SCI/TECH: Medical Science: Smoking during pregnancy increases chance of lesbian baby

After we allready had the chance to read about diet pills affecting the sexual orientation of unborn babies, a Dutch neurobiologist and brain researcher now claims other events during pregnancy may also influence the babies hormone household in a lasting way, such as smoking and the use of amphetamine...



Are gay people born gay? Hard evidence is still absent but as more indirect evidence shows up, it seems to be most likely that gay people are indeed born gay, and that events during pregnancy may have a bigger, and longer-lasting impact to the unborn baby than what many people think.

Mr Swaab is the writer of the first handbook on the human hypothalamus, that saw light in 2004.

www.us.elsevierhealth.com...

Related News Links:
thescotsman.scotsman.com
www.theregister.co.uk

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: There were some problems with the original link at www.telegraaf.nl I used google cache for now.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by Jakko]

[edit on 3-10-2005 by Jakko]

[edit on 3-10-2005 by John bull 1]

Are gay people born gay?

That's the $50M question, and I think it needs to be answered before scientists start trying to see what health issues and habits may cause homosexuality. I've always leaned more towards the "nurture" side of the argument, that one's upbringing makes more of a difference in who they are than their genetics (although genetics cannot be ignored of course).

I think it might be more likely that mothers who smoke during pregnancy are predisposed to other psychological habits that may lend towards the rearing of a homosexual son or daughter. Maybe they have a more liberal standpoint, and therefore the children are more willing to experiment; maybe they're more conservative and the children are more willing to rebel. I wouldn't say there's absolutely no chemical affect on the fetus that may lead to homosexuality, but I'm guessing that the smoking during pregnancy is more a symptom than the direct cause.

Background info on the hypothalamus and Mr Swaab:

Hypothalamus
The hypothalamusis a multi-purpose structure located in the front-center of all mammal brains. It monitors the internal conditions of the body, such as hunger, thirst, body temperature and it controls the “arousal mode” for sex drive.

“INAH” and “SN” Sexual Connectors
Neuroscientist Dr. Simon LeVay of the University of California, LA, studied the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus, or “INAH,” and published his results in “Science” and “Discover” magazines. LeVay discovered that the INAH sexual connector in the hypothalamus is larger in men than in women. Interestingly, the INAH in homosexual men was found to be larger than those found in females, but smaller than in heterosexual men. Therefore, the INAH is physically shaped different between homosexual men and heterosexual men.

Dr. Dick Swaab, a Dutch neuroscientist, studied another neuron set in the hypothalamus called the “suprachiasmatic nucleus,” or “SN.” In males, the SN is more elongated, where in females, the SN is more bulbous. Interestingly, according to Dr. Swaab’s research, the SN is twice as large in homosexual men than in heterosexual men.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by Jakko]

Assuming this is true, it holds a lot of interesting potential to society. If true, it means that religious groups have no excuse to discriminate seing as this would mean that lesbianism isn't really a choice. That would potentially be a huge gift to homosexual rights. On the other hand knowing most religious groups campaigning against gays, they'll probably divert their attention to prevention of smoking.

Either way it's a win-win situation. Gays can't be discriminated against by religious groups, and at worst we have religious groups against smoking.

increases chance of lesbian baby

Why just a lesbian baby? The man determines the sex, so if its a girl and the woman smokes, there is a better chance of her being gay?

Sounds like a stretch to me.

Has this doctor done any "real" test, like subject people to tests and see how the baby is in 20 years?

Yeah Spittin', that's one thing I do not get myself either.
All the news headlines say "lesbian baby" but I presume they mean "gay baby".

Or else it would mean the nicotine has a different influence on female embryos, than on male embryos...

This man spend his entire life studying brains and studying all kinds of gender-related problems, from people being born gay, to people being born in the "wrong body".

I presume he did do that kind of research Spittin'.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by Jakko]

One of the supporting articles put it this way:

The US study found that mothers of homosexuals were eight times more likely to have taken the two identified drugs during the first three months of their pregnancy.

So that would seem to suggest it happens to both sexes.


One of the supporting articles cited a study of the hypothalamus glands in 'straight' sheep and 'gay' sheep. ( don't believe they attiributed the differences in the sheep to smoking, though.) So apparently several studies had been done.

This very rich indeed, having a well know "neurologist" now exposing the genetic factor that creates transsexuals and specially "Lesbian babies"

So cigarettes are the problem, hum. . .amazing now we have another reason to sue the tobacco companies.

Now religious anti-homosexual groups have to back off, because the deviant behavior is actually "Genetic" (So Mr. Swaab said)

What a slap in the face for them.

Well Marg, Cigarettes themselves are not even the core problem here, the problem is the stimulating substances like nicotine, alphetamine and "boosting" stimulants found in diet pills.

This is not the first time that a well-known neurologist makes statements that point in the direction of gay people being born gay, so I doubt wether this time the effect on churches and homphobic people in general will be bigger than before.

What surprises me though, is that I had to dig really deep to find this news. It has not been in many papers in the netherlands, and the space given to this news in the papers that did bring the story was minimal.

Is this not important enough? Or maybe conflicting with some high placed persons personal opinion?

Ok wtf.
So far I have:

NO: writing
FIX: introduction
FIX: introduction
NO: not right
FIX: source
NO: bias
NO: source

Why oh why oh why, can't we know who voted what???
It's becoming frustrating, and I have no clue what to change or edit anymore, seems like everything's wrong.

