Abstract
Male homosexuality, which the Medical Subject Headings thesaurus classifies under homosexuality, is the pattern of sexual or romantic attraction between men. Cognitive psychology treats it not as a condition apart but as a graded position on the same orientation instruments that locate every pattern — and as the pattern on which several of those instruments behave most sharply. Male same-sex attraction anchors the high pole of the Kinsey scale, and three findings distinguish it from its female counterpart: genital arousal is strongly category-specific, the male sex drive is less erotically plastic, and attraction and identity are, on average, less fluid. This article reviews how male homosexuality is defined and measured, why its arousal signature is sharply selective, what its origins evidence shows, and why its prevalence depends on the component counted.
Keywords: male homosexuality, sexual orientation, category-specific arousal, erotic plasticity, sexual fluidity
Introduction
Male homosexuality is the pattern of sexual or romantic attraction between men — gay attraction, in everyday terms (Bailey et al., 2016). As a subtype of homosexuality it sits at the same-sex pole of the orientation spectrum, and it is measured on the same graded instruments — the Kinsey continuum, the separable components of attraction, behavior, and identity, and the physiological recording of arousal — that locate every other orientation. What makes it a topic in its own right is not a different definition but the way those instruments behave: applied to men, several of the tools built to measure same-sex attraction return their sharpest, most convergent readings.
That is the thread of this article. The most heavily validated measures of orientation — above all the category-specific genital response that reads a man’s attraction directly from his body — were developed and tested largely on men, and they work as designed there (Chivers et al., 2010). Alongside that measurement fact sit two substantive findings: the male sex drive appears less responsive to circumstance (Baumeister, 2000), and male attraction is, on average, less fluid over time (Diamond, 2008). Male homosexuality is therefore the case in which cognitive psychology’s orientation toolkit is at its most informative, and the reference pattern against which the female departures are defined.
The Medical Subject Headings thesaurus indexes Male Homosexuality beneath Homosexuality, itself beneath sexuality, in its classification of behavior. That placement is a retrieval convenience, not a theoretical claim about kinds of people; this article uses it only to situate male homosexuality among related orientations and otherwise treats the psychology on its own terms.
Key Takeaways
- Male homosexuality is attraction between men — a subtype of homosexuality measured on the same graded instruments as any orientation.
- It anchors the high end of the Kinsey scale, and its measured prevalence shifts with whether attraction, behavior, or identity is counted.
- In men, genital arousal is strongly category-specific, so a gay man’s body and his self-report agree and the genital reading is an informative index of his orientation.
- The male sex drive is less erotically plastic and male attraction less fluid, so same-sex attraction in men is, on average, held more rigidly than in women.
- The much-debated X-chromosome (Xq28) linkage was the one reported for male orientation; genome-wide evidence has since replaced it with a polygenic, continuous picture.
Measuring Male Homosexuality
Male homosexuality became a measurable idea the moment orientation was treated as graded rather than categorical. Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948) placed people on a seven-point continuum from exclusively heterosexual (0) to exclusively homosexual (6); their volume on the human male is the source of the earliest large-scale figures for same-sex response, and male homosexuality, in that scheme, is not a single point but the high region — ratings 5 and 6 — where predominantly and exclusively same-sex attraction fall. The scale made two things visible at once: that exclusive same-sex attraction is a minority pattern among men occupying the sparse end of the distribution, and that it is nonetheless the end of a continuum, so a rating of 5 records a predominantly same-sex pattern with incidental other-pole response rather than an all-or-nothing state.
The dissociation of components matters at the male same-sex pole, though less dramatically than for women. Savin-Williams and Ream (2007) showed that attraction, behavior, and identity do not pick out exactly the same people: some men who report same-sex attraction have no same-sex behavior, some who behave have not adopted a gay identity, and the three counts of “how many men are homosexual” therefore differ. The measured prevalence of male homosexuality is not one number but three, and which is cited depends on whether attraction, behavior, or identity is the component counted.
Whether orientation needs one dimension or two bears on the male same-sex pole as well. Lippa (2020) analyzed interest, personality, and sexual traits across orientation groups and asked whether variation is better captured by one bipolar hetero–homosexual axis or by two partly independent dimensions — other-sex and same-sex attraction considered separately. Men’s attraction maps more cleanly onto a single bipolar axis than women’s, so male homosexuality sits closer to being the mirror image of heterosexuality: high same-sex attraction paired with low other-sex attraction, with the two poles trading off more tightly than they do for women. Figure 1 shows where the pattern sits on the distribution the scale records.
