Is being gay related to having suffered sexual abuse? does being abused by a parent or figure of a specific gender cause sexual aversion to that gender (i.e., homosexuality)?
Executive summary
Epidemiological studies routinely find higher self‑reported rates of childhood maltreatment among people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer than among heterosexuals, but the evidence does not support a simple causal story that sexual abuse—or abuse by a caregiver of a particular gender—“makes” someone gay; associations exist, causality is contested, and alternative explanations and measurement biases are well documented [1] [2] [3].
1. The empirical pattern: a robust correlation with important exceptions
Multiple meta‑analyses and large surveys report that sexual minorities report greater rates of childhood sexual abuse and other adverse childhood experiences than heterosexuals, with effect sizes that are statistically significant in several large syntheses [1] [4], yet other comprehensive reviews find no consistent difference in prevalence across studies and countries, underscoring heterogeneity in methods and samples [5].
2. What the causal‑mechanism literature proposes (and why it’s unsettled)
Researchers have proposed at least four pathways tying maltreatment and later sexual orientation—ranging from survivor identity‑formation under stigma to the idea that abuse “teaches” or generates aversion toward a gender—yet these are hypotheses, not proven mechanisms; instrumental‑variable analyses estimate that only a minority of same‑sex attraction or behavior could be statistically attributable to childhood sexual abuse (authors report population attributable fractions on the order of single‑digit to low‑twenties percent under certain models) and those estimates rely on assumptions that are themselves debated [2].
3. Timing, reporting bias, and reverse causation muddy interpretation
Most studies are retrospective, leaving open the possibility that early gender nonconformity or emerging same‑sex feelings increased exposure to targeted abuse (i.e., nonheterosexual childhood behavior could be a risk factor for victimization), that reporting differs by group, or that both orientation and abuse are jointly produced by other family‑ or community‑level risks; instrumental analyses and prospective cohorts produce mixed results precisely because disentangling temporality and reporting bias is difficult [3] [6].
4. Gendered patterns and the danger of over‑simplified inferences
Some studies emphasize that most childhood sexual abuse is gendered—perpetrated primarily by males and often against females in population samples—so a simplistic theory that boys abused by men become gay would predict sex ratios and prevalence patterns not consistently observed; historical pathologizing of homosexuality as a consequence of abuse also biased clinical and forensic interpretations, which contemporary scholars warn against [2] [7].
5. Clinical and social consequences: correlation ≠ justification for stigma
Even where higher rates of maltreatment among sexual minorities are observed, experts and advocacy groups stress that this does not justify stigma nor support conversionist claims; sexual abuse is a public‑health and human‑rights problem with independent harms (mental‑health, substance use, suicidality) documented among survivors, and conflating abuse with “cause” of orientation can retraumatize survivors and fuel discriminatory policy [8] [4].
6. Bottom line: complexity, not determinism
The best reading of current peer‑reviewed literature is that childhood sexual abuse and other adversities are correlated with higher reported rates of same‑sex attraction or identity in some studies, but causality is far from established, effect estimates vary (and in some syntheses show no difference), and multiple plausible alternative explanations exist—so it is incorrect to say that abuse universally causes someone to be gay, and also incorrect to ignore that many sexual‑minority people have experienced more childhood adversity [1] [5] [2].