I don't have a clue how to answer this, any suggestions?These hormonal imbalances (shown in many different species, including rats & humans; Carlson, 2004), result in ambiguous genitalia and...
I don't have a clue how to answer this, any suggestions?
These hormonal imbalances (shown in many different species, including rats & humans; Carlson, 2004), result in ambiguous genitalia and specific syndromes (depending upon the genetic gender of the fetus). There is even some evidence that sexual orientation can be determined in a fetus that has experienced an imbalance in the in utero environment.
My question to you is; how does this situation apply to the nature versus nurture debate, if at all?
Both genetics and life experience play an important role in how an individual develops. I think this question may be asking if homosexuality is something a person is born with, or something that is learned as the individual grows. Researchers have argued for and against both sides but I think it is safer to say that it is both nature and nurture. I believe they both work together in the formation of an individual.
It is true that hormonal imbalances (and many other factors) play a role in a developing fetus. These factors determine everything from physical characteristics to personality. There is no doubt about that. I think that factors such as hormonal imbalances in relation to "syndromes" is more related to nature. I think the reason for homosexuality is more debated. Many people will argue that homosexuality is due to hormonal imbalances, etc. while others will say is to due to environmental factors, such as abuse or having gay parents.
More and more people believe now days that homosexuality is not an issue really related to anything, rather it is just how that person is.
That last sentence, especially, can clearly apply to the nature vs. nurture debate. This debate, for example, can apply to the question of homosexuality. Is it something that is present in the person when they are born? Or is it something that they learn and is therefore a choice? In this case, the passage that you cite is clearly arguing that it is something that is inborn -- it is part of nature rather than of nurture.
The rest of the passage is less clearly connected, but it is definitely all saying that things that happen in utero can have a large impact on the organism. This supports the "nature" side in the debate.