Monday, January 20, 2014

Controversial new book claims that smoking and drinking by a pregnant woman increases the chance her child will be gay. I imagine this is from the well known study entitled "Look What I Pulled Out of My Ass."

Courtesy of the Daily Mail:  

Women who suffer stress during pregnancy increase the chance of their child being gay, according to a controversial new book. 

The lifestyle of pregnant mothers affects the sexuality of their unborn child, altering their hormones and the formation of their brains, it claims. 

Smoking or taking drugs can also result in a child who grows up to be gay, according to the book by Dutch neuroscientist Dick Swaab, which is yet another chapter in the debate about the origins and causes of homosexuality. 

Professor Swaab believes that a child’s sexuality is determined in the womb and cannot be altered, while others argue that it is affected by upbringing or ‘selected’ as a lifestyle choice. 

In his book, We Are Our Brains, he writes: ‘Although it’s frequently assumed that development after birth also importantly affects our sexual orientation, there’s no proof of this whatsoever. 

‘Children brought up by lesbians aren’t more likely to be homosexual. Nor is there any evidence at all for the misconception that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice”.’ 

Professor Swaab says that the development of the brain during pregnancy is altered by the tiniest of chemical changes. 

As an example, he claims that a drug prescribed to two million mothers to combat miscarriages during the 1940s and 1950s increased the likelihood of bisexuality and homosexuality in their unborn children. 

‘Pre-birth exposure to nicotine or amphetamines also increases the likelihood of lesbian daughters,’ he writes in the book. 

‘Pregnant woman suffering from stress are also more likely to give birth to homosexual children, because their raised levels of the stress hormone cortisol affect the production of fetal sex hormones.’ 

Professor Swaab also claims that a boy with a number of older brothers is more inclined to be gay, and that nature made teenagers annoying to curb incest, and that difficult births produce children with schizophrenia, autism, and anorexia.

You know, because all of that makes so much sense.

Perhaps somebody should point out to the professor that homosexuality has been a component of human sexuality since the beginning of time, and well before the discovery of tobacco and even alcoholic beverages.

Not only that but homosexuality is wide spread among mammals, birds, and fish. When was the last time you saw a pregnant dolphin getting hammered during happy hour?

Look while I applaud any effort to keep pregnant women from smoking and drinking, because it really IS bad for their babies, this is simply ridiculous and should not be used to frighten expectant mothers into thinking they are responsible for the sexuality of their fetus, simply becasue they had a glass of wine before they decided to pee on stick.

And by the way, for the record, my ex-wife did not drink nor smoke, and had the most carefree pregnancy imaginable. So I feel pretty comfortable calling bullshit on this book. 

42 comments:

  1. Anonymous6:38 AM

    This HAS to be a joke. Dick Swaab?? John Stewart will have a field day with this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7:11 AM

      And, I'm just guessing here, his co-author was Mike Hunt.

      Delete
  2. Anonymous6:47 AM

    Although his claims are highly controversial and highly far-fetched, it's a good thing that he denounces the idea that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. In fact, that's probably the only good thing about this doctor: the fact that he denounces the idea that "development after birth...affects our sexual orientation".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. fromthediagonal10:37 AM

      anon @ 6:47... the problem with this one is that while Swaab may not see homosexuality as a "life style choice", he put the onus squarely upon the pregnant woman. Just another reason to blame the female as always was done: "banish the queen" when she did not birth a male heir. This kind of thinking has brought untold horrors upon women of all castes in all so-called cultures throughout history.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous6:53 AM

    Then you'd think every other baby boomer would be gay.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous7:12 AM

    I guess this must mean that most of us baby boomers are gay and didn't know it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Party on!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous7:13 AM

    The claim that a boy with more older brothers will be more likely to be gay has been advanced in other studies, and seems statistically to be valid. (Assuming a large enough sample size and accurate data, of course.)

    It's theorized that this may result from residual hormonal changes in the mother's womb due to previous male-producing pregnancies.

    That's as may be---it has been, and is being, objectively tested. The rest of Dr. Swaab's claims?? Not so much.

    It isn't just that these claims are most likely false (and certainly have no way of being scientifically proved) that bothers me most. It's the way these factors---smoking! Drinking! Stress! All big baddies---are matter-of-factly assumed to result in gayness.

    Do bad things, and your child will be gay, is the implicit message here.

    That frankly disgusts me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous8:18 AM

      Notice it is only the female who is targeted. I call BS on this mainly because a female's eggs are all formed well before she ever starts to even think about smoking or drinking. Now dad's sperm? BIG difference. A male only starts to produce sperm when he is mature enough. He reaches an age where he can make sperm and it usually coincides with a time he might start to drink or smoke, teen years.
      If anything it is the MALE who makes the difference in the gayness according to this boob's theory.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous8:46 AM

      They've also proved (real science, not right wing science) that older men, usually on Viagra, produce autistic children. How about them apples?

      Delete
  6. Anonymous7:18 AM

    I didn't take any drugs - not even an aspirin while I was pregnant. I didn't even have a sip of alcohol while pregnant. No stress, either. My son is gay. I wouldn't change a thing about him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous8:44 AM

      Right on!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous11:00 AM

      I suspect that your son wouldn't change a thing about you either!

      Delete
  7. Randall7:19 AM

    I wonder if this fellow, like many pseudo-scientists, is confusing correlation with causation?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous7:28 AM

    Is that a photo of Willow?

    ReplyDelete
  9. My generation should be just about all gay. Our mothers smoked, drank, dieted, and yet here we are not all gay.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous8:08 AM

    Makes perfect sense that it would be the mother's fault. (eye roll) And the war on women continues.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous8:09 AM

    Pat Robertson says hurricanes and floods cause gays

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. fromthediagonal10:44 AM

      anon @ 8:09... I think you have that bassackwards:

      According to the insanity of one Pat Robertson, gays have caused the floods simply by existing.

      Correct me if I am wrong!

      Delete
  12. Anonymous8:24 AM

    " difficult births produce children with schizophrenia, autism, and anorexia" ...
    WOW!!! So, 41 hours of hard BACKlabor is not a difficult birth (back-labor = labor, where the baby is facing towards the front of the mother, instead of towards the spine), since my daughter has neither of those conditions. Wonder what constitutes difficulty then.
    SMH.
    And again... IT'S ALL THE WOMAN'S FAULT!!! SHE is the one who chose to have stress during her pregnancy!!!

    If this does nothing than to advance the establishment for paid maternity leave for the whole duration of the pregnancy, then I would fully support this BULLSH*T treatise. Otherwise, it is just another piece in the War On Women.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. fromthediagonal10:47 AM

      anon @ 8:24... applause, applause!
      I posted up-thread before reading this, but you said exactly what I feel: Another piece of denigrating women as nothing but birthing vessels who shall bear the consequences of not delivering the perfect offspring to the satisfaction of the sire. ARRRGH!

      Delete
  13. eclecticsandra8:26 AM

    I doubt that the author has any good longitudinal studies to prove this claim. We weren't much concerned about smoking and drinking during pregnancy until the late 70's. I had two pregnancies in the 60's with no cut back in drinking and smoking. My products were wildly heterosexual.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous8:48 AM

    Jackie Kennedy Onassis smoked while preggers, Caroline and John-John turned out straight.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Boscoe9:00 AM

    Well, on the bright side, at least they're admitting that gay is an orientation you're born with and not a choice. :P

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous9:02 AM

    Of course it makes sense Gryphen.
    I see nothing in the article that says drinking or smoking or using other drugs during pregnancy ALWAYS results in homosexual offspring--just that it might. We already know that anything a mother ingests and her mental state have an effect on a developing fetus and that difficult births can have consequences That's why so many of us are so adamant that everyone have access to decent food, health care and a reasonable level of economic security.

    Since homosexuality IS common in nature, I'm convinced that there's a genetic reason for it. That's not to say it is the only cause. In their constant search for food, I'm sure our hunter-gatherer ancestors ingested plenty of naturally occurring substances with effects similar to our modern drugs and vices. We can forgive THEM for their ignorance.

