Sexuality in the 20th Century

The world has seen remarkable developments in all fields of life. This has also been the case in the sphere of human values and relationships. Nowhere perhaps has this been more conspicuous than in the area of sexuality, with the sexual revolution of the 1950’s producing social change that has reverberated down through the decades.

It is easy to imagine such changes occurred due to “progressive” thinking and activism, which no doubt played an important role, however such changes all occurred within a social and economic context, specifically that of post-world war Europe. The wide-scale death and destruction of two world wars, and the mass movement of soldiers and belligerents across the continent of Europe resulted, as might be expected, in the production of an entire generation of children born out of wedlock, either as a result of genuine relationships that were formed in the chaos of war or as a result of rape by soldiers on civilian female populations. Children born under such circumstances came to be known as “War Children”, and their total number has been estimated to range from a lower bound of hundreds of thousands to millions1,2.

The natural consequence of the production of so many children outside of wedlock, born in single parent households, was the smashing of historical and ethical norms that in the pre-war era dictated that sexuality was the preserve of marriage, a union between a man and a woman alone. Thus was born the sexual revolution and with it, the belief that sexuality and sexual pleasure were independent of that old notion: The proliferation of children and the extension of family.

Amidst the tide of these social changes, with the moral outrage of past oppressions against gay individuals still fresh in the mind (think Alan Turing), new taboos shaped themselves. To question the genetic basis of homosexuality today is increasingly regarded as unacceptable. It is assumed that homosexual individuals or individuals who experience same-sex attraction, are “born that way”, meaning, that they are “predetermined” for homosexuality. Indeed, a new article hailing the discovery of the “gay gene” seems to be a frequent occurrence in the media. Establishing in society that homosexuality is predetermined and innate is often regarded as a question of vital importance for gay-rights activism. Why? Because, by establishing homosexuality as a trait on par with gender, race and ethnicity, its place in society can be established and safeguarded by legislature in the same way. To put it simply – “I was born with it, so you can’t discriminate against me”. In recent years, trangenderism has been utilising the same arguments to great effect within society.

The problem is that such biases are anathema to scientific research. Scientific questions must be pursued without preconceptions and results must be analysed without bias. The aim of this website, therefore, is to undertake a brief review of the evidence for and against the purported biological mechanisms of homosexuality and to further examine the myths prevalent in society about it.

What is this Website About?

In the following articles are reviewed the relevant literature on the proposed genetic, epigenetic, hormonal and developmental mechanisms of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism. In addition, the effects of non-heterosexual lifestyle on both psychological and physical health are scrutinised. Finally, the evidence as to whether sexual orientations can change has been reviewed.

The evidence in these articles demonstrates powerfully that non-heterosexual behaviours are not the product of predetermined orientations, but the products of a gender-identity disorder from childhood or, if it occurs during adulthood, the product of sexual, physical or emotional abuse. While we should certainly shun the heinous, barbaric and extreme torture many gay people have been subjected to under the guise of “medical science,” should we entirely ignore the facts that homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism have clear causal connections to psychological trauma?

The issue of whether a trait should be viewed as a matter of psychological health must be based upon whether an individual’s day to day living is affected as a result of it. For example, if a person develops Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) in response to traumatic events in childhood, we can say clearly that that is evidently something that does affect their day to day living and thus should be treated as a matter of psychological health.

Thus, to answer the question of whether, for example, homosexuality should be treated as an issue of psychological health, we must ask two questions: Firstly, does homosexuality have a detrimental effect on a person’s life, as compared to heterosexuality; secondly, can sexual orientation change, and if so, does a shift from homosexuality to heterosexuality have a greater detrimental effect on a person’s wellbeing than the detrimental effect of remaining homosexual? Different but similar questions can be raised for the matter of transgenderism.

As regards the first question, the detrimental effects of a homosexual lifestyle are well documented. The medical consequences are well known, summarised on our website, but also in relation to disorders that are unavoidable through barrier protection, such as high rates of faecal incontinence among male homosexuals in later life. Such disorders demonstrate that our very anatomy is unsuited to such acts and detrimental to our health. Besides these, it seems that the greatest downfall of homosexuality is a very obvious one: One can never produce children with one’s partner. Having one’s own children, many may say, constitutes the greatest worldly happiness possible. Homosexuality prevents this. Questions of health and happiness are gravely pertinent, because as secular societies “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” is a principle to which we adhere. Further, if we classify reproduction as a normative aspect of human activity, then homosexuality from this perspective does interfere with an individual’s day-to-day functioning.

As regards the second question, there is undoubtedly evidence that forcing sexual orientation change on an individual is dangerous and unhealthy for the individual concerned. Such “conversion therapies” which utilise castration techniques, electro-shock therapy etc, are harmful and should be regarded as criminal. Nevertheless, we find that many gay individuals transition to heterosexuality over the course of their lifetime, often without psychological support at all.

Is it “Natural” and is it a “Choice”?

There are two final questions – related to the above discussion – often raised in the minds of the general, heterosexual public that require answering: is homosexuality “natural” and is it a “choice”?

As for the question of whether homosexuality is “natural” or not, it is a matter of perspective, to some extent. Homosexual individuals would say that it certainly feels natural to them! Nevertheless, notwithstanding the simplistic, and often offensive characterisation of homosexuality as “unnatural”, we must ask what the roots of this sentiment are.

