Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cornell.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!gummo!whuxlb!floyd!vax135!cornell!ddw From: ddw@cornell.UUCP (David Wright) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Sources of homosexuality Message-ID: <5201@cornell.UUCP> Date: Wed, 31-Aug-83 12:47:53 EDT Article-I.D.: cornell.5201 Posted: Wed Aug 31 12:47:53 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 1-Sep-83 20:47:49 EDT Sender: ddw@cornell.UUCP Organization: Cornell Computer Science Lines: 34 From: ddw (David Wright) To: net-singles Most of the people on this net seem to assume that either 1) Homosexuality is genetic, or 2) Homosexuality is learned, or 3) Some combination of the above. Neither of these is necessarily correct. Anyone ever heard the term congenital? I'm referring to physical conditions that exist at birth but are due to some in-utero misfeature that is not genetic. Birth defects due to rubella or Thalidomide would be examples. Now, kiddies, there's some evidence (not conclusive) that homosexuality is due to hormone deficiencies in the fetus during gestation. It's not a genetic problem, it's due to some minor malfunction in the glands of the fetus. Assuming that sexual orientation is rather delicately balanced, it would be surprising if this never happened, if you consider the number of things that can go wrong during development. Even if homosexuality (or a predisposition that way) \is/ genetic, it need not be only picked up by inheritance. It may be a mutation. Before you scoff, note that JBS Haldane showed that most cases of hemophilia are due to this (if not, to explain the incidence of hemophilia in Britian in the 1930's you'd have to assume that 1000 years earlier nearly half the population had it!) so why not homosexuality? People flaming about "unnaturalness" will be crushed and melted... David Wright {vax135|floyd|allegra|decvax|ihnp4|uw-beaver}!cornell!ddw ddw.cornell@udel-relay ddw@cornell (Arpanet and CSnet)