Figure 1
Male Homosexuality as the High-End Region of the Orientation Scale
The first demonstration makes the distribution interactive, letting the reader switch between attraction, behavior, and identity and watch how the measured size of the male homosexual minority shifts with the component counted.
Where the male minority sits, and how big it is
Male homosexuality is the high region of the Kinsey scale among men — ratings 5 and 6 — and it holds a small share of the distribution. But its exact measured size depends on the component you count: more men report some same-sex attraction than report an exclusively same-sex identity, because a share feel attraction they neither act on nor name. Switch the component and watch the same-sex share move. The distributions are illustrative, computed locally and not stored.
The minority is small on every component, yet it is not the same size on each — which is why the prevalence of male homosexuality, like any orientation, is underspecified until the component is named.
Arousal and Category-Specificity
The sharpest contrast between male and female homosexuality lies in arousal. Category-specificity is the degree to which genital arousal is selective for one sex, and Chivers and colleagues (2010) meta-analyzed studies recording both self-reported and genital arousal and found a large, reliable sex difference. In men, genital response is strongly category-specific and agrees closely with self-reported attraction: a gay man shows marked genital arousal to male stimuli and little to female stimuli, and his body and his report tell the same story. In women — including lesbian women — genital response is far less category-specific, and genital and self-reported arousal agree much less well.
For male homosexuality this is the central measurement fact, and it runs the opposite way to the female case. A category-specific genital reading is a usable, informative index of a man’s orientation: a gay man’s selective arousal to male stimuli corroborates his self-report rather than standing apart from it. The viewing-pattern studies make the point directly: Rieger and colleagues (2005) recorded men’s genital arousal to male and female erotic stimuli and found that most men, including bisexual-identified men, responded in a strongly sex-selective way rather than to both, so the male genital response sorts men by the sex they are aroused to. The physiological measure and the self-report, which come apart for lesbian women, converge for gay men — so for men the two sources of evidence reinforce each other, and a strongly selective genital profile is the expected signal for a homosexual respondent. The specificity is not an artefact of the instrument but a finding about how male arousal is organized.
The consequence is methodological: the arousal tool that was validated on men does what it was built to do for men, and male homosexuality is the pattern on which the physiological measurement of orientation is on its firmest ground. The second demonstration models the contrast directly, letting the reader switch the respondent’s sex and watch category-specific genital arousal sharpen for men — tracking self-reported same-sex attraction closely — and flatten for women.
Why a sharply selective reading is the expected male signal
In gay men, genital arousal is strongly selective for the same sex and matches what they report; in lesbian women it is only weakly selective, with substantial response to both sexes. For male homosexuality this is the informative case: the body and the self-report agree, so the genital measure indexes orientation. Toggle the respondent’s sex and watch the two genital bars sharpen for men — tracking the self-report — and flatten for women. The values are illustrative, computed locally and not stored.
In gay men the genital measure is sharply selective for the same sex and agrees with self-report, so it is an informative index of orientation — the male case is where physiological measurement works as designed.
Origins and Development
The theories offered for the origin of male homosexuality are theories of orientation in general, and they fit the male case with characteristic force. Bem (1996) proposed the exotic-becomes-erotic (EBE) developmental theory as an account of both the majority and the minority pattern: childhood temperament channels a child toward sex-typical or sex-atypical activities, which determine which peers feel familiar and which feel different, and the sex experienced as exotic in childhood becomes the object of erotic attraction later. On this account male homosexuality is the outcome when a boy’s preferences are sex-atypical. The childhood-gender-nonconformity antecedent the theory relies on predicts adult orientation more strongly in men than in women, which is one reason the developmental signal is clearer for male orientation.
The biology has been studied just as intensively, and male homosexuality is where the genetic search began in earnest. Hamer and colleagues (1993) reported a linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome — the region Xq28 — and male sexual orientation; the result, widely reported as the “gay gene” finding, was specific to men and launched three decades of genetic work, though later attempts to replicate a single strong locus at genome-wide scale did not succeed. Ganna and colleagues (2019) analyzed the genetics of same-sex sexual behavior across hundreds of thousands of genomes and found no single gene and no simple pattern: many variants each contribute a tiny amount, the genetic influences are spread across the genome, and they do not partition people into discrete heterosexual and homosexual kinds. The genetic architecture is polygenic and continuous, so male same-sex attraction is the high end of a graded distribution of many small influences rather than the expression of a dedicated cause — and the Xq28 linkage, the foundational male-orientation genetics result, is now read as one early and partial signal within that polygenic architecture.