Firstly, as highlighted above, reproduction is one of the basic characteristics of life. Indeed, it is one of the criteria that distinguish animal and plant life from inorganic matter. Homosexual behaviours at a fundamental level prevents reproduction. It is not a disorder of infertility, which renders a functional reproductive mechanism, ineffectual. Rather, it is the direction of healthy reproductive and sexual faculties towards members of the same gender, with whom one can never reproduce. If we are to accept that the fundamental evolutionary purpose of sexuality is to enable procreation, then it is quite clear that homosexual lust is “unnatural” in this sense.

Secondly, as demonstrated in these articles, homosexuality, and to a greater extent transgenderism, are related strongly and powerfully to the breakdown of relationships in the family, with peers of the same gender, and with experiences of sexual and physical abuse in childhood. Such life events cannot be described as a “natural” part of growing up; no individual would willingly choose for themselves or their own child, such experiences. These life experiences result in the development of a gender-identity disorder due to the failure of imitating and attaching to biological gender role models. The result is the development of a gender-identity of that of the opposite sex, marked in childhood by “gender non-conformity” – the single biggest predictor of future homosexuality. This inability to categorise oneself as belonging to one’s biological gender during childhood was captured perfectly by James Parker, a once homosexual man, who transitioned to heterosexuality and who is now a married father. Writing in the International Business Times[1], he stated that:

I realised I had some issues, centring on commitment. I discovered I had a deep-rooted fear of rejection, I was too anxious, and I used people. I had an innate fear of men – not of their homophobia, but the real thing: a chasm between me and the normal heterosexual male…I eventually came to realise that as a boy I had failed to interact with other men on any significant level. I had perceived myself to be rejected by men even as a small boy and had made an inner vow never to deeply trust them. People had reached out to me and I had spurned them, including my father and two older brothers. No wonder men had become a mystery to me and even an obsession by my teens, when I began erotically craving men and feeding this through porn.

His words encapsulate the conclusion of these articles, perfectly. His words also raise the question that if heterosexuality develops out of a healthy recognition of one’s own gender-community, then it stands to reason that it also emerges from the recognition of the difference between oneself and members of the opposite gender. Heterosexuality for a boy therefore, is built upon the recognition of his similarities with other boys, as well as the recognition of his differences from girls. Heterosexuality in this sense is deeply natural, insofar as there are very real biological differences between men and women. Some of these are socially constructed, certainly, but even those social constructions are, more often than not, built upon biological roles. Why are boys, as is discussed in the articles, encouraged in independent and competitive play, while girls are encouraged in games emphasising relationships and empathy? Fundamentally, such differences exist because women carry, give birth to and breastfeed children, while men do not. Men, as a result of this biological imperative, in addition to having higher testosterone levels and stronger physique, have been used in society for labour rather than homemaking and child rearing. Even in today’s 21st century Western society, men make up the overwhelming majority of breadwinners. In this sense then, heterosexuality is entirely “natural”, since it is built upon the very real differences that do biologically exist between men and women. Homosexuality in this regard, could be called “unnatural”, as it is born out of an inability to recognise in oneself the similarities one possesses with members of the same gender, and the differences one possesses with members of the opposite gender.

Despite this, it is difficult to argue that homosexuality is a “choice”, especially in light of the continuous and vociferous statements by members of the gay community that they have never felt like they had a “choice”. It is indeed, quite a cynical position to claim that homosexual individuals willingly face the stigma, persecution and often violence that they do, simply to express a “choice”. The statistics also support the fact that homosexuality is not a simple “choice”: the age of first homosexual experience is around 10 years old for both men and women[2], often with an older male or female. Such events, as described in the article “What Causes Homosexuality?” play an important role in the development of homosexual attraction. To claim that such children – for that is what they are – choose to have such experiences, cannot be right. When we further consider the rates of sexual abuse, physical abuse, incest, parental divorce, adoption, death of a loved one and other adverse events in the lives of children who later develop homosexual attractions, we see that homosexual individuals did not choose being gay for themselves – it was chosen for them, often by the actions of others.

This is a point worth considering for those who feel anger and hatred towards the gay community: homosexual individuals are the first victims of the immorality of society. They are individuals whose childhoods are often scarred and marked by societal, familial and parental rejection or abuse, as well as bullying and social ostracism from their same-gender peers. Such children and such individuals deserve the sympathy of society, rather than anger or hatred.

Those individuals, heterosexual or homosexual, men or women, who believe that homosexuality is a predetermined orientation which has nothing to do with sexual abuse or emotional disengagement from parents and peers, may likely scorn such sympathy, however, they would be foolish to scorn the studies from which these conclusions are drawn, as presented on this website. Unlike many research studies that seek to depict homosexuality as a predetermined, fixed biological orientation, the authors have used large, nationally representative studies of the highest quality and strength, for the bulk of the evidence. These are not studies that we hear in the everyday media, because they do not offer the conclusion that society is so desperate to hear: that sexuality is innate and unchangeable; that our sexual appetites and emotions are beyond our control, not within the grasp of our responsibilities.

Sexuality without responsibility is, it seems, the only sexuality that our society today is willing to accept.

[1] Parker J (April 3rd 2014) Gay Conversion: I Slept With Over 200 Men, Now I’m a Happily Married Heterosexual Dad. International Business Times;

[2] Hamer, Dean H., Stella Hu, Victoria L. Magnuson, Nan Hu, and Angela M. Pattatucci. “A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation.” Science 261, no. 5119 (1993): 321-327.