Hubbry Logo
Sexual identitySexual identityMain
Open search
Sexual identity
Community hub
Sexual identity
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Sexual identity
Sexual identity
Sexual identity
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on
LGBTQ people
      
Sexual orientation and gender
History
General
Identities
Culture
Rights
Health
Societal attitudes
Issues
Academic fields and discourse
LGBTQ portal

Sexual identity refers to one's self-perception in terms of romantic or sexual attraction towards others,[1] though not mutually exclusive, and can be different from romantic identity.[2] Sexual identity may also refer to sexual orientation identity, which is when people identify or dis-identify with a sexual orientation or choose not to identify with a sexual orientation.[3] Sexual identity and sexual behavior are closely related to sexual orientation, but they are distinguished,[1] with identity referring to an individual's conception of themselves, behavior referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual, and sexual orientation referring to romantic or sexual attractions toward persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, to both sexes or more than one gender, or to no one.

Historical models of sexual identity have tended to view its formation as a process undergone only by sexual minorities, while more contemporary models view the process as far more universal and attempt to present sexual identity within the larger scope of other major identity theories and processes.[4]

Definitions and identity

[edit]

Sexual identity has been described as a component of an individual's identity that reflects their sexual self-concept. The integration of the respective identity components (e.g. moral, religious, ethnic, occupational) into a greater overall identity is essential to the process of developing the multi-dimensional construct of identity.[5]

Sexual identity can change throughout an individual's life, and may or may not align with biological sex, sexual behavior or actual sexual orientation.[6][7][8] In a 1990 study by the Social Organization of Sexuality, only 15.7% of women and 34.9% of men who reported some level of same-sex attraction had a homosexual or bisexual identity.[9]

Sexual identity is more closely related to sexual behavior than sexual orientation is. The same survey found that 96% of women and 87% of men with a homosexual or bisexual identity had engaged in sexual activity with someone of the same sex, contrasted with 32% of women and 43% of men who had same-sex attractions. Upon reviewing the results, the organization commented: "Development of self-identification as homosexual or gay is a psychological and socially complex state, something which, in this society, is achieved only over time, often with considerable personal struggle and self-doubt, not to mention social discomfort."[9]

Identities

[edit]
  • Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity.[10] It may also be categorized more widely to include a broad spectrum of asexual sub-identities.[11] Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy.[12][13]
  • Aromanticism is defined as "having little or no romantic feeling towards others: experiencing little or no romantic desire or attraction.[14][15]
  • Bisexuality describes a pattern of attraction toward both males and females,[16] or to more than one sex or gender.[17] A bisexual identity does not necessarily equate to equal sexual attraction to both sexes; commonly, people who have a distinct but not exclusive sexual preference for one sex over the other also identify themselves as bisexual.[7]
  • Heterosexuality describes a pattern of attraction to persons of the opposite sex.[16] The term straight is commonly used to refer to heterosexuals.[18] Heterosexuals are by far the largest sexual identity group.[18]
  • Homosexuality describes a pattern of attraction to other persons of the same sex.[16] The term lesbian is commonly used to refer to homosexual women, and the term gay is commonly used to refer to homosexual men, although gay is sometimes used to refer to women as well.[19][20]
  • Pansexuality describes attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity.[21][22] Pansexual people may refer to themselves as gender-blind, asserting that gender and sex are not determining factors in their romantic or sexual attraction to others.[23][a] Pansexuality is sometimes considered a type of bisexuality.[25]
  • Polysexuality[b] has been defined as "encompassing or characterized by many different kinds of sexuality",[26] and as sexual attraction to many, but not all, genders.[27]: 281–287  Those who use the term may be doing so as a replacement for the term bisexual, believing bisexual reifies dichotomies.[28] Major monotheistic religions generally prohibit polysexual activity, but some religions incorporate it into their practices.[29] Polysexuality is also considered to be another word for bisexuality however unlike bisexuals, polysexuals are not necessarily attracted to people of the same gender.[27]: 322 [30] Polysexuality is under what some people would call the "bisexual umbrella", sometimes seen as the non-monosexual spectrum.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]
  • Sapiosexuality[c] describes attraction to the intelligence of another person.[38][39] The prefix sapio- comes from the Latin for "I [have] taste" or "I [have] wisdom" and refers to a person's preferences, proclivities, and common sense.[40] Sapiosexual-identifying individuals can also be gay, straight, or bisexual.[41][42] It is not a sexual orientation.[41][43] It first gained mainstream attention in 2014 when dating website OkCupid added it as one of several new sexual orientation and gender identity options.[41] About 0.5% of OkCupid users identify as sapiosexual, and it was most common among those ages 31–40.[41] Women are more likely to identify as sapiosexual than men.[39] Critics responded that sapiosexuality is "elitist", "discriminatory", and "pretentious".[41][43][44] OkCupid removed the identity on February 11, 2019[45] following what it described as "considerable negative feedback".[46]
  • Relationship anarchy applies anarchist principles to intimate relationships. Its practice has no norms but tends towards criticism of western relationship norms, absence of demands and expectations on partners, and lack of distinction between friendships and romantic relationships.[47]
  • X’sexuality is a stylized form of Cross-sexuality, a term used to describe heterosexual attraction and desire that is characterized by reversals of straight sex roles, namely, the inversion of insertive and receptive roles during sexual intimacy. Sex educator Tristan Taormino notes that "the roles of active initiator and penetrator are no longer solely the domain of men, nor are the qualities of receptivity and passivity for [women] only."[48] As a sexual identity, cross-sexuality expands beyond sexual behavior to acknowledge the existence of straight identifying individuals who desire, prefer, and assume sex roles that are presumably not aligned with (or "natural" to) their biological sex, specifically sexually receptive straight men and cishet women with active, giving sex drives or erotic orientations.[49][50] Cross-sexuality is not a sexual orientation, but, as forms of cross-sexual intimacy (such as strap-on sex between heterosexual couples) are expressions of heterosexuality that do not comply with heteronormative Sex roles and Sexual behavior, it can be considered within the conceptual framework of Sexual minorities and/or under the umbrella of Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minorities (GSRM).[51]

Unlabeled sexuality

[edit]
See also: Questioning (sexuality and gender)

Unlabeled sexuality is when an individual chooses not to label their sexual identity. This identification could stem from one's uncertainty about their sexuality or their unwillingness to conform to a sexuality because they do not necessarily like labels, or they wish to feel free in their attractions instead of feeling forced into same, other, both, or all attractions because of their sexual identity. Identifying as unlabeled could also be because of one's "unwillingness to accept their sexual minority status."[52] Because being unlabeled is the purposeful decision of no sexual identity, it is different from bisexuality or any other sexual identity. Those who are unlabeled are more likely to view sexuality as less stable and more fluid and tend to focus more on the "person, not the gender."[53]

It is reported that some women who identify as unlabeled did so because they are unable or uncertain about the types of relationships they will have in the future. As such, this divergence from sexual labels could provide for a person to be able to more fully realize their "true" sexuality because it frees them from the pressure of liking and being attracted to who their sexual identification dictates they should like.[52][53] Pham, Q.T. (2022) conducted an empirical qualitative research on the sexual identity management strategies of working women who experience sexual fluidity. The results show that female employees first consider or choose (non)identity that matches their new sexual attractions. These (non)identity choices include identity change, fluid identity, non-identity, and resisting identity. Next, strategies are utilized for managing that (non)identity at work—pass, cover, implicitly out, explicitly out, inform/educate. These strategies can be used independently or multiply (mixed/change), in which mixed strategy takes account of communication object and situation, while change strategy relies on time.[54] The term pomosexual is also similar to unlabeled in the sense that it defines the rejection of preexisting or mainstream labels.[55]

Development

[edit]
See also: Coming out and Homosexuality and psychology

General

[edit]

Most of the research on sexual orientation identity development focuses on the development of people who are attracted to the same sex. Many people who feel attracted to members of their own sex come out at some point in their lives. Coming out is described in three phases. The first phase is the phase of "knowing oneself," and the realization emerges that one is sexually and emotionally attracted to members of one's own sex. This is often described as an internal coming out and can occur in childhood or at puberty, but sometimes as late as age 40 or older. The second phase involves a decision to come out to others, e.g. family, friends, and/or colleagues, while the third phase involves living openly as an LGBT person.[56] In the United States today, people often come out during high school or college age. At this age, they may not trust or ask for help from others, especially when their orientation is not accepted in society. Sometimes they do not inform their own families.[57] Various studies have shown that gender identity can be affected by family conditions, educational environment, society and media. In other words, in conservative societies, people face different challenges to express their gender identity if they have a gender identity different from the norm of the society.[58][59][60][61]

According to Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, Braun (2006), "the development of a lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) sexual identity is a complex and often difficult process. Unlike members of other minority groups (e.g., ethnic and racial minorities), most LGB individuals are not raised in a community of similar others from whom they learn about their identity and who reinforce and support that identity" and "[r]ather, LGB individuals are often raised in communities that are either ignorant of or openly hostile toward homosexuality."[7]

Some individuals with unwanted sexual attractions may choose to actively dis-identify with a sexual minority identity, which creates a different sexual orientation identity from their actual sexual orientation. Sexual orientation identity, but not sexual orientation, can change through psychotherapy, support groups, and life events.[3] A person who has homosexual feelings can self-identify in various ways. An individual may come to accept an LGB identity, to develop a heterosexual identity, to reject an LGB identity while choosing to identify as ex-gay, or to refrain from specifying a sexual identity.[62]

Models of sexual identity development

[edit]

Several models have been created to describe coming out as a process for gay and lesbian identity development (e.g. Dank, 1971; Cass, 1984; Coleman, 1989; Troiden, 1989). These historical models have taken a view of sexual identity formation as a sexual-minority process only.[63] However, not every LGBT person follows such a model. For example, some LGBT youth become aware of and accept their same-sex desires or gender identity at puberty in a way similar to which heterosexual teens become aware of their sexuality, i.e. free of any notion of difference, stigma or shame in terms of the gender of the people to whom they are attracted.[64] More contemporary models take the stance that it is a more universal process.[4][65] Current models for the development of sexual identity attempt to incorporate other models of identity development, such as Marcia's ego-identity statuses.[66]

The Cass identity model, established by Vivienne Cass, outlines six discrete stages transited by individuals who successfully come out: (1) identity confusion, (2) identity comparison, (3) identity tolerance, (4) identity acceptance, (5) identity pride, and (6) identity synthesis.[67] Fassinger's model of gay and lesbian identity development contains four stages at the individual and group level: (1) awareness, (2) exploration, (3) deepening/commitment, and (4) internalization/synthesis.[68]

Some models of sexual identity development do not use discrete, ordered stages, but instead conceptualize identity development as consisting of independent identity processes. For example, D'Augelli's model describes six unordered independent identity processes: (1) exiting heterosexual identity, (2) developing personal LGB identity status, (3) developing an LGB social identity, (4) becoming an LGB offspring, (5) developing an LGB intimacy status, and (6) entering an LGB community.[69]

The Unifying Model of Sexual Identity Development is currently the only model that incorporates heterosexual identity development within its statuses to include compulsory heterosexuality, active exploration, diffusion, deepening and commitment to status, and synthesis.[70]

Contemporary models view sexual identity formation as a universal process, rather than a sexual minority one, in that it is not only sexual minorities that undergo sexual identity development, but heterosexual populations as well.[4] More recent research has supported these theories, having demonstrated that heterosexual populations display all of Marcia's statuses within the domain of sexual identity.[65][71]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Sexual identity

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Sexual identity is an individual's persistent self-conception as or , which for over 99.9% of the population corresponds directly to their biological sex, defined by the dimorphic capacity to produce either small gametes () in males or large gametes (ova) in females. Biological sex is a binary trait rooted in reproductive roles, with rare —such as true conditions involving ambiguous genitalia—affecting approximately 0.018% of births and not constituting intermediate sexes or undermining the underlying dimorphism. In typical development, sexual identity emerges early, reinforced by prenatal hormonal influences on brain organization that align with gonadal sex, leading to lifelong congruence without conscious effort or social conditioning. Empirical data indicate that incongruence, termed gender dysphoria, affects less than 1% of adults historically—0.6% of natal males and 0.2% of natal females in rigorous Dutch studies—with high rates of natural resolution (desistance) in childhood cases exceeding 80% when not medically intervened upon prematurely. Recent decades have seen explosive increases in reported dysphoria, particularly among adolescents, with incidence rising over 50-fold in England from 2011 to 2021 and adolescent females showing 12-fold surges, suggesting potential roles for social contagion, online influences, and diagnostic expansion beyond biological markers. These trends contrast with stable biological underpinnings, fueling debates over causal mechanisms, including critiques of over-reliance on self-report in youth amid evidence of fluidity and regret post-intervention. Defining characteristics include its innateness for most, resilience to cultural shifts, and distinction from sexual orientation, which concerns patterns of attraction rather than self-sex classification.

Definitions and Conceptual Foundations

Core Definitions and Distinctions

Sexual identity refers to an individual's regarding their pattern of sexual attractions, typically categorized as heterosexual (attraction primarily to ), homosexual (attraction primarily to the same sex), or bisexual (attraction to both sexes). This self-identification integrates emotional, romantic, and physical dimensions of attraction and is considered a stable aspect of personal for most people, emerging from innate predispositions rather than conscious choice. Biological sex, by contrast, is an objective based on an organism's reproductive organization: males are structured to produce small gametes (), while females produce large gametes (ova). This definition derives from evolutionary principles of and holds across sexually reproducing species, including humans, where rare (affecting 0.02-1.7% of births depending on criteria) represent developmental variations within the binary rather than additional categories. Sexual identity, as orientation-based self-labeling, operates independently of biological sex; for instance, homosexual attraction occurs within both sexes. Gender identity differs from sexual identity in focusing on one's internal sense of being , , or otherwise, which typically aligns with biological sex but can diverge in cases of (prevalence ~0.005-0.014% for persistent adult cases). Sexual identity concerns relational attractions (who one desires), whereas pertains to self-categorization (who one is). These are orthogonal: a biologically individual with may identify sexually as homosexual or heterosexual. Empirical studies, including twin research, indicate partial biological influences on sexual identity formation, distinct from processes. Sexual identity refers to an individual's internal recognition of belonging to the or sex category, typically congruent with biological indicators such as chromosomal composition (XX for females, XY for males) and reproductive . This differs from biological sex itself, which constitutes the objective, dimorphic classification based on the type of gametes produced—small gametes () defining males and large gametes (ova) defining females—with intersex variations arising from developmental rather than constituting a spectrum or third category, affecting fewer than 0.02% of births in reproductively ambiguous forms. In empirical data, sexual identity aligns with biological sex in the overwhelming majority of cases, with discordance manifesting as at clinical prevalence rates of approximately 0.0067% in general populations based on diagnostic records. Recent self-reported identifications have increased, potentially reflecting social influences or diagnostic expansions rather than underlying biological shifts, with rates rising from 0.14 to 4.4 per 10,000 person-years in some cohorts between 2011 and 2021. Sexual identity is independent of sexual orientation, which denotes the predominant pattern of erotic attraction to the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex (homosexual), or both (bisexual), irrespective of one's own sex. For instance, a person with male sexual identity may experience heterosexual attraction to females or homosexual attraction to males, as these axes operate orthogonally; twin studies indicate partial genetic overlap between gender identity development and orientation but distinct neurobiological pathways, with sexual orientation showing stronger prenatal hormonal influences. This separation underscores that one's sense of sex membership does not dictate attraction patterns, as evidenced by consistent sex-attracted preferences across cultures and historical periods where biological sex dimorphism remains the attractor base. In contrast to gender roles—culturally prescribed behaviors, expectations, and expressions deemed appropriate for each sex, such as or —sexual identity concerns the foundational categorization as or , not performative or social adaptations. roles vary across societies and eras, influenced by economic and environmental factors, whereas sexual identity exhibits high stability rooted in early , with deviations rare and often comorbid with conditions like autism spectrum disorder at elevated rates. Although sometimes conflated in contemporary discourse, sexual identity emphasizes alignment with biological sex dimorphism, while more broadly captures a subjective, potentially non-binary self-conception that may diverge from physical reality due to psychological or social factors. Peer-reviewed neurobiological reveals that while typical individuals show structures sexually dimorphic in line with biological sex, those with discordant display mosaic patterns intermediate between sexes, though findings are limited by small samples, postmortem biases, and inability to disentangle causation from correlation or plasticity effects. Institutional sources in psychology and medicine, including those from the , frequently frame as primary and fluid, potentially reflecting ideological preferences over empirical weighting of , as critiqued in reviews highlighting overreliance on self-report amid rising youth identifications without corresponding genetic or prenatal evidence shifts.

Biological Underpinnings

Genetic and Prenatal Factors

Biological sex is determined at conception by the chromosomal complement, with the presence of a typically leading to male development via the action of the SRY gene, which encodes a that initiates testis formation around week 6-7 of . In the absence of SRY (as in XX individuals), ovarian development proceeds, establishing the binary framework of male or female gonadal differentiation that underpins typical sexual identity alignment. Mutations or deletions in SRY can result in XY individuals developing as females, highlighting the gene's causal role in male sex determination, though such (DSDs) often involve additional prenatal factors and do not inherently disrupt congruence. Twin studies provide evidence for a heritable component in gender incongruence, with concordance rates higher in monozygotic than dizygotic pairs. A 2002 analysis of child and adolescent twins estimated heritability of gender identity disorder (GID) symptomatology at approximately 62%, based on univariate model-fitting to data from 314 twin pairs, though environmental influences accounted for the remainder. More recent register-based population studies, including a 2022 Danish analysis of over 500,000 individuals, reported pairwise concordance for diagnoses at 28% for monozygotic twins versus 0.6% for dizygotic, suggesting moderate genetic influence amid shared and non-shared environmental effects. A 2022 case of monozygotic triplets where two of three female-identifying individuals exhibited further supports , as the shared correlated with partial concordance in . Across eight twin studies reviewed up to 2025, seven indicated genetic contributions ranging 25-47% to variance, comparable to complex traits like , though no single locus explains the . Genome-wide association efforts have identified candidate variants in genes regulating signaling. A 2019 study of 380 transgender women found significant associations between and polymorphisms in the estrogen receptor beta (ESR2) and (AR) genes, which modulate responses critical for . Whole-exome sequencing in transgender cohorts has revealed rare variants in genes linked to sexually dimorphic development, such as those involved in neuronal migration and , though these findings require replication in larger samples and do not account for population-level prevalence. A 2020 review of genetic influences emphasized that while such variants may predispose to incongruence, they interact with prenatal and postnatal environments, and the absence of high-penetrance mutations underscores multifactorial over deterministic . Prenatal hormone exposure, particularly , organizes brain regions associated with sex-typed behaviors and identity. In typical development, testosterone surges in male fetuses (weeks 8-24) masculinize neural circuits, fostering alignment between biological sex and later identity; disruptions can lead to atypical outcomes. Evidence from (CAH), where XX fetuses experience excess prenatal androgens due to deficiency, shows affected females exhibiting masculinized toy preferences and rough-and-tumble play from infancy, with elevated rates of bisexual or homosexual orientation in adulthood (up to 30-40% versus 5-10% in controls). However, remains predominantly female in CAH cohorts, with systematic reviews reporting in only 1-5% of cases, indicating that while prenatal androgens increase risks for behavioral atypicality, they rarely cause full identity reversal. Indirect markers like the 2D:4D , a proxy for prenatal androgen exposure, correlate with gender incongruence in some subgroups, but prospective human data remain limited, and most individuals with elevated exposure do not develop , pointing to thresholds or interactions beyond hormones alone. Overall, prenatal factors contribute to variance in sexual identity but do not deterministically override genetic sex in the majority of cases.

