Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyApril 16th, 2008
Social conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage often point to personality differences between men and women — the complementarity of the sexes, they call it — and consider these differences to be innate in men and women. Men are more aggressive and women are nurturing; it’s “in their genes.” But when we see evidence that the personalities of gay men and women have more in common with their heterosexual opposite-sex counterparts, then somehow the environment is blamed. Now a series of studies calls those assumptions into question.
Researcher Richard A. Lippa wrote an article for American Sexuality magazine in which he describes the studies he’s been performing over the past ten years. In these studies, he measured five human personality traits: extroversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism (negative emotionality) and openness to new experiences. To that, he added two more measures: instrumentality (independence, assertiveness, and leadership ability) and expressiveness (warmth, nurturance, and tenderness). And then he just asked two more questions point blank: Are you more interested in masculine things or feminine things? And do you consider yourself masculine or feminine?
Over the past decade, he asked all this of 2,724 heterosexual men, 799 gay men, 5,053 heterosexual women, and 697 lesbian women. This way he could make direct heterosexual male-female comparison, and compare those with differences between heterosexual men and gay men, and heterosexual women and lesbians. The results are shown in the table below. Personality Differences are given in terms of “effect sizes,” a common statistical measurement for experiments. In psychology, effect sizes 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 are considered to be “small,” “medium,” and “large,” respectively. A positive number simply means the first group is higher than the second; a negative number means the second group is higher than the first.
| Personality Trait | Hetero Male -Female Differences |
Hetero Male -Gay Male Differences |
Hetero Female -Lesbian Differences |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extroversion | -.19 | -.08 | .04 |
| Agreeableness | -.21 | -.22 | -.01 |
| Conscientiousness | -.17 | -.30 | .05 |
| Neuroticism | -.48 | -.20 | .30 |
| Openness | .20 | -.42 | -.47 |
| Instrumentality | .22 | .04 | -.27 |
| Expressiveness | -.49 | -.37 | .04 |
| Masculinity-Femininity of Interests | 2.65 | 1.28 | -1.46 |
| Self-Ascribed Masculinity-Femininity | 2.83 | .60 | -1.28 |
Dr. Lippa noted:
Gay men were somewhat higher than straight men on agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness, and expressiveness. Except for openness to experience, gay-straight male differences mirrored male-female differences—that is, traits that gay men scored higher on than straight men were also traits that women scored higher on than men, and vice versa. The really big gay-straight male difference was for M-F of interests. Gay men had much more feminine occupational and hobby preferences than heterosexual men did. To give you a sense of the magnitude of this difference, the effect size listed in Table 1 implies that 90% of gay men have interests that are more feminine than the average straight man’s. Interestingly, the gay-straight male difference in self-ascribed M-F was more modest, and I suspect this is due to the fact that many gay men (like many straight men) don’t like to openly rate themselves as being “feminine.”
What were the corresponding results for women? Lesbian women were somewhat higher on openness and instrumentality than straight women were, and they were somewhat lower on neuroticism. As was true for the corresponding results for men, lesbian-straight female differences mirrored male-female differences—that is, traits that lesbians scored higher on than straight women were also traits that men scored higher on than women, and vice versa. The really big lesbian-straight female differences were for M-F of interests and self-ascribed M-F. Lesbian women had much more masculine occupational and hobby preferences than heterosexual women did. The effect size for this difference implies that 93% of lesbian women had interests that were more masculine than the average straight woman’s. Furthermore, lesbians rated themselves to be considerably more masculine and less feminine than straight women did. Thus, lesbians seemed to openly acknowledge and embrace their masculinity more than gay men acknowledged and embraced their femininity.
Does this mean that gays and lesbians are “born that way”? Dr. Lippa thinks this may lend credence to that position, although this study doesn’t prove it one way or another. But this does raise an interesting point. If straight men are more open to new experiences and straight women are more expressive because “they’re born that way,” then why do social conservatives blame opposite-gender traits in gay men and women on bad parenting?
Same-sex marriage opponents and ex-gay advocates have a pretty fundamental contradiction in their logic. Somehow I doubt we’ll see them addressing this anytime soon.
Hat tip: BTB reader Steve M.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Duncan
April 16th, 2008
There was a time when some psychologists blamed autism on parenting (the “refrigerator mother” theory). It hurt many parents, and probably discouraged them from seeking specialist help (one reason why diagnoses have risen). The idea is now thoroughly discredited.
I suspect the same would be true here if it were not kept up by ideology.
Buffy
April 16th, 2008
A very intriguing study. Thanks for the analysis; I’m definitely bookmarking this one!
Joel
April 16th, 2008
” Does this mean that gays and lesbians are “born that wayâ€? Dr. Lippa thinks this may lend credence to that position, although this study doesn’t prove it one way or another. ”
That IS interesting.
– – – – – – –
yet, what confuses me is what u started out with. You say,
“Social conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage often point to personality differences between men and women — the complementarity of the sexes, they call it — and consider these differences to be innate in men and women. Men are more aggressive and women are nurturing; it’s “in their genes.†But when we see evidence that the personalities of gay men and women have more in common with their heterosexual opposite-sex counterparts, then somehow the environment is blamed. Now a series of studies calls those assumptions into question.
