Environment, Sexuality, and Identity: Born, Built, or Both?

Few topics spark as much debate—or misunderstanding—as the question of where sexuality and gender identity come from. Are people born gay, bisexual, or trans? Are these identities shaped by environment, culture, or media? Or can both be true at the same time?

In recent years, arguments have circulated suggesting that exposure to pornography, queer visibility, or so‑called “taboo” content can make someone gay or trans. Others counter this by pointing to LGBTQ+ people who existed long before modern technology, or to individuals raised in traditionally masculine households who still identify as queer.

So what does serious research actually tell us? The answer is layered, nuanced, and—importantly—far less sensational than popular narratives suggest.

The Simplistic Argument: “Environment Creates Sexuality”

A common claim goes something like this: exposure to certain sexual imagery builds tolerance, pushes people toward increasingly taboo interests, and eventually shifts their sexual orientation or gender identity. Variations of this argument suggest that:

• Pornography can “turn” someone gay

• Seeing trans people in media makes people want to transition

• LGBTQ+ identities spread through social influence

These claims often sound intuitive to some, especially in a culture that links sexuality tightly to behavior. But intuition is not evidence—and when examined through scientific research, these arguments fall apart.

There is no credible body of peer‑reviewed evidence showing that adult media exposure causes a person to change their core sexual orientation or gender identity. Research on pornography focuses primarily on behavior, attitudes, and expectations—not identity formation. Attraction patterns, particularly persistent same‑sex attraction, do not appear to emerge because of exposure alone.

If sexuality worked this way, conversion efforts, repression, or strict environments would reliably prevent LGBTQ+ identities from forming. History shows the opposite.

LGBTQ+ People Existed Long Before Modern Media

One of the strongest counters to environmental “contagion” theories is simply history.

Same‑sex relationships, gender‑variant people, and non‑binary social roles appear across:

• Ancient civilizations

• Indigenous cultures

• Religiously conservative societies

• Periods with no mass media, pornography, or LGBTQ+ visibility

People experienced same‑sex attraction and gender variance even in environments that actively punished or erased them. This strongly suggests that modern technology or cultural exposure does not create these identities.

In fact, if environment alone determined sexuality, we would expect LGBTQ+ people to emerge primarily in permissive cultures. Instead, they appear everywhere.

What Biology Contributes (Without Oversimplifying)

Modern science does not argue for a single “gay gene,” nor does it claim sexuality is biologically predetermined in a rigid way. Instead, research points to a complex interaction of biological influences, particularly during early development.

These include:

• Prenatal hormonal environments, especially exposure to androgens

• Genetic factors, which influence—but do not dictate—orientation

• Epigenetic processes, which affect how genes are expressed

Importantly, these influences occur before conscious socialization. They help explain why siblings raised in the same household can have different sexual orientations, or why LGBTQ+ people arise even in highly traditional, gender‑rigid families.

Biology, in this sense, does not “decide” identity—but it creates a range of possibilities.

Rethinking “Environment”: It’s Not What People Think

When researchers talk about environmental influences, they are not referring to parenting style, masculinity in the home, or exposure to queer people.

Instead, environmental factors often mean:

• Conditions in the womb

• Non‑genetic biological influences

• Individual developmental experiences not shared by siblings

There is no consistent evidence that:

• Being raised by LGBTQ+ parents causes someone to be LGBTQ+

• Gender‑nonconforming childhood environments determine adult orientation

• Exposure to queer peers or media creates queer identity

If those claims were true, sexual orientation would track predictably with upbringing. It does not.

Where Environment Does Matter: Expression, Not Origin

Here’s where nuance becomes crucial.

While environment does not appear to create sexual orientation or gender identity, it absolutely affects how—and whether—people recognize, express, or label it.

A supportive environment may allow someone to:

• Understand their identity earlier

• Feel safe naming their feelings

• Explore language that resonates with their experience

A hostile or restrictive environment may cause:

• Suppression or denial

• Late‑in‑life self‑recognition

• Internal conflict or shame

This difference in timing and expression is often mistaken for “being influenced.” In reality, the underlying identity was already there—it simply lacked permission to surface.

Sexual Fluidity vs. Social Engineering

Some people experience fluidity in attraction or identity labels over time. This is real, documented, and valid.

But fluidity is not the same as being socially programmed.

Fluidity reflects:

• Changes in self‑understanding

• Shifts in emotional connection

• Expanding language for attraction

It does not support the idea that identities are manufactured by media exposure or peer presence. Rather, it highlights how complex and personal sexuality can be.

What About Gender Identity?

