Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.D. has
practiced psychoanalysis for
more than nineteen years, and
psychiatry for more than ten.
He is a former Fellow in Psychiatry
and Child Psychiatry at
Yale University, a past president of the
C.G. Jung
Foundation, and a former William James Lecturer
in
Psychology and Religion at Harvard University. He
holds
degrees from MIT, the University of Texas, and
Harvard
University. He is the author of Homosexuality and
the
Politics of Truth (Baker Books,
1996).
In this age, in this country, public
sentiment is
everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it,
nothing
can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper
than
he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial
decisions.
-Abraham Lincoln
On July 15, 1993, National
Public Radio (NPR) made a
dramatic announcement on stations
across the country: Was a
team of scientists at the National
Institutes of Health on
the trail of a gene that causes
homosexuality? Their report
would be published the next day in
Science, one of the two
most prestigious scientific research
journals in the
world.[1]
The discussion that followed
explained for the listening
public the implications of these
findings for social
attitudes toward homosexuality and for public
policy
concerning it. Science was on the verge of proving what
many
had long argued: that homosexuality is innate, genetic
and
therefore unchangeable-a normal and commonplace variant
of
human nature. In the light of these findings, surely
only
the bigoted or ignorant could condemn it in any
way.
Shortly after the announcement, amidst a
well-orchestrated
blizzard of press discussions, there ensued the
watershed
legal battle over "Proposition 2" in Colorado.
(This
popularly enacted legislation precluded making
sexual
orientation the basis of "privileged class" minority
status,
a status conferred previously only on the basis of
immutable
factors such as race.)
Among the many crucial
issues raised by the legislation was
the question as to whether
homosexuality was indeed normal,
innate and unchangeable. One
prominent researcher testified
to the court, "I am 99.5% certain
that homosexuality is
genetic." But this personal opinion was
widely misunderstood
as "homosexuality is 99.5% genetic,"
implying that research
had demonstrated this. Certainly, that was
the message
promulgated by NPR's report on the recent research,
and by
all the discussions that followed. In a few weeks,
Newsweek
would emblazon across its cover the phrase that would
stick
in the public mind as the final truth about
homosexuality:
"Gay Gene?"
Of course, just near the end of
the NPR discussion, certain
necessary caveats were fleetingly
added. But only an expert
knew what they meant- that the research
actually showed
nothing whatever in the way of what was being
discussed. The
vast majority of listeners would think that
homosexuality
had been all but conclusively proven to be
"genetic." But
the real question is whether or not there is such
a "gay
gene."
In fact, there is not, and the research
being promoted as
proving that there is provides no supporting
evidence. How
can this be? In order to understand what is really
going on,
one needs to understand some little- known features of
the
emerging study of behavioral genetics (much subtler than
the
genetics of simple, "Mendelian" traits such as eye
color).
When it comes to questions of the genetics of
any
behavior-homosexuality included-all of the
following
statements are likely to be at least roughly
true:
1. Such and such a behavior "is genetic";
2.
There are no genes that produce the behavior;
3. The genes
associated with the behavior are found on such
and such a
chromosome;
4. The behavior is significantly
heritable;
5. The behavior is not inherited.
The
scientific distinctions that make these seeming
contradictions
perfectly reasonable and consistent seem
completely misunderstood
by the media who report on them.
For example, in response to
the "gay gene" research, the
Wall Street Journal headlined their
report (which appeared
the next day), "Research Points Toward a
Gay Gene."[2] A
subheading of the Journal article stated,
"Normal
Variation"-leaving the casual reader with the
impression
that the research led to this conclusion. It did not,
nor
could it have. The subhead alluded to nothing more than
the
chief researcher's personal, unsubstantiated opinion
that
homosexuality, as he put it, "is a normal variant of
human
behavior." Even the New York Times, in its more
moderate
front-page article, "Report Suggests Homosexuality is
Linked
to Genes," noted that other researchers warned
against
over-interpreting the work, "or taking it to mean
anything
as simplistic as that the 'gay gene' had been
found."
At end of the Wall Street Journal article, at the
bottom of
the last paragraph on the last page deep within the
paper, a
prominent geneticist was quoted for his reactions to
the
research. He observed that "the gene...may be involved
in
something other than sexual behavior. For example, it may
be
that the supposed gene is only 'associated'
with
homosexuality, rather than a 'cause' of it."
This
rather cryptic comment would be most difficult to
understand
without the needed scientific background. Yet it
is the most
critical distinction in the entire article;
indeed, it renders
the findings almost entirely worthless.
Why bury and fail to
explain what it means? Perhaps the
motives were innocent, but in
fact, the belief that
homosexuality is "biological" or "genetic"
causes people to
develop more positive attitudes toward it. They
need not
have the foggiest understanding of what "biological"
or
"genetic" really mean in order to change their
view:
105 volunteer[s]... were exposed to one of
three...
conditions.... [T]he experimental group read a
summary...
emphasizing a biological component of
homosexual
orientation.... [O]ne control group read a
summary...
focusing on the absence of hormonal differences
between
homosexual and heterosexual men. [A]nother control
group
w[as] not exposed to either article.... As
predicted,
subjects in the experimental group had
significantly
lower[3] scores [more positive attitudes toward
homosexuals]
than subjects in the control
groups.[4]
And:
Analysis indicated that subjects who
believed that
homosexuals are "born that way" held significantly
more
positive attitudes toward homosexuals than subjects
who
believed that homosexuals "choose to be that way"
and/or
"learn to be that way."[5]
What was actually going
in the study the media was
trumpeting? Dean Hamer and his
colleagues had performed a
kind of behavioral genetics study now
becoming
widespread-the so-called "linkage study."
Researchers
identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family and
then
look to see whether there is a chromosomal variant in
the
genetic material of that family, and if that variant is
more
frequent in the family members who have the trait.
To
the uninitiated, a positive finding ("correlation"
or
"association" of a genetic structure with a
behavioral
trait) is taken to mean that the trait "is
genetic"-that is,
inherited.
In fact, it means absolutely
nothing of the sort, and it
should be emphasized that there is
virtually no human trait
without innumerable such correlations.
We will see shortly
just how this is can be so. The most
important take-home
messages will be these:
(1) All the
research that has been done on homosexuality has
been selectively
trumpeted through the press in carefully
crafted form in order to
shape public opinion-hence public
policy-in predictable ways. The
research itself means almost
nothing.
(2) The research
projects that would truly mean something
are scarcely being done
because they would all explicitly or
tacitly lead to but one end
highly undesirable to activists:
a method or methods for
preventing homosexuality or changing
it with ever-increasing
efficacy; and to one conclusion:
homosexuality per se is not
inherited.
(3) Most of the research has been hastily and
often sloppily
done-but this point is a distraction. Even were it
superb,
the findings would still mean almost nothing.
(4)
To whatever extent this research has been good enough to
generate
valid conclusions at all, these conclusions are
precisely the
opposite of what is claimed in the press.
Before we talk
about specifics, here is what serious
scientists think about the
recent behavior-caused-by-genes
research. From Science,
1994:
Time and time again, scientists have claimed that
particular
genes or chromosomal regions are associated with
behavioral
traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were
not
replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr.
Joel]
Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings
linking
specific genes to complex human behaviors that have
been
replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare;
all
were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are
now
in disrepute."[6]
A scientist at Washington University
School of Medicine
calculated what would be required for such a
replication.
He:
...projected that if the trait [in
question] was 50%
heritable... detecting [just] one of [its]
genes would
require studying 175 families-that is, almost 2000
people.[7
] Replicati[on] would require studying 781
families-another
8000 people.... [E]ach additional gene (for a
polygenic
trait), researchers would need... the whole business
again.
"Suddenly you're talking about tens of thousands of
people
and years of work and millions of
dollars."[8]
Nothing even remotely close to this has been
done with
respect to homosexuality.
Using arguable-at-best
methods, two American activists
recently published studies
showing that if one of a pair of
identical twins is homosexual,
the odds that the other one
is, too, are less than 50% (the study
examined a few dozens
of pairs). On this basis, they argue that
"homosexuality is
genetic." British researchers generated
comparable results
in a similar study. Their conclusion? The
surprisingly low
odds that both twins were
homosexual:
...confirmed that genetic factors are
insufficient
explanation for the development of sexual
orientation.[9]
Two Columbia University researchers (who have
published the
most comprehensive research summary on the subject
to date)
note the unexpectedly:
... large proportion of
monozygotic twins who [did not
share] homosexuality despite
sharing not only their genes
but also their prenatal and familial
environments.[10]
The... [50% odds]... for homosexuality among
the identical
twins could be entirely accounted for by the
increased
similarity of their developmental experiences. In
our
opinion, the major finding of that study is that 48
percent
of identical twins who were reared together [and where
at
least one was homosexual] were discordant for
sexual
orientation.[11]
Two other genetics researchers
(one heads one of the largest
genetics departments in the
country, the other is at
Harvard) comment:
... recent
studies seeking a genetic basis for homosexuality
suggest that...
we may be in for a new molecular phrenology,
rather than true
scientific progress and insight into
behavior.
While the
authors interpreted their findings as evidence for
a genetic
basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in
fact provide
strong evidence for the influence of
the
environment.[12]
The author of the lead article on
genes and behavior in a
special issue of Science
notes:
...the growing understanding that the interaction of
genes
and environment is much more complicated than the
simple
"violence genes" and "intelligence genes" touted in
the
popular press. Indeed, renewed appreciation of
environmental
factors is one of the chief effects of the
increased belief
in genetics' effects on behavior [my emphasis].
The same
data that show the effects of genes also point to
the
enormous influence of non-genetic factors.[13]
The
director of the Center for Developmental and Health
Genetics at
Pennsylvania State University comments:
Research into
heritability is the best demonstration I know
of the importance
of the environment.
(Note the term "heritability;" we will be
returning to it in
detail as it lies at the heart of much
confusion).
With regard to the work announced by NPR,
genetics
researchers from Yale, Columbia and Louisiana
State
Universities noted that:
Much of the discussion of
this finding [of a purported gene
locus for homosexuality] has
focused on its social and
political ramifications. [But]
inconsistencies... suggest
that this finding should be
interpreted cautiously....
The results are not consistent
with any genetic
model....neither of these differences [between
homosexuality
in maternal versus paternal uncles or cousins]
is
statistically significant....small sample sizes make
these
data compatible with a range of...
hypotheses.
[T]he... data... present no consistent support
for the...
results.[14]
By contrast to their public policy
statements, the
researchers responded carefully as
follows:
We did not say that [the chromosome segment under
study]
"underlies" sexuality, only that it contributes to it
in
some families. Nor have we said that [it] represents
a
"major" gene, only that its influence is
statistically
detectable in the population that we
studied.[15]
Ignoring possible flaws in the research, have
the
researchers actually pointed to this more modest claim
with
any degree of certainty? In fact, they have not-as
they
themselves acknowledge, but in language that will
surely
evade general understanding-and that will continue to
be
avoided by the press:
...the question of the
appropriate significance level to
apply to a non-Mendelian trait
such as sexual orientation is
problematic.[16]
English
translation: "It is not possible to know what the
findings mean,
if anything, since sexual orientation cannot
possibly be
inherited the way eye-color is." Thus, to their
fellow
scientists, the researchers properly acknowledge what
every
serious researcher knows, but the public does not.