”
You only prove their point… that their DOES exist a complimentarity. And if ALL lesbians and gay males act like male and female, respectively then, since their relationships consist of two lesbians or two gay males.. that woudl mean there is no complimentarity. The only way complimentarity would exist with a gay male would be with a straight male… and that is not going to happen.(Unless, maybe, some religion comes around and convinces straight males to act as ex-straights). Or…. a gay male could also compliment themselves with a nice lesbian.
Which leads me to ask… why should there be such complimentarity to have a relationship and make it ok? Or is the conservative position only intended to dissaprove of gay couples child rearing BECAUSE there isn’t complimentarity?
Jim Burroway
April 16th, 2008
I only used their term to point out that they recognize gender differences as innate. In no way do I believe that “complementarity” is necessary for a good relationship, and I’m not aware of any studies which investigate this (although that’s not to say such studies don’t exist; I just haven’t seen them.
Couples form for all sorts of reasons, gay and straight. Some out of similarities, some out of differences. Some very good relationships can come about between two very similar individuals. And I’ve seen some pretty rotten straight relationships fall apart even though the couples are “complements” to one another.
KipEsquire
April 17th, 2008
We should keep in mind, however, that the theocratic wing of the Bigot Right has sidestepped the whole nature/nurture question by saying, “Well, even if it really is inborn, it’s still just an ‘urge’ to be fought and overcome, much like the ‘urge’ to overeat or the ‘urge’ to steal. Choice or genes? Who cares — it’s still wrong. We are all sinners — you just have a special kind of sin.” Etc.
Drowssap
April 20th, 2008
why do social conservatives blame opposite-gender traits in gay men and women on bad parenting?
It is fundamentally impossible that large numbers of people would be exclusively gay because of bad parenting. This is particularly true because parents and society strongly push all children to be straight from the day they are born.
I suppose a critical imprint period is possible because some things do work that way. But it is quite clear that parents aren’t raising children to be gay. This imprint period would need to work in an awfully mysterious way. Crawling, talking and reading all work in a fairly straightforward manner. This one wouldn’t.
quo III
April 21st, 2008
Drowssap,
I don’t think your argument works. The overwhelming majority of parents do not try to socialize their children into homosexuality, but children could become homosexual as a side-effect of something their parents do.
Drowssap
April 21st, 2008
quo III
children could become homosexual as a side-effect of something their parents do
If this is true scientists have yet to detect what it might be. The social imprint theory has another problem, it doesn’t predict the minor anomolies that show up in broad samples of gay people. For instance gay people are more likely to be left handed. We’ve all read about finger length, minor eye blinking differences, etc. etc. How would socialization cause these things? I doubt these tiny anomolies are susceptability factors. How would you explain them?
quo III
April 21st, 2008
Drowssap,
Physical differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals are a problem for nurture theories only if they claim that only nurture is important. Otherwise, all they show is that biological factors are at work as well as (rather than instead of) nurture.
Timothy Kincaid
April 21st, 2008
Clearly homosexuality is the side-effect of parents twisting their children’s hair in a counter-clockwise direction, leading them around by one finger (thus stretching it), and teaching them to find directions similarly to the opposite sex. Oh, it’s also a side effect mothers who skew the way their x chromosomes are inactivated (those thoughtless mothers).
Drowssap
April 21st, 2008
quo III
What do you suspect that “normal” parents are doing to make their kids gay? A few percent of men are exclusively gay. That’s millions of men in America and most of them have straight siblings. Even when scientists look at identical twins if one is gay the other is straight most of the time.
The other thing is that if it were the parents scientists could zero in on broken homes to look for a pattern. To the best of my knowledge there isn’t a significant increase in SSA among kids from broken homes.
quo III
April 22nd, 2008
Drowssap,
We discussed the issue you mention only recently; I doubt there is much point in going over the same ground again. That siblings often have different sexual orientations does not mean that nurture is not one factor among others.
Drowssap
April 22nd, 2008
quo III
I must have missed that thread. Help me out here. What do you suspect that parents might be doing?
Jason D
April 22nd, 2008
sorry, nurture does not make any sense to me as a cause. There’s no proof of a pattern that applies to all or most gay men.
I just have a hard time believing that anything my mother or father did or didn’t do made me attracted to men my height or slightly taller, around my age, proportionate or muscular build, with facial hair and moderate body hair.
No one has yet been able to explain how nuturing of a child can turn into a sexual interest. A sexual interest that is so strong it (supposedly)completely replaced my heterosexuality altogether.
The Nurture argument reminds me of people trying to interpret dreams, and reading in all this symbolism that “makes sense” but is actually just a rationalization.
Drowssap
April 22nd, 2008
Jason D
One of the more interesting facts to me is that almost all men are either gay or straight with very few in the middle. This is probably due to a physical limitation in the system. It also runs counter to the “nurture” theory of orientation.