    Anyway, we accept an awful lot of "quirks" and "oddities" and differing preferences in our fellow human beings, most of which seem to be present from birth. Why shouldn't homosexuality be one of them?


    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous9:04 AM

    Honestly, maybe you should read his book, or look at his research before you flip out. Why is this so ridiculous to you? Sexual differentiation is a delicate process, why do you assume it can't be affected by the presence or absence of certain chemicals in the mother? Because research DOES suggest that this is what happens, that this complex chemical dance can be shifted in one direction or another by the availability or abscence or some chemical, that a gene may express differently depending on what it's exposed to, etc.

    You seem to want it both ways -- homosexuality is not a choice (i.e. determined by brain physiology), and homosexuality is a choice (i.e. not determined by brain physiology). Or perhaps your point is, smoking cigarettes can't possibly influence a body's chemistry? Are you really that stupid?

    How very rational of you to extrapolate your personal birth experience to the whole human race. You know, he doesn't say "all homosexuality is caused by cigarette smoking". He says, it's possible that smoking can shift the chemistry in such a way to produce this affect. Are you saying that fetal brain development isn't affected by chemistry? Are you saying sexual orientation has nothing to do with the brain? Are you saying homosexuality is a choice? Seriously the only way I can reconcile your hostility to this man's ideas is to assume you do not understand them. He is a highly celebrated brain researcher, not some religious zealot pushing his personal moralilty.

    You pretend to have such respect for science. Why don't you look at the actual science before you attack his ideas? Could it be that you only respect science when it supports what you want to believe? Seriously, I'm done visiting your site, you're an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. eclecticsandra9:14 AM

      Gryphen wouldn't give a book review without reading it. I would like to see what longitudinal and experimental basis the author used. Do you have that information for us?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous9:19 AM

      GOOD.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous9:43 AM

      This does seem to be the response that religion has when it is challenged. This isn't an attack on mothers or even a definitive study. He isn't saying that there is a direct causal relationship between drinking, smoking and drugs and homosexuality. What he is suggesting is that chemical stress and other factors can cause subtle changes to hormones in utereo and then these can later affect sexual orientation. BTW alcohol in the form of fermented fruits and grains has very likely been part of human culture since prehistory.

      Delete
    4. First it should be clear that I was not offering a book review, and no I did not read this book. I typically steer clear of books dealing with pseudo science.

      My comments were based on the portions provided by the Daily Mail, and then what I believe to be some common sense considerations, based on the human history and personal experience.

      I have been doing some reading since posting about this book and much of the controversy pertains to a lack of documentation on the studies he has used to reach some of his conclusions, and of course the finding themselves.

      However he is by all accounts a renowned neuroscientist with many books to his credit.

      As of right now I have not seen a fellow scientist calling him out for poor research habits, nor lambasting this book.

      Having said that I would personally demand a substantial amount to data and peer review before changing my opinion of some of these findings.

      Delete
    5. What you wrote has a lot of truth to it. We now know that smoking during pregnancy causes low birth weight, and drinking alcohol during a pregnancy causes Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS).

      I'm not going to refute his findings, or accept them either without knowing if his study was peer reviewed and accepted as a valid scientific study.

      What I can also say from my own experience is that ex-wife smoked and drank during the pregnancy of our second and last child. Back them FAS was not well known or talked about until about 1 year after my daughters birth. Being the responsible parent who took my children to their baby check ups and more, is that our doctor was really stump as to why our child wasn't growing at an acceptable weight and height like most children. At one point she was even off the low end of the graph. About a year and a half after she was born I happen to read an article in a newspaper that talked about FAS. Reading it I could see just how much my daughter had in common with other FAS children, and I became very depressed and angry in after what I had read the article. By that point we were separated so I took my child to a specialist and the diagnosis was quickly confirmed.

      Knowing what we all know now about the effects of chemical introductions into a mother during her pregnancy, we know some can effect the growing fetus. I certainly have some doubts at this point on whether this study is valid or not, and until I know his study has been peered reviewed and his methods approved, I'm holding out judgement until his study has also been repeated by another study.

