Study addresses lesbian parenting and orientation of children

This study is sure to get some attention. From Archives of Sexual Behavior, epublication  Nov. 6, 2010

Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual Orientation, Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Risk Exposure.

Gartrell NK, Bos HM, Goldberg NG.

Department of Psychiatry and Center of Excellence in Women’s Health, University of California, 3570 Clay St., San Francisco, CA, 94118, USA, [email protected].

Abstract

This study assessed Kinsey self-ratings and lifetime sexual experiences of 17-year-olds whose lesbian mothers enrolled before these offspring were born in the longest-running, prospective study of same-sex parented families, with a 93% retention rate to date. Data for the current report were gathered through online questionnaires completed by 78 adolescent offspring (39 girls and 39 boys). The adolescents were asked if they had ever been abused and, if so, to specify by whom and the type of abuse (verbal, emotional, physical, or sexual). They were also asked to specify their sexual identity on the Kinsey scale, between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual. Lifetime sexual behavior was assessed through questions about heterosexual and same-sex contact, age of first sexual experience, contraception use, and pregnancy. The results revealed that there were no reports of physical or sexual victimization by a parent or other caregiver. Regarding sexual orientation, 18.9% of the adolescent girls and 2.7% of the adolescent boys self-rated in the bisexual spectrum, and 0% of girls and 5.4% of boys self-rated as predominantly-to-exclusively homosexual. When compared with age- and gender-matched adolescents of the National Survey of Family Growth, the study offspring were significantly older at the time of their first heterosexual contact, and the daughters of lesbian mothers were significantly more likely to have had same-sex contact. These findings suggest that adolescents reared in lesbian families are less likely than their peers to be victimized by a parent or other caregiver, and that daughters of lesbian mothers are more likely to engage in same-sex behavior and to identify as bisexual.

I will get a look at the study soon and report more about it. Looks to me like female sexual fluidity is supported by this study but will examine the study more closely.

42 thoughts on “Study addresses lesbian parenting and orientation of children”

  1. Regarding the Sample:

    Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the NLLFS adolescent sample

    Characteristics NLLFS (n=78)a

    Age (in years) M (SD) 17.05 (0.36)

    Race/ethnicity

    White adolescents 87.1%

    Adolescents of colorb 12.9%

    Hollingshead four-factor index of family social statusc

    M (SD) 49.8 (10.2)

    Range (min–max)d 18–66

    Family region of residence (U.S.)e

    Northeast 47%

    Midwest 1%

    South 9%

    West 43%

    Demographics skewed regionally.

  2. It is hard to understand such skewing…unless there are significant limitations in how participants were garnered for the study.

  3. Research has documented considerable fluidity in the development and expression of sexual orientation, particularly among young women

    Change is possible.

  4. A study that confirms the flexibility of women in terms of sexual attractions. And a study that supports that children in gay and lesbian homes are safer.

    An important question is the control for SES,

    When compared with age- and gender-matched adolescents of the National Survey of Family Growth, the study offspring were significantly older at the time of their first heterosexual contact, and the daughters of lesbian mothers were significantly more likely to have had same-sex contact.

    The difference from this National survey strongly suggests that this is not a representative sample…

    Now we can ridicule the study for all its flaws and call it a work of political activism…oops, that only happens here if it has to do with being ex-gay.

  5. It is hard to understand such skewing…unless there are significant limitations in how participants were garnered for the study.

    Or more lesbian couples with children living in those regions? Or more visible lesbian families there? They do correspond to the blue areas on the sociopolitical map.

  6. David Blakeslee# ~ Nov 10, 2010 at 11:10 am

    “It is hard to understand such skewing…unless there are significant limitations in how participants were garnered for the study.”

    It really isn’t that hard to understand the regional skewing at all. I suspect that the “Northeast” was mainly from MA and the “West” was mainly from CA. Further I suspect the “South” consistent of significantly more participants from GA than FL.

    This study used a convenience sample from the mid-80s to early 90s.

    The paper explains it (p. 8):

    At the time that the NLLFS

    beganinthe mid-1980s,due tothe longhistoryofdiscrimination

    against lesbian and gay people, the prospect of recruiting a

    representative sample of planned lesbian families was even

    more remote than it is today

    And I suspect this is also why they only studied female same-gender parents rather than male same-gender parents.

    David Blakeslee# ~ Nov 10, 2010 at 11:25 am

    “It is a non-scientific survey in the end, with very limited generalizability”

    I agree it doesn’t prove (or disprove) in a more general case, however, that is true of most glbt studies, but that doesn’t make it “non-scientific.”

