@OCRbot

Here's a 1948 lecture describing a natural basis for homosexuality. Interesting especially for referencing the presence of homosexual behavior in other mammals.

BEACH, F. A. 1948a. Sexual behavior in animals and men. Harvey Lect. Ser.

Quoted in:

Diamond, M. (1965). A Critical Evaluation of the Ontogeny of Human Sexual Behavior. The Quarterly Review of Biology

This chart is fascinating to me. Note: A is Money's theory, while B is what the author favors. Note at least the following:

a) That this concept of "physchosexuality" (basically both gender and sexuality) is clearly shown as a spectrum, and

b) That social and cultural factors play a role in imposing limits on this spectrum.

Diamond, M. (1965). A Critical Evaluation of the Ontogeny of Human Sexual Behavior. The Quarterly Review of Biology

@Thyme
Hermaphroditic studies, I soon discovered, reveal the terrible
strain that we impose on the etymological stem, sex. Whereas the
“stem, sense, has thirty or more derivative forms (including sensual,
sensuous, sensitive, sensible, sensitize, sensate, sensation, sensor,
and sentient), sex has only five (sexes, sexed, sexual, sexually,
sexuality). There is no sexuous, sexitive, sexible, sexitize, etc. The
term sex itself must serve multiple duty to mean civil or legal
status, genital (morphologic), genetic and gonadal status, and the
act of copulating or of sex classifying newly hatched chickens or
other neonates. In the nonerotic sense, as in the term sex-role
typing, it means anything that is sexually dichotomized, like jobs,
clothing, etiquette and recreation, irrespective of eroticism and the
sex organs per se.

So as not to confuse the sex of the genitalia and their activities
with nonerotic and nongenital sex roles and activities that are
prescribed culturally and historically, I settled on the term, gender
role, as the all inclusive one, as defined above. In this definition, it
was my ivory-tower ideal that “all those things that a person says
and does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy
or man, girl or woman, respectively,” would unite what the
observer perceives and records with what the person knows and
feels about himself or herself. In this way one’s gender role as
self-experienced would be the same as one’s gender identity, and
there would be no need for two terms. But such an easy
circumvention of the body-mind split did not win easy acceptance.
Though the term gender role immediately was adopted into the
scientific language, the term gender identity was soon there
too—the role belonging to behavior, and empirically observable;
and the identity belonging to the mind, and inferentially con-
strued.

@Thyme
... . laws are violated by the homosexual in-
dividual but to describe his behavior as
‘unnatural’ is to depart from strict accuracy.
The zoological evidence shows that female
mammals frequently display masculine coital
behavior when confronted with sexually re-
ceptive members of their own sex. This
has been observed in more than a dozen
species and undoubtedly occurs in many
others not yet studied. . . . The physiological
mechanisms for feminine sexual behavior are
found in all males and those for masculine
behavior exist in all females. The same stim-
uli that elicit feminine copulatory reactions
in the female will, under appropriate con-
ditions, produce similar reactions in many
males; and the stimulus configuration evok-
ing masculine responses in males is the one
which most effectively calls forth these same
responses on the part of the female. Human
homosexuality reflects the essential bisexual
character of our mammalian inheritance. The
extreme modifiability of man’s sex life makes
possible the conversion of this essential bi
sexuality into a form of unisexuality with the
result that a member of the same sex eventu-
ally becomes the only acceptable stimulus to
arousal... .

Human sexual life is not unique in its sus-
ceptibility to modification. . . . (Beach, 1948a
[emphasis added.] ).