Gender identity follows a similar pattern.

There is no evidence that seeing trans people or consuming trans‑related media causes someone to become trans. Increased visibility correlates with increased self‑recognition, not creation.

As with sexuality, gender‑diverse people appear across cultures and eras—even where such identities were heavily stigmatized or punished.

Medical and psychological consensus increasingly recognizes gender identity as a deeply rooted aspect of self, not a trend or imitation.

The Role of Extremes: When Environment Can Cause Harm

Nuance also requires acknowledging something often ignored in polarized debates: extremes exist.

While environment does not appear to create sexual orientation or gender identity, there are documented cases where adult intervention, coercion, or ideology imposed on children causes psychological harm—including later rejection or distress.

When Children Are Forced Into Identities

Historical and clinical cases show that forcing a child to live as a gender that does not align with their internal sense of self can lead to long‑term trauma.

Well‑documented examples include cases where:

• Children were raised as a different gender following medical or social decisions made without their consent

• Parents rigidly enforced a gender identity based on ideology rather than the child’s expressed experience

• Children were denied space to question, pause, or develop naturally

In many of these cases, individuals later rejected the imposed identity—not because gender identity is socially constructed, but because coercion does not equal self‑recognition.

This matters because it shows an important distinction: environment can influence behavior and self‑presentation, but it cannot overwrite a person’s core identity without consequences.

Early Medical Decisions and Later Regret

There are also emerging discussions in medical literature about early social or medical transitions that were later reconsidered.

While the majority of adolescents who receive gender‑affirming care report improvement in well‑being, a small but real subset later experiences regret or re‑identification. These cases are rare—but they matter.

What they reveal is not that trans identities are invalid, but that:

• Children are still developing cognitively and emotionally

• Exploration should not be confused with certainty

• Safeguards, psychological evaluation, and individualized care are essential

Most major medical bodies emphasize careful assessment, reversibility where possible, and ongoing consent, precisely to avoid harm caused by ideological extremes—on either side.

The Difference Between Support and Direction

There is a critical difference between:

• Supporting a child’s exploration of identity

• Directing a child toward a predetermined outcome

Support allows space for uncertainty. Direction demands a conclusion.

The former aligns with evidence‑based care. The latter risks turning identity into a project rather than a discovery.

So… Can Both Be True?

Yes—but not in the way critics often suggest.

• People are not blank slates written on by culture

• Sexuality and gender identity are not chosen, taught, or transmitted

• Biology provides a framework of potential

• Environment influences awareness, safety, and expression

In short: identity is discovered, not installed.

The most evidence‑based conclusion is not “born this way” versus “made this way,” but something more honest and human:

Sexuality and gender identity emerge from complex biological foundations and unfold within social contexts that can either allow or suppress their expression.

Why This Conversation Matters

Oversimplified narratives about environment and sexuality are not just inaccurate—they are often weaponized. They’re used to justify censorship, erasure, and moral panic rather than genuine understanding.

Opening this conversation with facts, nuance, and historical context doesn’t close debate—it elevates it.

And perhaps the most important takeaway is this: the existence of LGBTQ+ people does not require an explanation rooted in fear. It simply requires an understanding of human complexity.

This article is intended to open dialogue, not shut it down. The science continues to evolve—but what it already shows is clear: human identity is far richer than simplistic cause‑and‑effect stories allow.

SOURCES

• 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.

• American Psychological Association. Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.

• Wright, P. J., Sun, C., Steffen, N. J., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2020). Pornography consumption and sexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior.

• Crompton, L. (2006). Homosexuality and Civilization. Harvard University Press.

• Herdt, G. (1996). Third Sex, Third Gender. Zone Books.

• Nanda, S. (2014). Gender Diversity: Crosscultural Variations. Waveland Press.

• Breedlove, S. M. (2017). Prenatal influences on sexual orientation. Hormones and Behavior.

• Sanders, A. R., et al. (2017). Genome-wide association study of sexual orientation. Scientific Reports.

• Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. (2001). Does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review.

• Tasker, F., & Patterson, C. J. (2007). Journal of GLBT Family Studies.

• Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. Psychological Bulletin.

• Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2006). Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

• Money, J., & Ehrhardt, A. (1972). Man & Woman, Boy & Girl. Johns Hopkins University Press.

• Zucker, K. J. (2019). Adolescent gender dysphoria. Archives of Sexual Behavior.

• Turban, J. L., et al. (2022). Regret and detransition following gender-affirming care. JAMA Pediatrics.

• Endocrine Society. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons.

• Cass Review (2024). Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People. UK NHS.