# Gay NF Men



## Berdudget (Mar 24, 2011)

I have several gay guy-friends. 4 of them are NFs. One was an SP (who, very sadly, died of AIDS several years ago).

Now I know plenty of NF men who aren't gay. I do think it's pretty obvious that type doesn't predict sexuality. But I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about it. I also haven't really read any of the gay threads on this site. So, forgive me if this subject has already been fully broken down. Also, feel free to point me in the direction of any previously posted threads that might touch on this subject as well.

My question is, is it just that I'm an NF myself and so therefore I just have more NF friends than others might have and that's why the gay men in my life are NFs? Or is there, perhaps, maybe, a higher percentage of gay men who are NFs? 

Please don't be mad at me for my ignorance. I'm aware of my ignorance.


----------



## Kriash (May 5, 2011)

I'm not really sure about the breakdown, I consider myself to be sort of a gay NF, but a lot of the gay men I know are definitely not NF's.


----------



## Musician6120 (Jun 24, 2010)

I'm a long NF in my field. There are certainly gay men around, but the ones I know, I would suspect are SPs. It could just be that you're around more NFs. The mass majority of people whom I encounter in music are Artisans.


----------



## Berdudget (Mar 24, 2011)

That makes sense. Thanks.


----------



## Musician6120 (Jun 24, 2010)

I was told by someone that San Fran has the highest number of NFs, at least in America. I never saw the actually stat or research behind it, though.


----------



## Berdudget (Mar 24, 2011)

Musician6120 said:


> I was told by someone that San Fran has the highest number of NFs, at least in America. I never saw the actually stat or research behind it, though.


That's quite interesting, actually. My personal experience of life in southern California (where I grew up) compared with life in southern Ontario, Canada, has been that there was a significantly higher percentage of SPs living there compared to here. lol.


----------



## Musician6120 (Jun 24, 2010)

Berdudget said:


> That's quite interesting, actually. My personal experience of life in southern California (where I grew up) compared with life in southern Ontario, Canada, has been that there was a significantly higher percentage of SPs living there compared to here. lol.


Well when I was told this, I responded by saying that the gay men I know are SPs, specifically ESFP which was met with a sort of, "See, gay men are still Feelers." I could see SoCal as well as anywhere that was known for its weather, nature, etc. to have higher numbers of SPs living there to enjoy it.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

The gay men I've known have tended to be Feelers. I don't think N is correlated with sexuality, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else. Most gay men seem to be SF's, and on gay/bisexual message boards when the MBTI is brought up most men seem to test as Feelers.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

Simon Le Vay is a gay neuroscientist and Dean Hamer is a gay geneticist. Both seem like NT's to me. My point, sexuality and type don't really matter. There's gay straight and bi in all temperaments. Neither is gay or straight always correlated with masculinity or feminity. If that were the case you'd expect NF girls to be the most feminine but hey, alot of the NF girls on this PerC have identified as bi or lesbian and don't have what you'd call mainstream feminine interests but verge more on being tomboys. My best friend in life is INFP and she's completely hetero although despite being NF she hates shopping and chick flicks, watches anime and likes action and adventure. Very hard to correlate type with gender and sexuality. Although I can see how type can affect how others perceive you. Alot of NF men are thought to be gay when in fact there not, not even bi.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

thor odinson said:


> Simon Le Vay is a gay neuroscientist and Dean Hamer is a gay geneticist. Both seem like NT's to me. My point, sexuality and type don't really matter. There's gay straight and bi in all temperaments. Neither is gay or straight always correlated with masculinity or feminity. If that were the case you'd expect NF girls to be the most feminine but hey, alot of the NF girls on this PerC have identified as bi or lesbian and don't have what you'd call mainstream feminine interests but verge more on being tomboys. My best friend in life is INFP and she's completely hetero although despite being NF she hates shopping and chick flicks, watches anime and likes action and adventure. Very hard to correlate type with gender and sexuality. Although I can see how type can affect how others perceive you. Alot of NF men are thought to be gay when in fact there not, not even bi.


Absolutely agreed there are gay/bi men and women in all temperaments...just a glance around this forum will show that. (I have noticed there is a higher proportion of self identified lesbian Feelers than there are gay male Thinkers for some reason, though I can't say for certain since that observation is just based on vague memory.) But just because things aren't absolute doesn't mean there isn't a tendency. Both on gay forums (when MBTI is brought up) and on personality forums there do seem to be more gay F men than gay T men (at least self-identified ones). Not that all are. Just that there are more of them. (And like I said, lesbians seem to be all over the map. I really don't know why this is, though I can hypothesize...this is just what the data is showing). 

Also, not saying LeVay and Hamer aren't NT's or anything, they may well be NT's, but just because they are scientists is no reason to assume that...there are a fair number of F's who work in science, after all. Even so, there are certainly gay NT males, and I am sure some of them are scientists. 

Anyway, there are tons of exceptions to every trend, but that doesn't mean there _aren't _trends.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

nevermore said:


> Absolutely agreed there are gay/bi men and women in all temperaments...just a glance around this forum will show that. (I have noticed there is a higher proportion of self identified lesbian Feelers than there are gay male Thinkers for some reason, though I can't say for certain since that observation is just based on vague memory.) But just because things aren't absolute doesn't mean there isn't a tendency. Both on gay forums (when MBTI is brought up) and on personality forums there do seem to be more gay F men than gay T men (at least self-identified ones). Not that all are. Just that there are more of them. (And like I said, lesbians seem to be all over the map. I really don't know why this is, though I can hypothesize...this is just what the data is showing).
> 
> Also, not saying LeVay and Hamer aren't NT's or anything, they may well be NT's, but just because they are scientists is no reason to assume that...there are a fair number of F's who work in science, after all. Even so, there are certainly gay NT males, and I am sure some of them are scientists.
> 
> Anyway, there are tons of exceptions to every trend, but that doesn't mean there _aren't _trends.


Yeah I actually agree with this, just because there isn't an absolute trend, doesn't mean there isn't a general trend. As for Le Vay and Hamer it is simply a presumption based on interviews, statements observable characteristics they've shown that seem to match up with the NT profile that David Keirsey has set out. But as people warn at best these are speculations, and no one can type anyone else unless they've done the test themselves.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I already made a thread asking this question. The results were inconclusive, but there did seem to be a lot of gay NFs here.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

thor odinson said:


> Yeah I actually agree with this, just because there isn't an absolute trend, doesn't mean there isn't a general trend. As for Le Vay and Hamer it is simply a presumption based on interviews, statements observable characteristics they've shown that seem to match up with the NT profile that David Keirsey has set out. But as people warn at best these are speculations, and no one can type anyone else unless they've done the test themselves.


OK, just clarifying. :happy:

I actually went and took a closer look...I'm about 99 percent sure Le Vay is INTJ, and that Hamer is INFJ. So at least one of them is NT.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

nevermore said:


> OK, just clarifying. :happy:
> 
> I actually went and took a closer look...I'm about 99 percent sure Le Vay is INTJ, and that Hamer is INFJ. So at least one of them is NT.


I actually respect Le Vay alot and his study although inconclusive seems more plausible than Hamers xq28 which Francis Collins head of the Human Genome Project said that xq28 contributes no more than 1% of a contribution to characteristics ranging from aggression to esp lol or something like that unlike hamer's overestimate of 64% contribution. There should be more studies like Le Vays with far greater sample sizes and absolute certainity of the patients history including orientation and sexual history as well medical. This will avoid bias and skewing and it's better to dissect a brain then to view it via fMRI which even though provides an insight can't be that accurate as seeing it first hand. I believe if it is innate or if there is a strong contribution from natue then it's most likely the result of prenatal hormones masculinising or feminising a certain part(s) of the brain such as INAH 3 or other parts not yet known to us. This would explain why gender and orientation aren't a 100% correlation, because it may not be that the entire brain needs to be masculinised or feminised but simply a part of it. And genes probably contribute by affecting the receptors or lack thereof needed receive the hormones to masculinise or feminise this part or these parts of the brain. I think this is far more plausible from the nature side of the argument then the all powerful singular magical gay gene, that supposedly determines sexual orientation all by itself. The media are such morons, they oversimplify to an idiotic childish extent.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

thor odinson said:


> I actually respect Le Vay alot and his study although inconclusive seems more plausible than Hamers xq28 which Francis Collins head of the Human Genome Project said that xq28 contributes no more than 1% of a contribution to characteristics ranging from aggression to esp lol or something like that unlike hamer's overestimate of 64% contribution. There should be more studies like Le Vays with far greater sample sizes and absolute certainity of the patients history including orientation and sexual history as well medical. This will avoid bias and skewing and it's better to dissect a brain then to view it via fMRI which even though provides an insight can't be that accurate as seeing it first hand. I believe if it is innate or if there is a strong contribution from natue then it's most likely the result of prenatal hormones masculinising or feminising a certain part(s) of the brain such as INAH 3 or other parts not yet known to us. This would explain why gender and orientation aren't a 100% correlation, because it may not be that the entire brain needs to be masculinised or feminised but simply a part of it. And genes probably contribute by affecting the receptors or lack thereof needed receive the hormones to masculinise or feminise this part or these parts of the brain. I think this is far more plausible from the nature side of the argument then the all powerful singular magical gay gene, that supposedly determines sexual orientation all by itself. The media are such morons, they oversimplify to an idiotic childish extent.


Yeah, but the "gay gene" is just a catch phrase. Innacurate, yeah, but I think most people who know anything about science understand the idea of a single gene controlling something as complex as suexual orientation is absurd. The rest of genetics doesn't work that way usually, after all.

By the way, I think I heard the hormine thing tends to hold true when it comes to younger male siblings with older brothers (who are hormonally feminized), whereas firstborn gay men (or gay men with no older brothers) tend to have a more genetic component, theorized to be something related to female fertility that causes homosexuality in males as an unintented side effect (though perhaps there is some other sort of evolutionary advantage). There is some very shaky evidence suggesting that with lesbians it is almost entirely hormonal, except for the cases where genes influence receptors as you described. That is partly my speculation though, based on my own interpretations of the nature of the data (for example, finger ratios, linked to hormones in the womb, are correlated much more strongly in women than in men, where there is onlyu a correlation for yournger siblings...firstborn gay men tend to have "normal" finger ratios). Still, more evidence will have to be done to make sure, and I of all people am certainly no expert.

Are you a biologist (or a biologist in training)? You seem to be quite knowledgeable about this stuff.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

nevermore said:


> Yeah, but the *"gay gene" is just a catch phrase*. Innacurate, yeah, but I think *most people who know anything about science understand the idea of a single gene controlling something as complex as suexual orientation is absurd*. The rest of genetics doesn't work that way usually, after all.
> 
> By the way, I think I heard the *hormine thing tends to hold true when it comes to younger male siblings with older brothers (who are hormonally feminized), whereas firstborn gay men (or gay men with no older brothers) tend to have a more genetic component,* theorized to be something related to female fertility that causes homosexuality in males as an unintented side effect (though perhaps there is some other sort of evolutionary advantage). There is some *very shaky evidence suggesting that with lesbians it is almost entirely hormonal,* except for the cases where genes influence receptors as you described. That is partly my speculation though, based on my own interpretations of the nature of the data (for example, finger ratios, linked to hormones in the womb, are correlated much more strongly in women than in men, where there is onlyu a correlation for yournger siblings...firstborn gay men tend to have "normal" finger ratios). Still, more evidence will have to be done to make sure, and I of all people am certainly no expert.
> 
> Are you a biologist (or a biologist in training)? You seem to be quite knowledgeable about this stuff.


