Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!bbncca!sdyer From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: Biological basis for homosexuality? Message-ID: <1184@bbncca.ARPA> Date: Sun, 2-Dec-84 17:20:36 EST Article-I.D.: bbncca.1184 Posted: Sun Dec 2 17:20:36 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 06:42:39 EST References: <2159@randvax.UUCP> Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 81 Keywords: "cures", societal norms, benign vs. problematic variance Many people, certainly many in the gay community, have criticized the study on the following grounds: sample size - 14 gay men is not a very large population, and the number of gay men who actually demonstrated an exceptional reaction to the administration of estrogen was smaller--9 is the figure I remember. screening - There was no screening for factors like drug use which could have a large effect on hormonal responses. Given the population from which they selected their subjects (gay bars in urban settings) this is worrysome. selection - There were no gay women in the study, a glaring omission explained away, rather lamely, by the researchers asserting that they couldn't find any gay women (sounds like they weren't asking the right people.) Certainly, a demonstrable difference from the baseline by gay people of both sexes would have strengthened any conclusions they might make. As someone trained as a scientist, I am fascinated by basic research, but it is also useful to remember the political and social contexts in which scientific research, however "pure", operates. Where might we go from here? Suppose that one's primary sexual orientation is linked to the morphology of certain brain structures, that these structures differ from the norm in people with an affinity for the same sex, and that it is shown that hormonal changes in the mother during fetal development influence the ultimate morphology of the child's brain, and thus exerts a strong influence on the child's sexual preference? This is not too far-fetched a theory, and the experiment mentioned above is a first step in data collection. What is thought to be benign, or even benevolent, individual variance in one culture, or at some point in time, may be considered "bad", "evil", or a problem, in other cultures, or at other points in time. Unfortunately, if society finds a "cause" for a event which is considered a problem, it immediately suggests the existence of a "cure." For comparison, look at the attitudes of Victorian society towards masturbation and many of the often hilarious, and sometimes chilling "cures" for this "affliction." Though the strides of the gay rights movement in the past 15 years are well-recognized, I think it is safe to claim that there is a very very long way to go, and that same-sex sexual orientation is still classified by many as a "problem." Even if one feels that a purely biological view of sexual behavior is hopelessly reductive and unprofitable when taken out of the laboratory, many will grasp at anything blessed with the imprimatur of "science" and use it in the formulation of policy. Let's examine the possible "cures" which might result if this research in the biological bases of sexual preference bore fruit: - during pregnancy, a woman is noted to have the hormonal changes which predispose her child to homosexual behavior (surely a simple home screening test of blood, urine or salive might be prepared.) She decides to have an abortion on the basis of this finding. - a woman with a previous history of this hormonal variance is treated by her gynecologist to ensure that this does not occur during her next pregnancy. - a child is born, the mother was notified of this hormonal variation during her pregnancy, and it is noted on the child's medical record. What effect will this have on the parents in their care and raising of the child, given the societal mores which indicate this is a significant enough problem that it should be measured at all? What effect will this biological "marker", or Scarlet Letter, have on the child's own self- esteem, integration into society and ultimate sexual behavior? The issue here is not scientific knowledge or technology, but their use as tools to implement what society feels is "good", often to the detriment of individual variation and freedom. It is incumbent upon people to speak against such goals when they are voiced, to question their underlying assumptions, and to continue the goal of education, to help persuade people otherwise when they describe same-sex sexual orientation as a "problem" which needs to be cured. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA