We addressed homosexuality and the "born this way" theory this week in class. Here is an section of the book, Understanding Same-Sex Attraction by Dean Byrd. This is part of chapter 8 in the book discussing how much of the research that is in the media "proving" that same-sex attraction is genetic, is actually not. Now you don't have to read it, but it is good and valid information. Skip past it if you want to hear more of my thoughts, which I am sure you do. :)
"Homosexuality and Science:
The Biological Argument
For the past ten years, the biological argument—that gays are born that way—has permeated the national mental health associations and has seeped into the public domain. The advent of the Human Genome Project has added to the dominance of biological theories. Simple biological theories have become favored media sound bites, with the news reporting a gene for this and a gene for that. In fact, there has been a reported discovery of a “gay gene” as well as a “god gene.”
Upon closer scrutiny, even the lay person can see that the evidence for neither really exists. What evidence do we have for the biological explanation of homosexuality?
LeVay’s brain research. The initial “evidence” used to support a biological model of homosexuality came from Simon LeVay, Dean
homosexuality 151
Hamer, and the research team of J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard. Of the four researchers, three are self-identified homosexuals. This fact is not an unimportant consideration when issues of biases arise, as they often do in the research arena. Indeed, it is important to know that although only 2 to 4 percent of the population self-identify as homosexual, more than 50 percent of the research is conducted by scientists who are homosexual.1
At the time of his research LeVay was a biological scientist at the Salk Institute in San Diego. He conducted research on the brains of two groups of men: homosexual men and men whom LeVay presumed were heterosexual. With fairly small sample sizes (nineteen homosexual men and sixteen presumed heterosexual men), LeVay conducted a postmortem analysis, focusing on a particular cluster of cells in the hypothalamus known as the INAH-3. He reported that he found subtle but significant differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men.2
LeVay’s research had a number of limitations. He had very little information about the sexual histories of the research subjects. Some of the subjects died of HIV/AIDS. Although there were differences between the two groups studied, some of the presumed heterosexual men had small nuclei in the critical areas, and some homosexual men had nuclei large enough to be included in the normal heterosexual range.
Nevertheless, based on this one study, activists trumpeted that the biological cause of homosexuality had been discovered. The born-that-way argument was touted in major media outlets. Opposing views were, for the most part, silenced. Any junior-level scientist could quite quickly see that this claim was far from accurate, but most dared not speak out for fear of being ostracized or even labeled homophobic.3
However, LeVay himself, when pressed, contradicted the media’s interpretation of his research. In his own words, LeVay declared:
It is important to stress several limitations of the study. First, the observations were made on adults who had already been sexually active for a number of years. To
152 a. dean byrd
make a real compelling case, one would have to show that these neuroanatomical differences existed early in life—preferably at birth. Without such data, there is always at least the theoretical possibility that the structural differences are actually the result of differences in sexual behavior—perhaps the “use or lose it” principle. Furthermore, even if the differences in the hypothalamus rise before birth, they might still come about from a variety of causes,
including genetic differences, differences in stress exposure, and many others. It is possible that the development of the INAH-3 (and perhaps other brain regions)
represent a “final common pathway” in the determination of sexual orientation, a path to which innumerable factors may contribute.4
What LeVay attempted to explain here relates to a well-established scientific principle called “functionalism causes structuralism.” Translated, this means that behavior, particularly repetitive behaviors, can produce differences in the brain. Modern technology
has demonstrated this nicely with the use of brain scans.
LeVay continued:
Another limitation arises because most of the gay men whose brains I studied died of AIDS. Although I am confident that the small size of INAH-3 in these men was not an effect of the disease, there is always the possibility that gay men who died of AIDS are not representative of the entire population of gay men. For example, they might have a stronger preference for receptive anal intercourse, the major risk factor for acquiring HIV infection. Thus, if one wished, one could make an argument that structural differences in INAH-3 relate more to actual behavioral patterns of copulation than to sexual orientation as such. It will not be possible to settle this issue definitely until some method becomes available to measure the size of INAH-3 in living people who can be interviewed in detail about their sexuality.5
homosexuality 153
Finally, LeVay summarized his research results in the
following way:
It is important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. INAH-3 is less likely to be the sole nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women’s sexual behavior . . . Since I looked at adult brains we don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later.6
It is interesting that none of these limitations were offered by the activists, the academy, or the media representatives when LeVay’s research was announced. In fact, LeVay made the above explanations quietly and did not appear on television to complain that his research had been misinterpreted or that the wrong conclusions had been reached.
Although media distortions of LeVay’s research made the front page of virtually every mainstream newspaper, Dr. Leonard Sax, in his book, Why Gender Matters, noted that no such coverage was provided for the subsequent reports that LeVay had made a mistake. More recent, more rigorous research using more accurate methods has failed to demonstrate any differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men.7
LeVay did not attempt to replicate his findings (as most scientists would be prone to do). He has since abandoned brain research and has devoted himself to political activism on behalf of the gay movement.
Bailey and Pillard’s identical-twin studies. Studies of identical twins are popular ways to investigate the relative contributions of genetic factors to a particular trait. J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard studied identical twins and found a 52 percent concordance rate, which means that for every homosexual twin, the chances were about 50 percent that his twin would also be homosexual.8
154 a. dean byrd
The most fascinating question, however, is this: if there was something in the genetic code that made an individual homosexual, why did not all the identical twins become homosexual, since identical twins have the same genetic endowment? Bailey himself acknowledged probable selection bias and noted that he recruited in venues where participants considered the sexual orientation of their co-twin before agreeing to participate in his study.9 Such bias is not an unimportant consideration, particularly in areas where there is substantial activism. Bailey conducted a second study using the Australian Twin Registry, which had an anonymous response format and which makes such bias unlikely. From this study, Bailey reported a concordance rate of 20 to 37.5 percent, depending on how loosely one defines homosexuality.10 The first study received a great deal of press. Bailey’s second study received almost no media attention.
To offer some perspective on twin studies and human traits, it might be good to examine the evidence for other characteristics. For example, the following genetic contributions to personality traits based on twin studies offer the concordance rates noted: general cognitive ability (50 percent), extroversion (54 percent), conscientiousness (49 percent), neuroticism (48 percent), openness (57 percent), aggression (38 percent), and traditionalism
(54 percent).11
Bailey’s research far from proves a biological genesis of homosexuality. Rather, his research clearly demonstrates that biology is not sufficient to explain the genesis of homosexuality. (In fact, Bailey even suggests that homosexuality may represent a developmental error.12) If anything, the twin studies on homosexuality support the role of environment in determining which, if any, biological predispositions that are present in an individual might be expressed. Indeed, that the environment can even modify gene expression is a fact of science.
Hamer’s genetic study. The third study, and perhaps the most sensationalized of the studies to purport a biological basis for homosexuality, was heralded by the media as the discovering the gay gene. Dean Hamer and his group attempted to link male
homosexuality 155
homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located at the tip of the
X chromosome, the chromosome that some men inherit from their mothers. In his study, Hamer examined forty pairs of nonidentical twin, gay brothers, and asserted that thirty-three pairs—a number significantly higher than the twenty pairs that chance would dictate—had inherited the same X-linked genetic markers from their mothers.13
Criticism of Hamer’s research came from a surprising source: Dr. Neil Risch, the scientist at Yale University School of Medicine who invented the method used by Hamer. Risch commented: “Hamer et al. suggest that their results are consistent with X-linkage because maternal uncles have a higher rate of homosexual orientation than paternal uncles, and cousins related through a maternal aunt have a higher rate than other types of cousins. However, neither of these differences is statistically significant.”14
The media touted the discovery of the gay gene, and trumpeted that yet another study had provided proof for the biological genesis of homosexuality. Criticism of Hamer’s study was
not aired. Hamer, like LeVay and Bailey and Pillard, did little to correct the misinterpretation of his research. However, when questioned directly, Hamer offered the following: “We knew . . . that genes were only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most if not all behaviors.”15
Hamer further noted, “He doesn’t believe homosexuality . . . is purely genetic. . . . [Environment plays a role.] We don’t think there’s a single master gene that makes people gay. . . . Hamer said he does not expect . . . to be able to predict who will be gay.”16 Citing the failure of his own research, Hamer concluded, “The pedigree study failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious sort of pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants.”17
What is even more intriguing is that when Hamer’s study was replicated by Rice and his associates, with research that was more robust, the genetic markers were found to be nonsignificant. Rice
156 a. dean byrd
and his fellow researchers concluded, “It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al.’s, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position XQ 28.”18
Overview of biological theories. The biological studies have been extensively reviewed by world-renowned research teams, including Byne and Parsons and Friedman and Downey. Both of these experienced teams reached a singular conclusion: a simple biological model does not fit the current research.19 In fact, Friedman and Downey state, “At clinical conferences one often hears . . . that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true. . . . The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology.”20
Dr. Janet Cummings further noted, “The belief that homosexuality is always inbred flies in the face of available evidence
that genetics, childhood environment, and personal choice are
all factors. Granted, some may be more salient than others,
but from the genetic standpoint alone, the genes responsible
would have disappeared throughout the millennia from lack of reproductive activity.”21
Perhaps the best succinct summary of the research on the genesis of homosexuality comes from Dr. Francis S. Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project at the National Institutes of Health. He offered the following:
An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20 percent (compared to 2–4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by
homosexuality 157
DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.22
Dr. Collins goes on to say that both the environment—particularly childhood experiences—as well as the role of free will affect us all in profound ways.23
So why all the interest in proving that homosexuality is hardwired or that homosexuality is biologically determined? Perhaps LeVay has the answer. He noted that “people who think that
gays and lesbians are ‘born that way’ are more likely to support
gay rights.”24
LeVay’s conclusion finds support from lesbian psychologist Lisa Diamond, who noted that “it may well be that for now, the safest way to advocate for lesbian/gay/bisexual rights is to keep propagating a deterministic model: sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise. If this is an easier route to acceptance (which may in fact be the case), is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?”25
The erosion of the biological argument is reflected in a recent position statement change by the American Psychological Association (APA). The former APA statement (1998) read, “There is considerable evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”26 The recent APA statement (2008) reads:
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons. . . . Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings
have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that
sexual orientation is determined by any factor or set of factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.27
With the erosion of the biological argument, scientists are turning toward the nurture or psychological arguments. Many are beginning to recognize that there are likely many roads that lead into
158 a. dean byrd
and out of homosexuality and that homosexuality is indeed more fluid than once thought. Though there may be biological predispositions underlying homosexuality as there are in many other complex challenges, it is the environment that determines if and when those predispositions manifest themselves."
I have a hard time discussing this issue because I believe that homosexuality is wrong. Marriage is sacred and was meant to be between main and woman so they could have a family. God would not make people homosexual because his plan is for us to live in families and grow towards perfection to be like and be with him again someday. Satan is the one trying to make us believe that homosexuality is fine. One of the reasons it is difficult to express opinions is, because I disagree with homosexuality, some would label me homophobic. That is incorrect. I don't fear homosexuals, I disagree with their acts. I do not fear people who drink alcohol excessively, I disagree with their way of life. There is a difference.
I know I probably talk about this every week, but we are losing our kindness. Because someone chooses differently and we believe they are wrong in their choices, doesn't give us the right to ostracize them or be cruel in any way. Cruelty breeds cruelty and kindness breeds kindness.