Neurobiological and Hormonal Evidence

Human brains display sexually dimorphic structures and connectivity patterns, with males exhibiting larger overall volumes of gray and even after adjusting for body size, while females show greater cortical thickness across regions. These differences emerge early in development and encompass specific nuclei, such as the interstitial nucleus of the anterior (INAH-3), which is larger in males, correlating with sex-typical behaviors. Functional connectivity analyses further reveal sex-specific network organization, with males showing stronger within-hemisphere connections and females more inter-hemispheric integration, influencing cognitive and emotional processing. Such dimorphisms underpin biological sexual identity, as they align with reproductive roles and are consistent across populations, though individual variability exceeds average group differences in many traits. Prenatal hormones drive this sexual differentiation through organizational effects during critical fetal windows. In males, a mid-gestational testosterone surge acts directly on the developing to promote male-typical morphology and function, whereas its absence results in default female organization. Human studies, including those on , demonstrate that atypical prenatal androgen exposure alters brain responses; for instance, genetic females with (CAH), exposed to elevated androgens in utero, exhibit masculinized neural activation in during language processing and male-typical preferences in spatial tasks. Conversely, genetic males with develop female-typical brain features and , underscoring hormones' causal role over chromosomal sex alone. Regarding —self-perception as male or female—neurobiological evidence supports its primary alignment with biological sex, as prenatal hormonal effects produce concordant brain-body dimorphism in over 99% of individuals. Claims of innate mismatches in cases, based on small-scale imaging studies showing partial shifts (e.g., in cortical thickness or hypothalamic volumes toward identified ), face critiques for methodological limitations including tiny samples (often n<20), confounds from cross-sex hormones or suppression, and failure to account for effects. Meta-analyses reveal substantial overlap between sexes in metrics, precluding reliable " sex" categorization, and no replicated biomarkers distinguish brains categorically from ones post-adjustment for confounds. Thus, while hormones contribute to , evidence favors environmental, psychological, or post-natal factors in rare incongruences rather than deterministic neurobiological reversals.

Developmental Dynamics

Early Formation and Influences

Gender identity, understood as an individual's internal sense of being male or female, begins to manifest in infancy through categorical distinctions, with children as young as 3-4 months able to differentiate male and female faces. By 18-24 months, approximately 50% of children can label gender groups, such as "boy" or "girl," with girls acquiring this ability slightly earlier than boys on average. This early labeling capacity correlates with increased engagement in gender-typed play, suggesting an interplay between cognitive recognition and behavioral expression from toddlerhood. A stable sense of one's own typically solidifies between ages 2 and 3, when most children consistently identify with their biological sex and exhibit preferences aligned with it, such as toy choices or activity segregation. Longitudinal data indicate high stability in these patterns, with gender-typed interests maintaining moderate to strong consistency (correlation coefficients of 0.5-0.7) from age 2.5 to 8 years in general samples. By age 4, children grasp basic biological markers of , and by age 7, they understand its invariance despite superficial changes. Biological factors predominate in this formative phase, including prenatal exposure that organizes sexually dimorphic structures and behaviors observable prenatally or in early infancy, independent of postnatal . Twin studies and neurobiological evidence support estimates for gender-typical traits exceeding 50%, underscoring innate drivers over learned ones. Social influences, such as parental reinforcement of labels or peer interactions, modulate expression—e.g., accelerating sex-segregated play—but do not override core biological alignment in the majority of cases. Among the small subset experiencing in (prevalence ~0.5-1% in clinic-referred samples), longitudinal follow-ups reveal desistance in 70-90% by or adulthood, often coinciding with the emergence of a homosexual orientation relative to birth . Persistence is rarer and typically intensifies peripubertally, with lower desistance among those showing intense, pervasive cross-sex identification from onset. These outcomes challenge purely social constructivist views, as desistance occurs despite affirmative environments in some cohorts, pointing to biological maturation as a key resolver. Recent upticks in adolescent-onset cases, absent in childhood data, implicate peer networks and online exposure as amplifiers rather than originators of .

Stability Across the Lifespan

Gender identity, which refers to an individual's internal sense of their own gender, typically aligns with biological sex and demonstrates high stability from early childhood through adulthood in the general population. Longitudinal research indicates that core gender identity forms by ages 3 to 4 and persists without significant change for the vast majority, with deviations rare outside clinical contexts. Among children diagnosed with gender dysphoria in specialized clinics, multiple follow-up studies report desistance rates of 61% to 98%, meaning the incongruence resolves by adolescence or adulthood, with individuals identifying as cisgender and often exhibiting homosexual attractions. For instance, a study of boys referred for gender identity disorder found high desistance accompanied by predominant biphilic or androphilic orientations in adulthood. These findings, drawn from pre-2010s clinic data emphasizing pre-pubertal onset and rigorous diagnostic criteria, contrast with critiques alleging methodological flaws, such as inclusion of non-dysphoric children; however, replicated across Dutch, Canadian, and Swedish cohorts, they underscore that childhood dysphoria frequently attenuates without intervention. In cohorts of youth who undergo early social transition—living as the identified gender before puberty—a 2022 longitudinal analysis of 317 participants aged 3 to 12 at baseline reported that 7.3% retransitioned at least once after an average 5-year follow-up, indicating persistence in over 92% of cases. This subgroup, characterized by parental support for transition and early affirmation, differs from historical clinic samples (more male, intense dysphoria), potentially inflating perceived stability due to selection bias toward persistent cases; post-2015 referral surges, disproportionately adolescent females, may further reflect social influences rather than innate stability. Sexual orientation, a component of sexual identity involving patterns of attraction, exhibits substantial stability after , with longitudinal data showing persistence as the dominant trajectory across the lifespan. A 10-year panel study found most individuals maintained their reported orientation, though a minority—higher among women—experienced shifts, challenging strict while affirming relative fixity post-20s. Meta-analyses confirm changes are less common than stability, with genital patterns aligning enduringly with self-reported identity in men, and greater but still limited fluidity in women. Recent surveys of sexual minority youth report 13.5% orientation changes over time, often during identity exploration, but overall cohesion increases with age. Academic emphasis on fluidity may overstate variability, given earlier studies' focus on biological markers yielding higher consistency.