Actually I like the article I have not problem with it.

Now going back with the subject I have to agree that sometimes the views of the scientist may affect the outcome of the research.

Depending which side they are leaning on, the results of their test may lean too.

I have found many links to him and other works he has done trying to prove his theories.

In 1995 Professor Dick Swaab announced to an indifferent world that the probable cause of transsexualism was perhaps linked to the relative sizes of the Anterior portion of the Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis. Unfortunately a lot of political debate erupted around this and it is probable that a lot of good science was lost in the debate. The issue for Swaab was perhaps finding some proof of a condition from a neurological standpoint. The issue that most people latched on to was the notion that "Transsexuals cannot help being transsexual"

Perhaps the Dr. should be given more serious though he may have some good information after all about his findings.

I wonder if anybody has gone against his research.

users.adelphia.net...

www.alibris.com...


[edit on 3-10-2005 by marg6043]

HAHAHA !!!

It's the most funny news that I ever red!

And some people will believe it !! God forgive them!

Originally posted by Vitchilo
HAHAHA !!!

It's the most funny news that I ever red!

And some people will believe it

!! God forgive them!

That's because it's probably true.

this is one of the most absurd posts I have seen in a long time. If you want to know if someone is born gay, ask a gay person, they will tell you right out that they made no choice about it. As for smoking causing lesbianism, that is a joke. How about all the women with gay or lesbian children who never smoked? If somebody is going to propose such a riduclious theory, prove it show us the data and use the scientific technique to break the theory apart and then reassemble it to see if it works.

Originally posted by grover
this is one of the most absurd posts I have seen in a long time. If you want to know if someone is born gay, ask a gay person, they will tell you right out that they made no choice about it.

You may be surprised to hear that a lot of gay people do not understand themselves well enough to say it was not a choice.
Some are proud to say it was a choice even though it was no choice.
And one look around ATS should inform you of how many straight people still think being gay is a choice.

It is unbelievable I know, but research like this can change peoples minds about it.

As for smoking causing lesbianism, that is a joke. How about all the women with gay or lesbian children who never smoked? If somebody is going to propose such a riduclious theory, prove it show us the data and use the scientific technique to break the theory apart and then reassemble it to see if it works.

Smoking causing lesbianism, did you read the full story?
It's about nicotine having an impact on unborn babies.
The neurologist never says that all mothers who smoke get gay children, he says that smoking increases the chance to get gay children.
There is a difference you know.

The background of this man, gives him credibility and his credibility is what made this "theory" come into the news in the first place.
It is a theory.

The only reason why we are talking about this mans theory here, is because similar theories that this man outted in the past all turned out to be true.

In other words, this man knows what he is talking about.

Of course it is still possible his theorie is off, and smoking doesn't actually damage embryo's, but from what I have read and seen, this man is likely to be right.

I don't doubt this man's claim either.
To put toxins in your body, even before pregnancy, let alone during leaves U with no right to be surprised if something goes wrong with the growth of the baby.

I don't see lesbianism or homosexulaity as a problem though but I guess I can see why people would be so quick to dismiss this idea.
So what if the baby is gay or lesbian ? Surely we are not so narrow minded in 2005

Also I think we are forgetting that lesbians are not homosexual, a gay person is homosexual ie: male gender. Hence the referral to lesbians and the child being female I think.

Ok first of all let's just remember the guy is Dutch I believe. There might have simply been different terminology or mistranslation.

Now homosexuality isn't nessesarily a problem. It is however abnormal (sorry but no better word for it), and should merit some investigation. That doesn't mean it's a problem, it just means it should be better understood. It's like "why do some people have darker skin?" It's a scientific question that deserves a scientific answer.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Ok first of all let's just remember the guy is Dutch I believe. There might have simply been different terminology or mistranslation.

Now homosexuality isn't nessesarily a problem. It is however abnormal (sorry but no better word for it), and should merit some investigation. That doesn't mean it's a problem, it just means it should be better understood. It's like "why do some people have darker skin?" It's a scientific question that deserves a scientific answer.

well put

Are gay people born gay?

That's the $50M question, and I think it needs to be answered before scientists start trying to see what health issues and habits may cause homosexuality. I've always leaned more towards the "nurture" side of the argument, that one's upbringing makes more of a difference in who they are than their genetics (although genetics cannot be ignored of course).

Answer: Some are. From what I can tell from observation and interaction... most aren't. I can't give statistics because this has been an entirely passive social study, but what I have seen indicates that the majority have made the choice to be gay. Either through trauma, desperation, or to be 'trendy.' The minority are without choice in the matter. They were born that way. Unfortunately controlled studies and media presentations never show the full picture. Only social interaction and experimentation shows reality. I may be wrong. But so far, I've been repeatedly proven correct. Just ask my so-called lesbian ex-fiancee.

that smoking damages the system including those of embyros I haven't a doubt, its the question of connecting it to homosexuality (lesbianism is female homosexuality ya know) that I wonder about and why lesbian and not gay. Personally I tend to believe that homosexuality is a genetic trigger that kicks in when populations reach a certian density, to lower it...so far that is the only theory of homosexuality that makes biological sense. Besides that fact, an open ended sexuality seems to be a bi-product of a higher order brain, after all the only other animal that has sex out of heat and practices almost all the variations that we do, has a clitoris and has orgasms is our closest living relative, the Bonobo and they practice homosexuality/bisexuality and of course they don't smoke.