Complex
behavioral traits are the product of multiple
genetic and
environmental antecedents, with 'environment'
meaning not only
the social environment but also such
factors as the 'flux of
hormones during development, whether
you were lying on your right
or left side in the womb and a
whole parade of other
things'...the relationships among
genes and environment probably
have a somewhat different
effect on someone in Salt lake City
than if that person were
growing up in New York
City.[17]
English translation: "You're more likely to become
gay
growing up in Manhattan than in Utah among Mormons
and
Christian fundamentalists, even if everything else is
the
same, including genes."
Unfortunately, anyone who is
so disposed can readily offer
the public partial truths which are
seriously misleading.
This is so only in part because of an
easily led or poorly
educated press. The major reason is really
that the ideas
being cooked beyond recognition once they leave
the labs are
inherently complex, even if originally formulated
and
presented properly. There are no "lite," sound-bite
versions
of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in
error
in one way or another.
Nonetheless, if one grasps at
least some of the basics, in
simple form, it will be possible to
see exactly why the
current research into homosexuality means so
little-and will
continue to mean little even should the quality
of the
research methods improve-so long as it remains driven
by
political, rather than scientific objectives.
There are
really only two major principles that need to be
carefully
assimilated in order to see through public
relations distortions
to the actual meaning of recent
research. They are as
follows:
1. Heritable does not mean inherited.
2.
Meaningful genetics research identifies and then focuses
on
traits that are directly inherited. One prominent
genetics
researcher (discussing a matter unrelated to
homosexuality, but
equally frustrated with the bad science
reporting) flatly calls
the question of heritability
"trivial."
Heritable Does Not
Mean Inherited
Heritability studies can be done on almost any
human trait-
physical, behavioral, emotional, etc.-and will show
positive
results. That is, almost every human characteristic you
can
think of is in significant measure heritable
(thus
discussing it is "trivial"). But few human behavioral
traits
are directly inherited the way simple physiological
traits
are (e.g., eye color). Inherited means "determined
directly
by genes," with little or no way of changing the trait
by
choice, or by preventing it, or by modifying the
environment
in which the trait has emerged (or is more likely
to
emerge).
Here is a simple hypothetical example, but it
is 100%
plausible. It tracks the kinds of studies that have
been
done with innumerable other traits, including
homosexuality.
(But only in the area of homosexuality has the
meaning of
such studies been so badly distorted).
Suppose
that for political reasons you want to demonstrate
that there is
a "basketball gene" that "makes" people become
basketball players
("BBPs"). (Please suspend your immediate,
correct understanding
that the idea is absurd.) To make your
case you would use the
same methods as with homosexuality.
These methods fall into three
categories, and represent
important forms of preliminary research
when investigating
any trait: (1) twin studies; (2) brain
dissections; (3) gene
"linkage" studies.
Twin
Studies
The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the
more
genetically similar are two people, the more likely it
is
that they will share the trait you are studying. So,
you
create a study set of pairs of people, divided
into
categories according to how genetically similar they are,
as
follows:
Pair Type --------- Degree of Similarity (%
same genes)
Identical Twins --------- 100%
Fraternal Twins
--------- 50%
Non-Twin Siblings ------ 50%
Unrelated People
------- <5%
The most similar are identical twins, the next
most similar
are fraternal twins (who are on average as different
as
non-twin brothers or sisters, but no more so), the
least
similar are unrelated people.
Then you identify
those pairs of twins in which at least one
is a BBP. It will not
be difficult to show that if one such
identical twin is a BBP,
his brother (or her sister) more
frequently will be, too, than
would a non-identical twin or
a non-twin sibling or a
non-sibling. You would create groups
of such different kinds of
pairs to make the comparison in a
large number of cases. (One set
of identical twin pairs, one
set of non-identical twin pairs, one
set of non-twin
siblings, and so on.)
From the
"concordance rate" in each set (the percentage of
pairs in each
set in which either both are BBPs or both are
not. Pairs in which
one was and the other was not would be
called "discordant for
BBP") you would calculate a
"heritability" rate. (Perhaps you
have an armchair guess as
to how many identical twin-pairs either
both play or both do
not play basketball. Probably a good deal
more than half,
the concordance rate for homosexuality in such
twin-pairs.)
You respond to the reporter from Sports
Illustrations that,
"Our research demonstrates that BBP is very
strongly
heritable," and you would be right. But the article
that
comes out that month reads something slightly different,
but
completely wrong. "... Recent research shows that BBP
is
probably inherited. A number of outside researchers
examined
the work and found it substantially accurate and
well-
performed. They cautioned against arriving at
hasty
conclusions, however." No one notices the
difference.
Brain Dissections
Second, your colleagues
perform a series of autopsies on the
brains of some dead people
who appear to have been BBPs.
(Old jerseys, high-top sneakers and
Knicks ticket-stubs were
found among their possessions, for
example.) They do the
same with a group of dead non-players (no
sneakers, jerseys
or tickets.) They report that, on average,
"certain parts of
the brain long thought to be involved with BBP
are much
larger in the group of BBPs than in the controls."
Certain
nationally renowned newspapers in the Northeast pick up
on
the story and editorialize, "It will be very difficult
for
anyone except poorly educated yokels who believe in
Santa
Claus, the Tooth-Fairy and God to argue that BBP is
not
inborn. For not only has it been proven to run in
families,
even the brains of basketball players are
different."[18]
In a pretense of balance, some of these
papers interview
diehard believers in the old view-yokels who
still think
that one must decide to play basketball, and play it
for a
long time, before you really can be considered "a BBP."
One
of them is quoted as claiming that, "maybe if you
do
something long enough your brain changes as you get
better
at it, and that part of the brain gets bigger."
(Remarkably
enough, this surmise seems obvious to the
old-time
believer.) The reporter does not merely report the
comment,
however, he also hints that it is especially
idiotic-typical
of diehards and yokels-since everyone knows the
brain does
not change.
Of course, you yourself are well
aware that among
neuroscientists it is extremely old news that
the brain
indeed changes, quite dramatically, in just the way the
old
diehard guessed: those parts responsible for an activity
get
much bigger over time (and there are definitely parts
that
are more utilized in BBP). You will not lie about it
if
asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go
out
of your way to confirm the truth.
Gene "Linkage"
Studies
Now for the coup de gr�ce. You find a couple of
families of
BBPs and compare them to some families of non-BBPs.
You have
a hunch that of innumerable genes of every imaginable
sort
likely to be "associated" or "linked" to BBP (you never
use
the word "causing" because you do not need to-no one
knows
the difference), there are some genes on, say,
the
X-Chromosome. After a few false starts, sure enough,
you
find what you are looking for: among the BBP families
one
particular chromosomal variant (cluster of genes) is
more
commonly found (though not always) than among
the
non-players.
Now, sympathizers at National People's
Radio were long ago
quietly informed of your research, since they
want people to
come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon
as your
work hits the press, they are on the
air:
"Researchers are hot on the trail of the 'Basketball
Gene!'
In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports
Science..."
Learned-sounding commentators pontificate in
soft,
accentless, perfectly articulated and faintly
condescending
tones about the enormous public policy implications
of this
superb piece of science-in-the-service-of- humankind.
Two
weeks later, there it is again, at a jaunty angle across
the
cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball
Gene."
Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple:
of
course BBP is heritable ("has a non-zero heritability"
to
use the words of homosexuality researchers). That is
because
many physiological traits-muscle strength, speed,
agility,
reflex speed, height, etc.-are themselves
directly
inherited, and they make it more or less likely that
one
can, and will want to, and will successfully, and
will
therefore continue to want to, and will in fact continue
to,
play basketball. In short, because of intermediate
inherited
traits associated with BBP (none of which are BBP), it
shows
significant heritability. (The genetic association,
of
course, is in no way necessary or predetermined, and
is
highly culturally conditioned: there were no BBPs at all
in,
say, ancient Greece, yet the same genes were
there.)
