The sometimes is there because it sometimes happens. It's not rare, but it's not the most common either. But then neither is very young childhood sexual abuse very common.Yes, children are easily encouraged to mimic what they see as social norms. In a different society they would be wanting to marry a viking instead, and in a yet different one, become a nun. The "sometimes" you put there is a very strategic qualifier though.
Yes, there are variable causes. This is pretty well established. The theory I am disputing is that childhood trauma is one of them. I just pointed out that gay kids act differently. Now maybe this is a cause, maybe this is correlation, but again, it pokes a hole in the claimed trauma case argument you have.But if it is only "statistically significant" rather than "proportional to the expected amount of homosexuals" that does fit with my theory of variable causes and forms of psychological development that later in life may coalesce into general homosexuality, though with many subgroups that may have their subtle differences.
Basically, AFAICT, your argument for childhood trauma caused sexual orientation existing is:
0) There are a variety of causes of gayness.
1) There exists a correlation between childhood sexual abuse and gayness.
2) You say that correlation exists even for children too young to act differently because they are gay. The best evidence of this you've shown was one where it was kids 11 and younger, some of which will know they are different then.
3) Conclusion: it must be that childhood sexual trauma can lead to being gay.
I agree with 0 and 1. The problem is with 2 (and to a lesser extent 3). There are serious evidentiary holes with 2. First, that a bunch of kids know they are gay at a young age (that they want the guy not the girl, for example), and this has been a thing even in places where gay was discriminated against. More, the evidence you've provided is lacking, and you are the one making a positive claim. Finally, I've presented evidence that shows behavioral differences between gays and straights at a very young age. Even if these behavioral differences are causal, whose to say that this cause does not explain the greater vulnerability to predators?
Um, the author behind study 3 said this:Here you have a developmental psychologists linking and discussing 4 studies on answering precisely that question. And he is very much trying to take into account correlation-causation related issues.
Overall he doesn't give a conclusive yes or no to this theory, and brings up some studies that confirm your view (4), some to mine (3), and some that this issue may be more complicated than either, that the relationship between abuse and homosexual tendencies may be bidirectional, and that it may be dependent even on the specific type of abuse.
Overall, seems rather inconclusive, i don't see why this should be handwaved away in favor of taking your view as conclusive for no reason at all.
That solidly supports my position: behavior (specifically gender nonconforming behavior) of gay youths makes them more likely to be vicitimized.For psychologists Yin Xu and colleagues, the association between maltreatment and sexual orientation is reduced to non-significance when taking into consideration the gender nonconformity of the sexual-minority youths.
I assume that is what you are referring to when you said this?
Because none of the other studies show cause either.some to mine (3)
Absolutely not. There is no reason why lack of conclusive evidence either way should lead to a default to your opinion that this fully explains such differences, even though there is no conclusive evidence that it does. Perhaps the evidence is not conclusive either way, but rationally that should lead to it being considered, well, inconclusive, and in need of more research.
Even if it does make such children the preferred target for pedophiles, it would need to do so at sufficient numbers to explain this disproportion to confirm your theory.
Meanwhile there is separate research on what exactly makes children targets of pedophiles, and it's not exactly that:
The pattern seems pretty obvious - unassertive, neglected by parents, disabled, generally as incapable of resisting physically and mentally as possible. While you could argue this does fit with the stereotypes of gays, by that logic girls with masculine tendencies should in fact be less likely to be targeted than the average, did anyone observe that?What the experts know about child sexual abuse and exploitation
What is grooming? How does abuse happen online? We speak to the experts at Barnardo's answering some common questions about sexual abuse and exploitation.www.barnardos.org.uk
My position is that there is little to no evidence supporting that CSA causes gayness. You are claiming that it does, which is the positive claim requiring evidence.
As for your attempt to point out gender non-conforming girls as a possibility, note that abuse patterns vary by sex, especially as access to kids by non-parental males varies by sex.
The assumption is that if sexuality cannot be changed on purpose in one direction, it cannot be changed in the other direction.Why the assumption that if some cases of homosexuality can be caused by traumatic experiences, these cases have to be curable, and if they aren't, that means this whole theory has to be invalidated?
No, you haven't. You showed one. And that was one guy, and I already posted my response to that.That's an argument going into technicalities and politics. Some skin disorders have no meaningful impact on one's life besides aesthetics which can be relative, yet they are still considered disorders.
And i've shown multiple articles by psychologists claiming that trauma may have some causative effect, even if they aren't willing to call it a 100% sure thing.
Ah, thanks. This is interesting!That's the second one, and you obviously didn't read the first one:
That's not what I'm talking about. I mean that as a whole group, the likely relationships have substantially shifted in just 50 or so years. This was massive culture change for the better, not just a few outliers.Of course on the scale of millions of people unusual cases exist - people who lift cars, people who can bend themselves at unusual angles, people who can outrun most animals, but that doesn't invalidate the average.