A journey through sexual orientation research
I’ve just spent about a half an hour reading a long article from the Boston Globe magazine entitled “What makes people gay?” It’s a very interesting look at how society and medicine has progressed through the years. It’s far too long to adequately cover here, but the article starts off by looking at identical twins, Patrick and Thomas, one of whom exhibits childhood gender nonconformity (CGN). Statistically, 75% of men that exhibit CGN grow up to be gay or bisexual. This sort of throws a wrench into the theory that homosexuality is a genetic trait. But it doesn’t completely rule out a biological basis for homosexuality. It just muddies the water a bit.
The article continues on through some of the prevailing theories, including suppressed portions of the X chromosome, and ultimately looking at differences between men and women when it comes to sexual arousal. (For men it stems purely from their sexual orientation; for women, it’s quite a bit more complicated.)
Four or five theories later, the ultimate consensus seems to be that homosexuals are born that way, even though it may not be genetic, and that they don’t have a “choice” in when it comes to their sexual orientation. One prevailing motif throughout the entire article is the idea of cause versus effect, which is normally fairly cut and dried, but not when it comes ot sexual orientation research. Is the smaller clump of neurons in the anterior hypothalamus the cause of homosexuality, or is it merely an effect? Regardless, one very old theory has been finally be laid to rest by the scientific community. Most all of Sigmund Freud’s theories have been relegated to medical history rather than actual, working theories, and the same is true of his theories on homosexuality: distant fathers and overprotective mothers result in homosexual men. In fact, distant fathers are probably a result of CGN instead of a cause, which isn’t much of a stretch of the imagination.
I can relate to Neil Swidey when he says “Just when I would become swayed by the evidence supporting one discreet theory, I would stumble onto new evidence casting some doubt on it.” Such is to be expected when one is working in a field which has political and religious groups opposing it. It was, however, nice to see a conservative anti-gay advocate step up to the plate and make some concessions, which is very rare when it comes to science conflicting with religion.
Last month, the Rev. Rob Schenck, a prominent Washington, D.C., evangelical leader, told a large gathering of young evangelicals that he believes homosexuality is not a choice but rather a predisposition, something “deeply rooted” in people. Schenck told me that his conversion came about after he’d spoken extensively with genetic researchers and psychologists. He argues that evangelicals should continue to oppose homosexual behavior, but that “many evangelicals are living in a sort of state of denial about the advance of this conversation.” His message: “If it’s inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don’t have one, we won’t have any credibility.”
I wish I could say that concessions to science have been made on other issues, but they have not. Yet. (With the exception of the Catholic church… stay tuned.) In any case, I couldn’t possibly do the article justice here, because it speaks for itself. It’s well worth the time it takes to read.
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark
this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos