I’ve updated my page on Not Born LGBT


From the sociological and psychological side, here’s two articles to note:

Was It a Phase? Young Women’s Relinquishment of Lesbian/Bisexual Identities Over a 5-Year Period

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Lisa M. Diamond



Female Bisexuality From Adolescence to Adulthood: Results From a 10-Year Longitudinal Study


Nearly 80 young sexual-minority women, identified as lesbian, bisexual, or unlabeled, have been assessed five times over a 10-year period, beginning in late adolescence and following through to early adulthood.
By T5, 60% OF T1 LESBIANS HAD HAD SEXUAL CONTACT WITH A MAN, and 30% HAD BEEN ROMANTICALLY INVOLVED WITH A MAN. Many of these women resolved the resulting contradiction between their lesbian identity and their other-sex attractions/behavior by SWITCHING to unlabeled or bisexual identities


Then from:

What We Got Wrong About Sexual Identity Development: Unexpected Findings From a Longitudinal Study of Young Women – Diamond (2005).pdf:

There is this – p. 14:

Compared with respondents who identified as lesbian or bisexual at T4, the unlabeled women reported significantly greater absolute gaps between their percentage of physical versus emotional same-sex attractions.

This finding demonstrates that the overall fit between a woman’s physical and emotional feelings for women and men is a key piece of evidence she might use to assess her sexual identity. As one woman said, quite straightforwardly, during her second interview,
Sometimes I worry that I will never settle down with anyone, because the way I feel about guys is mainly sexual, and the way I feel about women is mainly emotional. So I’m always going between the two, and I don’t know what to call that, you know?
Yet traditional sexual identity models make no accommodation for this sort of quandary. According to the traditional paradigm, women claiming discrepancies between their emotional and physical attractions are either confused heterosexuals or repressed lesbians.


This example also blows a hole the size of a crater in the simplistic way that “born this way” proponents think about “sexual orientation.” First because this example stresses what I have pointed out previously. The concept of “sexual orientation” is a fraud, since the human mind in respect to sexuality and relationships is extremely complex and can never be reduced to “sexual attraction” only – especially not of the benign kind, and which is what much of the research focuses on, ignoring how perverted and perverse so much of sexual attraction is in a highly dysfunctional society as ours. There is no such thing as an independent, isolated part of the brain that will have any kind of sexual attraction that is unrelated to anything else that happens in the brain, or to that person’s entire psychology; or unrelated to their their entire personal history and their development history, their cultural and ideological conditioning, etc. Claiming that sexual attraction happens out of the blue in the brain and then determines every other aspect of the social and psychological functioning of a human being is simply absurd.

It is not sexual attraction that determines the rest of a person’s psychology. It is exactly the opposite: a person’s entire psychological/emotional/cultural/ideological structure will determine specifically what kinds of sexual attractions are produced in their mind.  This model explains and fits every type of attraction produced, from the healthiest to the most deformed, dysfunctional, and perverted. Therefore the term “sexual attraction” is highly inadequate, since “attraction” implies something mostly benign.

For example, how do the “born this way” folks explain why a man would want to see a woman have sex with an animal if he is not into bestiality himself? Do they claim there is a genetic determination for a man feeling sexual “attraction” to watching a woman have sex with an animal? Do they claim it’s epigenetics? Should we do twin studies? The level of irrationality that is involved in these “biologically determined” theories about “sexual orientation” is just mind boggling. And this is especially true concerning any concept of “homosexual sexual orientation.”

On a side note, this example also underscores what a fallacy it is to claim that gender is irrelevant or interchangeable.




Do not confuse the term “(homo)sexuality” with “(homo) sexual orientation. They are not the same.

Homosexuality is about sexual attitudes, values, attractions, repulsions, concepts and interpretations about sexuality, power and domination or subjection dynamics relating to the sexual other, affection or objectification of the sexual other, admiration or disrespect related to the sexual object,conscious and unconscious feelings related to self or other which shapes or deforms relation and sexual feelings towards other, obsessions and distortions, projections, fantasies, dysfunctions, traumas, impacts from social conditioning, problems with masculinity or femininity,
problems with personal history and fundamental caretakers, etc. that will result in the sexualization of someone of the same sex and a hindering of the normal sexualization of someone of the opposite sex.

Society needs to be concerned about homosexuality, not homosexual orientation. Homosexual attraction or desire is only a mere product of a myriad configurations of these aforementioned dysfunctional psycho-social dynamics.