There are signs, some would say omens, glimmering in certain children's demeanors that, probably always since there were children, have acquired parents' brows to cockle with worry, precipitated forced conversations with nosy mothers-in-law, strained marriages and ushered untold numbers into the deep covenant of sexual deprival. We all know the stereotypes: an unusually light, delicate, effeminate air in a lilliputian male child'south stride, often coupled with solitary bookishness, or a limp wrist, an interest in dolls, makeup, princesses, dresses and a staunch distaste for crude play with other boys; in trivial girls, there is the outwardly boyish stance, possibly a penchant for tools, a lumbering gait, a square-jawed readiness for physical tussles with boys, an aversion to all the perfumed, fragile, laced trappings of femininity.

And then allow's go downward to brass tacks. It'due south what these behaviors betoken to parents about their child's incipient sexuality that makes them and then undesirable—these behavioral patterns are feared, loathed and often spoken of directly as harbingers of adult homosexuality.

Yet, information technology is only relatively recently that developmental scientists have conducted controlled studies with one clear aim in mind, which is to go beyond mere stereotypes and accurately identity the nearly reliable signs of later homosexuality. In looking advisedly at the childhoods of now-gay adults, researchers are finding an intriguing set of early behavioral indicators that homosexuals seem to accept in common. And, curiously enough, the age-one-time homophobic fears of parents seem to take some 18-carat predictive currency.

In their technical writings, researchers in this area simply refer to pint-sized prospective gays and lesbians equally "prehomosexual." This term isn't perfect—it manages to reach both an uncomfortable air of biological determinism and clinical interventionism simultaneously. Merely it is, at to the lowest degree, probably adequately accurate.

Although non the first scientists to investigate the earliest antecedents of same-sex activity attraction, J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist from Northwestern University, and Canadian psychiatrist Kenneth Zucker published the seminal newspaper on childhood markers of homosexuality with their controversial 1995 review commodity in Developmental Psychology . The explicit aim of this paper, according to the authors, "was to review the evidence concerning the possible association between childhood sexual activity-typed behavior and developed sexual orientation." So one affair to keep in mind is that this particular piece of work isn't about identifying the causes of homosexuality, per se, but instead it'southward about indexing the childhood correlates of same-sexual practice allure. In other words, nobody is disputing the genetic factors underlying developed homosexuality or the well-established prenatal influences; merely the nowadays work is orthogonal to those causal models. Instead, it is merely meant to alphabetize the nonerotic behavioral clues that best predict which children are well-nigh likely to be attracted, as adults, to those of the same sexual practice, and which are non.

By "sex activity-typed behaviors," Bailey and Zucker are referring to that long, now scientifically canonical, list of innate sex differences in the behaviors of young males versus young females. In innumerable studies, scientists have documented that these sexual practice differences are largely impervious to learning and found in every culture examined (even, some researchers believe, in youngsters of other primate species). Now before that belligerent streak in you lot starts whipping up exceptions to the rule—patently there is variance both between and within individual children—I hasten to add that it'due south only when comparing the aggregate data that sex differences leap into the stratosphere of statistical significance. The most salient amidst these differences are observed in the domain of play. Boys engage in what developmental psychologists refer to equally "band-aid play," which is pretty much exactly what it sounds like, whereas girls shy away from wrestling and play-fighting, instead preferring the company of dolls to a knee in the ribs.

In fact, toy interests are some other fundamental sex deviation, with boys gravitating towards things like toy machine guns and monster trucks and girls orienting towards neotenous dolls and hyperfeminized figurines. Immature children of both sexes enjoy fantasy—or pretend—play, only the roles that the 2 sexes take on within the fantasy context are already clearly gender-segregated by equally early as two years of age, with girls enacting the office of, say, cooing mothers, ballerinas or fairy princesses and boys strongly preferring more masculine characters, such as soldiers and superheroes. Not surprisingly, therefore, boys naturally select other boys for playmates, and girls would much rather play with other girls than with boys.

So on the basis of some earlier, shakier inquiry, forth with a good dose of common sense, Bailey and Zucker hypothesized that homosexuals would testify an inverted pattern of sex-typed babyhood behaviors (trivial boys preferring girls as playmates and infatuated with their mothers' make-up kits; little girls strangely enamoured by field hockey or professional wrestling…that sort of thing). Empirically, explicate the authors, there are two ways to investigate the relation between sexual practice-typed behaviors and later sexual orientation. The first of these is to use a prospective method, in which young children displaying sex-atypical patterns are followed longitudinally into adolescence and early adulthood, such that the individual's sexual orientation can be assessed at reproductive maturity. Usually this is done past using something like the famous Kinsey Scale, which involves a semistructured clinical interview virtually sexual behavior and sexual fantasies to rate people on a scale of 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual). I'm a solid 6; I often say that I wanted to get out of a vagina at one point in my life, simply ever since then I've never had the slightest involvement in going dorsum into one.