Prevalence, Stability, and Rigidity
How common male homosexuality is depends, as the measurement section showed, on what is counted. Savin-Williams and Ream (2007) found that same-sex attraction, behavior, and identity each yield a different count among young men, with attraction the most commonly reported and exclusive same-sex identity the least, so the prevalence of male homosexuality is reported as a range rather than a single figure. A man can report same-sex attraction without same-sex behavior or a gay identity, and each combination is counted differently.
Stability is the second and more distinctive theme for men, because the male pattern is the rigid one. Baumeister (2000) argued for erotic plasticity: the female sex drive is more responsive to social and situational circumstance than the male, and the contrast prediction is that men’s same-sex attraction and identity are, on average, held more rigidly — less swayed by relationship, context, or culture. Diamond (2008) followed a longitudinal sample and documented that fluidity, while present in both sexes, is more muted in men: male attractions, once established, show strong continuity and less movement in either direction. Male same-sex attraction is therefore characterized less by change over time than female same-sex attraction, and its measured stability is high.
Mock and Eibach (2012) reported over a ten-year adult span that most people’s identity was stable, with what change there was concentrated among those not exclusively heterosexual, and Diamond (2016) argued that sexual fluidity is a general human capacity rather than a female peculiarity — but one that is less pronounced in men. For the measurement of male homosexuality this means same-sex attraction is a stable position on a continuum, and the longitudinal record for men shows the continuity that the lower plasticity of the male sex drive predicts. The third demonstration makes the pattern visible, letting the reader watch how the stability of an orientation component varies across the scale and differs by sex.
How stable is each point on the scale, for men and women?
Male same-sex attraction is, on longitudinal evidence, genuinely stable and held more rigidly than female same-sex attraction, with less movement over time. Lower erotic plasticity makes men’s attraction less mutable than women’s away from the poles. Pick a position and a sex and read the modelled ten-year persistence; the curve peaks at the heterosexual anchor and the homosexual pole is stable, with the men’s curve sitting above the women’s off the poles. The curve is illustrative, computed locally and not stored.
The exclusively homosexual pole is stable — most same-sex attraction persists — and for men it is held especially rigidly, sitting above the women's curve off the poles.
Worked Example
Consider two men assessed with the tools above, both of whom identify as gay. The first reports exclusive attraction to men, has a same-sex sexual history, and over a ten-year follow-up showed little change. The second reports predominant attraction to men, a mostly same-sex history, and over the same span showed little movement while remaining predominantly same-sex. In the laboratory both show strongly category-specific genital arousal — marked response to male stimuli, little to female. Are both homosexual? On the components that define orientation the answer for each is plainly yes — and for men the lab reading agrees with the self-report rather than complicating it.
For the first man, attraction, behavior, and identity place him at the exclusively same-sex anchor, and his category-specific genital arousal corroborates that placement, because male genital response is strongly category-specific (Chivers et al., 2010). For the second man, the same components place him near that anchor, and his limited ten-year movement is the continuity that lower erotic plasticity predicts for men, not a sign of a shifting orientation (Baumeister, 2000; Diamond, 2008). Table 1 lays the measures side by side.
| Measure | Man A (exclusive) | Man B (predominant) |
|---|---|---|
| Attraction | Exclusively same-sex | Predominantly same-sex |
| Behavior | Same-sex history | Mostly same-sex history |
| Identity | Gay (self-label) | Gay (self-label) |
| Genital arousal | Category-specific (male stimuli); informative, as predicted for men | Category-specific (male stimuli); informative, as predicted for men |
| 10-year change | Little change | Little change; remains predominantly same-sex |
The example makes the article’s point exact. The components that define orientation place both men at the same-sex pole, so both are homosexual without qualification; the genital measure corroborates each — because male arousal is strongly category-specific — and the stability of both men over a decade is the expected behavior of a less plastic system. The male case is the one in which the orientation toolkit converges: body, report, and longitudinal record all point the same way (Chivers et al., 2010; Diamond, 2008).
Discussion
The cognitive psychology of male homosexuality is the discipline of measuring men’s same-sex attraction on the same graded instruments as any other orientation, in the case where those instruments are at their most informative. Located on the Kinsey continuum it is the high-rating region of a single scale (Kinsey et al., 1948); described two-dimensionally it is a profile of high same-sex and low other-sex attraction that maps relatively cleanly onto a single bipolar axis (Lippa, 2020); and it is subject to exactly the questions about arousal, development, and stability asked of every other pattern.
Integrating the findings shows why the male case is the reference pattern. Because genital arousal is strongly category-specific in men, the physiological measure agrees with the self-report and is a usable index of orientation (Chivers et al., 2010); the two converge rather than coming apart. The developmental and genetic evidence explains male same-sex attraction by particular settings of general mechanisms: the childhood-temperament route fits men relatively well (Bem, 1996), the X-chromosome linkage was the foundational male-orientation genetics result (Hamer et al., 1993), and the genome-wide evidence points to a polygenic, continuous architecture that has superseded the single-locus account (Ganna et al., 2019). And male homosexuality is a stable orientation held comparatively rigidly, because the male sex drive is less erotically plastic and male attraction less fluid (Baumeister, 2000; Diamond, 2008; Mock & Eibach, 2012). The comprehensive review by Bailey and colleagues (2016) reaches the same integrative conclusion: orientation is real, early-emerging, and substantially stable across its range, and male homosexuality is the high-frequency same-sex pattern among men rather than a separate kind of thing.
None of this reduces male homosexuality to any single measure. The point of the cognitive analysis is the opposite: by specifying which component is in view, how it is assessed, and how the measure behaves for men in particular, it explains why the male same-sex pattern yields a prevalence that is a range, an arousal signature that is sharply selective, and a stability that is high.
Current Directions
The most consequential recent movement is the replacement of the categorical picture of orientation with a genuinely dimensional one, and male homosexuality is where that shift most directly revised an earlier result. Ganna and colleagues (2019) established that the genetics of same-sex behavior are polygenic and continuous, with no variant that sorts people into discrete groups — superseding the single-locus Xq28 linkage Hamer and colleagues (1993) had reported in men and reframing it as one early, partial signal. Male same-sex attraction, on the current picture, is the high end of a smooth distribution of many small influences, not a population defined by a gene.
That reframing turns the measurement themes of this article into an active agenda. If the male sex drive is less plastic and male attraction less fluid (Baumeister, 2000; Diamond, 2016), then the high stability of male same-sex attraction is a quantity to be estimated precisely rather than assumed, and the sex difference in fluidity is itself a target of explanation. If orientation is dimensional (Lippa, 2020), then the relatively tight bipolar trade-off of men’s attraction is a benchmark against which the looser, two-dimensional structure of women’s attraction is measured. And because male genital response is robustly category-specific (Chivers et al., 2010), it remains the validated physiological index of orientation — the standard the field is still trying to extend to the non-specific female case.
Common Misconceptions
- “A gay man’s genital arousal in the lab does not really reflect his orientation.”
- In men, genital arousal is strongly category-specific, so a gay man’s selective response to male stimuli agrees closely with his self-report and is an informative index of his orientation — the male pattern is where the physiological measure works as designed (Chivers et al., 2010).
- “Male sexual orientation is as fluid and changeable as female.”
- On average it is less so: the male sex drive is less erotically plastic and male attraction shows less movement over time, so male same-sex attraction is held comparatively rigidly, though fluidity is a general human capacity present in both sexes (Baumeister, 2000; Diamond, 2008).
- “Male homosexuality is caused by a single ‘gay gene’ on the X chromosome.”
- The Xq28 linkage reported in 1993 was an early, partial signal, not a single determining gene; genome-wide evidence shows same-sex behavior to be polygenic and continuous, with many variants of tiny effect spread across the genome (Hamer et al., 1993; Ganna et al., 2019).
- “There is one true number for how common male homosexuality is.”
- Prevalence depends on the component counted: same-sex attraction, behavior, and gay identity yield different figures among men, because the components dissociate and a man can report one without the others (Savin-Williams & Ream, 2007).
Glossary
- Attraction.
- The felt pull of sexual or romantic interest toward a sex; the component of orientation that defines male homosexuality and the one on which it is most commonly reported.
