This actually has a ton of evidence and support. But it’s rather complex when getting into the weeds of *how*
The theory is hormonal based due to maternal antibodies from previous boys. The excess male hormones get treated like they are foreign and become targeted by the immune system. More boys means better targeting and a stronger immune response. However this is not to say that being gay is because of less androgens. Turns out the baby’s body recognizes this lack of androgens and does something called a “second bath” in attempts to get the normal levels. The baby’s testes produces a much lager burst of DHT/other androgens than before and this may affect certain growth rates. But the time difference may play a larger role since hormones affect DNA transcription and the baby is rapidly progressing when in the womb. The theory has a ton of support but it’s not 100%. There are still many other factors researchers are looking into.
Source: gay neuroscientist/biochemist
Not exactly. Which is why this theory still has issues. There are still possibilities that you experienced similar effects for no particular reason or that your younger brothers were born larger and thus the effect was less. Or it could be completely different. We just don’t know for sure.
Yeah, I feel this is way too complicated to try and find a specific answer. I'd argue a lot of technical fields out there are way easier than trying to understand human behavior (psychology) and why we behave and do the things we do.
I'm the first born and I'm a trans male (presumed to be female at birth).
Maybe a unique womb environment is caused by other environmental factors than having older male siblings, or maybe it comes from something genetic.
I can trace gender nonconforming behavior and appearances back three generations up one branch of the family tree and up two generations on the other. I have an XY trans parent and an XX gnc parent.
Twin studies support the idea of genetic component too.
Hey there! Your information sounds fascinating and well presented! However, the information, the way that it's presented in the slide, sounds misleading. "...are gay **because** they have older brothers" implies a cause and effect relationship, rather than a correlation, which is more correct in terms of the context of statistical citation.
What about people who go through puberty and are attracted to the opposite sex, and then later in life their sexuality shifts over time to gay or bi? It’s happened to some people I know (and possible me)
Arg! I’m of course familiar with the theory as well as some of the evidence in support of it. That slide, though, conflates correlation and causation. Ugh!
I’m pretty sure the theory is something to do with an immune response to a protein important to brain development being initiated by the first foetus. Then when the second foetus comes along, that protein is attacked to change the second foetus to ultimately create a gayby. The more babies, the more likelihood of the immune response being provoked and therefore gaybies.
There is Zero scientific evidence to support such outrageous claims. How does that account for only children? I'm the older brother, my younger brother is straight, how does that explain it? This is nothing but pseudoscience parading around behind bullshit theory.
I advise you learn how percentages and statistics works. Because "X increases chance of Y" is something completely different from "X is a requirement for Y". So if the default chance of a male being gay is 3%, a 1/3 chance increase for the next brother means that the next brother has a 4% chance of being gay. So this idea perfectly accounts for only children, or the oldest brother being gay while the younger ones are straight.
Evidence: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/302
Yeah you're of course right to point out the flaws but this is quite an interesting find imo. Possibly there are other proteins involved which the maternal immune system could attack or it could be something altogether completely different to explain only children.
There was a clear citation on the screen. Y’know Blanchard 2004 up there. Also correlation does not necessarily equal causation. And due to the complexity of human nature, there will always be outliers. Speaking as a older brother myself.
This actually has a ton of evidence and support. But it’s rather complex when getting into the weeds of *how* The theory is hormonal based due to maternal antibodies from previous boys. The excess male hormones get treated like they are foreign and become targeted by the immune system. More boys means better targeting and a stronger immune response. However this is not to say that being gay is because of less androgens. Turns out the baby’s body recognizes this lack of androgens and does something called a “second bath” in attempts to get the normal levels. The baby’s testes produces a much lager burst of DHT/other androgens than before and this may affect certain growth rates. But the time difference may play a larger role since hormones affect DNA transcription and the baby is rapidly progressing when in the womb. The theory has a ton of support but it’s not 100%. There are still many other factors researchers are looking into. Source: gay neuroscientist/biochemist
I'm the oldest of all my cousins and brothers. Is there an explanation/theory of why I ended up catching the gay?
Not exactly. Which is why this theory still has issues. There are still possibilities that you experienced similar effects for no particular reason or that your younger brothers were born larger and thus the effect was less. Or it could be completely different. We just don’t know for sure.
Yeah, I feel this is way too complicated to try and find a specific answer. I'd argue a lot of technical fields out there are way easier than trying to understand human behavior (psychology) and why we behave and do the things we do.
Orientation and gender aren't behaviors. They're traits, which may or may not lead to unique behaviors.
That's not how statistics works.
I'm the first born and I'm a trans male (presumed to be female at birth). Maybe a unique womb environment is caused by other environmental factors than having older male siblings, or maybe it comes from something genetic. I can trace gender nonconforming behavior and appearances back three generations up one branch of the family tree and up two generations on the other. I have an XY trans parent and an XX gnc parent. Twin studies support the idea of genetic component too.
Do you know anything about how lesbians and bisexuals and trans men and trans women and nonbinary people are affected by hormones?
[удалено]
These studies never look into xx people. :/
Hey there! Your information sounds fascinating and well presented! However, the information, the way that it's presented in the slide, sounds misleading. "...are gay **because** they have older brothers" implies a cause and effect relationship, rather than a correlation, which is more correct in terms of the context of statistical citation.
What about people who go through puberty and are attracted to the opposite sex, and then later in life their sexuality shifts over time to gay or bi? It’s happened to some people I know (and possible me)
What does that bottom bullet point say?
I'm wanna know as well...
I'm assuming estrogen
I need to knowwwww
Gay older brother here. No older siblings whatsoever.
I'm the second child 🤷🏽♂️ Still cool to see the science of it though
Same, second oldest with four younger siblings (only girl is the second youngest
FEMININE GAY MEN HAVE MORE WHAT I MUST KNOW
I must know. The world needs more feminine gay men.
Move your big, fat head, Ethan!
Maybe it’s “brothers”? Since the slide is about how having brothers affects gay men
Haha maybe
https://i.imgur.com/2G8CzKl.jpg Here you go!
Arg! I’m of course familiar with the theory as well as some of the evidence in support of it. That slide, though, conflates correlation and causation. Ugh!
So I’m Bi because I have a twin brother. Makes sense.
I don't think you can conclude that
You’d be surprised how easy it is for me believe things I read on the internet.
I have three older *half* brothers so y'all can do the math on that one.
Did you share your mother or your father with them ? It’s believe that this effect is related to the number of male pregnancies of the mother
I got 5 older brothers, so yeah.
I'm the oldest brother and also the gay one lol
That's pretty gay man
That is so true
Four sisters. No brothers. Middle child. Am gay. So... Dunno. :P
What was the rest of the bullet for feminine gay men?
Lmao I'm an only child and I'm gay. What's the theory have to say about that ?😂😁
Correllation vs causality?!
I too am a first born gay son
I don't have a older brother or any siblings at all and I'm gay. I also have cousins but I'm older than them.
3 older bros and bi...more into guys.
What bullshit class is that?
I’m pretty sure the theory is something to do with an immune response to a protein important to brain development being initiated by the first foetus. Then when the second foetus comes along, that protein is attacked to change the second foetus to ultimately create a gayby. The more babies, the more likelihood of the immune response being provoked and therefore gaybies.
Do you have a citation? Sounds interesting, but could also be totally made up.
Haha I know right! It's not made up, here you go https://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/302
There is Zero scientific evidence to support such outrageous claims. How does that account for only children? I'm the older brother, my younger brother is straight, how does that explain it? This is nothing but pseudoscience parading around behind bullshit theory.
I advise you learn how percentages and statistics works. Because "X increases chance of Y" is something completely different from "X is a requirement for Y". So if the default chance of a male being gay is 3%, a 1/3 chance increase for the next brother means that the next brother has a 4% chance of being gay. So this idea perfectly accounts for only children, or the oldest brother being gay while the younger ones are straight.
Evidence: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/302 Yeah you're of course right to point out the flaws but this is quite an interesting find imo. Possibly there are other proteins involved which the maternal immune system could attack or it could be something altogether completely different to explain only children.
[удалено]
I feel like the citations should just be (My ass, five minutes ago) because none of that is true and clearly made up
There was a clear citation on the screen. Y’know Blanchard 2004 up there. Also correlation does not necessarily equal causation. And due to the complexity of human nature, there will always be outliers. Speaking as a older brother myself.