Abstract

I argue that scientists should adopt a sexual orientation view that includes ‘internal’ sexual orientation markers such as desire, fantasies, and attraction, plus self-identification, and that these two markers should line up. By ‘internal’ markers, I mean inner states or processes of the agent. This can be contrasted with ‘external markers’, by which I mean, behaviours of the agent. I begin by critically reviewing four genetic studies of sexual orientation that are representative of the literature. I look at how each of these studies deploy the concept of ‘sexual orientation’, and show a) that they are each using different notions, and b) that none of the notions are satisfactory. I argue that these accounts have a very limited amount of predictive and explanatory power. Following this, I outline what an account of sexual orientation that has more predictive and explanatory power might look like. I argue that this account will be one that includes internal markers and self-identification.