- Alan Petrillo I agree.
- Jay Ashworth So, does this mean that Eva Walchover's sister, Emily*, who did not do her homework properly, was still right?
'
(*Eva has been a producer on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me for at least the last 6 years, and has just left to go be a producer on the new Stephen Colbert show.) - Alan Petrillo I must say, I do like this comment on one of the articles I read while researching this piece:
Samantha Allen, Daily Beast columnist, stated in her Nov. 20, 2014 article titled "The Problematic Hunt for a 'Gay Gene,'" published on thedailybeast.com:
"After 40 years of discourse defending homosexuality by asserting that it’s an inborn trait, that particular line of argumentation is starting to wear thin. There’s a new 'gay gene' study making the rounds this week and while some members of the press are celebrating the study as objective and necessary evidence that homosexuality is not a 'choice,' most gay, lesbian, and bisexual people I know could not care less… If it’s hard to get excited about these studies, it’s because, at this point, biological explanations for homosexuality are like iPhones—a new one comes out every year… At its best, the idea that sexual orientation has a genetic influence functions as a sharp rhetorical strategy in a homophobic world that demands proof that homosexuality is not 'a choice' in order to recognize its validity… It doesn’t matter whether or not you were 'born this way,' what matters is being accepted the way you are, however you got there." - Jay Ashworth Which is the first time we've heard that. I guess cuz its ok to not have to fight that fight anymore. Same reason we're seeing serious discussion of polyamory.
- Alan Petrillo Yup. Like I've been saying for years, let people constitute their families as they see fit without interference from the state. I guess this is another instance in which to be an actual conservative you have to be a liberal.
- Robert Luis Rabello My mother was always terrified that I'd grow up to be homosexual for the social reasons you'd outlined. The trouble with her perspective was, that for as long as I can remember, I'd look at a woman's body and think, "Yeah, I'd like some of that!" I've never had the same response when it came to a man's body.
A friend of mine who IS gay echoed a similar sentiment with male physiques. He's never found women attractive. So how could our respective sexual preferences POSSIBLY be a choice?
An acquaintance of mine has said “There is no biological basis for sexual orientation. None. It is entirely a social construct.”
He’s wrong, and he’s provably wrong. The most definite statement anyone actually studying the issue can say is “Sexual orientation is complex and is not well understood.” Science supporting a biological basis for sexual orientation can be found in about 15 seconds with a single Google search, and then confirmed with a couple of hours of reading.
In November, 2014 a team of researchers confirmed a link between same-sex orientation and genes on the X chromosome.
http://www.assaf.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/8-June-Diversity-in-human-sexuality1.pdf
From the study’s conclusions:
“9.1 Role of Biological Factors
There is substantial biological evidence for the diversity of human sexualities and for sexual
orientations in particular. Studies have found significant linkage between male sexual orientation
and regions of the X chromosome. This particular region on the X chromosome
is also associated with other elements of sexual development. These findings, initially published
in 1993 and confirmed in 2014, directly associate a particular trait (same-sex orientation)
to genetic material for at least some same-sex-attracted men. The mechanisms
through which gene expression impacts on sexual orientation remain to be determined.
Although less well studied, there is also considerable evidence for a biological component
for same-sex orientation in women.”
Further, the study goes on to indicate that one of the reasons this gene complex still exists is that female relatives of gay men tend to be more fertile, bear more children, and have fewer gynecological problems than female relatives of heterosexual men. It could be that male homosexuality is a side effect of genes that makes particularly powerful women.
“The study is three times larger than any previously done and highlights two genetic regions that have been tied to male homosexuality in separate research: Xq28, first identified in 1993, and 8q12, spotted in 2005.”
The 2005 study can be found here:
The thesis statement is “Human sexual preference is a sexually dimorphic trait with a substantial genetic component.”
Harvard neuroscientist Simon LeVay, in his book /Gay, Straight And The Reason Why/ posits that prenatal interactions between hormones and the developing brain influence adult sexuality.
http://www.amazon.com/Gay-Straight-Reason-Why-Orientation/dp/0199931585
http://www.simonlevay.com/the-science-of-sexual-orientation
LaVey makes and supports the following statements:
· Homosexual behavior is common among non-human animals, and in at least one species (sheep) individual animals have a durable preference for same-sex partners.
· Gay and straight people differ in a wide variety of gendered traits, during both childhood and adulthood.
· There is evidence that sex hormones influence the development of these gendered traits.
· There is evidence that genes influence sexual orientation and gender.
· Differences in brain organization exist between gay and straight people.
· Differences exist in the structure and function of the bodies of gay and straight people.
· Birth order influences sexual orientation in men, apparently through biological processes.
Apart from genetics, several studies have focused on other issues affecting sexual preference, such as hormones. One example is this study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/24/9968.abstract
The upshot of the study is that serotonin levels can affect sexual preference. The study focused on female mice, and used a strain of mice bred for low serotonin levels compared to a control group of normal mice. The female mice with low serotonin levels were gynephilic, preferring contact with other females over males. Could the same be true in Human females? Only time and further studies will tell. But we already know that drugs that affect serotonin levels, such as SSRI’s, do affect sexuality, especially in women.
For that matter, just look up the Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
There are over a hundred reference notes, and a thick stack of bibliography.
Further, all of the above referenced studies all mention the effects of biology on children born with genital deformities who were raised as the opposite gender from what they were biologically, and notes that almost without exception when their biological gender asserted itself their sexual preference did too. Children of indeterminate gender at birth but biologically male, even when raised as girls grew up gynephilic. Children of indeterminate gender, but biologically female grew up androphilic.
Other studies have looked into the effects of environmental factors, such as estrogen mimics in plastics, insecticides, herbicides, and other chemicals in our modern environment. Even phytoestrogens in our food, such as our heavy dependence on soy products not only for our own food, but also in animal feed may have an effect.
Now, certainly these studies have their detractors, even within the scientific community. As well they should, as debate and consensus are part of the scientific process. And the studies do have their flaws, as has been pointed out in peer review. But at this point the preponderance of the evidence seems to point to biology as the major influencing factor in sexual orientation.
As for the claim that homosexuality is “unnatural”, nothing could be further from the truth. Same-sex pairbonds or mating behavior have been observed in many species. A partial list, with references, can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Departing science for anecdotes, I can speak from my own experience.
I have a lot of GLBTQ friends. Outside of work, something like half of my social circle is somewhere on the GLBTQ spectrum. You might say I know more gay people than any het man has any right to. Without exception all of them knew they were different from a very young age. That alone should indicate some kind of biological process in action.
For one of my gay friends, not only is he gay, but he has two sisters, both of whom are gay. The gay genes run strong in their family. The odd thing is that they identify themselves as deeply Christian, and politically conservative. Yes, there are gay Republicans.
The aforementioned studies indicate that women have a much wider continuum of sexual orientation than do men, and that orientation can be more fluid and can change over the course of their lives. My own experience recapitulates this. I know several women who were exclusive lesbians when they were younger, but when they began to approach middle age, and started to feel the biological clock ticking, became more attracted to men. They don’t refer to this as a conscious choice, and one of them was quite astonished at herself when it happened to her. For them the change just seemed natural.
As for me personally, if the theories of behaviorism, and social contagion were correct then I should be gay myself, but I’m not. Going by the theory of behaviorism, I have a close relationship with my mother, a distant and hostile relationship with my father, I was never into the typical “rough and tumble” behavior of most boys. I was always bookish, and I have gravitated more toward science and the arts than sports. Add to that an incident with a babysitter when I was a child, and if the theories of behaviorism and social contagion were correct then I should be gay. But I’m not.
In the mid-1990’s, after I got out of the Army, for a while it seemed like every woman I dated was bisexual. This led me to closely examine my own sexual preferences. I looked at myself closely to see if I had any sexual attraction at all to other men. I found none. I can appreciate an attractive man from a purely aesthetic standpoint, especially as a photographer, sometimes to the point of being poetic about it, but I don’t get that visceral thrill that I do when looking at an attractive woman. So despite what the theories of behaviorism and social contagion say I should be, I am a contentedly gynephilic, heterosexual male.
And in the end I expect what I have written here won’t matter to a committed homophobe. When faced with evidence refuting his claim that “there is no science supporting sexual orientation, it is entirely a social construct,” I expect we will see the Backfire Effect in its full glory, and the homophobe will deny or dismiss the evidence and keep singing the same mantra. When presented with well written scientific papers published in respected peer-reviewed journals, or when asked to produce the same to support his claim he will handwave it and dismiss the science as a “liberal conspiracy”.
No comments:
Post a Comment