      People who are using their own experience during their pregnancy to discount the results of this study are using poor logic to make up their minds on the study results.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous11:45 AM

      Excellent post, m baker. Gryphen you might consider looking at the guys academic chops (considerable) a bit before throwing out what he has to say out of hand. while dolphins don't smoke, they are certainly vulnerable to toxins and stress.

      Same goes for those of you being so defensive - right now, the place fetal brain development happens is within the woman. How you made the jump to and it's her fault for every toxin she is exposed to during pregnancy is a very long jump.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous11:48 AM

      Swaab's cv
      http://www.nin.knaw.nl/research_groups/swaab_group/team/swaab

      Delete
  18. Anonymous9:17 AM

    So let's see how is it that my gay best friend is the only boy with four sisters?? It's genetic. If you have a gay kid chances are there is an Uncle/Aunt or Cousin somewhere in the family tree who is gay, whether they are out or not. Some people who are gay simply choose not to live that lifestyle. They might want to live a traditional family life with hetero spouse and kids. They might be asexual too. The bottom line is... who cares? If you're a human being who treats animals, property and other humans with respect who am I to say how you live your life???
    "Don't Tread On Me" goes both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous9:17 AM

    Doesn't surprise me at all. The theory, I mean. It's utter nonsense but in a world where it's simplest to blame the woman, why not. And, about twenty years ago, bad mothering was believed to be the cause of autism. Thank goodness, that one got debunked.
    Beaglemom

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous9:20 AM

    ah....oooo.... I guess we now know which side of the fence Tripp will walk on

    ReplyDelete
  21. Balzafiar10:21 AM

    My mother neither smoked nor drank so I guess my only excuse for being gay would be all the liver she had to eat while pregnant with me (doctor's orders).

    So, should I look up that doctor and sue him? Seems to me I have a pretty good case if I use Professor Swaab's book as a guideline.

    ReplyDelete
  22. fromthediagonal10:55 AM

    My final take on this is a sentiment I have had for many years:

    Yesterday's wisdom is tomorrow's folly.

    Thus I tend to approach life with a certain amount of skepticism and it has helped me a lot in my many years on this Blue Marble.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous4:18 PM

    It's a rare day when I don't see eye to eye with a G post, but in this case people might need to take a deep breath. Suggesting that exposure to toxins in utero has something to do with sexuality is not an entirely outrageous idea. As another commenter noted, it is established that homosexuality is more common among later-born males. So the conditions in the womb do matter. And saying that there is an increased incidence of homosexuality with circumstances X, Y, and Z is not the same as saying that X, Y, and Z are the only reason homosexuality exists...or that X, Y, and Z necessarily lead to homosexuality.
    My guess is that what bothers people here is the suggestion that homosexuality is to any extent in the same league with fetal alcohol syndrome -- i.e., a "damaged" condition. Thinking about it scientifically, my question would be, are there evolutionary advantages for humans as a species to having a small fraction of the population be homosexual? If so, then maybe as a species, a certain incidence of homosexuality is hard-wired. If, as a species, homosexuality acts to lower survival likelihood, that would be a different story. I really don't know what the thinking is on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7:26 PM

      Yep. Many societies found "both-sexed" individuals to be very self-sufficient, thus desirable.
      .

      Delete
  24. Anita Winecooler5:31 PM

    Actually, I theorize that homosexuality is passed on from the sperm of men who smoke, drink, do drugs, wear briefs instead of boxers and never go to church on sundays. Manscaping is another big contributor. Guys who use "just for men" hair dye most definitely turn the gay switch "on" in their sperm. Let's not forget the older fathers who buy flashy sports cars.

    Also the ones who had big sisters and played barbies with them. Another huge contributor is brushing the mane of "My Pretty Pony",

    It's ALWAYS the woman's "fault", Right Doctor Dick Swabb? Gee, it must suck living with a name like Dick Swabb! Did the other boys make fun of you? Motion with their hands like they were going to toss die? Whistle when you sashayed down the hall?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7:39 PM

      need a wine cooler - shit leave a few on the store shelves. You sound like an ass.

      Delete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.