I understand your idea, but because we don't go through puberty in the womb, doesn't mean nature has no part in our sexual development. Your logic is the equivalent of saying male-pattern-baldness is nurture over nature because the guy wasn't bald when he was 8. Or that grey hair is nurture over nature because the person wasn't grey when they were younger. Hereditary diseases can develop later on in life, but that doesn't mean they aren't down to the genes more than the environment.
Also if you look at the wider animal kingdom we're a part of, heterosexuality is as prevalent amongst species who don't live in packs or communities - those that don't have access to the view of "what a couple should look like". If your theory were true, one would expect as much homosexuality as heterosexuality amongst species that are 'loners'. Also, most animals don't have sex education, which suggests a large part of what drives them to have sex and choose a sexual partner is instinct that isn't acquired but inherent. Which points to nature having some part in sexuality.
There is no conclusive proof to what extent nature or nurture shape our sexuality yet, only theory. But rational thought suggests to me at least that the idea it's only down to nurture makes no sense. So I don't agree with you.
Are People Born Gay/Lesbian??
← View full post
I understand your idea, but because we don't go through puberty in the womb, doesn't mean nature has no part in our sexual development. Your logic is the equivalent of saying male-pattern-baldness is nurture over nature because the guy wasn't bald when he was 8. Or that grey hair is nurture over nature because the person wasn't grey when they were younger. Hereditary diseases can develop later on in life, but that doesn't mean they aren't down to the genes more than the environment.
Also if you look at the wider animal kingdom we're a part of, heterosexuality is as prevalent amongst species who don't live in packs or communities - those that don't have access to the view of "what a couple should look like". If your theory were true, one would expect as much homosexuality as heterosexuality amongst species that are 'loners'. Also, most animals don't have sex education, which suggests a large part of what drives them to have sex and choose a sexual partner is instinct that isn't acquired but inherent. Which points to nature having some part in sexuality.
There is no conclusive proof to what extent nature or nurture shape our sexuality yet, only theory. But rational thought suggests to me at least that the idea it's only down to nurture makes no sense. So I don't agree with you.