Conducting prospective studies of this sort is not terribly practical, explain Bailey and Zucker, for several reasons. First, given that only nearly 10 percentage of the population is homosexual, a rather big number of prehomosexuals are needed to obtain a sufficient sample size of somewhen gay adults, and this would require a huge oversampling of children just in case some turn out gay. Second, a longitudinal study tracking the sexuality of children into late adolescence takes a long time—around sixteen years—so the prospective approach is very slow-going. Finally, and perhaps the biggest problem with prospective homosexuality studies, not a lot of parents are likely to volunteer their children. Rightly or wrongly, this is a sensitive topic, and usually it'southward only children who present significant sexual activity-atypical behaviors—such as those with gender identity disorder—that are brought into clinics and whose cases are fabricated available to researchers.

For example, in a 2008 issue of Developmental Psychology, University of Toronto psychologist Kelley Drummond and her colleagues interviewed 25 developed women who, equally children between iii-12 years of historic period, were referred past their parents for assessment at a mental health dispensary. At the time, all of these girls had several diagnostic indicators of gender identity disorder. They might take strongly preferred male person playmates, insisted on wearing boys' clothing, favored rough-and-tumble play over dolls and dress-up, stated that they would somewhen grow a penis, or refused to urinate in a sitting position. As adults, nonetheless, but 12 percent of these women grew up to be gender dysphoric (the uncomfortable sense that one'southward biological sexual activity does non match 1's gender identity). Rather, the women's childhood histories were much more than predictive of their adult sexual orientation. In fact, the researchers constitute that the odds of these women reporting a bisexual/homosexual orientation was upwards to 23 times higher than would normally occur in a full general sample of young women. Not all "tomboys" become lesbians, of grade, but these information exercise suggest that lesbians ofttimes have a history of cantankerous-sex-typed behaviors.

And the same holds for gay men. In their 1995 report, Bailey and Kenneth Zucker revealed that, in retrospective studies (the second method used to examine the relation between childhood behavior and developed sexual orientation, in which adults just answer questions well-nigh their childhoods) 89 percent of randomly sampled gay men recalled cross-sexual practice-typed childhood behaviors exceeding the heterosexual median. Some critics accept questioned the general retrospective approach, arguing that participants' memories (both those of gay and straight individuals) may exist distorted to fit with societal expectations and stereotypes near what gays and straights are similar equally children. Merely in a rather clever recent study published in a 2008 issue of Developmental Psychology past Northwestern University'south Gerulf Rieger and his colleagues, prove from childhood home videos validated the retrospective method by having people blindly code child targets on the latter'southward sexual practice-typical behaviors, as shown on the screen. The authors institute that, "those targets who, as adults, identified themselves as homosexual were judged to be gender nonconforming as children."

Numerous studies accept since replicated this general pattern of findings, all revealing a strong link between childhood deviations from gender office norms and adult sexual orientation. There is likewise evidence of a "dosage effect": the more than gender nonconforming characteristics there are in childhood, the more likely it is that a homosexual/bisexual orientation will be present in adulthood.

Only—and I know you've been waiting for me to say this—there are several very of import caveats to this body of work. Although gender-atypical behavior in childhood is strongly correlated with adult homosexuality, it is still an imperfect correlation. Not all little boys who like to wear dresses abound up to exist gay, nor do all little girls who despise dresses get lesbians. Speaking for myself, I was rather androgynous, showing a mosaic pattern of sexual practice-typical and atypical behaviors as a child. In spite of my parents' preferred theory that I was simply a young Casanova, Zucker and Bailey'southward findings may account for that old Polaroid snapshot in which 11 of the 13 other children at my seventh birthday party are picayune girls. Just I also wasn't an overly effeminate kid, was never bullied as a "sissy," and by the time I was x I was indistinguishably as abrasive, uncouth and wired equally my close male peers.

In fact, by thirteen, I was already deeply socialized into masculine social norms; in this case, I took to middle school wrestling every bit a rather scrawny eighty-pound 8th grader, and in so doing I ironically became all too conscious indeed of my homosexual orientation. Intriguingly, cross-cultural data published by Fernando Luiz Cardoso of Santa Catarina State Academy in a 2008 issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior showed that young prehomosexual males are attracted to solitary sports, such as swimming, cycling, or tennis, over rougher contact sports, such as football or soccer—and also that they are less probable to be childhood bullies. I distinctly think being with the girls on the monkey bars during 2d class recess while the boys were in the field playing football, thinking to myself that that was rather strange.

Another caveat is that researchers in this expanse readily concede that in that location are probably multiple—and no doubt very complicated—developmental routes to adult homosexuality. Heritable, biological factors collaborate with ecology experiences to produce phenotypic outcomes, and this is no less true for sexual orientation than it is for any other within-population variable. Since the prospective and retrospective information discussed in the foregoing studies often reveal very early emerging traits in prehomosexuals, however, those children who show pronounced sex activity-atypical behaviors may accept "more than" of a genetic loading to their homosexuality, whereas gay adults who were sex-typical as children might trace their homosexuality more directly to item childhood experiences. For example, in a rather stunning case of what I'll call "say-it-isn't-and so scientific discipline"—science that produces data that rebel against popular, politically correct, or emotionally appealing sentiments—controversial new findings published earlier this yr in the Archives of Sexual Behavior hint intriguingly that men—only not women—who were sexually driveling as children are significantly more likely than non-abused males to have had homosexual relationships as adults. Whatever the causal route, however, none of this implies, whatsoever, that sexual orientation is a choice. In fact information technology implies quite the opposite, since prepubertal erotic experiences can afterwards consolidate into irreversible sexual orientations and preferences, equally I discussed in a previous piece on the childhood origins of fetishes and paraphilias.

It is fashionable these days to say that one is "built-in gay," of grade, but if nosotros think most information technology a bit more critically, it's a bit odd, and probably nonsensical, to refer to a newborn babe, swaddled in blankets and still suckling on its mother's teats, as being homosexual. I appreciate the anti-discriminatory motives, but if nosotros insist on using such politically correct parlance without consideration of more than circuitous, postnatal developmental factors, are we really prepared to characterization newborns as beingness LGBT?

Then we arrive at the almost of import question of all. Why exercise parents worry then much about whether their child may or may not be gay? Yous might not be 1 of these fretful parents—in fact you might like to encounter yourself as being indifferent to your child's sexuality and then long equally he or she is happy. I don't suppose this is entirely untrue for many. Then over again, all else being equal, I suspect nosotros'd be hard-pressed to find parents that would really prefer their offspring to exist homosexual rather than heterosexual. Evolutionarily, needless to say, parental homophobia is a no-brainer: gay sons and lesbian daughters aren't likely to reproduce (unless they get artistic). And I would imagine, on a feasible hunch, that even in today'due south nearly liberally-minded communities, coming out of the closet to parents is a much easier thing to do for gay individuals who accept the luxury of demonstrably straight siblings who can conduct their own reproductive weight. As fo rme, with a breeding older blood brother and sister—not to each other, heed you—and their little respective litters of nieces and nephews, my father at to the lowest degree doesn't have to worry most his genes going extinct. In any event, I think it's far better for parents to recognize the source of their concerns near having a gay child as being motivated by unconscious genetic interests than information technology is to have them fibbing to themselves about being entirely indifferent to their son or daughter "turning out" gay.

And, conduct this in mind parents, it's likewise important to stress that since genetic success is weighed in evolutionary biological terms as the relative percentage of 1'southward genes that acquit over into subsequent generations—rather than simply number of offspring per se—there are other, though typically less profitable, ways for your child to contribute to your overall genetic success than humdrum sexual reproduction. For example, I don't know how much money or residue fame is trickling downwards to, say, k.d. lang, Elton John and Rachel Maddow'due south close relatives, but I can but imagine that these direct kin are far meliorate off in terms of their ain reproductive opportunities than they would be without a homosexual dangling so magnificently on their family copse. The very idea of making love to a blood relative of Michelangelo or Hart Crane, irrespective of anything else about that person save his heritage, makes me strangely and instantly aroused—and I'd imagine such a person would be eminently desirable to heterosexually fecund women as well. So hither's my message: Cultivate your fiddling prehomosexual's native talents and your ultimate genetic payoff could, strangely plenty, be fifty-fifty larger with one very special gay child than it would if ten mediocre straight offspring leapt from your loins.

In that location'southward 1 final thing to note, and that's in reference to the futurity of this research and its real-world applications. If researchers eventually perfect the forecasting of adult sexual orientation in children, what are the implications? Should broadminded mothers be insouciantly describing their OshKosh B'Gosh-wearing toddlers as "bi-" or fathers relaying how their "direct" daughters started eating solid food or took their commencement steps at the grocery store today? Would parents want to know? Parents often say to their gay children, in retrospect, "I knew information technology all along." Simply retrospect is xx-twenty, and here we're talking about the possibility of actually, definitively, no-doubtfulness-about-it, knowing your child is going to exist gay from a very, very early on historic period.

I'one thousand non a parent, but I can say equally a once-prehomosexual that perhaps some grooming on the role of others would accept made it easier on me, rather than constantly fearing rejection or worrying about some sloppy slip-up leading to my "exposure." Information technology would accept at least avoided all of those awkward, incessant questions during my teenage years nigh why I wasn't dating a nice pretty daughter (or questions from the nice pretty girl nearly why I was dating her and not doing anything about it.)

And another thing: it must be pretty hard to look into your prehomosexual toddler's limpid eyes, brush abroad the cookie crumbs from her cheek, and kicking her out of the firm for being gay.

In this column presented by Scientific American Heed magazine, research psychologist Jesse Bering of Queen's University Belfast ponders some of the more obscure aspects of everyday human behavior. Sign up for the RSS feed, visit www.JesseBering.com, friend Dr. Bering on Facebook or follow @JesseBering on Twitter and never miss an installment again. For articles published prior to September 29, 2009, click here: older Bering in Mind columns. Jesse's get-go book, The Conventionalities Instinct (Norton) [The God Instinct (Nicholas Brealey) in the U.Thou.], will be published early February, 2011.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/brucejolley