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