BBP also shows a strong biological representation in
the
brain, both at birth (e.g., nervous system
factors
contributing to reflex speed) and especially later
(e.g.,
the parts of the cortex that are cultivated and
become
responsible for the movements of basketball, as in the
huge
increases in finger-related brain tissue among blind
people
who learn Braille).
And the specific genes that run
in families that are
responsible for height, athleticism, etc.
can surely be
found and they will be statistically linked to BBP.
And if
one identical twin decides to play basketball, the
unusually
strong emotional bond between such siblings will make
it
even more likely that his twin will, too. (The fact of
their
genetic identity, not their specific genes, are
here
influencing an outcome above and beyond the
indirect
contributions from any specific genes.)
The basic
problem is this: BBP is "influenced" (made more or
less an easy
and enjoyable thing to do) by the presence or
absence of other
associated traits. For BBP we can readily
guess what they are and
so immediately see that the
"genetic" component of BBP has
nothing to do with the game
itself but with these associated
(facilitating) traits. What
are these traits? Height,
athleticism, bone structure,
reflexes, muscle refresh rate, and
so on. So evident are the
specifics of this association that no
serious researcher
will waste his time looking into the genetics
of BBP proper;
he will concentrate on the obvious
intermediate
traits-height, athleticism and so on.
The
same is true for homosexuality, except (a) the more
important,
intermediate traits with which it is associated
are mostly
unknown and suspected ones are harder to confirm,
and (b) the
research agenda is being distorted by the
political requirement
that no such associated traits be
discovered and that
homosexuality be falsely presented as
directly
inherited.
Meaningful Genetics Research Identifies and
Focuses on
Traits That Are Directly Inherited
Research
into merely heritable traits is useful only in
generating
hypotheses about what the directly inherited
traits might be.
Here is what this means: Let us imagine
that it was not
immediately evident to us that the heritable
aspects of BBP were
intermediate traits such as height. A
good researcher would not
be at all tempted to conclude from
the studies we described that
BBP itself was inherited. He
would conclude however that, indeed,
there must be some
inherited traits that facilitate BBP, and it
would be these
as-yet-unknown traits that were producing the
"non-zero
heritability" results. If he could identify the
traits
correctly, he would find that the heritability results,
when
he redirected his genetics research, would
increase
dramatically.
In other words, studying the
genetics of BBP is really a
crude way of unwittingly studying the
genetics of height and
athleticism, etc. If he selects his
population on the basis
of the indirect trait (BBP), when it is
other traits that
are really inherited, the researcher's results
will be
"fuzzed up" by the inevitable proportion of BBP's who
lack
these traits, or have them in lesser degree (e.g., a
small
number of shortish BBPs). But if he correctly identifies
the
traits in question, his next round of studies will
"divide
the herd" more efficiently, corralling his subjects not
by
BBP (or "sexual orientation"), but by height. Of
course,
there will be more BBPs among the tall subjects than
among
the short, but that is incidental. He will seek out
other
tall people who are not BBPs, and in his new study,
the
heritability factor (height) will be even more
concentrated.
How might he guess at what the most important
traits are,
and then try to confirm his guess, so he could
investigate
the genetics of these traits? Very simply: he looks,
does
the best he can to name what he sees, and tries not to
run
afoul of the currently fashionable taboos enforced by
the
thought-police! He will probably have no trouble
studying
height, but he might run into difficulties should he
suspect
that athleticism (or even height) has a racial
association.
(More people of Nordic stock, being taller, become
basketball
players than do people of Appenzeller Swiss stock,
being
short. Perhaps other such groupings might occur to
a
researcher.)
In the case of homosexuality, the inherited
traits that are
more common among homosexuals (and that produce
"non-zero
heritability" in studies) might include such qualities
as
greater than average tendency to anxiety,
shyness,
sensitivity, intelligence, aesthetic abilities and so
on.
(Of course, these traits may themselves be further
reducible
to a variety of mutually influencing, associated
genetic and
non-genetic factors.) The brain changes that are
more
prevalent among homosexuals, the tendency of
homosexuality
to run in families (and to vary with degree of
genetic
similarity within families) and the presence of
associated
chromosomal markings are all certainly due to as
yet
unresearched and therefore not- yet-identified
intermediate
traits. There is no evidence that homosexuality
itself is
inherited.
Like height and BBP, these
traits-intelligence, say, or
anxiety-are surely widely
distributed in the population at
large and densely present
therefore in groups that are
properly selected to have them. If
researchers had divided
their populations by shyness or aesthetic
sensibility, and
ignored the homosexual/non-homosexual division,
they might
well have found even stronger chromosomal linkages as
well
as brain changes and twin concordance
rates.
Conclusion
Here, then is a final summary, in
the form of a dialogue.
Q. Isn't homosexuality
heritable?
A. Yes, significantly.
Q. So it is
inherited?
A. No, it is not.
Q. I'm confused. Isn't
there is a "genetic component" to
homosexuality?
A. Yes,
but "component" is just a loose way of indicating
genetic
associations and linkages. This will not make sense
unless you
understand what, and how little, "linkage" and
"association"
really means.
Q. What about all the evidence that shows that
homosexuality
"is genetic"?
A. There is not any, and none
of the research itself claims
there is; only the press and,
sadly, certain researchers
do-when speaking in sound bites to the
public.
Q. But isn't homosexuality "biologically in the
brain"?
A. Of course it is. So is just about everything else.
I'll
bet people who pray regularly have certain enlarged
portions
of their brains!
Q. So doesn't that mean that
homosexuality is "innate"?
A. No more than prayer is. The
brain changes with use or
nonuse as much as muscles do-a good
deal more, in fact. We
just do not usually see it
happening.
Q. But doesn't homosexuality run in
families?
A. Yes.
Q. So you get it from your parents,
right?
A. You get viruses from your parents, too, and some
bad
habits. Not everything that is familial is innate
or
genetic.
Q. But it just seems to make sense. From the
people I know
there's a type-it's got to be inherited-that runs
in
families and a lot of these people are gay, right?
A.
That is what associated traits are-but what exactly is
the
associated trait-or traits-you are detecting? If there
is one
thing the research confirms, it is that it is not
"gayness"
itself. That is why these traits are sometimes in
evidence at a
very early age, long before sexuality is
shaped.
Q. So
what are these traits?
A. An important question, indeed.
Science is being seriously
obstructed in its effort to answer
that question. If we were
allowed - encouraged- to answer it, we
would soon develop
better ideas on what homosexuality is and how
to change, or
better, prevent it. We would know who was at
greater risk
for becoming homosexual and what environments -
family or
societal - foster it. As one prominent gay
activist
researcher implied, all genetic things being equal, it
is a
whole lot easier to become "gay" in New York than in
Utah.
So who do you think would benefit most from that kind
of
research?
Q. Well, what traits do you guess are
"associated," as you
put it, with homosexuality?
A. May I
speculate, perhaps wildly? That is how scientific
hypotheses are
first generated. The important thing is not
to avoid ideas that
prove wrong, just not to cling to them
if they do.
Q.
Okay, go ahead, speculate.
A. Intelligence, anxiety,
sensitivity, aesthetic abilities,
taste. You know, all the
stereotypes.
Q. But where do these traits come from? Aren't
they
inherited?
A. We do not know yet. Some may be. Or
rather, we do not
know how much is inherited, and which elements
are direct
and which merely further associated and linked with
other
yet more fundamental traits. But you are getting
the
picture. That is how the research ought to proceed. It
is
not necessarily that the traits that
facilitate
homosexuality are themselves bad; perhaps many are
gifts.
Athleticism is a generally good thing, and we think
highly
of people who satisfy their athletic impulses as,
say,
outstanding BBPs. Not so the fellow who merely becomes
a
thug.
Endnotes
[1]D. H. Hamer et al, "A Linkage
Between DNA Markers on the
X-chromosome and Male Sexual
Orientation," Science (1993),
261, no. 5119, pp.
321-27.
[2]"Research Points Toward a Gay Gene," Wall Street
Journal,
16 July 1993.
[3]A lower score on this scale
means a less negative
attitude toward
homosexuality.
[4]Piskur and Degelman, "Attitudes Toward
Homosexuals,"
Psychological Reports 71 (1992); my emphasis, pp.
1219-25
(part 2 of 3). See also K. E. Ernulf,
"Cross-National
Analysis."
[5]K. E. Ernulf, S. M. Innala,
and F. L. Whitam, "Biological
Explanation, Psychological
Explanation, and Tolerance of
Homosexuals: A Cross-National
Analysis of Beliefs and
Attitudes," Psychological Reports 65
(1989), pp. 1003-10 (1
of 3).
[6]Mann C. Genes and
behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).
[7]None of the studies of
the genetics of homosexuality (all
of which are initial; none are
replicatory) have come even
remotely close to studying this many
subjects.
[8]Mann C. op. cit. p. 1688.
[9]King, M and
McDonald, E. Homosexuals who are twins: a
study of 46 probands.
British Journal of Psychiatry
160:407-409 (1992)
[10]Byne
W and Parsons B. Human sexual orientation: the
biologic theories
reappraised. Archives of General
Psychiatry. 50, 3:230
(1993).
[11]Quoted by Horgan, J., Scientific American:
Eugenics
Revisited. June 1993, p. 123.
[12 ]Billings, P.
and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July,
1993. p.
60.
[13]Mann C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689.
[14]Risch N.,
Squires-Wheeler E., and Bronya J.B.K., "Male
Sexual Orientation
and Genetic Evidence," Science 262
(1993), pp.
2063-65.
[15]Hamer DH et al. Response to Risch N et al. ibid.
p. 2065
[16]Hamer DH et al. Response to Risch N et al. loc.
cit.
[17]Mann C., op. cit. p. 1687.
[18]Readers may
recall Simon LeVay's much touted discovery
that the certain parts
of the brains of (supposedly)
homosexual men were larger than
among (supposedly)
heterosexual men. But even if the research is
valid-its
quality has been strongly criticized-the discovery of
brain
differences per se is on a par with the discovery
that
athletes have bigger muscles than non-athletes. For though
a
genetic tendency toward larger muscles may make it
easier
to-and therefore more likely that one will-become
an
athlete, becoming an athlete will certainly give one
bigger
muscles.
When this particular critique was raised,
the press quickly
took its accustomed potshot at the usual
"poorly educated
and easily led" religious groups for the
suggestion's
politically incorrect implications: "Some
religious
fundamentalists even suggested that homosexual
activity
somehow could have caused the structural differences
[that
LeVay claimed to have discovered."
But as the editor
of Nature-an equally prestigious
publication-wrote, commenting on
the LeVay research:
"Plainly, the neural correlates of
genetically determined
gender are plastic at a sufficiently early
stage....Plastic
structures in the hypothalamus allowing the
consequences of
early sexual arousal to be made permanent might
suit those
who claim an environmental origin to homosexuality
well."
This editor is not, to anyone's knowledge, a
religious
fundamentalist.
September 15, 2020 Everyone knows that sexual predator ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick is a liar. His whole life was a lie of betrayal of the most sacred vows he took and the violation of the moral tenets of the Catholic faith which he desecrated. Most people don't realize that part of this desecration of lies included lying for "gravely sinful" Democrats like Joe Biden. McCarrick protected Biden when then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later to be Pope Benedict XVI) wrote that bishops were not to admit to Communion politicians like "gravely sinful" Biden who supports the killing of unborn babies. McCarrick lied for politicians like Biden by ignoring the important parts of the Ratzinger letter and told bishops not to ignore the Catholic Church law. Last year, Fr. Robert Morey denied Holy Communion to the “gravely sinful” Biden following a "2004 decree signed jointly by the bishops of ...
Comments