Quote:
The original intention of this project was to discuss the implicit and explicit connections between an individual’s gender identity and sexuality. A basis of both topics have been covered so far, but it has been largely limited to definition, from which most evidence for the conclusion can be made.

In an email from Elizabeth Riley , a counsellor with a specialty in gender variance issues, it is described;

“There is a famous Sissy Boys study by Richard Green that found that most children with Gender Identity Disorder (GID) grow up to be homosexuals and a newer study by Cohen-Kettenis that finds the same”

The study by Cohen-Ketennis regarding gender dysphoric children is a strong basis from which ideas of an implicit connection can be formed. They claim that; “…gender dysphoric children are 100 times more likely to be same sex attracted than gender conforming children ”.

So according to these claims, there is a distinct and irrefutable connection between an individual’s gender identity and their sexual orientation. However, there exists no definable proof nor reason for this.

Quote:
Essentialism (Nature)

Sexuality is widely regarded as an innate part of one’s self. Personally, I have found my same-sex attraction to be an essential part of my identity; it was not a conscious choice that I had made. This, I have found in my experience of other persons of same-sex attraction, is the common mindset. It is not an issue often discussed regarding heteronormative persons’ sexualities, but still equally applicable. A heterosexual person would rarely claim their sexuality as a part of a ‘choice’ or contextual influence .

Essentialism with regards to sexuality is clearly demonstrated in several ways. An individual can be of an alternative sexuality to that perceived as ‘appropriate’ within their context.
Studies show that 26% of teenagers who come out to their parents were told they ‘must leave home’. 40% of homeless youth identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered . There is an obvious aura of negativity regarding these individual’s sexuality, but they still identify as such. Stories of contexts so homophobic that the children are never allowed home again or are assaulted aren’t unheard of in the gay community.

Personally, my upbringing wasn’t expressly homophobic but attending a catholic school didn’t provide a positive outlook on sexuality. My peers were expressly intolerant of any differing sorts of persons and this influenced my negative viewpoint on homosexuality. Nonetheless, I eventually had to come to terms with my sexuality, regardless of my context.

An innate connection between gender identity and sexuality would effectively prove a biological expression of self, rather than contextual, if there is indeed an essential aspect that connects gender identity to sexuality before context can influence it (ie. ‘Kim’s’ Case Study, in which she was effeminate [gender-dysphoric] years before any obvious contextual or Freudian issues existed ).

Social Constructivism (Nurture)

Constructivism within sexuality is a difficult argument to present, but not entirely impossible. The idea that sexuality is a socially constructed aspect of an individual’s identity is definitely an unpopular viewpoint. To propose that an individual has made choices that have led to their rejection from certain aspects of society is considered offensive by some. However, there is evidence that social constructivism is an existing aspect of an individual’s sexuality.

There are cases of men and women who live their entire lives, knowing they are homosexual, but not expressing it. Instead, they have children and marry. While they express themselves as exclusively heterosexual, they are homosexual. This is a case in which their sexuality and sexual orientation has been changed by their contextual influences – and to some extent, by choice. However, one cannot systematically decide that all persons who ‘replace’ their sexuality will be expressed in such a way, but it provides an important and colloquially known example of social constructivism.

Another hypothetical situation exists: what of a culture in which sexuality has no labelling or particular identity expression? In traditional Elizabethan society, ‘buggery’ was considered illegal (punishable by death) but the idea of lesbianism was not perceived as a circumstance that could occur and thus was not punishable. In a society when lesbianism did not exist, how could an individual ever identify as lesbian?

As mentioned above, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick describes in her “Epistemology of the Closet ” that sexuality is defined by much more than gender or sexual identity. It is implied that sexuality not only consists of ‘innate’ attractions for reproduction (or lack thereof – homosexual or bisexual) but also contextually influenced orientations that create an attraction therein of particular styles of person. This attraction can be based on events that transpired in the past (such as sexual assault, for example) or social context (social boundaries, taboos, etc.). As society defines what one finds “attractive”, this attraction can differ for each culture. For example, traditional Greek culture finds large women particularly attractive, with reference to their size being relevant to their wealth and overall state of living . This contrasts with sexual attraction within contemporary western society, in which males tend to and are expected to find thin women more attractive than their larger peers. This implies that a culture has defined these individuals’ attractions (and according to Kosofsky, their sexuality).

I could not pinpoint the exact catalysts for my attractions, but would not deny that social constructivism did play a part in them. Strongly expressed cultural ideas regarding weight, mannerisms and style do exist within my sexuality. These include an attraction for persons of similar cultures as myself - attraction to androgyny, for example.

Social constructivism as a catalyst for sexuality is a topic of great interest – relating that sexual orientation can be the individual’s response to contextual and circumstantial situations. This makes it a valid interpretation of sexuality and implies the same for other deeply-held identities. What is apparent is that while some aspects of an individual’s identity are essential, there are plenty of contextual influences and choices that they make that can influence the expression of said identity.

darkshine said:
The study by Cohen-Ketennis regarding gender dysphoric children is a strong basis from which ideas of an implicit connection can be formed. They claim that; “…gender dysphoric children are 100 times more likely to be same sex attracted than gender conforming children ”.

So according to these claims, there is a distinct and irrefutable connection between an individual’s gender identity and their sexual orientation. However, there exists no definable proof nor reason for this."

buffalobill90 said:

sexuality is intimately linked to reproduction and therefore an evolutionary perspective is valid.

Charlemagne said:

Sexuality is not "intimately linked" to reproduction.

It is required. The participants are also required to be male and female if you expect to actually reproduce. That biological fact is no social construct.