Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What scientific studies show sexual orientation and gender identity are not choices?
Executive summary
Large-scale scientific reviews and multiple empirical studies find consistent biological contributions to sexual orientation and gender identity, and professional organizations state these are not simply matters of voluntary choice [1] [2]. Evidence ranges from genetic and prenatal hormonal correlates to brain-structure and longitudinal developmental research; however, mechanisms are incompletely understood and social, cultural, and experiential factors also matter [1] [3] [2] [4].
1. What leading summaries and professional bodies say: authoritative consensus
Major scientific summaries and encyclopedic entries report that “sexual orientation is not a choice” and note the field seeks biological explanations such as genetic, neurodevelopmental, and prenatal influences [1]. Reviews of neurobiology also conclude a “significant biological contribution” exists for both sexual orientation and gender identity while acknowledging research challenges and incomplete mechanisms [2]. These broad statements reflect consensus positions cited across academic reviews rather than a single definitive “cause” study [1] [2].
2. Genetic and population studies: signals, not single genes
Recent work, including large genome-wide association studies referenced in summary material, indicates genetic variation contributes to male sexual orientation but does not point to a single determinative gene; instead, many loci with small effects appear involved [1]. Scholarly overviews emphasize multifactorial models—genetic, immunological (e.g., fraternal birth order effect), and neurodevelopmental interactions—rather than a simple genetic determinism [3] [1].
3. Prenatal environment and neurodevelopment: converging evidence
Reviews of animal and human data discuss prenatal hormone exposures and organisational effects on the developing brain that plausibly influence later sexual orientation and gender identity [2]. These lines of evidence include biometric correlations and clinical conditions of sexual-development variation that suggest prenatal biology can “masculinize” or “feminize” aspects of identity and orientation [2].
4. Brain structure and functional studies: differences reported, interpretation contested
Some studies report brain-anatomical or functional patterns in transgender and sexual-minority people that are more typical of the gender with which they identify or differ statistically from cisgender/heterosexual comparisons [5]. Such findings support a biological contribution but are group-level and do not prove immutability; researchers caution against overinterpreting brain differences as simple proof of fixed, individual-level causation [5] [2].
5. Longitudinal and developmental work: stability, change, and the limits of “choice”
Longitudinal studies of childhood and adolescence show that many aspects of gender identity and sexual orientation emerge early and can be stable, but they also document some fluidity and developmental changes over time—particularly among youth—underscoring that identity formation is complex and not reducible to a momentary “choice” [4] [6]. Reviews stress scarcity of longitudinal basic-science data despite rising public attention [4].
6. Social, cultural, and psychological factors still matter; biological explanations don’t negate agency or context
Behavioral and social-science research shows beliefs about biological bases interact with attitudes and policy debates—some people use biological explanations to reduce stigma, while others interpret evidence selectively to support pre-existing views [7] [8]. Studies of identity and “outness” emphasize that social context, stigma, and personal choice about labels and disclosure are important parts of lived experience even when attractions or identity have biological underpinnings [6] [8].
7. Evidence regarding change efforts and “choice” claims
Retrospective and empirical analyses of sexual-orientation change efforts (SOCE) find little credible evidence that orientation can be reliably changed through therapy, and associate SOCE with harm in several studies—supporting the claim that orientation is highly resistant to purposeful modification [9]. The literature warns that anecdotes of “change” are often selective and that rigorous studies do not substantiate widespread voluntary switching of orientation [9].
8. What remains unsettled and how to read new claims
Available sources repeatedly note that mechanisms are incompletely understood—genetic, immunological, neurodevelopmental, and social factors all contribute in complex ways—and that no single paper “proves” non-choice in isolation [1] [2]. Readers should treat single small studies with caution, look for replication and meta-analyses, and watch how professional organizations synthesize evolving evidence [1] [2].
9. Practical takeaway for policy and public debate
Scientific literature supports a strong biological contribution to sexual orientation and gender identity and shows resistance to attempted change, which informs medical guidelines and civil-rights arguments; at the same time, academic sources underscore complexity, developmental variability, and the role of social context—so policy debates that treat identity as purely a voluntary “choice” contradict mainstream reviews [1] [9] [4].
If you want, I can compile a short reading list of the specific reviews, GWAS reports, and longitudinal studies cited in these summaries (with the cited sources above) so you can dive into the primary papers [1] [2] [4] [3].