Historical Evolution

Pre-20th Century Perspectives

In ancient Greek society, particularly from the Archaic to Classical periods (c. 800–323 BCE), male same-sex relations were commonly structured as pederasty, involving an older male mentor (erastes) and a younger male youth (eromenos), emphasizing pedagogical, civic, and hierarchical roles rather than a categorical sexual identity. The erastes assumed the penetrative, active position symbolizing dominance and maturity, while the eromenos' temporary passivity was tied to his adolescent status and expected to cease upon adulthood; enduring adult passivity was stigmatized as effeminacy and loss of citizenship virtues. This framework prioritized social function and power dynamics over innate orientation, with Plato's Symposium (c. 385–370 BCE) portraying eros as a spectrum of desires ascending toward philosophical ideals, not fixed homosexual or heterosexual essences. Roman perspectives from the to (c. 509 BCE–476 CE) similarly evaluated male-male sexual acts through status and penetration roles, tolerating them among elites provided the freeborn citizen remained dominant and active to preserve virtus (manly excellence); passivity for adult males risked (legal disgrace) and emasculation. The (c. 149 BCE) fined freeborn males for submitting to penetration, reflecting concerns over social hierarchy and imperial masculinity rather than prohibiting same-sex attraction per se. Emperors like and faced criticism not for acts themselves but for inverting norms, such as passive roles or public excess, underscoring act-based regulation over . Judeo-Christian traditions, influencing Western views from antiquity onward, framed male same-sex intercourse as a transgression against divine order and procreation, with Leviticus 18:22 (c. 6th–5th century BCE) deeming it an "abomination" and Romans 1:26–27 (c. 57 CE) linking it to and unnatural exchange of roles. In medieval , (1225–1274) in (II-II, Q. 154, A. 11) classified —encompassing male-male copulation—as a "vice against nature" among the gravest sexual sins, exceeding even in intrinsic disorder by thwarting semen’s generative purpose, though less severe than due to lack of direct harm to others. Ecclesiastical and secular laws, such as those under (Novella 77, 538 CE), prescribed or death for sodomites, treating it as or pollution rather than an ontological identity. Through the and Enlightenment (14th–18th centuries), classical revivals occasionally invoked Greek tolerance, as in Winckelmann's aestheticized male beauty (1764), yet dominant Christian moralism persisted, viewing non-procreative acts—including same-sex—as sinful deviations policed by confessional and legal mechanisms without conceptualizing enduring orientations. Premodern discourses thus regulated behaviors via status, theology, and utility, absent the 19th-century emergence of identity categories like "inversion" or "urning."

Modern Categorization and Shifts

In the early 20th century, German sexologist advanced a theory of sexual intermediaries, positing that exists on a continuum rather than a strict binary, with individuals exhibiting varying mixtures of masculine and feminine traits. He categorized homosexuals as a "third sex" intermediate between male and female, influencing subsequent views on non-normative identities through empirical observations at his Institute for Sexual Science, founded in 1919. This marked an initial shift from purely binary categorizations rooted in religious or legal norms toward biologically informed spectra, though Hirschfeld's work emphasized innate variations observable in anatomy and behavior. Mid-century developments formalized "" as a distinct concept, coined by Robert J. Stoller in 1964 to describe an individual's internal sense of maleness or femaleness, separate from biological sex. John Money popularized the term in the 1950s through studies on conditions, arguing for the primacy of postnatal in shaping identity over chromosomal or gonadal determinants, a view later critiqued for lacking robust empirical support in cases like the experiment. These categorizations distinguished , orientation, and identity, enabling clinical interventions like for "transsexualism," as outlined in Harry Benjamin's 1966 standards. Diagnostic classifications evolved significantly from the late , with the DSM-III (1980) introducing "gender identity disorder" to encompass persistent mismatches between assigned and identified , including transsexualism and childhood variants. The DSM-IV (1994) refined this into adult, adolescent, and child subtypes to mitigate stigma associated with earlier terms like "transsexualism." By DSM-5 (2013), the diagnosis shifted to "," prioritizing clinically significant distress or impairment over the identity mismatch itself, reflecting advocacy-driven revisions to depathologize nonconformity while retaining medical gatekeeping for treatments. Paralleling this, the ICD-10 (1990) grouped related conditions into four categories, including transsexualism and dual-role transvestism. Into the 21st century, categorizations expanded beyond binary male/female to incorporate non-binary, genderqueer, and fluid identities, driven by cultural visibility and self-identification models that grant individuals authority over their labels. The (effective 2022) reclassified "gender incongruence" under sexual health rather than mental disorders, removing requirements for distress or dysfunction, a change proponents attribute to reduced stigma but critics argue risks over-medicalization without addressing underlying comorbidities like autism or trauma often observed in clinical samples. Surveys reflect these shifts, with U.S. self-reporting non-cisgender identities rising from 0.5% in to over 1.8% by , potentially indicating greater acceptance or social influences on reporting. Despite proliferation, biological sex remains dimorphic in over 99.98% of humans, with modern categories largely self-reported and varying cross-culturally.

