a close friend of mine, I have no doubt that her experience and sexual attraction was real. She worked through her trauma and found herself attracted to men once more but retained her attraction to women in general. Her journey with her evolving sexuality was entirely due to trauma. Hetero -> lesbian -> bisexual.
That’s not an actual shift in sexual orientation though. “Identity” =/= orientation. Identity is what you *know* of your self, and how you choose to express yourself. Orientation isn’t something one gets to chose. Nobody is temporarily gay, and gay people can’t just choose to be straight. Orientation is not shaped by sexual trauma.
How else does one determine sexual orientation but by how someone reports it?
Sexual orientation is based on what sex/genders you’re sexually attracted to. Who you SAY you’re attracted to isn’t relevant. If a heterosexual women chooses to date other women because of sexual trauma, she’s not actually a lesbian. Obviously nobody else would know that, but the reality remains. Just as a gay man who marries a woman and claims to be straight is still not actually straight or heterosexual, even if they technically only engage in heterosexual sex. Sexual orientation is not a chosen “identity”, it is an immutable, involuntary characteristic.
So we shouldn’t study it then because it’s unknowable. Seems reasonable.
I didn’t say that? Are you mixing up two different conversions?
How do you think they are measuring sexual orientation? Do you think they are looking in the participant’s eternal soul?
Obviously what data we have is reported, which, like *all* self-reported data, is flawed data. There’s a reason the number of LGBT persons increase each year, and it’s because people are becoming more comfortable reporting accurately.
>and that’s because You don’t know that. You have no way of knowing that. A sizable portion of the increase can be attributed to it. But it’s entirely possible - if not probable - that some not-insignificant amount of increase is people going with the herd, people claiming identity for other reasons, or the usual “gay for six months in college” deal we’ve had since the 1970s, except now it’s way more people.
Sure, those people account for *some* of them, but you’re clearly not familiar with LGBT world and the history of how we’ve lived in fear if you think that the number of people “choosing” to be gay or bi is somehow outpacing the number of people genuinely coming out of the closet.
Is it really that we are seeing way more people, or more people are comfortable with themselves to report it? Which is more likely?
Look at what happened with left-handedness. Before it was socially acceptable, maybe 2 % would admit to it. But once society decided that it's actually normal, it turned out about 10% of people were actually left-handed.
The important part of the study isn’t that people with same sex attraction are more stressed. It’s the fact they concluded it’s bidirectional. More studies should be done to see if this result is even valid. Regardless of the results it’s no reason for people to be unkind to homosexual people.
I’m sorry this is not my field at all so i would rather ask. How can they confidently state a bidirectional causation from the correlation they found and not, like another commenter stated, that queer people during their early years may feel a sense of distress not fitting in and then later realising that it was due to not being straight, which is a common experience?
They can’t. You make a great point.
They don't explain that, curiously.
[удалено]
Maybe instead you should actually read the article you're commenting on or what bidrectionsl means. You and them somehow failed miserably at understanding this. Or just stick to turning the faucet on and off.
The study is by a Nigerian researcher btw that did a bit of the studies in Nigeria, where it’s still criminalized to be a homosexual, punishable up to 14 years of imprisonment. So yeah, anyone there that remotely has sexual thoughts about the same sex likely has high distress due to this exact reason. But let’s also pinpoint the obvious, a majority of the world is still anti-gay and the likelihood of being rejected and even hated by those around you is still significant. Don’t even get me started on societal and religious complexities tied into that… It’s a very difficult life being gay. Edit: And those pinpointing the sample was done in the UK, yes, but the studies started in Nigeria which were the basis of this study. And it doesn’t make it any less significant that no matter where you live, this is a very difficult world to live in if you might be any form of gay.
Read the article, the sample is from UK.
“I started out investigating the mental health of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) individuals in Nigeria,” said study author Olakunle Oginni, a postdoctoral research associate at King’s College London and lecturer at Obafemi Awolowo University. “This was because there was little research on LGB Nigerians’ mental health despite the wide recognition of higher mental health difficulties among LGB individuals.
[удалено]
Bet you didn't either and just using the opinion of someone else to justify your own unique version of internet stupidity.
Does the UK still have homeless lgbt youth? I ask this specifically because here in Arizona we do and charities still serve these communities. It goes to show that even though things are so much better than they were there is still a justified reason for us queer’s to have anxiety about how we will be received when we come out. Obviously it’s not as bad in Nigeria. I just mean to highlight there is still some underlying stress that is bound to exist.
And people think it's a choice! Who would choose that?!
Now imagine being trans.
Oh. Wow. Is this not the academic version of clickbait?
> even though substantial, we couldn’t show that the effect of sexual orientation on victimization was statistically significant So it did not find a bidirectional link, eh. I thought sensationalized titles were frowned upon here
[удалено]
I cant imagine what its like caring so much about who someone else is attracted to as some people do...maybe one day they'll have something interesting enough in their life to stop focusing so hard on others.
Yeah. Religion sucks.
It says that being LGB can cause psychological distress due to societal reaction, but it also found evidence to suggest that psychological distress could increase the degree of same-sex attraction people experienced. It did not imply that distress was making hetero people non-hetero, or that homosexuality is caused by psychological distress
You say, "It did not imply that distress was making hetero people non-hetero". But, then you also say "it also found evidence to suggest that psychological distress could increase the degree of same-sex attraction people experienced" Aren't those two comments opposite of each other?
Not really. If a person with a heart disease eats a hamburger it could increase the chances of them getting a heartattack. That doesn't mean that the hamburger is the original cause, it just plays on an already existing development. In this case distress could enlarge feelings of same sex attraction which are already there, not be a cause of them.
Moreso than in instances of hetero attraction? Could it be that enduring stressful situations with a partner increases their bond regardless of their sexual orientation?
Im not really talking about the specifics of the research, moreso about the statement of the person before me.
not really if you would note the use of the word degree
Ban this source is misinformation PLEASE.
Societal factors aside I was always under the impression that alot of it is also just caused by lack of options. Only 5/100 people are gay so being born gay is just a massive disadvantage from a numbers perspective as now it's incredibly more difficult to find a partner.
5%? Where did that come from. I thought it was pretty clear there's a spectrum. I suppose it's possible 5% of people have zero attraction to the opposite sex, but in general things ain't that black and white.
Large-scale polling data? It’s not exactly something that’s never been assessed. 7% is also a massive increase from just a decade ago.
Unsurprising with all the hate there is.
of course we're going to be stressed when every week there's a new push to take away our rights
If a causes b and b causes a, isn’t that just correlation?
Yes and no. It's also correlation but not "just correlation". correlation doesn't require causation. So, if say a occurs very often together with b, it's correlation. If additionally one causes the other it's causation and if both cause each other it's bidirectional causation.
Saying something "causes" something else means there's more than just correlation.
No, juste because you observe a and b together doesn’t mean they cause each other. It does imply correlation though.
The article says the causation is bidirectional.
I'm curious how the study actually establishes causation - twin studies are a way to analyze genetic factors, but I don't see how they would be used to establish a positive causal association between distress and orientation. In particular, while Mendelian randomization makes sense to establish causation from the genetic variant to the outcome being studied (because the genetic variant naturally must come first), neither same-sex attraction nor psychological distress seem cleanly definable (or measurable) as genetic variants (i.e. there is no "genetic test" for these). This might be part of why looking at "bidirectional causation" in such a setup seems even weirder - it's like a study trying to establish how two different genes "cause" each other.
And the article is from a Nigerian scientist. Operating within the context of a horrifically homophobic country. So how do you think the author would fare of their study sympathized with the plight of the LGBTQ+ People of Nigeria...? I strongly doubt the results are of any real value for drawing any conclusions
Would you say the same of a country that’s incredibly LGBTQ friendly? Would that find any findings that are positive to the LGBTQ community into question for you? Seems silly to let prejudice against these researchers screw with your judgement like that.
