Jun 11, 2021
#PRIDE2021 — Intergenerational Transmission of Sexuality
Lesbians’ biological daughters are more likely to be lesbian than straight women’s biological daughters
Preface.
Let me make this crystal clear from the start:
this research is NOT saying that having an LGBTQIA+ parent means they’ll be raised by their parents to be non-heterosexual. It’s simply saying that sexuality, like height, race, eye color, etc is an intergenerational attribute.
Main Points
The biological offspring of lesbians and gay men are more likely to be non-heterosexual than the biological offspring of heterosexual individuals (Gartrell et al., 2019; Schumm, 2010).
Lesbians are more likely to have LGBTQIA+ daughters than straight women, & more likely to have straight kids than straight women are to have LGBTQIA+ kids.
In terms of parent-offspring sexuality concordance, straight women are more likely to have straight kids than lesbians are to have LGBTQIA+ kids.
Prologue
I discovered the most important non-animated* show of my life, #TheLWord, in 2004. The main couple, Bette (lesbian; biracial Black-White) & Tina (bisexual; White), had a biracial child together via a Black sperm donor (Marcus Allenwood, a straight male with an East Asian partner) so that when Tina gave birth to Angelica, their child would be biracial & phenotypically reflect them as a couple.
In the The L Word Generation Q 2020 (2019), teenage Angie’s romantic storyline involves her crush on her female best friend Jordi.
The L Word literally wrote the intergenerational transmission of sexuality into the storyline 🙌
……………..and I absolutely loved……………..Jenny
Yes, Jennifer Schecter (Mia Kirshner) was bae 💁🏻♀️
And I’ve worn vests throughout my professional career out of my love of Bette’s wardrobe 👩🏻💼
Table of Contents (click to fast travel)
∘ Gartrell et al., 2019
· Results (separate analyses for daughters & sons)
∘ Daughter Results
∘ Son Results
· Schumm, 2010
∘ Sample (p. 728)
· Results
∘ Clear Evidence Sample
∘ Lesbians’ Transmission of Sexuality > Gay Men’s
· Rainbow Picket Fence
∘ Age & Sexuality
∘ What are your thoughts on this?
· Asexuals Can Be Plural
· Footnotes.
· Sidenotes
∘ Gartrell et al., 2019 — Methodological Notes
∘ Schumm (2010) Meta Analysis Sample
∘ Increasing LGBT Vote
∘ Info Found Via Mombian
∘ WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS FOR A LESBIAN TO BECOME A PARENT?
∘ WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS FOR A GAY MAN TO BECOME A PARENT?
Gartrell, N., Bos, H., & Koh, A. (2019). Sexual Attraction, Sexual Identity, and Same-Sex Sexual Experiences of Adult Offspring in the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study. Arch Sex Behav, 48, 1495–1503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1434-5
Schumm, W. R. (2010). Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals? A reply to Morrison and to Cameron based on an examination of multiple sources of data. Journal of biosocial science, 42(6), 721–742. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932010000325
Gartrell et al., 2019
~ All LGBTQIA+ subjects (n = 76) are the biological offspring of lesbians ~
“The National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) began in 1986 with a goal of prospectively following a cohort of lesbian-parent families from the time that their biological offspring were conceived, through their kids’ childhood, adolescence, and adulthood (Gartrell et al., 1996).
All subjects in the this study were adults (age 25) whose lesbian parents enrolled in the ongoing, prospective, community-based NLLFS between 1986 and 1992 while they were inseminating or pregnant with these offspring.
The NLLFS is the only study that has followed the biological offspring of LGBTQIA+ parents from birth to adulthood, prospectively and longitudinally” (p. 1498).
“The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) is an ongoing population-based study focusing on the health and family life of noninstitutionalized adolescents and adults in the U.S. (CDC, 2016)” (p. 1497).
n = 76 biological offspring of lesbian (NLLFS) (37 daughters; 39 sons)
n = 76 matched subjects (NSFG)
See additional Methodological Notes below in Sidenotes)
National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG)
Gartrell, N., Bos, H., & Koh, A. (2019). Sexual attraction, sexual identity, and same-sex sexual experiences of adult offspring in the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study. Archives of sexual behavior, 48(5), 1495–1503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1434-5
Results (separate analyses for daughters & sons)
Daughter Results
Daughters of lesbians were more likely to be lesbian or bisexual (29.7%) than the daughters in the national probability sample (12.3%).
Son Results
Sons of lesbians were more likely to be gay or bisexual (10.3%) than the sons in the national probability sample (2.4%).
Schumm, 2010
Sample (p. 728)
N = 262 children of gay fathers or lesbian mothers.
“Of those 262 children, 63 were coded as non-heterosexual
LG = 22
Bisexual = 26
Unsure of sexuality = 15.
Of the 262 children, 140 (53.4%) included relatively clear evidence of their sexuality (63 LGB and Unsure :: 77 heterosexual); all of the unclear children were coded as heterosexual, though it is quite likely that some of them were not heterosexuals.
Lesbian Mothers’ Offspring = 105 daughters & 63 sons;
Gay Fathers’ Offspring = 38 daughters & 39 sons;
and 8 daughters and 9 sons had both a gay father and a lesbian mother.”
Data for overall sample → “When data were collapsed into 218 families, 31.9% (43/135) of the families of lesbian mothers, 19.4% (12/62) of the families of gay fathers, and 25.0% (3/12) of the families of both a gay father and a lesbian mother indicated a non-heterosexual child” (p. 729–730).
Results
Clear Evidence Sample
“When the evidence was clear for children’s sexual orientation,
57.3% (43/75) of offspring of lesbian mothers were LGBTQIA+ &
34.3% (12/35) of offspring of gay fathers were LGBTQIA+.
When the analyses were restricted to both older age (15+) & clear evidence, 58.3% (35/60) of offspring of lesbian mothers were LGBTQIA+ &
33.3% (11/33) of offspring of gay fathers were LGBTQIA+.”
“In all of the previous analyses,
lesbian mothers were more likely to include a non-heterosexual child than were families of gay fathers” (p. 730).
“Although families with daughters were consistently more likely to have a LGBTQIA+ child, the gender differences were only significant statistically for families with a gay father” (p. 731).
Translation → the families of lesbians were not as disproportionately more likely to be one sex than the other as families of gay men.
Mixed Gender Families
In 30 LG families (n = 21-L; n = 9-G) with exactly one daughter & one son and no more than one LGBTQIA+ child, 33.3% of the families had LGBTQIA+ offspring (exactly 7 lesbian families & 3 gay families).
Amazingly, in each case,
the LGBTQIA+ child was the same sex as their LG parent.
Most of these 60 kids were heterosexual, indicating that LG parents are more likely to give birth to straight kids than straight parents are to give birth to LGBTQIA+ kids. Consider…
Of 9 girls & 9 boys with gay dads, sexuality was concordant for 6 sibling pairs, & in 3 families there were 3 straight girls with gay brothers.
Overall, 15 straight kids of 18, & 100% of daughters were straight.
Of 21 girls & 21 boys with lesbian moms, sexuality was concordant for 14 sibling pairs, & in 7 families there were 7 straight boys with lesbian sisters. Overall, 35 straight kids of 42, & 100% of sons were straight.
These 1 daughter : 1 son family analyses were the only context in Schumm (2010) in which lesbians & gay men’s rates of transmission were similar. Outside of this, the transmission of sexuality unabashedly favored lesbians.**
Lesbians’ Transmission of Sexuality > Gay Men’s
Another consistent finding in this research is that lesbians’ transmission of sexuality to their daughters is higher than gay men’s transmission of sexuality to their sons.
Indeed, the highest transmission rates were for daughters of lesbians (15/31, 48.4%, p<0.002).
Families of lesbian mothers were more likely to include a non-heterosexual child than were families of gay fathers.
Moreover, lesbians are more likely to have LGBTQIA+ daughters than straight women, & more likely to have straight kids than straight women are to have LGBTQIA+ kids.
In terms of parent-offspring sexuality concordance, straight women are more likely to have straight kids than lesbians are to have LGBTQIA+ kids.
Rainbow Picket Fence
Direct quotes from Schumm (2010)
“When the evidence was clear for children’s sexual orientation, 57.3% (43/75) of the families of lesbian mothers and 34.3% (12/35) of the families of gay fathers included a non-heterosexual child.
Only Offspring Age 15+: When the analyses were restricted to both only offspring age 15+ & verified sexuality of offspring, 58.3% (35/60) of the families of lesbian mothers and 33.3% (11/33) of the families of gay fathers included a non-heterosexual child”
Age & Sexuality
“The difference in age by child’s sexual orientation was significant for heterosexuals versus LG & bisexuals (p<0.05), as was the difference between LG & those unsure.
Heterosexual Offspring = Age 17.3 (SD=10.5)
LG Offspring = 27.3 (SD=8.8)
Bisexual Offspring = Mean Age 23.9 (SD=6.2)
Unsure Offspring = 15.9 (SD=11.1). The differences in ages ” (p. 728).
What are your thoughts on this?
In sharing this research over the past week, I’ve come to understand how Schumm’s (2010) article only has 66 citations in over a decade. Few of the hundreds (if not thousands, depending on how you count Twitter) of people I’ve shared this research with have deigned to comment on it. It’s been shared on every social media site I utilize… for consecutive days.
I feel that the non-response is out of fear of saying the wrong thing or misperceiving what’s being discussed.
Indeed, Schumm (2010) addressed this concern in writing that: “In the foreword to Bigner (2006), Doherty observed that researchers must not be afraid to publish research that could be used or misused by political opponents, noting that, ‘If those of us who value GLBT families are not willing to ask difficult questions and follow the evidence where it leads us, you can be sure that others will do so… (p. xxii). He warns against GLBT family researchers censoring credible research, even if it might not fit preconceived notions” (p. 736).
Main takeaway, once again — but this time in bold print
The biological offspring of lesbians and gay men are more likely to be non-heterosexual than the biological offspring of heterosexual individuals.
Asexuals Can Be Plural
Realized while typing that section header that even Medium’s spellcheck considers Asexuals (AND Pansexuals) to be misspelled.
Pride Month Goal → Increase spellcheck Inclusion
Footnotes.
v* = The most important ANIMATED show of my life is #DragonBallZ — and yes, my nickname in undergrad was Trunks.
v** = In the closing paragraph of this section, it was stated that “Two other lesbian-led families with one son and one daughter featured both children being non-heterosexual. Aside from the gender-mixed families with two children, there was one family that included two boys and two girls of a lesbian mother, with one son being gay. Therefore, of the 24 lesbian mother families with equal numbers of children, 41.7% (10/24) included at least one non-heterosexual child and 8.3% (2/24) included two non-heterosexual children” (p. 731).
The End of the Main Content — Thanks for Reading
Sidenotes
(assume direct quotes unless otherwise stated)
Jarryd → Why are lesbians more likely to have an LGB child than gay men?
If you consider that the X chromosome has many more genes than the smaller y chromosome, and that the X of a lesbian mom is more genetically aligned with her sexuality than the y from a gay father (assuming the surrogate woman he donates sperm to is straight), lesbians would have better odds of passing on their genes. And mitochondrial DNA is passed down solely along the maternal line.
Gartrell et al., 2019 — Methodological Notes
National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG)
The 2013–2015 NSFG was used for the comparison. It was overseen by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016). This NSFG sample was nationally representative of civilian, noninstitutionalized women and men who were between 15 and 44 years of age at the time of data collection.
The NLLFS (direct quotes continued from page 1498)
“During that first wave, prospective lesbian mothers were solicited through ads placed in lesbian/gay newspapers and flyers distributed at lesbian events and in women’s bookstores. Because of the extended recruitment period, there was a 5.5-year difference between the birth of the youngest and oldest index offspring.
Data were subsequently collected when the offspring were 2 (second wave), 5 (third wave), 10 (fourth wave), 17 (fifth wave), and 25 (sixth wave) years old. The parents have been surveyed at each wave, and the offspring since 10 years of age (Gartrell & Bos, 2010; Gartrell et al., 1996, 2018).
The NLLFS cohort initially consisted of 84 planned lesbian families. By the sixth wave — when the ofspring were legal adults — 77 families remained (78 index offspring, including one set of twins).
Moreover, the attrition rate is very small: Most of the seven nonparticipating families became unavailable or unreachable before their offspring reached adolescence (Gartrell et al., 2018). Since the NLLFS is an ongoing study, future waves will provide an opportunity to examine fluidity in sexual attractions, minority identities, and same-sex experiences among the adult offspring over multiple decades
The study has a 92% retention rate to date.”
Schumm (2010) Meta Analysis Sample
Having more open minded parents would be consequential given that most offspring in this study were under 25
“Data from 26 studies (Green, 1978; Miller, 1979; Rees, 1979; Bozett, 1980, 1987, 1988; Lewis, 1980; Kuba, 1981; Javaid, 1983, 1993; Harris & Turner, 1985/1986; Paul, 1986; Hays & Samuels, 1989; Huggins, 1989; Turner et al., 1990; O’Connell, 1993; Bailey et al., 1995; Cameron & Cameron, 1996; Sirota, 1997, 2009; Tasker & Golombok, 1997; Kunin, 1998; Ng, 1999; Barrett & Tasker, 2001; Bennett, 2001; Jedzinak, 2004; Canning, 2005; Goldberg, 2006, 2007; Goldberg & Sayer, 2006; Goldberg & Perry-Jenkins, 2007; Kuvalanka, 2007; Rivers et al., 2008) that considered the issue of the intergenerational transfer of sexual orientation were compiled into one database that included data from 2847 children, including 1356 males and 1318 females of 373 fathers and 2423 mothers. The data included 2197 children with heterosexual parents and 650 children with gay, lesbian or bisexual parents. In addition, 412 of the children were over 17 years of age.
For the children of LGB parents, 20.3% were non-heterosexual in identity or behavior compared with 4.3% of the children of heterosexual parents, .
LGB parents were far more likely to give birth to children who are non-heterosexual, in their identity or behavior, than straight parents.
LGB parents = 20.3% of their kids were LGBTQIA+
Heterosexual Parents = 4.3% of their kids were LGBTQIA+
“… yielding an odds ratio of 5.70 (p < .001; CI, 4.30 to 7.55)” (Schumm, 2010, p. 734).
When age was restricted to over 17 years, the percentages were 28.0% versus 2.3% (p<0.001), yielding an odds ratio of 16.5 (p<0.001; 95% CI, 4.0 to 68.6). Intergenerational transfer appeared to be stronger for daughters (24.6% versus 3.6%; 31.4% versus 2.6% for older daughters) than for sons (14.3% versus 4.6%; 22.0% versus 0.0% for older sons)” (p. 734).
N = 2847 children,
1356 males & 1318 females of 373 fathers & 2423 mothers.
n = 2197 children with heterosexual parents
n = 650 children with gay, lesbian or bisexual parents.
n = 412 offspring age 17+
n = 94 offspring age 25+
n = 238 offspring age 16 or younger
Increasing LGBT Vote
This also means I was wrong about something in Political Psychology
One of the assumed truisms in political psyience — which I mistakenly repeated when teaching Political Psychology in early 2020 (the last quarter I taught in-person… at all) — is that the LGBT vote will never increase or decrease because it’s described as “held constant by nature” at 5–7%. Hence,
China & India have more LGBTQIA+ people (in absolute number) than any other countries in the world.
Well, if lesbians & gay men are increasingly having biological offspring thanks to greater equality & reproductive tech like sperm banks (for lesbians) & surrogacy markets (for gay men & lesbians), then the LGBT vote could quite literally increase.
Given that the Asian & Hispanic voting blocs are already changing the political landscape, it wouldn’t require an outsized increase in the LGBT vote to reach a threshold where anti-equality lawmakers in some areas would have to morally evolve for the sake of their political lives. I imagine voters will see through their deathbed conversions/ election cycle evolution as there will be too much PRIDE for any politician’s counterfeit morality at that point.
Note to self…
Counterfeit Morality = switching from an opposing viewpoint to matching — particularly in a short time period which is conveniently temporally associated with one’s reelection.
Performative Allyship = switching from blase/ unaware/ lukewarm concern/ shallow consideration to full on moral publicity during a temporally convenient time period in which doing so would be a net positive in personally relevant marketplaces (e.g., Subscribers, Instagram, Followers, Customers, Investors, etc).
Info Found Via Mombian
By Dana B. Rudolph of Mombian on Angie & Jordi in GenerationQ
Angie’s crush on Jordi is “a sign that we’re moving beyond fear of perpetuating the myth that LGBTQ parents will create LGBTQ kids. Statistically, some of us will have them, though, and that’s just fine.”
“moving beyond fear of perpetuating the myth that LGBTQ parents will create LGBTQ kids.“
[Note → in this context create is being associated with the notion that LGBTQIA+ parents will forcibly/coercively raise their kids to be non-heterosexual; gaycist notions which harmed many LGBTQIA+ parents seeking to adopt children or custody of their own children in court.]
Between 1 million and 6 million children in the U.S. are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples. Children being raised by same-sex parents were either born to a heterosexual couple, adopted, or conceived through artificial insemination.
WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS FOR A LESBIAN TO BECOME A PARENT?
https://www.co-parentmatch.com/gay-families.aspx
1) Get pregnant using a known sperm donor. If you would like your child to know who their father is but do not necessarily want the father to be involved in the upbringing of the child then using a known sperm donor is a great option.
2) Choose an anonymous donor through a sperm bank or matching website. If you are certain you do not want your child to know who their father is then you can select an anonymous donor from a sperm bank or use a donor from websites such as Co-ParentMatch.com who is willing to remain anonymous.
3) Co-parent with a likeminded male. If you want your child to know their father and for him to be involved in your child’s upbringing then matching with a co-parent is an amazing way to create a family. You can decide between both parties how much involvement your co-parent will have.
4) Adopt. Adoption is a way of providing a new family for a child when living with their own family is not possible. For many children, adoption may be their only hope of experiencing secure family life. All parental rights and responsibilities for the child are transferred to the new Adoptive Family.
5) Surrogacy. An advantage to using Surrogacy as an option is that it allows lesbian women to legally become parents without carrying the baby. You can choose to use your own eggs or a donor egg.
WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS FOR A GAY MAN TO BECOME A PARENT?
1) Donate sperm as a known donor. If you want to be known to your child as a father or uncle figure then becoming a known sperm donor is a great option. Often this role is not a full on as a co-parent and it would be for you and your match to decide upon your level of involvement from simply being known to your child to having parental access.
2) Donate sperm as an anonymous donor. If you are certain that you do not want to be known to your child or involved in the child’s life then becoming an anonymous donor could be the right choice for you.
3) Co-parent with a likeminded female. If you want to be involved in your child’s upbringing and there for important milestones in your child’s life then co-parenting with someone who shares the same values and agrees to your terms is a great way to become a parent.
4) Adopt. Adoption is a way of providing a new family for a child when living with their own family is not possible. For many children, adoption may be their only hope of experiencing secure family life. All parental rights and responsibilities for the child are transferred to the new Adoptive Family.
5) Surrogacy. An advantage to using Surrogacy as an option is that it allows Gay Couples to legally become parents, and allows you and/or your partner to create a baby which is in part or whole biologially yours. You can experience the excitement of parenthood with your surrogate mother from the start of conception through to the birth itself!, sharing all of those emotions and attachment from the start of your journey.
