Am I right that you believe sexual identity is hardwired at birth?

Twin studies have proved two things: first, that there is a genetic link to homosexuality, and second, that there are environmental factors. There is also evidence that certain hormone levels in the womb can provide that environmental factor.

Early childhood development research shows that sexual identity is developed by the age of 3 and constancy by 6. Thus this is most likely to be about the oldest you could be and still have your orientation altered, though chances are that by 3 it's already too late.

The evidence is strong that there is a significant genetic component as well as an environmental component and that sexuality is hardwired during infancy if not earlier. I believe the evidence.


The problem with this, as I see it, is how does one define "sexual confusion" (which you say is possible) and "change of orientation" (which you say is not)? It seems to me, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Confusion is temporary, orientation is permanent. Someone who is confused will not ever find peace while living a life contrary to his sexual orientation. A relationship of the wrong kind will simply never fill his needs.

What is your opinion about people who consider themselves "bi"? Is "bi" their true identity, hardwired from birth, or are they "heterosexual with homosexual confusion" or "homosexual with heterosexual confusion"?

Some are truly bisexual, some are confused.

What about someone who was abused as a child, claims to be "bi" (51% hetero; 49% homo), and claims their homosexual attractions are the result of their abuse? Would you say they are truly "bi", and the abuse had no affect, or that they are truly heterosexual, and the abuse caused their homosexual confusion?

That person may be bisexual or he may be confused. It's impossible to say without knowing the person very well.

Think about this for a moment:

Every person who discovers they are not straight goes through a period of questioning and confusion. There are many resources for gay youth out there and if you take a look at them, you will find that same pattern, that same search for answer. Many emotions are possible during that period of self discovery and eventual acceptance: fear, anger, doubt, confusion... Some of those people will become interested in figuring out why they are this way. If someone was a victim of sexual abuse, what are the chances they would keep looking for a reason rather than just saying "well, that must be what made me gay!" and ending their search immediately? In fact, isn't it very likely that many such people would use their experience as the scape goat for their gay-induced feelings of inadequacy? If that same person had not been sexually abused, they would have been gay anyway and would have had to continue their search for answers, perhaps eventually realizing they were probably born that way; but because they were, they mistakenly came to the wrong but easy to reach conclusion.

Isn't it very likely that the vast majority of bisexual or gay csa survivors will come to the incorrect conclusion about the causes? Therefore, doesn't this mean they are the least reliable sources possible?

That's part of the reason that this kind of anecdotal evidence is worthless. We know ahead of time that the people most likely to reach the wrong conclusion about the causes of their sexual identity are the very people giving these anecdotes.