My friend studies neuropsychology and plus my dad's INTP and he's fascinated with the sciences so he passed on the love and appreciation for them to me. Whether it's about what causes heart disease, cancer, astronomy, bermuda triangle, UFO's, evolution and or the big bang theory, and being an N it was quite easy to catch on considering I am interested in theory and abstract ideas. When my bisexual girlfriend broke it off with me not because she left me for another girl but because she felt more stronlgy sexual attracted to women naturally I turned to science to discover the answer and if you like, find closure. As you can imagine for an N it's hard to let go of things because we're always evaluating possibilities rather than accepting something simply as it is the way most S's do. However such a controversial area marked by inconsistency, political correctness it is no doubt in it's early stages of research at best and currently on shaky ground as both right wing fundamentalists and left wing activists watch closely and get ready to pounce the moment the evidence seems to deviate from their cause but more than applause and over exaggerate other findings that support it. 

In regards to the hormone thing being truer for younger siblings but for older siblings being genetic, I still believe without the influence of prenatal hormones genes cannot be soley responsible for the older siblings and my logic is as follows. A gene is nothing more than a code for a type of protein given to some stretches of DNA. So sexual orientation is a psychological, intangible, invisible, abstract, complicated characteristic. Eye colour, hair colour and skin colour are all visible, tangible, concrete characteristics that you can touch, see and feel. Yet there is no blue eye colour gene, there is no brown hair colour gene. There is no single gene responsible for these concrete characteristics, so I'm not saying just because something is abstract that it doesn't exist but simply in purely relative terms, if there isn't a single gene for a concrete characteristic like blue eyes, I highly doubt there is a single gene for sexual orientation and other complex behavioural and personality traits, and hence why I doubt the genetic influence in older brothers without the co-interaction of prenatal hormones. Secondly the younger brother being gay due to prenatal hormones that you spoke of refers to the fraternal birth order effect. And this still correlates to prenatal hormones. For you see same concept as a disease. When you get sick, you take medication to get better, but it's not just the medication that makes you get better, your body has a natural defence system to fight disease called the immune system which obviously we already know. But the immune system doesn't specifically attack that which harms your body, because it's not that specific, but rather it attacks that which is foreign or new to your body. Imagine for a second that you are trying to protect terrorists from entering your border. You could theoretically turn back all refugees seeking asylum from terrorists countries. You don't know which are good or which are bad but to be safe, you could turn back all. I'm not taking a moral stance here by the way i'm being purely hypothetical for the purposes of illustration. The immune system works the same way. Now all human beings are theoretically born female, as in during the first 6 weeks of gestation, there is no difference between the male and female embryo. But there are two females, one with two XX chromosones and one with an XY. The one with an XX continues to develop as a girl. The one with an XY produces testes as a result of the Y in the XY chromosone. These testes secrete and produce testosterone. This stops further feminisation from happening, it defeminises the embryo and then masculinises it. Hence a male is born. But the body is not the only thing that is affected by prenatal hormones, so is the brain. So men and women not only have structurally and visually different bodies, but also different brains, to a general extent for the brains. Now there are several receptor sites on the brain and if one is lacking or damaged say in the area that controls sexual function or behaviour, then prenatal testosterone won't be able to reach and masculinise that area of the brain for there is no link or pathway, no pipe for the water to flow to reach from one place to another lol. So in that regard genes play a role as they are responsible for receptors, but genes do not play a role as in they direct behaviour of favouring a man or a woman lol. Secondly in regards to the younger brother point. Just like when your sick, your immune system takes time to heal your body it doesn't happen immediately, it needs time to build anti bodies to fight the disease or foreign substance which may not even be a disease. Same thing may happen when a mothers womb detects the embryo with an XY chromosone. Human beings technically start of as female. Yet there is a male present, which is not a disease but like a foreign subtance. The mothers womb may not recognise it. And as we discussed the immune system will not only attack dangerous agents, but foreign ones just to be sure which may be a result of some evolutionary mechanism that it works this way. So the mothers womb may block the masculinisation of the brain or masculinising agents which travel through the placenta because it is forum to the womb. Now it may not happen with the 1st or 2nd son but over time just like an immune system builds antibodies for a disease the mother with each passing son may build the necessary anti bodies needed to block masculinisation of the brain and hence the fetuses brain will stay in it's orginal form which is female, despite being an XY embryo originally directed for male development. The body may get the testosterone it needs for defiminisaton and masculinsation but the brain doesn't. 

In regards to the gay gene being a catch phrase, I know that, you know that and most people with knowledge of science get that, but most of the public are just laymen in this regard and have no idea, and hence when the media announce "THE GAY GENE", even if it is only a catch phrase, the public being naieve, misinformed, stupid or ingorant, whatever way you word, sincerely believe it lol.

As for the finger length, there are plenty of chicks on PerC that have longer ring fingers which is correlated to higher testosterone exposure but are completely straight and chicks who have smaller ring fingers or ring fingers the same size as their index finger yet they are lesbian. It's all about where it hits not how much of it (hormones) you get or even have postnatally as guys guys have just as much as testosteone as straight guys, it varies on a case by case basis. Same they believe men with an anticlock wise hair whirl and someting about denser ridges on the left thumb and pinky have a 23% chance of being gay. Statistically insiginificant if you ask me lol


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

> However such a controversial area marked by inconsistency, political correctness it is no doubt in it's early stages of research at best and currently on shaky ground as both right wing fundamentalists and left wing activists watch closely and get ready to pounce the moment the evidence seems to deviate from their cause but more than applause and over exaggerate other findings that support it.


Sooo true, and yeah it's really unfortunate (an INTP's nightmare, really). A gay friend put it nicely when he said "being gay is a political stance". In standing up for "LGBT rights" you have to conform to this convoluted, overly complicated philosophy which seems more like wishful thinking than science. It certainly isn't just the conservative fundies.



> Secondly the younger brother being gay due to prenatal hormones that you spoke of refers to the fraternal birth order effect. And this still correlates to prenatal hormones. For you see same concept as a disease. When you get sick, you take medication to get better, but it's not just the medication that makes you get better, your body has a natural defence system to fight disease called the immune system which obviously we already know.


Yes; I know why this is.



> As for the finger length, there are plenty of chicks on PerC that have longer ring fingers which is correlated to higher testosterone exposure but are completely straight and chicks who have smaller ring fingers or ring fingers the same size as their index finger yet they are lesbian. It's all about where it hits not how much of it (hormones) you get or even have postnatally as guys guys have just as much as testosteone as straight guys, it varies on a case by case basis. Same they believe men with an anticlock wise hair whirl and someting about denser ridges on the left thumb and pinky have a 23% chance of being gay. Statistically insiginificant if you ask me lol


I think what was actually said was that most lesbians have that masculine hand ration, not that all women with the masculine hand ratio were lesbians. I do know there are women claiming to have the more masculine ratios on PerC, as there was (at least recently) a thread on that subject in the NT forum that you probably read as well.


----------



## viva (Aug 13, 2010)

Musician6120 said:


> I was told by someone that San Fran has the highest number of NFs, at least in America. I never saw the actually stat or research behind it, though.


I already wanted to move there... now I just want to move there even more. :tongue:

Anyways, it's actually interesting, now that you mention it-- out of the five gay men I know well, three of them are NFs (one is an INFJ, one an INFP, and the other I'm not sure). One is ESTJ, and one is an NT.

I think this probably has more to do with me gravitating towards NFs than anything else. I also find it incredibly annoying when straight NF dudes are accused of being gay simply because of their NF personality traits.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

nevermore said:


> Sooo true, and yeah it's really unfortunate (an INTP's nightmare, really). A gay friend put it nicely when he said "being gay is a political stance". In standing up for "LGBT rights" you have to conform to this convoluted, overly complicated philosophy which seems more like wishful thinking than science. It certainly isn't just the conservative fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah read that forum. Look at the end of the day the science is the science, or should I say the evidence is the evidence and the facts are the facts. The science can be manipulated to suit political agenda but facts and evidence care little for your feelings or political stance. At the moment the offical consensus is that they suspect multiple factors play a role or in their fancy words "neither a purely biological or purely psychological etiology has proven to be a determinative model of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation most likely develops through the complicated interaction of biology and environment and for most people is determined at an early age."


----------

