Why are people gay?

The science of sexual orientation is taboo -- even among some sex realists

Scientific evidence strongly suggests that sexual orientation is rooted in biology. But the view that it’s a choice, a construct, or a sacred mystery won’t die — even among people who laugh at the woo woo of gender identity theory. Often they take a page from hyperbolic trans activism by pointing out the Nazis studied sexual orientation for evil reasons.

In this post I’ll outline the science of sexual orientation and the case against it, show you who benefits from suppressing it, and argue that we should blare it far and wide — because keeping gay kids in the dark about sexual orientation makes them vulnerable to thinking they’re trans.

By “sexual orientation,” I mean the tendency to feel attracted to members of one sex or both. It’s different from arousal (which can be induced mechanically), identity (now that’s a choice) or behavior (we’ve all made out with someone we’re not into).

What We Know So Far

I don’t mean to suggest that the whole business is figured out or that “the science is SETTLED.” But the scientific understanding of sexual orientation is strong and we should feel encouraged to demand more of it.

Here are the major points.

1. Feminine mystique or misdirection?

Before we get into gays, a note on women.

In some studies (not all) the data on women is less clear-cut than for men. It doesn’t necessarily mean that female sexual orientation is less biological. It might instead reflect that it’s harder to measure and some women choose labels that don’t reflect their innate orientation.

Measurement

When a man’s penis gets hard, that’s a reliable measure of his feeling of attraction to a stimulus. But women’s genital response to stimuli is not – a woman’s vagina lubricates when she sees practically anything sexual, including ape porn. So a tool we have for studying men’s sexual orientation doesn’t exist for women. (These experiments are discussed in the first chapter here, in sensational terms.) 

Some interpret these findings to mean all women are bisexual, but by that logic women are also attracted to monkeys.

Labels

Some women don’t choose their sexual labels based solely on their patterns of raw attraction. Or they take longer than men to identify the pattern – perhaps because, as I just explained, vaginas aren’t univocal like penises.

When I was in college, people would tell me all the time that I wasn’t really a lesbian. This pissed me off. So when our friend group reached a consensus that one girl, “Jess,” was gay, I defended my buddy’s heterosexuality. “You guys, Jess says she’s straight – it’s super sexist to say young women don’t know what they want.” I maintained my righteous stance about her for years.

By age 30 Jess was married to a woman.

Despite my ideals, I have since privately doubted some friends’ and girlfriends’ self-declared orientations. Mostly these are bi-identified women who only fall hard for members of one sex, while treating members of the other like vibrators. 

Occasionally I meet a lesbian who figured it out late. By contrast, it’s rare to meet a dilatory gay man among millennials. Late-to-the-party women often shy from discussing whether they’re into men at all, perhaps because it would feel cruel to say they weren’t attracted to their ex-boyfriends. (A guy I dated at 16-17 described my coming out as some sort of traumatic incident for him years later.) This might apply to Cynthia Nixon, who married a woman in middle age, said her sexuality was a choice, and in 2012 protested speculation she was a homo all along:

“I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I’ve been out with.”

And now we can talk about the actually-bisexual women. Some identify as straight or gay depending on who they’re in a relationship with, because they’re monogamous and “bi” just doesn’t feel accurate to them at the moment. And some bi women call themselves lesbians while dating women, without meaning to convey that they are exclusively homosexual – it’s a usage that gay/bi women are familiar with but others get confused by.

So when data about sexuality is less clear-cut as to women (and not all of it is), I wonder if that owes to the way some women label their sexuality. 

2. How does sexual orientation work?

Studies suggest that the way our brains process other people’s pheromones determines our sexual orientation. These studies are run by imaging brain activity while subjects inhale pheromones associated with one sex or the other. They light up different areas in different people, and the pattern corresponds with subjects’ sexual identity. Colin Wright discussed the studies in an essay. The research has been in the public realm for over a decade: here’s a 2014 Time Magazine piece; and studies from the 2000s on gay men and lesbians.

Pheromones are not the same as hormones (you can’t mimic the opposite sex’s pheromones by taking cross-sex hormones).

The pheromone-processing theory explains why teens who spend their whole lives online all think they’re queer – because they’re just describing who they find pretty, which is not actually the basis of sexual orientation. 

What’s missing from Zoom school

This theory could explain an aspect of sexual fluidity, since women emit small amounts of androstadienone, the “male” pheromone that straight women and gay men are drawn to.

Pheromones are often completely left out of discussions about sexual orientation. For example, in 2017 an essay in USA Today insisted the science was “opaque.” But it never mentioned pheromones. “Biology matters. But we really don't understand how.” Well, you don’t!

A 2016 academic article titled  “Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science” had an noble aim:

“[T]he more politically controversial a topic, the more it is in the public interest to illuminate it in a revealing and unbiased manner. Our article is offered in the spirit of progress toward that end.”

The piece ran down the science of sexual orientation from every possible angle, from genetics to the theory that pedophiles turn kids gay. But it never mentioned pheromones. At least one of the authors, Michael Bailey, knew about the subject. The next year he co-authored a scientific article comparing pheromone processing in straight, gay, and bi men. 

But Bailey’s co-author, Lisa Diamond, came from a different perspective. She claimed in a 2018 Ted Talk that the “born this way” narrative was “not scientifically accurate.” And “most important,” she argued, it was “unjust.” 

Why wasn’t it accurate? Because some women’s labels and behavior changed over time. Diamond never mentioned the studies on pheromone processing.

Great arms — the ultimate biomarker of a lesbian

Diamond published a book in 2008 called “Sexual Fluidity.” A pheromone-processing model could be compatible with fluidity, if the brain changed over time, but I haven’t seen any fluid-mongers advance that argument. They just don’t talk about pheromones.

3. What predisposes people to be gay?

Researchers believe exposure to certain hormones in the womb influences sexual orientation. Genetics also seem to be part of the equation, but there’s not one single gene that dictates a person’s sexuality.

The standalone “gay gene” is a favorite straw man of advocates for non-biological sexuality. Diamond ripped it apart in her Ted talk; so did the author of a 2015 essay in the Guardian that didn’t mention pre-natal hormones (and did mention Nazis).

In 2019 the media went wild for a study that showed genetics weren’t 100% responsible for sexual orientation. PBS triumphantly declared “there is no gay gene”:

“Sexuality cannot be pinned down by biology, psychology or life experiences, this study and others show, because human sexual attraction is decided by all these factors.”

Compare PBS’s take to what the study actually concluded:

“Same-sex sexual behavior is influenced by not one or a few genes but many. … [M]any uncertainties remain to be explored, including how sociocultural influences on sexual preference might interact with genetic influences.”

The study found a strong link between same-sex sexual behavior and “several genes involved in olfaction[, which] raises intriguing questions.” About pheromone processing? It didn’t say. Nor did it mention prenatal hormone exposure.

The Case Against Biology

In 1970, “radicalesbians” argued in NYC:

“In a society in which men do not oppress women, and sexual expression is allowed to follow feelings, the categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality would disappear.”

Women made enormous strides toward equality over the next several decades, but sexual “categories” didn’t disappear — and evidence mounted that they were rooted in nature. Some feminists stuck to their guns. In 2004, the British activist/journalist Julie Bindel wrote:

“Thirty years since homosexuality was removed from the list of recognised mental disorders, scientists persist in searching for a ‘cause,’ refusing to accept that sexuality and sexual desire are social constructs, not biological or genetically determined.”

In the piece, Bindel — who is gender-critical and gay — described studies in a tone of scorn:

“Then there was the one that ‘discovered’ that boys with older brothers are 33% more likely to be gay because of occupying a womb where a male fetus has already been.”

She speculated that these studies drew interest “because the majority of people cannot get to grips with the fact that we choose to be lesbian and gay.”

Moment of silence:

“The history of these experiments is not a proud one. The Nazis specialised in them, with a view to eradicating homosexuality.”

Bindel’s “choice” argument was unfashionable at the time, as gay marriage advocates (and science nerds) in the UK and the US trumpeted findings that homosexuality was natural.

But less than a decade later, the vibe shifted. Choice theory was all over the media. For example, in 2016 a bi woman writing in Salon listed all the cool actresses who rejected the “normative ‘born this way’ narrative” and concluded:

“By saying that my sexuality is a choice, I hold myself accountable for all my actions. And to make oneself accountable to both one’s self and to others in the world is, I think, the optimal form of a civic-minded ethos.”

Gay/bi women with a platform in the 2010s dunked on what they called “born this way,” often arguing it was a cynical ploy by gay marriage activists to secure the political support of straight people. In addition to that Salon essay, their output included a 2019 Slate essay condemning judgmental lesbians, a 2014 book called “The Tolerance Trap” (whose author invoked the Holocaust), Diamond’s 2018 Ted Talk, and a 2017 speech by Masha Gessen in which she celebrated her own “choicefulness.”

These writers’ disgust for biological theories was so knee-jerk and hipster-ish, I wonder if they were simply trying to distance themselves from Lady Gaga’s 2011 middle school Gay-Straight Alliance anthem “Born This Way.”

While some anti-biologists acknowledged “choice” didn’t make much sense, they struggled to articulate another theory of how sexual orientation worked. Doctrinal concerns hemmed them in at every turn. They didn’t want to argue sexuality was learned, because then it could be a social contagion or influenced by gay “recruitment.” And in their talk of “fluidity” they worried about implying “conversion therapy” might be viable (Diamond’s stern digression on the subject is amusingly illogical). So instead of building a positive case of their own, they just took jabs at scientific studies and misleadingly conflated orientation with arousal, identity, and behavior.

Bindel reframed her position on choice in 2019 but was still dismissing scientific inquiry in 2023:

“Why are there so many scientists spending a lot of time and money looking for causes of homosexuality, same-sex attraction? Because I'm perfectly happy as a lesbian ...”

(She did genially allow her podcast guest, Ray Blanchard, to interject and explain about prenatal hormones.)

In her 2023 book Time to Think, Hannah Barnes channeled the prevailing view of British therapists:

“Just as we have largely given up trying to understand why someone is gay, we should do the same when it comes to gender identity.”

Ignorance — Who Benefits?

So sexual orientation is not an enigma. We know a lot about it, including that gays are almost certainly Born That Way or Born Very Predisposed. How did it become uncool to say that?

Let’s look at who benefits from broad societal ignorance about sexual orientation.

1. Gender Doctors

If sexual orientation is a mystery, then gender doctors can dismiss concerns about transing away the gay as speculative. Barnes quotes the child psychologist Alex Morris discussing his young patients:

“Are they really gay? Or are they really trans? Or is that a really unhelpful way of thinking about it? And for me, it’s an unhelpful way of thinking about it.”

They’re really gay, Alex. You transed gay kids.

2. Gender Lawyers

The ACLU argues in court:

“Although the precise origin of gender identity is unknown … There is a general medical consensus that there is a significant biological component to gender identity.”

If doctors don’t know the cause of a mental condition, how can they rule out that it might be … mental? Indeed, the ACLU has struggled to drive this point home at trial. Even sympathetic judges backed away from it after trial and ruled in favor of trans plaintiffs for other reasons (Schroer; Brandt).

But the “born this way, no further questions please” model of gender identity seems to fly with the general public. I suspect that’s because they’ve accepted a similar model of sexual orientation. (Though I have to note that many of us did politely answer a lot of weird questions from straight people in the 2000s. The discourse around sexual orientation during the gay marriage campaign was freer than that around LGBTQ today.)

If people were taught the scientific mechanism behind sexual orientation, then they might expect answers to the “gender identity” riddle too. 

3. Gender Professionals, Generally

LGBTQ is a zillion-dollar industry. Its managers and executives don’t want science to come along and dissolve the acronym.

4. Paraphiliacs

Some sexologists maintain that paraphilias are like homosexuality. In their framing, both phenomena are drives for non-procreative sex that can’t be explained by natural selection. 

I don’t think it’s a strong analogy. Paraphilias aren’t rooted in pheromone processing or caused by prenatal hormone exposure, and they correlate with personality disorders and dysfunctional lifestyles. 

But if you don’t know about those fundamental distinctions, you might worry that avoiding paraphiliacs is on a slippery slope to homophobia. 

If normies finally get their head around sexual orientation, they’ll understand how different being gay is from, say, transvestic fetishism. Then they’ll feel more confident drawing a line between LGB and TQ. “I’m happy for my kid to watch a TV show featuring gay dads; I will not take my kid to Drag Queen Story Hour.”

5. Men Trying to Date Lesbians

Progressive institutions have lately redefined homosexual and gay to mean attraction to members of one’s own “gender.” If sexuality isn’t innate but rather learned or chosen, why not?

If you don’t know about pheromones, you can talk yourself into thinking your attraction to people is based on their clothing. 

Well, you can convince yourself of that if you’re an insecure, accommodating young woman. I suspect among straight guys, even the most committed soy boy knows he wouldn’t enjoy banging a trans-identified man in a pretty dress.

6. Straight Queers

This woman identifies as queer. I would like the world to understand that the pathos underlying her fashion sense is not the same force that impels me to watch the Megyn Kelly Show on mute.

But she wants the world to think she’s the same as me — well, not me, but some straight guy’s sexed-up notion of a lesbian.

7. Gay Queers

Some gay people prefer to call themselves queer because the TQ+ scene is edgier or more inclusive than the LGB one. If everyone knew they were just attracted to the same sex because of their dumb olfactory system, it would blow their cover — the world would know they have something in common with Pete Buttigieg.

My most banal theory of how everyone in my generation turned on sexual orientation science is that straight girls felt embarrassed by other straight girls, and lesbians felt embarrassed by other lesbians. So all the monosexual women who work in media joined forces in pretending the categories didn’t exist (and progressive straight guys will nod along with anything women say about sex).

8. Homosexual Fetuses of Anti-Gay, Pro-Choice Parents

Given the prenatal-hormone theory, a test should be possible to determine if fetuses are predisposed to be gay. The lack of such a test is saving the futures of fetuses carried by women who feel more comfortable with mid-term abortion than homosexuality. Good luck, babies.

Ignorance – Who Pays?

Many gay kids waste years angsting over “who they are”; some hope in vain that their sexuality will turn out to be fluid (my story).

Worse, today the trans movement exploits gay kids’ confusion and curiosity by teaching them that they might be trans. If they take the bait, they’ll be love-bombed (and poisoned). If they decline, then the “LGBTQ community” – i.e., their dating pool – brands them a cis gay.

A litmus test for sexual orientation would be glorious. Gay kids could stop experimenting with the opposite sex and ruminating over “who they are.”

What is choice really about?

Julie Bindel’s 2004 essay (emphasis added):

“While understandable that … some in the gay community wish to pass the buck for their choice of sexual identity to a rogue gene, it plays into the hands of reactionary geneticists whose agenda is terrifying. They are seeking to prove that those outside of the white, able-bodied heterosexual norm are inferior. We must not collude.”

Did she believe the biological model was incorrect, or was she just pretending to believe that to thwart Hitler? 

I think the motivation actually runs deeper. Anti-biology lesbians basically accuse other gays of feeling ashamed. Bindel referred to the scientific explanation as “pass[ing] the buck.” In 2017 the trans-identified lesbian Masha Gessen said it “serves to quell one’s own doubts.” Diamond sneered in her Ted Talk that gays arguing “born this way” sounded like they were demanding “pity.” These relatively influential women were pathologizing other gays for making good-faith arguments supported by scientific evidence. They’re popular kids throwing their weight around.

Let’s get practical. How do we defeat the Nazis? I propose that the threat against gays is not coming from “geneticists.” It’s coming from gender professionals who draw profits and prestige when more people trans.

Gay kids today are bombarded with propaganda that tells them sex-based attraction isn’t real. They learn in school that sex itself is indeterminate, and they watch TV shows where trans-identified boys attract hetero boyfriends.

The best explanation for a gay kid’s homosexuality and affinity for opposite-sex style and interests, it may seem to them, is that their gender identities don’t align with their bodies. Lesbians are accused of “sexual racism” if they accurately believe they’re incapable of falling for a guy. 

The charade that sexual orientation is a choice hurts gay kids. Teach them – and everyone – the science.

---

This post was edited on July 10, 2024, to remove a graphic that gave people nightmares and some intro text.

Follow me on X – Unyielding Bicyclist