Posted on 06/24/2007 1:48:50 AM PDT by tuesday afternoon
With the pendulum swinging back and forth between nature and nurture as explanations for sexual preference, critics argue that science is asking a simplistic – and dangerous – question
Gay men believe their sexual orientation is inextricably bound up with their very being. It is not a choice – let alone the "wrong choice," as religious and political critics have counter-claimed for years.
Many believe they simply were "born that way," and long for proof that their sexual proclivity is biological or genetic, a variation, not a deviation, of human nature. And how can an innate instinct be the subject of discrimination?
But just as many gay men don't want to know. It's a predisposition, they say, what does it matter what kind? If science delves into the cause, then bet on it, someone will set about finding a "cure." More to the point, they argue, determining the why of homosexuality won't end prejudice.
"The emphasis on finding a biological cause is much more widespread among activists in the U.S. than in Canada," says political scientist David Rayside, director of the University of Toronto's Sexual Diversity Centre.
"Most people here don't care or think the fight for gay rights shouldn't hinge on finding a cause."
Theories have been floated for more than a century on what triggers homosexuality. Nurture – a psychologically troubled relationship between parents and child – held top billing until the start of the 1990s, when the tide shifted toward nature.
Two American scientists set the research and the debate in motion.
In 1991, Simon LeVay, a neurobiologist at the Salk Institute of Biological Studies in California, examined the brains of 41 individuals; 19 gay men who died of AIDS, 16 heterosexuals of drugs-related AIDS and six women, of whom one had died of the disease.
Already aware that certain areas of the brain are bigger in men than in women, LeVay checked to see if there was a size variation with the gay men.
To his surprise, he found that one grouping of cells associated with sexual activity was twice as large in straight men as it was in both gays and women.
LeVay emphasized that his work didn't show "how or when sexual orientation is determined, only that it is an aspect of human nature that can be studied by biologists." But the media ran with it, playing down widespread criticism that he hadn't factored in the effect of AIDS on the brain.
Princeton University psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover's reaction was typical:
"The discovery of brain difference per se is on a par with the discovery that athletes have bigger muscles than non-athletes. Though a genetic tendency toward larger muscles may make it easier to become an athlete, becoming an athlete will certainly give one bigger muscles."
LeVay still maintains, however, that exposure to one or more hormones at an early stage in male fetal development can permanently alter the brain and the pattern of later sexual behaviour. Gay himself, he has written that he wonders if "the positions taken by researchers are merely the expression of their own personal attitudes and prejudices, whether pro or anti-gay, that have been dressed up in academic language."
In 1993, a study of 76 gay men by geneticist Dean Hamer at the U.S. National Cancer Institute found that uncles and male cousins on the mother's side were more likely to be gay than those on the father's side. This suggested a "gay gene" might be located on the X chromosome, which boys get only from their mothers.
Hamer then studied 40 pairs of gay brothers, sampling their DNA and scouring their X chromosomes for any regions they had in common, and duly announced that such a site, shared by two-thirds of the brothers, had been found. The research would have to be replicated before the results could be confirmed, Hamer stressed. To no avail.
Because of the social, political, and cultural implications, his results – inevitably headlined "Gay gene found" – were hailed globally as a major breakthrough. Wrongly so, said the genetics community. The coverage was inflated, simplistic and misleading. No "gay gene" had been found, nor ever would be. Why? Because behavioural genetics is much more complex than "Mendelian" genetics. In other words, traits such as eye colour are 100 per cent inheritable but the genetic contribution to various behaviours, aggression, shyness, extroversion and so on, is considerably less, below 50 per cent.
Ruth Hubbard, Harvard emeritus professor of biology and biochemistry and author of Exploding the Gene Myth, has said that searching for a gay gene "is not even a worthwhile pursuit.
"I don't think there is any single gene that governs any complex human behaviour. There are genetic components in everything we do, and it is foolish to say genes are not involved, but I don't think they are decisive."
Together, LeVay and Hamer had made an intriguing case, certainly for the media, but far from a persuasive one.
By the end of the '90s, interest in the hunt for a gay gene had waned. Why, skeptics asked, would there be one when it plays no role in the evolutionary scheme of things?
Why, gay activists wondered, expend energy on finding a reason for their orientation when the fight for equal rights was still on the front burner?
Since then, the scientific consensus is that sexual proclivity is influenced, but not hardwired, by DNA. Geneticist Francis Collins, head of the international Human Genome Project, has written that "whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."
But the debate hasn't entirely gone away, or, indeed, all of the research. Next year at Northwestern University, 1,000 pairs of gay brothers will be studied to see if Hamer's X-chromosome findings finally can be reproduced. (Driven by AIDS, as well, critics would argue, by cultural bias, science has focused overwhelmingly on men, not gay women.) U of T's Rayside is leery about yet another study, concerned at society's increasing temptation to interpret all kinds of human behaviours in biological, particularly genetic, terms.
"These scientists think they're doing good, but they don't realize there's a political component to their work. It contributes to the trend toward genetic selection."
Rayside is not being overly fearful. Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the U.S. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, recently inveighed that a prenatal test for homosexuality would morally be no different from curing fetal blindness or any other "medical problem."
And Dean Hamer, likely to be forever linked to the search for a gay gene? He's now researching the genetic component to hard-core cigarette addiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynda Hurst is a feature writer at the Star. She can be reached at lhurst@thestar.ca.