- Category-specificity.
- The degree to which genital arousal is selective for one sex; strong in men, so a gay man’s genital response is sharply selective and agrees with his self-reported attraction.
- Component (of orientation).
- One of the separable aspects of orientation — attraction, arousal, fantasy, behavior, or identity — that are correlated but can give different answers for one person.
- Concordance (of components).
- The degree to which a person’s separable orientation components agree; for men, concordance between genital arousal and the other components is notably high.
- Erotic plasticity.
- The responsiveness of the sex drive to social and situational circumstance; proposed to be lower in men, which predicts that male same-sex attraction and identity are held more rigidly than female.
- Exotic-becomes-erotic (EBE) theory.
- Bem’s developmental account in which childhood temperament determines which sex feels familiar and which exotic; its childhood-gender-nonconformity antecedent predicts adult orientation more strongly in boys than in girls.
- Homosexuality.
- Attraction to the same sex; the parent category under which MeSH classifies male homosexuality and its female counterpart.
- Kinsey scale.
- A seven-point continuum from exclusively heterosexual (0) to exclusively homosexual (6); male homosexuality occupies its high region, ratings 5 and 6.
- Male homosexuality.
- The pattern of sexual or romantic attraction between men; in cognitive psychology, the high region of the orientation scale for men rather than a condition set apart.
- Non-specific arousal.
- Genital arousal that responds to stimuli of both sexes without strong selectivity; the typical female pattern, and the contrast against which the sharp category-specificity of male arousal is defined.
- Polygenic.
- Influenced by many genes of individually small effect; the genome-wide architecture found for same-sex behavior, which superseded the single-locus Xq28 account of male orientation.
- Prevalence.
- The share of a population with a given orientation; for male homosexuality it is a minority on every component, and its exact size differs by whether attraction, behavior, or identity is counted.
- Sexual fluidity.
- Situation- and relationship-dependent change in attraction or identity layered on an underlying orientation; a general capacity that is less pronounced in men.
- Stability.
- The tendency of an orientation component to persist across time; male same-sex attraction is, on longitudinal evidence, held with high stability and little movement.
- Xq28.
- A region of the X chromosome reported in 1993 to show linkage with male sexual orientation; the foundational male-orientation genetics result, later subsumed into a polygenic account.
Key Researchers
J. Michael Bailey
is a professor of psychology at Northwestern University whose comprehensive review synthesized the measurement, development, and biology of sexual orientation, and whose arousal research established the sharply category-specific genital response pattern that characterizes homosexual men.
Faculty page - Google Scholar - Wikipedia
Roy F. Baumeister
is a social psychologist, professor emeritus at Florida State University and at the University of Queensland, whose concept of erotic plasticity holds that the male sex drive is less socially flexible than the female, predicting that male same-sex attraction and identity are held more rigidly.
ORCID - Google Scholar - Wikipedia
Daryl J. Bem
is a professor emeritus of psychology at Cornell University whose exotic-becomes-erotic theory offers a single developmental account of orientation, one whose childhood antecedents predict adult orientation more strongly in men than in women.
Meredith L. Chivers
is a professor of psychology at Queen’s University whose research established that genital arousal is strongly category-specific in men but far less so in women — the male pattern being the one on which physiological measurement of orientation is on its firmest ground.
ORCID - Faculty page - Wikipedia
Lisa M. Diamond
is a distinguished professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah whose longitudinal research established sexual fluidity, documenting that it is present in both sexes but more muted in men, so male attractions show strong continuity over time.
Dean H. Hamer
is an American geneticist, emeritus at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, whose 1993 study reported a linkage between markers on the X chromosome (Xq28) and male sexual orientation — the most-cited early genetic study of male homosexuality, later subsumed into a polygenic account.
Alfred C. Kinsey
(1894–1956) founded the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University and devised the graded scale of orientation on which exclusive male homosexuality occupies the high pole (rating 6); his 1948 volume on the human male first documented the distribution of men’s same-sex response.
Richard A. Lippa
is a professor emeritus of psychology at California State University, Fullerton whose analyses asked whether two independent dimensions, rather than a single hetero–homosexual axis, best represent variation in orientation — men’s attraction mapping comparatively cleanly onto one bipolar axis.
Ritch C. Savin-Williams
is a professor emeritus of developmental psychology at Cornell University whose research on the prevalence and stability of orientation components established how same-sex attraction, behavior, and identity emerge and diverge in young men.