Theoretical Frameworks

Essentialist Models

Essentialist models of sexual identity conceptualize as an innate, biologically determined characteristic that reflects underlying essences of , manifesting early in life and exhibiting high stability across the lifespan. These frameworks posit that orientations such as , , and arise primarily from fixed biological mechanisms, including , prenatal hormonal exposures, and neurostructural differences, rather than being predominantly shaped by cultural or social forces. Proponents argue that such traits function as natural kinds, with variations occurring as inherent outcomes of , akin to other species-typical behaviors observed in evolutionary contexts. Genetic research provides key empirical support for essentialism through heritability estimates derived from twin and family studies. A landmark 1991 study by J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard analyzed 56 monozygotic twin pairs and 54 dizygotic twin pairs where at least one male twin was homosexual, finding concordance rates of 52% for monozygotic twins versus 22% for dizygotic twins, alongside 11% concordance among adoptive brothers, yielding substantial heritability estimates (approximately 30-50% across similar studies). These patterns suggest a genetic component influencing orientation, as monozygotic twins share nearly 100% of their DNA compared to 50% for dizygotic twins, controlling for shared rearing environments. Subsequent genome-wide association studies have identified specific genetic loci correlated with same-sex behavior, reinforcing the role of polygenic influences without implying strict determinism. Neurobiological evidence further bolsters essentialist claims by demonstrating structural brain differences aligned with orientation. In Simon LeVay's 1991 postmortem analysis of 41 human brains, the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior (INAH-3) measured approximately 1.8 cubic millimeters in heterosexual men but only 0.6 cubic millimeters in homosexual men—volumes comparable to those in women—indicating dimorphism tied to rather than solely to . Functional imaging studies, such as PET scans, have similarly shown distinct hypothalamic activation patterns in response to pheromones, with homosexual men exhibiting responses akin to heterosexual women. These findings point to prenatal organization of brain circuits governing attraction, independent of postnatal experiences. Prenatal hormonal factors represent another pillar, where atypical exposure to androgens or estrogens during critical fetal windows is hypothesized to masculinize or feminize neural pathways underlying orientation. Reviews of (CAH) cases, for instance, reveal elevated rates of non-heterosexual orientation among genetically female individuals exposed to excess prenatal androgens, with or lesbianism reported in up to 30-40% of affected adults versus 5-10% in controls. Animal models and human proxy measures, such as digit ratios (2D:4D) as markers of prenatal testosterone, correlate with orientation strength, supporting organizational effects that fix orientation before birth. Essentialist models thus integrate these lines of evidence to argue for causal primacy of , predicting low malleability and alignment with observed persistence rates exceeding 90% in longitudinal cohorts tracking individuals from to adulthood.

Constructivist and Fluidity Perspectives

The constructivist perspective posits that categories of sexual identity, such as "heterosexual" or "homosexual," emerge from historical, cultural, and linguistic processes rather than innate biological essences. Proponents argue that same-sex attractions and behaviors have existed across societies, but fixed identity labels are modern Western inventions, particularly post-19th century, shaped by medical, legal, and social discourses that categorized individuals based on enduring orientations. For instance, in , same-sex relations often occurred without implying a distinct "" identity, functioning instead within age, status, or ritual contexts rather than as core personal attributes. This view emphasizes variability: anthropological evidence shows non-binary systems, like the Sambia tribe's ritualized without adult identity implications, suggesting identities are negotiated socially rather than fixed. Critics contend that constructivism underplays cross-cultural universals in erotic preferences, such as consistent male preferences for youth and beauty, and biological markers like genetic correlations in twin studies, which indicate constraints beyond pure social invention. Sexual fluidity perspectives extend constructivism by proposing that attractions, behaviors, and self-identifications can shift over time or context, challenging rigid essentialist models. Empirical support derives primarily from longitudinal studies tracking women, where changes occur more frequently than in men. In Lisa Diamond's 10-year study of 89 women (mostly ), 67% altered their identity labels at least once, with shifts often tied to relational contexts rather than random volatility; attractions showed greater stability but still exhibited non-linear patterns, such as increased same-sex focus post-heterosexual relationships. A 2023 analysis of U.S. national (N=2,232) found 10-15% of adults reported identity changes into their 30s and 40s, predominantly among bisexual-identifying individuals, though 80-90% maintained stability. differences persist: meta-analyses indicate women report higher fluidity in attractions ( d=0.68), potentially linked to adaptive social bonding mechanisms, while male orientations correlate more strongly with early prenatal hormones and show lower change rates (under 5% in some cohorts). These views integrate with broader critiques of , arguing that societal norms amplify or suppress expressions, as seen in rising non-heterosexual identifications among youth (e.g., 20% of U.S. Gen Z in 2023 surveys), potentially reflecting reduced stigma or exploratory fluidity rather than fixed innateness. However, evidence for widespread fluidity remains limited to subsets—primarily women and bisexuals—with population-level data showing net stability over decades; for example, a 2025 review of twin and cohort studies found 70-95% retention of baseline orientations after age 18, questioning constructivist claims of high malleability. Academic emphasis on fluidity may stem from selection biases in samples favoring self-selected non-conformists, overlooking representative stability in essentialist-leaning biological research. Synthesizing approaches, some scholars advocate hybrid models where biological predispositions interact with cultural contexts, avoiding constructivism's potential dismissal of heritable variance (estimated at 30-50% for orientation).

Empirical Assessment

Measurement Techniques

Self-reported identification remains the predominant technique for measuring sexual identity in large-scale surveys and epidemiological studies, typically involving categorical options such as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or other, or continuous scales assessing dimensions like attraction, , and fantasy. Instruments like the , introduced in 1948, rate individuals on a 0-6 continuum from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual, but it has been critiqued for conflating distinct constructs such as opposite-sex and same-sex attractions into a single dimension, potentially misrepresenting non-binary orientations. Multidimensional tools, such as the (1985), extend this by evaluating seven variables—attractions, fantasies, , emotional preferences, social preferences, lifestyle, and self-identification—across past, present, and ideal time frames, offering a more nuanced profile though with increased respondent burden. Test-retest reliability of self-reports varies, with higher stability for exclusive heterosexual or homosexual identities (around 90-98% over short intervals) compared to bisexual or non-exclusive categories, which show greater fluidity or inconsistency potentially due to or genuine shifts. Discordance often arises between self-reported identity and actual behaviors, as evidenced by studies finding up to 10-20% of self-identified heterosexuals reporting same-sex partners, highlighting limitations in capturing underlying attractions influenced by stigma or privacy concerns. To mitigate underreporting, anonymous formats like audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) improve validity by reducing social desirability effects, yielding 5-10% higher disclosure rates for sensitive behaviors. Physiological measures provide objective validation, particularly in laboratory settings, by assessing genital responses to stimuli. For men, (PPG) records tumescence via strain gauges during exposure to erotic materials, demonstrating strong category-specific —heterosexual men respond preferentially to female stimuli, with minimal overlap—correlating moderately (r ≈ 0.6) with self-reports but revealing non-concordance in 20-30% of cases, such as bisexual self-identifiers showing biased rather than balanced responses. In women, measures , though patterns are less category-specific, with greater overlap in responses across orientations, possibly due to higher contextual influences on female . Non-genital indirect measures, like pupil dilation to stimuli, offer less invasive alternatives, with heterosexual individuals showing dilated pupils to opposite-sex images, supporting but limited by small effect sizes and cultural confounds. Behavioral histories, derived from self-reports of partner counts and types over time, serve as proxies but suffer from recall inaccuracies, with longitudinal data indicating retrospective reports underestimate early experiences by 15-25%. Emerging indirect methods, such as implicit association tests or viewing time paradigms, aim to bypass conscious biases by measuring reaction latencies to gendered stimuli, though their for orientation remains modest (r < 0.4) compared to direct physiological assessments. Overall, no single technique fully captures sexual identity's multifaceted nature—attractions, behaviors, and —necessitating multi-method approaches for robust empirical assessment, particularly in populations where self-reports may underrepresent non-heteronormative identities due to measurement inconsistencies rather than inherent prevalence.

Key Longitudinal Findings

Longitudinal research on sexual identity reveals predominant stability among adults, with change rates typically below 5%. In a 10-year follow-up of the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study involving 2,560 midlife adults, 97.85% reported no change in identity, with heterosexuals showing 98.64% stability, homosexuals 68.75%, and bisexuals only 35.29%. Similarly, analysis of a nationally representative U.S. sample assessed up to eight times between 2014 and 2022 found that 4.1% of adults over age 18 reported shifts in . These patterns hold across self-reported identity components, including attractions and behaviors, with exclusive demonstrating near-complete persistence, particularly in men. Gender differences emerge consistently, with women displaying higher fluidity than men, especially among those initially identifying as bisexual or homosexual. The MIDUS data indicated that 64.71% of bisexual women and 63.63% of homosexual women changed identities, compared to 47.06% and 9.52% of men in those groups, respectively; heterosexual women changed at 1.36%, versus 0.78% for men. A of youth sexual identity corroborated this, reporting average mobility scores of 0.114–0.125 for females aged 12–21, exceeding males' 0.068–0.081, though overall mobility remained low (≈0.1) outside sexual minority subgroups. Among adolescents and young adults, change rates are elevated, reflecting developmental exploration. The 2014–2022 national sample showed 13.5% of teens altering identity, compared to the adult rate. In a cohort, 66% of those initially "unsure" later identified as exclusively heterosexual, while sexual minority exhibited higher multidirectional shifts (mobility ≈0.5–0.8). A 10-year prospective study of 79 women by Lisa Diamond found 67% changed labels (primarily between lesbian, bisexual, and unlabeled), but attractions shifted modestly (average 1 point on the ), with changes often non-linear and context-dependent rather than progressive toward . Bisexual identities prove least stable across cohorts, prone to flux toward either heterosexual or homosexual labels, though outright desistance from exclusive remains rare post-adolescence. No longitudinal data supports widespread malleability driven by external interventions in stable adults; observed changes align more with endogenous factors like age and initial ambiguity.

Controversies and Critiques

Debates on Innateness vs. Malleability

Twin studies have consistently demonstrated moderate heritability for same-sex sexual orientation, with monozygotic twins showing concordance rates of 30-65% compared to lower rates in dizygotic twins, indicating genetic influences but not determinism, as full concordance is absent even in identical twins sharing nearly all DNA. These findings suggest that while biology contributes—potentially through prenatal hormone exposure or brain structure differences, as in Simon LeVay's 1991 study identifying smaller hypothalamic nuclei in gay men—environmental factors, including non-shared experiences, play a substantial role in discordant outcomes among identical twins. Critics note limitations in such biological evidence, including small sample sizes and inability to establish causality, arguing that no single "gay gene" exists and that heritability estimates (around 30-50%) leave room for developmental plasticity. Longitudinal research reveals variability in sexual orientation over time, challenging strict innateness claims; for instance, in a large U.S. panel study spanning seven years, 5.7% of adults shifted sexual identities, with bidirectional changes (toward and away from labels) observed across age groups, particularly among women. Lisa Diamond's decade-long tracking of women found substantial fluidity, with over two-thirds reporting shifts in attractions or labels, attributing this to emotional and relational contexts rather than fixed . In youth, sexual orientation identity shows even greater instability, with one study of adolescents noting over a third changing orientations by young adulthood, linked to factors like gender nonconformity in childhood. For —a related aspect of sexual identity debates—desistance from is common in pre-pubertal children, with rates of 60-80% resolving without intervention by , as evidenced in Dutch and other cohorts, prompting questions about early medical transitions' assumptions of innateness. Proponents of innateness often cite these biological markers to argue against malleability, influencing views on immutability, yet empirical indicate that while core attractions may have biological roots, expressed identity and can evolve through life experiences, , or social influences, with some individuals reporting orientation changes without psychological harm. Critiques of the innateness paradigm highlight potential institutional biases, where academic consensus favoring aligns with advocacy against conversion efforts, potentially underemphasizing evidence of natural or induced shifts; for example, despite APA positions deeming orientation unchangeable, longitudinal fluidity suggest greater malleability than acknowledged, especially in females and youth. This debate underscores causal realism: sexual identity emerges from gene-environment interactions, not pure innateness, with plasticity evident in population-level changes and individual trajectories.

Sociopolitical Influences and Biases

Sociopolitical pressures, particularly from progressive ideologies dominant in Western academia and media, have profoundly influenced on sexual identity, often prioritizing affirmation of fluidity or social construction over empirical scrutiny of biological or environmental factors. Surveys of faculty political leanings reveal stark imbalances, with ratios exceeding 12:1 favoring Democrats over Republicans in and fields as of the early 2020s, correlating with systemic underrepresentation of conservative viewpoints that might emphasize innate or fixed elements of identity. This skew manifests in funding allocations, where grants from bodies like the increasingly align with narratives supporting expansive identity categories, while proposals exploring potential or malleability encounter barriers. Such dynamics foster an environment where dissenting scholarship risks professional repercussions, including denied tenure or publication rejections, thereby constraining the diversity of hypotheses tested. Controversy surrounding exacerbates methodological biases, as researchers selectively interpret data to align with ideologically favored outcomes, a form of documented in literature. For example, studies on youth outcomes, such as Durwood et al. (2017), have been critiqued for omitting statistically significant negative findings—like effect sizes of 0.31 for lower self-worth (p < 0.02)—to highlight purported benefits of affirmation, skewing perceptions of intervention . Similarly, in research, pro-same-sex parenting studies receive disproportionately higher citations (up to fourfold), inflating meta-analyses toward optimistic conclusions despite methodological inconsistencies in comparison groups or sample representativeness. These patterns reflect not neutral scientific progress but sociopolitically driven incentives, where challenging narratives of inherent stability invites accusations of bias, even as longitudinal data on identity persistence remains limited and contested. A prominent case illustrating suppression of alternative perspectives is Lisa Littman's 2018 study on "rapid-onset " (ROGD), which surveyed parents reporting sudden identity shifts in adolescents amid peer and online influences, hypothesizing . Published in , the paper triggered immediate backlash from advocacy organizations, prompting to disavow its and the journal to append an "expression of concern" over recruitment methods, though the study was later republished with revisions in 2021. Littman faced personal and professional attacks, highlighting how sociopolitical norms enforce an affirmative paradigm, marginalizing inquiries into environmental triggers despite rising adolescent referrals—e.g., a 4,000% increase in cases in the UK from to 2018—potentially driven by cultural factors rather than solely innate traits. This episode underscores broader biases, where media amplification of activist critiques outpaces peer-reviewed rebuttals, distorting public discourse and policy toward irreversible interventions without proportionate evidence.

References

  1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202200173
  2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10996431_How_common_is_lntersex_A_response_to_Anne_Fausto-Sterling
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7441311/
  5. https://bmjgroup.com/likely-50-fold-rise-in-prevalence-of-gender-related-distress-from-2011-21-in-england/
  6. https://segm.org/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis-desistance-germany
  7. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2025.2480648
  8. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation
  9. https://acpeds.org/sex-is-a-biological-trait-of-medical-significance/
  10. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-difference-between-gender-and-sexuality-5207899
  11. https://study.com/learn/lesson/sexual-gender-identity-overview-differences.html
  12. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2014.00087/full
  13. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/between-us/201812/sex-gender-roles-identities-and-orientations
  14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532313/
  15. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK581050/
  16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22246/
  17. https://journals.biologists.com/dev/article/137/23/3921/44191/Sry-the-master-switch-in-mammalian-sex
  18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12211624/
  19. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-17749-0
  20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36044128/
  21. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06265-6
  22. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/104/2/390/5104458
  23. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53500-y
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415463/
  25. https://bsd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13293-015-0022-1
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3296090/
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5701969/
  28. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/88/3/1102/2845213
  29. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2025.1546385/full
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258995892300035X
  31. https://bsd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13293-022-00448-w
  32. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1456714/full
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8726594/
  34. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21094885/
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4681519/
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091302211000252
  37. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19359705.2022.2127042
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8955456/
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S009082581731510X
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3747736/
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10063975/
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10457095/
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8039393/
  44. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-88548-001
  45. https://segm.org/false-assumptions-gender-affirmation-minors
  46. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15532739.2018.1468292
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325443416_The_myth_of_persistence_Response_to_A_critical_commentary_on_follow-up_studies_and_%27desistance%27_theories_about_transgender_and_gender_non-conforming_children_by_Temple_Newhook_et_al_2018
  48. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12260785/
  50. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mono.12479
  51. https://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1153.pdf
  52. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2022.2060927
  53. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2023.2289517
  54. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/lgbt.2023.0260
  55. http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/175/examining-greek-pederastic-relationships
  56. https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=historical-perspectives
  57. https://sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/pwh/just-novels.asp
  58. https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/article/homosexuality-in-ancient-rome/
  59. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS_Q154_A11.html
  60. https://sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/source/aquinas-sex.asp
  61. https://sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/pwh/gaymidages.asp
  62. https://doinghistoryinpublic.org/2025/08/12/homosexuality-in-the-enlightenment/
  63. https://spot.colorado.edu/~klages/7119/halperin.pdf
  64. https://magnus-hirschfeld.de/institute-for-sexual-science-1919-1933/theory-practice/defining-the-sexes/
  65. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17496977.2022.2097582
  66. https://abbyjeffers.com/2023/06/23/beyond-binaries-magnus-hirschfelds-doctrine-of-sexual-intermediaries/
  67. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22844818/
  68. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/history-and-epidemiology
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26782319/
  70. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26782319
  71. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis
  72. https://www.theoryandsocialinquiry.org/article/id/18211/
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1697260021000624
  74. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-17636-003
  75. https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=sprinkle
  76. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1845227/
  77. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21311211_A_Genetic_Study_of_Male_Sexual_Orientation
  78. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1887219/
  79. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1887219
  80. https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/152/8/2937/2457178
  81. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Gender_Studies/Introduction_to_Gender_Studies_%28Coleman%29/07%253A_Gender_Sex_and_Sexuality/7.01%253A_The_Social_Construction_of_Sexuality
  82. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/students/modules/archive/sexuality_and_the_body/bibliography/carole_vance_social_construction_theory_1989.pdf
  83. https://brickell.co.nz/docs/socreviewfinal.pdf
  84. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230080458_Social_Constructionism_and_Sexual_Desire
  85. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8505529/
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10289116/
  87. https://psych.utah.edu/_resources/documents/people/diamond/Sexual%2520Fluidity%2520in%2520Males%2520and%2520Females.pdf
  88. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03226-y
  89. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Menelaos-Apostolou-2/publication/321142804_Are_Women_Sexually_Fluid_The_Nature_of_Female_Same-Sex_Attraction_and_Its_Evolutionary_Origins/links/5a12c584458515cc5aa9f1d0/Are-Women-Sexually-Fluid-The-Nature-of-Female-Same-Sex-Attraction-and-Its-Evolutionary-Origins.pdf
  90. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-32405-001
  91. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK581037/
  92. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2015820117
  93. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1024528427013
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3191065/
  95. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-145-6-200609190-00005
  96. https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/10/1/125184/203797/A-Comparative-Investigation-of-Indirect-Measures
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2771367/
  98. https://hdtoday.human.cornell.edu/2012/08/29/eyes-reveal-sexual-orientation-study-shows/
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1047279716302332
  100. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22302504/
  101. https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=sds_facpubs
  102. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18194000/
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10757681/
  104. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8494487/
  105. https://www.science.org/content/article/gay-not-all-genes
  106. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15002710_Evidence_for_a_Biological_Influence_in_Male_Homosexuality
  107. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1078&context=lu_law_review
  108. https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/09/57342/
  109. https://segm.org/early-social-gender-transition-persistence
  110. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773021222000426
  111. https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=pro_rege
  112. https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF19C38.pdf
  113. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1529100616637616
  114. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-33188-2
  115. https://manhattan.institute/article/political-discrimination-is-fuelling-a-crisis-of-academic-freedom
  116. https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-s-ban-funds-promote-gender-ideology-could-threaten-hundreds-nih-research-projects
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10265389/
  118. https://www.science.org/content/article/new-paper-ignites-storm-over-whether-teens-experience-rapid-onset-transgender-identity
  119. https://www.brown.edu/news/2019-03-19/gender
  120. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11876199/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.