Another problem with “nurture” is the fact that men’s attractions are incredibly predictable. Boys grow up and disregard everything the mom’s told them. Given the option they always go for the pretty face. That’s biology in action.
Drowssap
April 22nd, 2008
quo III
One side note.
Scientists can switch the orientation of fruit fly’s in minutes with one, simple chemical.
Soon they’ll learn how to do this with gay sheep. Someone is probably testing the fruit fly drug on sheep as we speak.
I don’t think the mystery of orientation is going to last much longer. 10 years tops. In men it’s going to be an incredibly simple system. We are simple creatures. 8-)
cowboy
April 22nd, 2008
“Someone is probably testing the fruit fly drug on sheep as we speak.”
NOT with any of MY sheep! Bless their hearts. They’re dealing with lanolin making their skin look too metrosexual as it is.
TJ McFisty
April 22nd, 2008
I just have a hard time believing that anything my mother or father did or didn’t do made me attracted to men my height or slightly taller, around my age, proportionate or muscular build, with facial hair and moderate body hair.
And why would I like Bears? I’m not in any way that body type myself and neither are my parents or any relatives, but well, there it is. I certainly wasn’t taught to like or dislike the original Brawny Paper Towel Man or Mr. French, but I was.
quo III
April 22nd, 2008
Drowssap,
Even if a method were found of changing human sexual orientation through surgical or hormonal manipulation of the brain, this would not necessarily show anything about its causes. It may seem logical to conclude that something that can be altered by biological means must have had an exclusively biological cause, but this does not follow; nurture could itself affect the brain.
(The discussion you’re looking for is in the recent ‘Refried Freud’ thread.)
Drowssap
April 22nd, 2008
quo III
Even if a method were found of changing human sexual orientation through surgical or hormonal manipulation of the brain, this would not necessarily show anything about its causes.
Although this wouldn’t prove the cause it would certainly show that SSA is due to a different biology.
Ephilei
April 29th, 2008
I don’t see what the study has to do with being born queer. The survey measures things that can all change. Queers were shown to be fairly more open than heterosexuals which we could have hypothesized would be different: when queers leave the closet, they must become extremely open regarding a very sensitive part of themselves. It’s reasonable they thought of this experience during the survey and that being open would spread to other parts of their life. It did for me.
What I do think it shows is that the heterosexuals’ self image of their gender was more dictomized along the feminine/masculine binary than was the homosexuals’. The first questions queried their actual gender which was typically low to medium variance all around; the last two questions queried their perceived gender. If .5 is medium and .8 is large, then 2.65 and 2.83 are astronomical!
quo III
April 29th, 2008
Drowssap,
‘Although this wouldn’t prove the cause it would certainly show that SSA is due to a different biology.’
Yes, but my point is that ‘biology’ does not mean the same thing as things one is born with.
Jason D
April 29th, 2008
quo, first, please site an example of something that is “nurtured” in someone AND then can be surgically removed or altered through chemicals.
My parents nurtured respect for all races, are you suggesting I can have that surgically removed?
Joel
April 29th, 2008
QuoIII said,
“Even if a method were found of changing human sexual orientation through surgical or hormonal manipulation of the brain, this would not necessarily show anything about its causes. It may seem logical to conclude that something that can be altered by biological means must have had an exclusively biological cause, but this does not follow; nurture could itself affect the brain.”
This would be interesting to prove. Get a few parents to give their sons up for experiment as the remove the gay gene and then see if anyone of them turns gay. If they do.. nurture def affects it directly. If it doesnt… you just made all christian/traditional/anti-gay parents extremely happy.
quo III
April 30th, 2008
Jason D,
Through doing sufficient damage to a man’s brain, absolutely all of his thoughts and memories could be destroyed. In that sense, certainly, your attitudes to race (or anything else) could be surgically removed.
If this wouldn’t show that you must have been born with those attitudes, why conclude that people must be born with a homosexual orientation if surgery could eliminate that?
Timothy Kincaid
April 30th, 2008
I just watched a movie based on a true story. A young man woke up in Montreal in 1998 with no recollection of who he was or anything about himself. He didn’t know his name or where he was from.
Eventually the show Hard Copy found his family in Tennessee but when he met them he didn’t recognize them. Although accused of fraud, those who dealt with him believe him. And he has never recovered his memory or recalled anything prior to the day he woke up.
But the one thing he did know the whole time was that he’s gay.
Jason D
April 30th, 2008
“Jason D,
Through doing sufficient damage to a man’s brain, absolutely all of his thoughts and memories could be destroyed. In that sense, certainly, your attitudes to race (or anything else) could be surgically removed.”
That’s a bit like curing the disease by killing the patient. I assume since this is the only example you can come up with, that you don’t really know what you’re talking about –which is pretty much what I assumed in the first place. Done with this thread now.
quo III
April 30th, 2008
Jason D,
Since you are done with the thread I don’t expect a response, but that comment about me not knowing what I’m talking about seems a little unfair.
Leave A Comment