"I don't think there is any single gene that governs any complex human behaviour. There are genetic components in everything we do, and it is foolish to say genes are not involved, but I don't think they are decisive."
Why does the author bring up two discredited studies, LeVay and Hamer? It's as though she wants to muddy the waters, write that there is no gay gene while hinting that one may still be found. And left on the backburner is the idea that people would abort gay babies if there were a genetic test for them.
Be careful what you wish for-if they do ever find a queer gene, lots of folks are going to want a test, and they may abort if it's positive. After all, it's their "choice", right?
What about a “lawyer gene” which might predispose a kid to grow up to be a lawyer?
Be careful what you wish for-if they do ever find a queer gene, lots of folks are going to want a test, and they may abort if it’s positive. After all, it’s their “choice”, right?
That would be a tough choice if it ever comes to that. Probably the most who would have abortions would be conservatives. I have three boys and wonder what my wife and I would have done regardless of my pro-life stance. I am glad that they don’t test for this actually.
If they really wanted to know. They would know.
First, they ignore that men and women are different. There is, therefore, no obvious connection between gay men and lesbians in any way...yet quite often both are included in these studies depending on the outcomes desired. Homosexual parenting is an example.
Second, while there are studies for a gentic basis for homosexuality and/or lesbianism, there are no valid studies for a behavioral basis. The closest studies looking at this aspect simply tried to claim that homosexuals are no more likely than anyone else to have suffered any given trauma...and again, they include both men and women as well as all trauma, with all backgrounds, going so far as to use instances of a single case of molestation or single instances of trauma to force that out of the picture ... and again for political reasons.
If they wanted to know, they would only study men who, as boys, were molested for several years for sexual deviancies, with the understanding that homosexuality is but one expression of several paraphilias that can be created through psycho-sexual trauma.
Would this show that all gay people are molested? No. However it would show if gay people can be created, and that would end the discussion. At that point, the scientific community would be compelled to look at other reasons gay people are made, and cease looking for the unicorn.
I disagree with you on this. Of course, there is no way to know, but I think that conservatives would be less likely to even take the test that would determine it in the first place and even if they did find out, they would be more likely to take it as God's will and keep the baby. The liberals are hypocrites. They would put having a 'perfect' baby over the life of a child because they have no qualms about murdering a fetus anyway.
I have started to write various responses to your statement which is just simply stunning and, imo, not well thought out. I can only say that your comment is breathtakingly offensive and inspired by ignorance. If the subject were murder, you could never get away with making a similarly structured assertion, and probably wouldn't attempt such. i.e., "Probably the most who would commit murder would be black people (or liberals, or muslims, etc)." Could you please enlighten on what hard evidence you have to support your assertion? Thank you.
"Born that way" mass murderers, psychopaths who have an uncontrolable urge to torture and kill people can be said to be an "innate instinct" as well. That doesn't mean society should tollerate that kind of behavior.
They actually HAVE one of those?
Oh, Canada!
I agree.
I Tend to Lean Towards believing that we are all Born with a clean Hard Drive,and we become what we program into our MemoryBoard.
I used to know a guy named Gene who I suspected was more than a bit ‘limp wristed’..
That was about twenty years ago; I have no idea where he is now, but the last time I saw him it was in Santa Fe, NM.
Hope that helps these folks in their hunt.
I think so too. Other than the obvious deformities of course.
brain studies have come a long way, where behavior problems caused by brain malfunctions can be “seen” and in many cases treated and controlled with a variety of drugs to correct brain chemistry imbalances.
The ones that can’t be seen are learned behaviors, which must be unlearned or treated with behavior modification technics, which have in many cases been used sucessfully to treat homosexual behavior. Some have also shown that it can’t be treated, but I think much of that has to do with the subjects willingness, and the ability to identify the subconcious events that triggered the beginnings of homosexual behavior.
Probably a class field trip in first grade to the government treasury office, followed by a trip the same day to where the government has money printed, followed by a trip to the emergency ward after the school bus gets in an accident.
Personally, I think generations of pot smokers contribute to higher homo rates. The further back generations of pot heads go in the familly tree, the more likely the current generation of pot smokers produce homosexual children, or at least a democrat.
Those 60's pot smoking hippies are now grand parents and great grandparents of leftwing moonbat homo's. /s
A person might have beaten daily as a kid and has grown up full of anger - wants to kill someone. Or maybe they had a normal life and still have a tremendous desire to do someone - anyone, else harm. Maybe even one day a gene will be found that predisposes someone to random violence. Some of those people, no matter what the cause of their impulses, will not be able to control themselves, but them some will. No matter what the cause of that desire or impulse, we can't and don't dismiss it as okay or even natural just because it may somehow be linked to a physiological condition or state, psychological conditions or previous experiences. For me, a simple glance at the anatomy of a man and a woman tells me what is natural and what is not.
I can’t wait for the headline, “Homo’phobic’ gene found!”
I can’t help it, I was born that way.
You mean Jordache?
If there is a gene found, then they will claim “Hah, told you so.” while medical science will seek to cure the disease.
However, if no gene is found, then the gay community will have to come to grips with their choice.
Either way, bad news for gays in my opinion.
I know a girl that went to prison straight and came out a lesbian, it was her choice.
Folks either believes what He gave us in the Bible or they don't. I do and always will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.