The role of miscarriage and sororal birth order in male same-sex orientation: Theoretical predictions and empirical data

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher
Full text 2,271 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract This study explores the proximal and biological mechanisms underlying male same-sex orientation, with a focus on the Fraternal Birth Order Effect (FBOE), a robust phenomenon whereby androphilic men tend to have more older brothers, and its relationship with the Sororal Birth Order Effect (SBOE), whereby older sisters also appear to influence sexual orientation, albeit less consistently. The Maternal Immune Hypothesis (MIH), which posits that maternal immune responses to male-specific antigens accumulate across successive male pregnancies, provides a compelling proximal explanation for the FBOE, but it fails to fully account for the SBOE and other birth order patterns, such as the elevated prevalence of same-sex orientation among only-children compared to firstborns in larger sibships. Through explicit modelling of the MIH, our simulations reveal that the correlation between the number of older brothers and sisters generates a spurious SBOE, which disappears when controlling for older brothers, unless miscarriages are considered, in which case this control becomes insufficient. Additionally, the increased prevalence of same-sex orientation among only-children, relative to firstborns with siblings, only emerges when miscarriages are incorporated into the model. Empirical analyses across eight diverse populations (Indonesia, France, French Polynesia, Greece, Canada, Czech Republic, Samoa, Iran) confirm the presence of an overall significant FBOE and, critically, an overall significant SBOE even after controlling for the number of older brothers. The higher frequency of same-sex orientation men among only-children, compared to firstborns in larger sibships, further supports a possible role of miscarriage. However, the miscarriage rates estimated to explain the observed SBOE (37% - 57%) exceed typical reported rates (10% - 30%), suggesting either that additional mechanisms contribute to a spurious SBOE or that a non-spurious SBOE exists alongside the FBOE. Limitations of this study are discussed, as well as whether the MIH framework can be extended to accommodate these findings, or if alternative explanations are needed to resolve these discrepancies. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00