.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Tuesday, October 24, 2006


Updated review of the Danish study of environment and sexual orientation of marriage

I have updated the review of the Frisch and Hviid study of environmental correlates of sexual orientation and marriage. Dr. Frisch read it today and approved this version.

This opinion article will be released tomorrow, or the next day. UPDATE: It is out. (10/25).

Dr. Throckmorton, NARTH has a review of this study too but they say that the study promotes the birth order theory. You say the study does not. Why do you say the study does not support the birth order theory? Here is the link to the NARTH article: www.narth.com/docs/influencing.html
Anon: Here is where the NARTH review goes off track:

Children with older brothers and sisters were more likely to grow up homosexual: "Both men and women who grew up as the youngest child in a sibship were significantly more likely to marry homosexually than peers with younger siblings."
The last finding (item #10) offered some support to the "fraternal birth-order effect" theory which has been noted in previous studies. Those studies found that some mothers may develop an immune response to male infants with each successive pregnancy; and as a result, their later-born boys' brains seem to have been incompletely masculinized.
The authors of the current Danish study note that the fraternal birth-order effect may indeed be true for a small number of homosexual men, but they found "no indication that older brothers were particularly common" among homosexual men as a group.

I have had several emails with Dr. Frisch on this point over the last several days. He has made it very clear that his report does not support the birth order effect. The regression analysis used in this report is complex for sure but this report does not support the FBOE. The report is complex so it is understandable that some confusion could occur on that point. However, the NARTH review seems to say that evidence for a maternal immune response has been found. This is not true. The Bogaert study raised the theory as an possible explanation for the findings but gave no direct evidence that would support the theory. Further the Frisch/Hviid study did not find any evidence to support the maternal immune response theory.
Looks like NARTH has removed the incorrect information from Linda Nicolosi's review of the Frisch & Hviid study.
"The Bogaert study raised the theory as an possible explanation for the findings but gave no direct evidence that would support the theory."

True. I think it is sad that this guess on the part of the researcher was one of parts of the study that got the most attention. If the FBOE is conclusively determined, Bogaert's guess may be true... but so might a dozen other thing.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?