    Further, the paper does make a significant contribution to a growing body of work studying same-gender parents.

    I’m curious, David, what is your criteria for whether a paper is scientific?

  7. Interesting:

    The rate of parental relationship dissolution was significantly

    higher in the NLLFS than in the NSFG. Although the

    offspring of divorced heterosexual parents have been shown to

    score lower on measures of emotional, academic, social, and

    behavioral adjustment (Amato, 2000; Emery, 1999), no differences

    in psychological adjustment were found when the

    17-year-old NLLFS adolescents whose mothers had separated

    were compared with those whose mothers were still together

    (Gartrell & Bos, 2010).

  8. It is a non-scientific survey in the end, with very limited generalizability:

    Despite these strengths, the NLLFS has several limitations.

    First, it is a nonrandom sample. At the time that the NLLFS

    beganinthe mid-1980s,due tothe longhistoryofdiscrimination

    against lesbian and gay people, the prospect of recruiting a

    representative sample of planned lesbian families was even

    more remote than it is today (Bos et al., 2007). A second limitation

    is that the NLLFS and NSFG were neither matched nor

    controlled for socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, or region of

    residence. An analysis of a more economically diverse sample

    would be an important contribution given that same-sex couples

    raising children are more likely to live in poverty and have lower

    household incomes than married, heterosexual couples raising

    children (Albelda,Badgett, Schneebaum,&Gates, 2009; Julien,

    Jouvin, Jodoin, l’Archeveque, & Chartrand, 2008).

    Much like the surveys posted by GLSEN and People Can Change.

  9. Hello, Jayhuck!

    The reson I was ‘playing with’ ‘Maazi NCO’, is because I think he is someone else … (and was trying to get clues!)

    He’s gone now – for the moment.

  10. Yes – for those who believe bisexuality is a bad thing.

    Unfortunately, it is a problematic thing as it also is associated in ways we do not yet understand with increased depression and suicidal thoughts in girls, something we all ought to be deeply concerned about. Just as with the bullying problem, we have to resist politicizing the data.

  11. Hello, Jayhuck!

    The reson I was ‘playing with’ ‘Maazi NCO’, is because I think he is someone else … (and was trying to get clues!)

    He’s gone now – for the moment.

  12. Yes – for those who believe bisexuality is a bad thing.

    Unfortunately, it is a problematic thing as it also is associated in ways we do not yet understand with increased depression and suicidal thoughts in girls, something we all ought to be deeply concerned about. Just as with the bullying problem, we have to resist politicizing the data.

  13. Except for the one little problematic part about the number of girls identifying as bisexual. That only gives ammunition to the people who would dispute “healthy outcomes, in terms of sexual identity.”

    Yes – for those who believe bisexuality is a bad thing.

    There is plenty of ammunition for both sides, but enough studies have been done on gay parenting now to at least suggest gay parents can and do provide good and loving homes for children

  14. Except for the one little problematic part about the number of girls identifying as bisexual. That only gives ammunition to the people who would dispute “healthy outcomes, in terms of sexual identity.”

    Yes – for those who believe bisexuality is a bad thing.

    There is plenty of ammunition for both sides, but enough studies have been done on gay parenting now to at least suggest gay parents can and do provide good and loving homes for children

  15. I do, however, have a deep philosophical problem with the EU Equality legislation now in force in the UK. It focuses on the ‘rights’ of prospective adoptive parents. This is a fundamental error – the rights of the CHILD must be first, last and everything in between.

  16. Well, I’m going to ‘risk it’ and say that I believe that same-sex adoption is a genuine option for some children.

  17. For a(n Anglo-)Catholic Christian like myself this is a very difficult topic.

    On the one hand, Marriage is held up an axiomatic ideal and a Sacrament of the Church. It therefore follows that, from an ideological and philosophical point of view, the ‘best option’ for children that are to be placed with adoptive parents is a married couple.

    On the other hand, Catholic Christians have a stated duty to observe the world as it is (or appears to be, after careful and prayerful scrutiny), and take full account of what they observe (it is God’s world, after all, and he may – through other people who are the carriers of God’s image, just as we are – be trying to ‘tell us something’). This study doesn’t PROVE this or that, but it does suggest that same-sex couples can and do provide good and loving homes for children who need them.

  18. I do, however, have a deep philosophical problem with the EU Equality legislation now in force in the UK. It focuses on the ‘rights’ of prospective adoptive parents. This is a fundamental error – the rights of the CHILD must be first, last and everything in between.

  19. Well, I’m going to ‘risk it’ and say that I believe that same-sex adoption is a genuine option for some children.

  20. At the very least, the study demonstrates that lesbian couples are capable of forming healthy families and raising children with essentially the same outcomes as straight couples.

    Except for the one little problematic part about the number of girls identifying as bisexual. That only gives ammunition to the people who would dispute “healthy outcomes, in terms of sexual identity.”

  21. It is a non-scientific survey in the end, with very limited generalizability

    The study has clear limitations, due to the small sample size, but I don’t see any reason to disparage it as “non-scientific.” The findings are part of a carefully conducted longitudinal study that’s had a 93% retention rate over more than 20 years. No, you can’t draw sweeping conclusions about all lesbian families everywhere based on this small sample. But given the difficulty of pulling together any such sample group 25 years ago, it is extremely valuable to have a careful record of even a “somewhat random” group of gay families.

    At the very least, the study demonstrates that lesbian couples are capable of forming healthy families and raising children with essentially the same outcomes as straight couples. Whether or not the sample was truly random, the dynamics of a longitudinal study with a high retention rate guarantee that there was no pre-selection of only those families whose kids had turned out relatively well. If lesbians are inherently defective as parents, as so many conservative Christians claim, then even a small sampling of lesbian families should exhibit far more problems than the norm over a period of 25 years.

    Maybe these families had more going for them in the first place. One could reasonably argue that women who, in the mid-80s, were willing to identify as lesbians and enroll in a long-term study were likely more self-confident and secure than average.

    Of course that would also indicate that gay people who come out and openly identify as gay have better outcomes overall than those who remain conflicted and in hiding.

    At the end of the day, the study provides objective evidence that lesbian couples can and do raise children with healthy outcomes, in terms of sexual identity and behavior. That alone is enough to expose the lies of NOM, AFA, FOTF, and their like.

  22. For a(n Anglo-)Catholic Christian like myself this is a very difficult topic.

    On the one hand, Marriage is held up an axiomatic ideal and a Sacrament of the Church. It therefore follows that, from an ideological and philosophical point of view, the ‘best option’ for children that are to be placed with adoptive parents is a married couple.

    On the other hand, Catholic Christians have a stated duty to observe the world as it is (or appears to be, after careful and prayerful scrutiny), and take full account of what they observe (it is God’s world, after all, and he may – through other people who are the carriers of God’s image, just as we are – be trying to ‘tell us something’). This study doesn’t PROVE this or that, but it does suggest that same-sex couples can and do provide good and loving homes for children who need them.

  23. At the very least, the study demonstrates that lesbian couples are capable of forming healthy families and raising children with essentially the same outcomes as straight couples.

    Except for the one little problematic part about the number of girls identifying as bisexual. That only gives ammunition to the people who would dispute “healthy outcomes, in terms of sexual identity.”

  24. It is a non-scientific survey in the end, with very limited generalizability

    The study has clear limitations, due to the small sample size, but I don’t see any reason to disparage it as “non-scientific.” The findings are part of a carefully conducted longitudinal study that’s had a 93% retention rate over more than 20 years. No, you can’t draw sweeping conclusions about all lesbian families everywhere based on this small sample. But given the difficulty of pulling together any such sample group 25 years ago, it is extremely valuable to have a careful record of even a “somewhat random” group of gay families.

    At the very least, the study demonstrates that lesbian couples are capable of forming healthy families and raising children with essentially the same outcomes as straight couples. Whether or not the sample was truly random, the dynamics of a longitudinal study with a high retention rate guarantee that there was no pre-selection of only those families whose kids had turned out relatively well. If lesbians are inherently defective as parents, as so many conservative Christians claim, then even a small sampling of lesbian families should exhibit far more problems than the norm over a period of 25 years.

    Maybe these families had more going for them in the first place. One could reasonably argue that women who, in the mid-80s, were willing to identify as lesbians and enroll in a long-term study were likely more self-confident and secure than average.

    Of course that would also indicate that gay people who come out and openly identify as gay have better outcomes overall than those who remain conflicted and in hiding.

    At the end of the day, the study provides objective evidence that lesbian couples can and do raise children with healthy outcomes, in terms of sexual identity and behavior. That alone is enough to expose the lies of NOM, AFA, FOTF, and their like.

  25. The figures on the boys is not significantly different from that found for sexual identity on the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (for all ages):

    4.2% gay

    2.6% bisexual

    But, as has been said, this is not a representative sample.

    Demographics skewed regionally.

    It is hard to understand such skewing…unless there are significant limitations in how participants were garnered for the study.

    These were lesbian couples raising children. Gay individuals do migrate based on levels of acceptance. Gay couples are even more likely to do so, taking considerations of legal protections for them and their children.

