A recent study investigated the theory that the levels of sex hormones present in the fetus may play a role in shaping an individual’s sexual attraction later in life.
The attraction to same-sex partners is prevalent in humans, but the underlying biology and causes of homosexuality and bisexuality remain not fully understood.
A new study involving a researcher from Swansea University is exploring the possibility that sex hormones present in the fetus may play a role in shaping an individual’s sexual attraction later in life. Building on previous research linking parental income to fetal sex hormones, the study, for the first time, examines the potential connection between parental income and the sexual behavior of adult children.
According to the researchers the highest frequencies of same-sex attraction were found in the children of the lowest (25 percent) income group, the lowest frequencies in the income group slightly higher than others, and elevated frequencies of same-sex attraction in the children of the top 25 percent of the population.
The study, which has recently been published in Evolutionary Psychology, is a collaboration between Professor Manning, Bernhard Fink of the University of Vienna, and the American evolutionary biologist and sociobiologist Robert Trivers.
Professor Manning said: “These novel findings suggest that high fetal estrogen is a factor in both male and female same-sex attraction in children of low-income parents. Conversely, in male and female children of high-income parents, high fetal testosterone may be linked to same-sex attraction. “
The authors have further speculated that high fetal estrogen is related to “femme” and “submissive” roles in female and male homosexuals respectively. Moreover, high prenatal testosterone may be linked to ‘butch’ and ‘assertive’ roles in female and male homosexuals respectively.”
The research follows on from a previous study involving Professor Manning published last year which found low-income mothers feminize their children in the womb by adjusting their hormones, whereas high-income mothers masculinize their children.
That study was based on the relationship between the length of a person’s index and ring fingers, known as the 2D:4D ratio. A long ring finger is a marker of higher levels of prenatal testosterone, and a long index finger is a marker of higher levels of prenatal estrogen. Generally, in comparison to women, men have longer ring fingers, whereas in comparison to men, women have longer index fingers.
Reference: “Parental Income and the Sexual Behavior of Their Adult Children: A Trivers–Willard Perspective” by John T. Manning, Bernhard Fink and Robert Trivers, 12 December 2022, Evolutionary Psychology.
There are numerous potential confounding factors that weren’t even mentioned, let alone examined.
I give this study a “4,” if counting on one’s fingers in binary. Taken to its extreme, it suggests that power (as measured by income) works against the survival of the species.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan
I have to say I was disappointed by the lack of detail included in the article. There was no mention of sample size, how participants were selected, how the statistics were collected and compiled, if it was original work, or a survey of other studies.
Nor were there links to places to verify this information. It’s an interesting area of study, but sloppy science doesn’t help move our understanding forward.
Correction to my previous comment: Links to the studies WERE provided, as highlighted text, so I missed them — sorry!
It comes as no surprise to me to find there is a notable link between parental income and the sexual behavior of their offspring. By the late 1960s modified common allergen, incomplete protein, phytoestrogen rich soy was already becoming a part of the American diet. Used as an additive to improve food manufacturing profits, peoples of low income are more likely to buy cheaper pseudo-food products. And, by the early 1970s, about 95% of US soy was being processed more cheaply with toxic hexane with some residue with FDA approval, with the US female breast cancer epidemic presenting by 1979 (ACS and NCI data). However, becoming nearly ubiquitous to the food supply and since going/gone global with the ‘Western Diet’ and no longer limited to low income families, there appears to be an epidemic of homosexuality which was already observed by 2006 (e.g., https://www.wnd.com/2006/12/39253/). What Mr. Rutz did not include in his article (as presently recalled) is what effect does aggravating undiagnosed subclinical non-IgE-mediated food allergies with ‘cultured-free’ monosodium glutamate (MSG; 1980) have on the one’s hormone levels?
“…, peoples of low income are more likely to buy cheaper pseudo-food products.”
However, the authors imply that it is those buying your “cheaper pseudo-food products” who are expressing typical gender preferences that evolution selects for. That is counter to the claims that those eating ‘better’ are curtailing reproduction through same-gender selection. Your claims are not logical.
“Professor Manning said: “These novel findings suggest that high fetal estrogen is a factor in both male and female same-sex attraction in children of low-income parents.””
Clyde, did you try the link I provided. Mr. Jim Rutz explained the estrogen/phytoestrogen problem much better than I. And, only a year earlier I wrote the FDA (with replies) about the connections between allergies, added MSG, chronic disease and obesity; obviously, now, in-vain. And, too. soy being an incomplete protein (lacking a few essential amino acids; depending some on the soil it’s grown in), to even partially replace complete proteins like beef, chicken, and pork, minimally, is to ‘adulterate’ our foods, change them into less nutritious pseudo-foods and violate the Federal Food Drugs and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA) and the US Constitution. To top off the harm the FDA has done/is doing with soy and MSG, minimally, the Covid-19 ‘scamdemic’ was/is just the tip of the iceberg; the ‘capstone’ of a pyramid built of prematurely deceased unsuspecting American bodies.
The article appears to suggest income alone effects the hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb. Incredible claim. With the median income being the norm and both extremes showing increased homosexuality. Extraordinary claim. I look forward to more research into if and when human activities can systemically alter human behavior and physiology. I think we should look everywhere and make sure we don’t engineer our own destruction, and maybe figure out superhumans!
You’re an idiot
Truthseeker, I’ve been writing of the harm of added MSG for seventeen years and counting, soy since about 2012, propylene glycol (PG) since about 2010, TBHQ since about 2016 and most recently, responded to an article here about transgenerational anxiety caused by aspartame. The truth is it may already be too late.
What is the hypothesis here. Why was this research even done. Just reeks of homophobia to me. I wonder what the authors’ orientations are.
I found the snowflake, folks!
C, when it’s instigated by the people we as taxpayers pay to serve and protect us it’s not a phobia of any kind, it’s a crime. Try reading all of what I wrote above and use the link in my first comments to learn more.
Not homophobia but homophilia. There are soooooo many variables and lack of controls in “science” today. Does not anyone understand how a scientific experiment needs to be run?
This fails to account for the hundreds of animal species, without any kind of income, who also demonstrate homosexuality. Income can’t be the cause.
This reads like it was written by ChatbotGPT.
This is not scientific study, this is a hypothesis that has yet to be fully explored. Where is the concrete evidence? Disgrace to the lgbt, and the financially struggling. Classism strikes again.
All this article really proves is that blue collar/middle class are more likely to suppress their sexuality if it may fall outside the traditional norm. It makes perfect sense. Congratulations on your ground breaking study. And what’s this s*!t about finger length? Was that actually doing science?