A debate about LGBT rights in Colombia has drawn on claims about biology, identity and discrimination. But the evidence is more nuanced than a simple choice between nature and nurture: sex, gender and sexual behaviour are distinct concepts, research has limits, and legal progress doesn’t erase the need for protection. Here’s what the sources can, and can’t, tell us.
Essential Takeaways
- Sex and gender are distinct: The American Psychological Association describes sex in terms of biological characteristics and gender in terms of socially shaped roles and attributes.
- Biology isn’t a simple prediction tool: A large genetic study found associations with same-sex sexual behaviour, but no single marker determines an individual’s sexuality.
- Change efforts lack reliable evidence: The APA says conversion practices are largely ineffective and associated with risks of harm.
- Colombia decriminalised consensual same-sex acts in 1981: That legal change marked an important step, but it did not by itself end discrimination.
- The UK ruling had a defined legal scope: The Supreme Court interpreted specific statutory terms as referring to biological sex; it did not remove protections related to gender reassignment.
The science is more nuanced than a slogan
The terms sex and gender are often used as if they mean the same thing, but the American Psychological Association draws a distinction. Its guidance describes sex through biological features such as anatomy, hormones and chromosomes, while gender concerns socially shaped roles, behaviours and attributes. It recommends terms such as “sex assigned at birth” for clear, respectful communication, while stressing that terminology varies between people and communities.
That distinction doesn’t mean every biological characteristic aligns neatly. A scientific statement from the Endocrine Society says sex-related features can include chromosomes, gonads, hormones, anatomy and physiology, and may not always align in typical ways. It urges researchers to specify which variable they’re measuring rather than relying on a broad label.
The statement discusses biological sex in the context of reproduction and research. It isn’t a guide to personal identity or social policy, and it doesn’t settle every wider debate. That boundary matters: a scientific account of reproductive biology cannot, on its own, answer every question about how people describe themselves or how laws should treat them.
Genetics offers clues, not a “gay gene”
A large study published in Science looked at reported same-sex sexual behaviour among 477,522 participants. Researchers identified five genetic loci associated with the behaviour, but their findings don’t show that any single marker determines a person’s sexuality.
There’s an important limit in what the study measured, too. It examined reported behaviour, not the whole of sexual orientation, identity, attraction or life history. The authors cautioned against using population-level associations to make predictions about an individual.
So the study supports a measured conclusion: genetic variation is one part of a complex picture, not a complete explanation. It’s tempting to look for one tidy answer, but the research doesn’t provide one.
Why attempts to change orientation raise concern
The APA’s review of conversion practices reaches a clear conclusion: decades of psychological research have found these efforts largely ineffective and linked them with risks of harm. The evidence includes reports of depression, relationship difficulties and increased internalised stigma.
Some studies claiming success have methodological weaknesses, including retrospective designs and biased recruitment, the APA says. Its task-force review found insufficient, low-quality evidence that such interventions can reliably change sexual orientation or gender identity.
The APA also distinguishes support for someone’s wellbeing from therapy designed to change who they’re attracted to or how they understand their gender. That’s a useful distinction for families and anyone seeking care: helping a person shouldn’t depend on treating their identity as something to be corrected.
Colombia’s legal milestone matters, but it isn’t the whole story
ILGA World’s Colombia profile records that consensual same-sex sexual acts were decriminalised in 1981, after repeal of a provision in the 1980 Penal Code. The database also notes a later Constitutional Court decision, in 1999, concerning military rules that treated homosexuality or same-sex conduct as offences against military honour.
Decriminalisation is a major legal shift, but it isn’t the same as full equality. ILGA World separates criminalisation from areas such as legal recognition, protection from discrimination and freedom of expression, a reminder that the law changes in stages.
For readers weighing claims about progress, that distinction is worth keeping in view. Removing criminal penalties addresses one form of state repression; it doesn’t automatically undo stigma or unequal treatment elsewhere.
What the UK court decided, and what it didn’t
In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled that “sex”, “woman” and “man” refer to biological sex in the specific statutory provisions it considered. The judgment concerned the interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 and related Scottish legislation, and found that the Scottish Government’s guidance on the issue was incorrect.
But the ruling has a defined scope. The Court did not remove protections against discrimination related to gender reassignment, nor did it resolve every wider question about identity or social recognition. It was a decision about how particular legal terms operate in particular legislation.
That’s why careful wording matters in a heated debate. Legal definitions, biological research and personal identity are related subjects, but they aren’t interchangeable. Keeping them distinct makes it easier to discuss rights without asking one kind of evidence to do a job it wasn’t designed for.
The clearest starting point is to separate the questions, then treat people’s rights and wellbeing with care.
Source Reference Map
Story idea inspired by: [1]
Sources by paragraph: