Kenneth M. Cohen

Relationships Among Childhood Sex-Atypical Behavior, Spatial Ability, Handedness, and Sexual Orientation in Men

Moderate support was obtained in a sample of 101 gay, bisexual, and heterosexual males for the perinatal hormone theory, which hypothesizes that attenuated levels of androgens during critical periods of male fetal development fail to masculinize and defeminize the brain. Affected individuals develop female-typical sexual orientation (assessed here by a pie chart) and cerebral organization, reflected in visual-spatial abilities and gender nonconformity. Handedness, also thought to reflect in utero hormone exposure, was evaluated. Gay and bisexual males reported greater femininity and lesser masculinity than heterosexuals, with bisexuals intermediate in masculinity, suggesting a common biological mediator for homoeroticism and sex atypicality. Among bisexual males, increased masculinity was related to enhanced performance on all spatial tasks. Group mean differences in spatial ability and handedness were not found; however, among bisexuals, poorer visual-spatial performance predicted increased homoeroticism and right-handedness positively correlated with all spatial tasks. If perinatal hormones contribute to a generalized feminization of the brain, the current data indicate that it is most apparent among bisexual males. Sexing of their brains may involve several sexually dimorphic regions that are related in a continuous manner. Inferred cerebral feminization was more circumscribed among gay and heterosexual males, for whom childhood sex atypicality was most highly-distinguishing. Unspecified mechanisms responsible for homoeroticism in them may differ from those that produce same-sex attractions in bisexuals and thus have relatively little impact on other components of cerebral feminization.

Development of Same-Sex Attracted Youth

Although youthful homoeroticism has been documented by artisans, poets, and historians for thousands of years, it was not until the early 1970s that American scientists—primarily medical researchers and mental health professionals—began systematically studying a newly recognized clinical group they classified as “gay youth.” Casting doubt on earlier interpretations that adolescent same-sex encounters were experimental events that were temporary derailments from inevitable heterosexuality, they acknowledged that these youth comprised a unique grouping with their own exceptional experiences, needs, and risks. Not surprisingly, early sources of information about gay youth were comprised mostly of the adolescents who investigators could unquestionably identify and entice to participate in gay research: male prostitutes, runaways, and delinquents. Their early findings consequently highlighted the lives of specific adolescents who were, by definition, in physical, psychological, and social peril.

Developmental trajectories and milestones of lesbian, gay, and bisexual young people

Abstract Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) young people experience a variety of developmental trajectories that consist of milestones, the sequence and timing of which differ across individuals. They include early feelings of being different from peers, the onset of same-sex attraction, questioning ones sexuality, first same-sex sexual experience, recognition and self-labelling, disclosure to others, first romantic relationship, and self-acceptance. The invention of ‘gay youth’ during the 1970s and 1980s is briefly reviewed with an emphasis on the ways in which the portrait created by early research fails to capture the developmental trajectories of millennial young people. Although some young people struggle with mental health problems as they navigate these milestones, research documents the complexity, variety, and normative nature of the vast majority of LGB young people. A growing chorus of developmental, behavioural, and social scientists now emphasize that many contemporary young people forego sexual confusion, recognize the sex or gender to which they are attracted to and love, and believe they are as mentally healthy as heterosexual young people.

Sexual and Gender Prejudice

Sexual prejudice is defined by Herek (2000, p. 19) as “all negative attitudes based on sexual orientation, whether the target is homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual.”

Prevalence, Mental Health, and Heterogeneity of Bisexual Men

Purpose of ReviewTo critically assess the prevalence, mental health, and heterogeneity of bisexual men and to highlight their inextricable linkage with each otherRecent FindingsWhen an inclusive definition of male bisexuality is used, prevalence rates increase from the standard 1 to 2% to a more accurate 10 to 20%. Previously documented physical, mental, and social health deficiencies of bisexual men are likely the result of sampling bias, disregard for sexual orientation domains, especially romantic dimensions, and failure to acknowledge bisexual subgroups (primary, concealed, transient, situational, sensation-seeking, clinical). These oversights, whether intended or not, have profound implications for healthcare providers.SummaryTo accurately determine the prevalence, mental health, and heterogeneity of bisexual men, future research should investigate various sexual and romantic domains, assume a continuous rather than a categorical approach, acknowledge the diversity of bisexuality by considering types of bisexual men, and study the positive attributes of bisexual men.

Rejecting the Refutation That Never Was: Reply to Meyer's (2010) Comments on Savin-Williams, Cohen, Joyner, and Rieger (2010)

Commenting on Savin-Williams, Cohen, Joyner, and Rieger (2010), Meyer (2010) dismissed their analytic approach as erroneous and submitted a lengthy defense of his minority-stress hypothesis. We reject Meyer’s refutation on several accounts, the primary one being that the study was not designed or presented as a‘‘test’’of his position. Despite considerable limitations with the minority-stress hypothesis—chief among them is insufficient, empirically validated research demonstrating the direct causal mechanism by which societal stigma is translated into negative mental health effects—we referenced it because of its intuitive, heuristic appeal and assumed truth that frequently results in its evocation as an explanation for mental health discrepancies among sexual orientation groups. It is regrettable that Meyer interpreted our call for scientific curiosity as a frontal attack on his hypothesized mechanism. In the spirit of scholarly inquiry, we believe it is justifiable—when based on empirical research—to offer alternative explanations to perceived truths when explaining complex behaviors. In this light, we interpreted the data from a possibly biologically mediated perspective rather than from the sociological-based minority-stress position.