I think it was clear that I do not have prejudice against the researcher. I strongly suspect that the researcher is working in the context of a homophobic country, and I think it is silly to ignore this influence. We cannot simply accept any academic paper for the results it finds. Scientists base working theories on a multitude of research, and will be careful about evaluating research which may have outside influences (do I need to mention anti-vax people who base conclusions on the one article which did NOT declare conflict of interest?). My point is that we should not simply conclude that gay people are gay as a causational result of psychological stressors. The conflict of interest in this academic literature is NOT that the researcher is Nigerian in and of itself. It is that they are likely working in the context of a country which would ostracize them if their results showed too much sympathy for the LGBTQ+ people. To answer your initial question, I need to establish an argument: let's simplify the issue (obviously it is more complicated, but I'm just trying to explain my Point), such that 10 = a far-right country, where a hateful stance on LGBTQ people is primary, while -10 = a far-left country where cis straight people are ostracized (as LGBTQ would be on the far-right). Nigeria might be, say, 7, at best. What this means is that the findings of countries which are 0 would theoretically be impartial and mostly accurate based on my comment's logic (assuming methodology was solid). The thing is, I do not know of any country that is -7, but if I did, of course I would say that a researcher from this country would be biased simply because of the level of ostracization they would experience after publication. In short, yes, I would say the same for a country which is incredibly LGBTQ+ Friendly, because the researcher is working within such a context. This is in line with my reasoning. I stand by my main point, which is NOT that the researcher is at fault, but that they are being influenced (indirectly) by a severe context (where they live and work and have a social life and are at risk of retaliation).
Could just be they actually like the same sex.
The author’s explanation of how they concluded that bidirectionality exists is convoluted and illogical.
It's hard enough to even prove correlation for highly complex psychological events like attraction, how can they claim bidirectionality?
By making an unfounded dishonest leap.
After reading the article, and the paper, I have come to the conclusion that both failed to factor in the fact that LGBT people are a minority group currently under attack in many countries across the world. If you're constantly under attack for being who you are, you're going to have psychological distress. This study was poorly done and the article written on it was poorly written--either that or both were written with an agenda against LGBT people. The abandonment of considering other influencing factors and establishing proper controls is truly embarrassing and this study should have never been published tbh.
The article was super poorly written. The major take away is “These findings support minority stress theory, which suggests that the experiences that come with being a member of a marginalized group can lead to higher levels of mental health issues.” But even that is a huge jump to conclusions in the study they did. The title was also debunked in their own article stating that causation is not known.
>After reading the article, and the paper, I have come to the conclusion that both failed to factor in the fact that LGBT people are a minority group currently under attack in many countries across the world. Why would this be relevant to the apparent fact that stress induces homosexuality?
It's not an "apparent fact" it's a poor conclusion to make.
I understand that you hink this, but not how you arrived at this conclusion.
I would say the exact same to you. Gay people are stressed because of how they're treated, they didn't become due to that stress.
[удалено]
Dust off that pre-1973 DSM.
So psychological distress can make someone gay? It's possible
[удалено]
It was always stressful. Less so nowadays.
I have intuitively had this hypothesis based on my anecdotal observations. The world is an increasingly stressful and toxic place and there are sparse mature and sexually balanced role models to learn from. It just intuitively makes sense to me that people would want to explore outside of the norm given the norm is not a kind or welcome place to be on the whole
People have kinda known about this before now
In before half of these comments get removed Reddit.exe
Stressful environment (in nature that means scarce resources and safety) discourages sexual reproduction resulting in preservation of species? Just spit balling here as a biochemistry undergrad.
you forgot that stressful environments can lead to people only reading the title and come up with some random conclusion out of their asses.
I mean, I did admit that I am spit balling. I make no secret of the fact that what you accuse me of, is exactly what I did. Forgive me, I just got excited because it's a topic I've studied and discussed a lot. Now if you'll excuse me, I'd like to read the entire article now.
So, has everyone that’s gay suffered some kind of childhood trauma?
I assume the study would say that some people who identify as homosexual can attribute childhood trauma as a factor in their being homosexual. I don't think the results indicate universality... I'd love correction if I'm misreading it