    17 years ago, when this study was started, there were no protections – and mountainous levels of animosity – pretty much everywhere but the West and the Northeast.

    Change is possible.

    Gee. Thanks for that. Shall we begin that tired old debate again? Shall we quote Jones and Yarhouse? Do we really really want to open that box of worms?

    Right. Oh brother, here we go again. The never-ending merry-go-round. Gays/lesbians are financially better off and better educated … or not.

    17 years ago, female couples were significantly economically disadvantaged. We all know that at that time (and today to some extent) women were not paid the same pay for the same work. Add in legal (and socially encouraged) discrimination, and lesbians pretty much had to take what they could get. If they could get it.

    And finally, as a point of reference, the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior found that bisexual identity may well be a current trend that does not actually reflect on either orientation or behavior: Age 14-17 Girls were more than twice as likely to identify as bisexual than were adult women.

  26. The figures on the boys is not significantly different from that found for sexual identity on the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (for all ages):

    4.2% gay

    2.6% bisexual

    But, as has been said, this is not a representative sample.

    Demographics skewed regionally.

    It is hard to understand such skewing…unless there are significant limitations in how participants were garnered for the study.

    These were lesbian couples raising children. Gay individuals do migrate based on levels of acceptance. Gay couples are even more likely to do so, taking considerations of legal protections for them and their children.

    17 years ago, when this study was started, there were no protections – and mountainous levels of animosity – pretty much everywhere but the West and the Northeast.

    Change is possible.

    Gee. Thanks for that. Shall we begin that tired old debate again? Shall we quote Jones and Yarhouse? Do we really really want to open that box of worms?

    Right. Oh brother, here we go again. The never-ending merry-go-round. Gays/lesbians are financially better off and better educated … or not.

    17 years ago, female couples were significantly economically disadvantaged. We all know that at that time (and today to some extent) women were not paid the same pay for the same work. Add in legal (and socially encouraged) discrimination, and lesbians pretty much had to take what they could get. If they could get it.

    And finally, as a point of reference, the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior found that bisexual identity may well be a current trend that does not actually reflect on either orientation or behavior: Age 14-17 Girls were more than twice as likely to identify as bisexual than were adult women.

  27. An analysis of a more economically diverse sample

    would be an important contribution given that same-sex couples

    raising children are more likely to live in poverty and have lower

    household incomes than married, heterosexual couples raising

    children

    Right. Oh brother, here we go again. The never-ending merry-go-round. Gays/lesbians are financially better off and better educated … or not.

    Praytell, how does one go about gathering representative samples for such a survey? And doesn’t this latest reported finding go against the grain of a pro-gay confirmation bias? Or maybe not. Maybe lesbians are vested in their daughters turning out bisexual? We know so much and yet so little.

  28. David Blakeslee# ~ Nov 10, 2010 at 11:10 am

    “It is hard to understand such skewing…unless there are significant limitations in how participants were garnered for the study.”

    It really isn’t that hard to understand the regional skewing at all. I suspect that the “Northeast” was mainly from MA and the “West” was mainly from CA. Further I suspect the “South” consistent of significantly more participants from GA than FL.

    This study used a convenience sample from the mid-80s to early 90s.

    The paper explains it (p. 8):

    At the time that the NLLFS

    beganinthe mid-1980s,due tothe longhistoryofdiscrimination

    against lesbian and gay people, the prospect of recruiting a

    representative sample of planned lesbian families was even

    more remote than it is today

    And I suspect this is also why they only studied female same-gender parents rather than male same-gender parents.

    David Blakeslee# ~ Nov 10, 2010 at 11:25 am

    “It is a non-scientific survey in the end, with very limited generalizability”

    I agree it doesn’t prove (or disprove) in a more general case, however, that is true of most glbt studies, but that doesn’t make it “non-scientific.”

    Further, the paper does make a significant contribution to a growing body of work studying same-gender parents.

    I’m curious, David, what is your criteria for whether a paper is scientific?

  29. From the abstract it looks as though this has something for all parties. For the pro-GLBT lobby a clear(ish – 78 isn’t a perfect sample size) indication that lesbians are not more likely to abuse their children then the average for the population. On the other hand, nurture advocates will be excited by the evidence that parental sexual practice might help shape children’s sexual practice.

    Would love to have a read of the whole thing.

  30. It is a non-scientific survey in the end, with very limited generalizability:

    Despite these strengths, the NLLFS has several limitations.

    First, it is a nonrandom sample. At the time that the NLLFS

    beganinthe mid-1980s,due tothe longhistoryofdiscrimination

    against lesbian and gay people, the prospect of recruiting a

    representative sample of planned lesbian families was even

    more remote than it is today (Bos et al., 2007). A second limitation

    is that the NLLFS and NSFG were neither matched nor

    controlled for socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, or region of

    residence. An analysis of a more economically diverse sample

    would be an important contribution given that same-sex couples

    raising children are more likely to live in poverty and have lower

    household incomes than married, heterosexual couples raising

    children (Albelda,Badgett, Schneebaum,&Gates, 2009; Julien,

    Jouvin, Jodoin, l’Archeveque, & Chartrand, 2008).

    Much like the surveys posted by GLSEN and People Can Change.

  31. Interesting:

    The rate of parental relationship dissolution was significantly

    higher in the NLLFS than in the NSFG. Although the

    offspring of divorced heterosexual parents have been shown to

    score lower on measures of emotional, academic, social, and

    behavioral adjustment (Amato, 2000; Emery, 1999), no differences

    in psychological adjustment were found when the

    17-year-old NLLFS adolescents whose mothers had separated

    were compared with those whose mothers were still together

    (Gartrell & Bos, 2010).

  32. Research has documented considerable fluidity in the development and expression of sexual orientation, particularly among young women

    Change is possible.

  33. There may be a selection bias associated with the sample:

    In the NLLFS, the adolescent offspring

    were born into families headed by mothers who were completely

    open about their lesbian orientation and active participants

    in the lesbian community (Bos, Gartrell, Peyser, & van

    Balen, 2008a; Bos, Gartrell, van Balen, Peyser, & Sandfort,

    2008b;Gartrell&Bos, 2010; Gartrell et al., 1996, 1999, 2000,

    2005, 2006).

    These were the children of parents willing to participate.

    Is the a control for family size (are these only children for example).

  34. It is hard to understand such skewing…unless there are significant limitations in how participants were garnered for the study.

    Or more lesbian couples with children living in those regions? Or more visible lesbian families there? They do correspond to the blue areas on the sociopolitical map.

  35. It is hard to understand such skewing…unless there are significant limitations in how participants were garnered for the study.

  36. Regarding the Sample:

    Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the NLLFS adolescent sample

    Characteristics NLLFS (n=78)a

    Age (in years) M (SD) 17.05 (0.36)

    Race/ethnicity

    White adolescents 87.1%

    Adolescents of colorb 12.9%

    Hollingshead four-factor index of family social statusc

    M (SD) 49.8 (10.2)

    Range (min–max)d 18–66

    Family region of residence (U.S.)e

    Northeast 47%

    Midwest 1%

    South 9%

    West 43%

    Demographics skewed regionally.

  37. A study that confirms the flexibility of women in terms of sexual attractions. And a study that supports that children in gay and lesbian homes are safer.

    An important question is the control for SES,

    When compared with age- and gender-matched adolescents of the National Survey of Family Growth, the study offspring were significantly older at the time of their first heterosexual contact, and the daughters of lesbian mothers were significantly more likely to have had same-sex contact.

    The difference from this National survey strongly suggests that this is not a representative sample…

    Now we can ridicule the study for all its flaws and call it a work of political activism…oops, that only happens here if it has to do with being ex-gay.

  38. An analysis of a more economically diverse sample

    would be an important contribution given that same-sex couples

    raising children are more likely to live in poverty and have lower

    household incomes than married, heterosexual couples raising

    children

    Right. Oh brother, here we go again. The never-ending merry-go-round. Gays/lesbians are financially better off and better educated … or not.

    Praytell, how does one go about gathering representative samples for such a survey? And doesn’t this latest reported finding go against the grain of a pro-gay confirmation bias? Or maybe not. Maybe lesbians are vested in their daughters turning out bisexual? We know so much and yet so little.

  39. From the abstract it looks as though this has something for all parties. For the pro-GLBT lobby a clear(ish – 78 isn’t a perfect sample size) indication that lesbians are not more likely to abuse their children then the average for the population. On the other hand, nurture advocates will be excited by the evidence that parental sexual practice might help shape children’s sexual practice.

    Would love to have a read of the whole thing.

  40. There may be a selection bias associated with the sample:

    In the NLLFS, the adolescent offspring

    were born into families headed by mothers who were completely

    open about their lesbian orientation and active participants

    in the lesbian community (Bos, Gartrell, Peyser, & van

    Balen, 2008a; Bos, Gartrell, van Balen, Peyser, & Sandfort,

    2008b;Gartrell&Bos, 2010; Gartrell et al., 1996, 1999, 2000,

    2005, 2006).

    These were the children of parents willing to participate.

    Is the a control for family size (are these only children for example).

Comments are closed.