ORCID - Faculty page - Google Scholar
Frequently Asked Questions
What is male homosexuality?
In research, male homosexuality is the pattern of sexual or romantic attraction between men. Cognitive psychology treats it as the high region of the orientation spectrum for men rather than as a condition set apart, and studies it on the same graded instruments used for every other orientation (Bailey et al., 2016).
Where does male homosexuality fall on the Kinsey scale?
At the high end: ratings 5 (predominantly same-sex, with incidental other-pole response) and 6 (exclusively same-sex), which together hold a small share of the distribution (Kinsey et al., 1948). It is a graded region of the scale, not a single point.
Does a gay man’s genital arousal reflect his orientation?
Yes. Genital arousal is strongly category-specific in men: a gay man shows marked genital response to male stimuli and little to female, and this agrees closely with his self-reported attraction (Chivers et al., 2010). For men the physiological measure is an informative index of orientation.
Does male attraction change over time?
On average less than female attraction. The male sex drive is less erotically plastic and male attractions show less movement over time, so male same-sex attraction is held comparatively rigidly (Baumeister, 2000; Diamond, 2008). Fluidity is a general capacity but is more muted in men.
Is male homosexuality stable?
For most men, same-sex attraction is genuinely stable, and most adults’ identity does not change (Savin-Williams & Ream, 2007; Mock & Eibach, 2012). The male pattern shows high stability and little longitudinal movement, consistent with the lower plasticity of the male sex drive (Baumeister, 2000).
Is there a “gay gene” for male homosexuality?
No single gene. The X-chromosome (Xq28) linkage reported in 1993 was an early, partial signal (Hamer et al., 1993), and genome-wide evidence shows same-sex behavior to be polygenic and continuous, with many variants of tiny effect spread across the genome (Ganna et al., 2019).
How common is male homosexuality?
There is no single figure. Same-sex attraction, behavior, and gay identity each give a different count among men, with attraction the most commonly reported and exclusive same-sex identity the least, because the components dissociate (Savin-Williams & Ream, 2007).
Does male homosexuality differ from female homosexuality beyond the sex involved?
Yes, in how it is measured. Genital arousal is sharply category-specific in men but weakly so in women; the male sex drive is less erotically plastic; male attraction is less fluid; and the Xq28 linkage was reported for male orientation with no established female counterpart (Chivers et al., 2010; Baumeister, 2000; Diamond, 2016).
References
Bailey, J. M., Vasey, P. L., Diamond, L. M., Breedlove, S. M., Vilain, E., & Epprecht, M. (2016). Sexual orientation, controversy, and science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(2), 45–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616637616
Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 347–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.347
Bem, D. J. (1996). Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 103(2), 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.320
Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., Laan, E., & Grimbos, T. (2010). Agreement of self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal in men and women: A meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(1), 5–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9556-9
Diamond, L. M. (2008). Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood: Results from a 10-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.5
Diamond, L. M. (2016). Sexual fluidity in male and females. Current Sexual Health Reports, 8(4), 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-016-0092-z
Ganna, A., Verweij, K. J. H., Nivard, M. G., Maier, R., Wedow, R., Busch, A. S., Abdellaoui, A., Guo, S., Sathirapongsasuti, J. F., Lichtenstein, P., Lundström, S., Långström, N., Auton, A., Harris, K. M., Beecham, G. W., Martin, E. R., Sanders, A. R., Perry, J. R. B., Neale, B. M., & Zietsch, B. P. (2019). Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior. Science, 365(6456), eaat7693. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7693
Hamer, D. H., Hu, S., Magnuson, V. L., Hu, N., & Pattatucci, A. M. (1993). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261(5119), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.8332896
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. W. B. Saunders.
Lippa, R. A. (2020). Interest, personality, and sexual traits that distinguish heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual individuals: Are there two dimensions that underlie variations in sexual orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(2), 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01643-9
Mock, S. E., & Eibach, R. P. (2012). Stability and change in sexual orientation identity over a 10-year period in adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(3), 641–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9761-1
Rieger, G., Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2005). Sexual arousal patterns of bisexual men. Psychological Science, 16(8), 579–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01578.x
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Ream, G. L. (2007). Prevalence and stability of sexual orientation components during adolescence and young adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(3), 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9088-5