I, for one, am glad that the scientific community keeps searching for the source of "gay", because I would dearly love for the "it's a choice" folks to be proven scientifically and demonstrably wrong. I would love to find that it is a chemical or genetic thing.

I totally agree.

I write about this extensively at Bilerico because there just seems to be this need for people to know why we're gay, and that need seems more powerful than the science behind these studies.

Some of these people pretty much say that they don't know what they're doing, that the associations between homosexuality and a feature that they find aren't that strong, but they still hit the airwaves and get media attention more than they deserve. People want to believe these studies more than they should, and I think that question is a lot bigger and a lot more interesting than the origin of homosexuality.

(And why look for the origin of homosexuality, as these studies tend to do? What about the origin of heterosexuality? Unless, of course, we're starting with the assumption that we're the abberation, and straight is what people should be if they weren't sick.

And what about the origin of bisexuality? Why isn't anyone looking for that in these studies? They reduce human sexuality down to straight and gay, and we know that's not all the human sexual expression that exists.

And, to paraphrase Leslie Feinberg, why isn't anyone looking for the "I was really drunk that one night in college, and..." gene?)

K, comment's already too long. But I totally agree, Miriam. It's way insulting.

Knowing the cause of a biological function does not mean that we are looking for a way to fix it. Knowledge for knowledge sake is a merit.

"Why do they bug me? Because the premise behind studying the why of sexual difference is unfair. When we decide to look for the cause of queer sexual orientations to me that says "here we have a problem. let's find the root cause!" Queer sexualities are not a problem, or an abnormality, or a disease that we need to cure."

I disagree. Who says all studies into Sexuality have to be about "solving" a problem? I don't deny that possibly some studies are like that, but I think it's also equally probable that these studies are just for the sake of knowledge, as Destra pointed out.

For example, a scientist may want to study homosexuality because he's interested in the topic. He doesn't have to be morally opposed to it or anything. Heck, he might not have any problems at all with homosexuality; he might even be gay himself. But maybe he's just curious as to why there's homosexuality, or what makes gay people different, or what the origins of it is.

My point is: don't assume malice or anything negative just because it's possible to draw those conclusions. You're making a leap here that shows your own biases more than the scientist's.

Longtime lurker here, finally coming out of the woodwork to comment. Thanks, Miriam, for articulating my frustration with these "Gay Brain" studies and their accompanying soundbites, and for affirming that being gay is indeed a viable choice. Also, in general, thanks for the necessary voice you bring to Feministing. Keep up the great work.

"And why look for the origin of homosexuality, as these studies tend to do? What about the origin of heterosexuality?"

Yes, the origin of heterosexuality is an enduring mystery in science.

Are you kidding? What the heck do you think reproduction is?

I agree that sexual orientation should be respected whether it's a "choice" or not, cause really, who the hell cares.

But I completely disagree that scientific studies on homosexuality implies that there's something wrong with it and it needs to be "cured." I'm not saying that the attitude doesn't exist anywhere in the scientific community, but really these studies mean one thing--we're human and curiosity is an enormously important aspect of human nature. In a way we never outgrow being the little kid constantly asking "why?" And thank god for it--I believe that the human desire for knowledge and the pursuit of it is one of the most brilliant and beautiful aspects of being human. The pursuit of knowledge should never be censored.

I suppose I'm slightly biased because I just read Mary Roach's fabulously entertaining and informative book "Bonk" which is about the history of sex research.

It seems the problem is more the application or re-publication of the science by non-scientists than the science itself. It's nothing new, though; bad people have been using good science in bad ways for ages. That fact does not justify censoring science.

I completely agree. I support gay rights, and not just because I believe that they were "born that way." I don't think that can ever be determined; like you said, everyone is different, and I doubt there's a one-size-fits-all biological root.

On the other hand, it's still annoying when people say "being gay is a lifestyle"--as if that delegitimatizes the call for gay rights. I guess they don't realize that being in a heterosexual marriage with two kids and traditional gender roles is technically a "lifestyle," too.

Excellent article. Any notion of "curing" homosexuality smacks of tyranny to me.

Though I wouldn't lay the blame primarily on the scientists undertaking the studies. I think for the most part the studies are not trying to conform to a gender or sexuality bias. It's just the spin that's put on them in the media when the studies were reported. What the actual journal article is almost always less racy. Bitch Magazine did a pretty good article a couple issues back on biases in Science and misleading media versions of the studies.

That being said, there are certainly cases where the researchers themselves come to the study with an unfair slant on things. But the good thing is that in a peer reviewed journal faulty methods or un-supported conclusions can be hashed over and refuted by other researchers.

I agree with Destra.

While it is true that some people with egregious religious/political agendas commission for the worst reasons and interpret them in the worst ways, it's not necessarily the fault of the research or the researchers.

Most social scientists who study sex, gender, and sexual orientation have a genuine curiosity as to why society has structured itself the way it has. Is it biological, environmental, a mix of the two, or something completely different? These are things that interest me and I would use the scientific tools available to find them out.

For example, it was good research that has shown us that the differences between men and women are nothing compared to the differences within men and women. The same can be said for sexual orientation.

It's probably not the scientists who are making such broad generalizations from their studies, but the reporters, politicians, and the community leaders who are reading and misstating the findings of the studies to their own ends that make the science seem detestable. Feminists and others should do our best to keep the scientific findings (if well researched and accurate) from being misinterpreted by those who do not truly understand how to read and apply scientific findings.

The feminist movement should not be shutting down research, but helping to guide it. Yes, "Why are you gay?" is an offensive question. But instead of saying that the question is completely invalid, feminism (and other movements that promote equality) should suggest the rephrasing of the question into "What determines sexual orientation?"

Because, "It just is what it is" is not a good enough explanation for many of us.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with your main premise here, that asking and studying the biological whys of sexual orientation is an unfair question.

I'm not going to say that all, or even most such studies go about it the right way. But _asking_ the question doesn't inherently mean that queerness is a problem or a disease that needs curing, any more than asking what causes handedness and ambidexterity means the statistically less-common lefthandedness and ambidexterity are a problem, or what causes different eye colors.

The difference between handedness and eye-color questions from queerness questions is that because issues of privilege and social dynamics are in the mix, so yes, scientists _do_ need to be cautious about the way they address the issue. Especially scientists with hetero privilege.

And you're right, some people (queer and allies alike) have focused on the "it's biological, not a choice" because it's seen as an easier battle to fight, but I think plenty _really do feel_ their orientation was not a choice. And what if they're right, at least about themselves? We shouldn't be dismissing them just because the possibility of a "cure" might make the fight for acceptance harder, any more than we should dismiss the people who strongly feel they chose their orientation just because it opens up the "well, queers could just choose to be straight" objection which might make the fight for acceptance harder.

As a scientist who does some research on sex differences in sexuality, and on evolved sex-specific mechanisms (e.g., effects of LH/Ovulation on women's sexual preferences), I obviously disagree.

I think it is important to study all aspects of sexuality despite pressure to desist from conservatives who stigmatize sexuality and from liberals who fear that evidence of evolved or biological differences might be mis-used by some individuals to justify their prejudices.

In terms of searching for the gay gene, on the whole studies have failed to find persuasive evidence of an underlying hormonal or genetic correlate or cause. The closest is evidence of differences in INAH-3, which controls aspects related to sexuality, but the evidence in humans isn't great. A team of researchers at UCLA, all gay men actually, are currently conducting a series of studies to identify genetic loci that appear related to male homosexuality. Why should they stop searching for a causal explanation for one of the root causes of their sexual preferences? Because some people fear the social consequences?

I think it is important to seriously consider the social consequences, but never to abandon research for this reason.

All researchers, including evolutionary psychologists, emphasize the important role that development, culture, and individual differences play in the development of behavior. There are whole fields in evolutionary psychology devoted to these questions (e.g., see "Life History Theory" and "Cultural Evolution".

The main difference between ev psych and non-ev psych folks is that evolutionary psychologists belief that culture/intelligence/emotions etc. rely heavily on evolved mechanisms in the mind that generate, integrate, and respond to culturally transmitted information.

here's the question i can't answer: scientists like to have everyone believe they're objective. yet science, as a field, is notorious in being discriminatory re: gender, as Lawrence Summer's comments so aptly pointed out (as did the female scientists' response to them). so why should i believe that when scientists study brain sex - whether it's biological gender difference or sexual orientation - they're suddenly gender-neutral?

When we decide to look for the cause of queer sexual orientations to me that says "here we have a problem. let's find the root cause!"

For most scientists, the simple fact that we don't know what causes something is enough of a reason to find out why. It's a shame that the same isn't true for most people.

In any case, being complicated does not preclude understandable cause-and-effect relationships and predictability. For instance, abused children tend to become abusive adults. That's a very simple statement about very complicated behaviors that is both true and useful.

That doesn't hold up too well though if scientists (or psychologists) decide they have a "cure" for homosexuality. Then we no longer can stand behind the I was born that way logic and instead it becomes a choice to fix the problem or not.

Well, of course something being made a choice... makes it a matter of choice. Although it seems like you're referring to false cures, which are obviously a problem, you'll have to accept that the cures might not be false forever, baring the prohibition of certain areas of research. Not like that ever actually stopped anyone.

As a scientist who does some research on sex differences in sexuality, and on evolved sex-specific mechanisms (e.g., effects of LH/Ovulation on women's sexual preferences), I obviously disagree.

I think it is important to study all aspects of sexuality despite pressure to desist from conservatives who stigmatize sexuality and from liberals who fear that evidence of evolved or biological differences might be mis-used by some individuals to justify their prejudices.

In terms of searching for the gay gene, on the whole studies have failed to find persuasive evidence of an underlying hormonal or genetic correlate or cause. The closest is evidence of differences in INAH-3, which controls aspects related to sexuality, but the evidence in humans isn't great. A team of researchers at UCLA, all gay men actually, are currently conducting a series of studies to identify genetic loci that appear related to male homosexuality. Why should they stop searching for a causal explanation for one of the root causes of their sexual preferences? Because some people fear the social consequences?

I think it is important to seriously consider the social consequences, but never to abandon research for this reason.

All researchers, including evolutionary psychologists, emphasize the important role that development, culture, and individual differences play in the development of behavior. There are whole fields in evolutionary psychology devoted to these questions (e.g., see "Life History Theory" and "Cultural Evolution".

The main difference between ev psych and non-ev psych folks is that evolutionary psychologists belief that culture/intelligence/emotions etc. rely heavily on evolved mechanisms in the mind that generate, integrate, and respond to culturally transmitted information.

Then we no longer can stand behind the I was born that way logic and instead it becomes a choice to fix the problem or not.

You're throwing out a possibility: that it is possible for something to be a choice for which either selection is valid. If, as I think it inevitably will be, it becomes possible for a person to change what arouses them, there is only really a problem if we still have the sort of religious morality that allows for only one valid choice. If, on the other hand, there is no such thing, hell, I'd become bisexual just to expand my selection of partners.

MIRIAM: "Why do they bug me? Because the premise behind studying the why of sexual difference is unfair. When we decide to look for the cause of queer sexual orientations to me that says "here we have a problem. let's find the root cause!" Queer sexualities are not a problem, or an abnormality, or a disease that we need to cure."

I agree that sociocultural attitudes towards homosexuality can push research in this direction, and the socialization of scientists in a culture where gay = abnormal certainly can influence there research.

I think some of the most useful advances in studying genetic correlates of homosexuality was when people started asking the question "What causes heterosexuality in men?". If they can identify what set of genes are involved in generating men's attraction to women, they can test whether these are inactivated in many gay men. Which is what researchers are currently doing.

MIRIAM: "They imply simple cause and effect relationships between biology and sexuality that are just not accurate. We are all super complex beings, with many factors that influence who we are and our behaviors."

Which is why the research is so important. In this complex mess of factors that lead to a given preference, can we identify key factors in this process? They won't apply to everyone's experience, but can we identify factors that are common to many individuals?

Are there certain life experiences, hormonal profiles, etc., that send some individuals down one developmental path and others down a different path?

excellent subject. i wrote a paper or two on this last semsester. biological essentialism annoys the fuck out of me. especially these kinds of studies that generally have very small samplings of participants, and often only involve male homosexuality and its relation to "women's" brains (there isn't always a distinction of what these women's sexuality is)

another example of this is a nyt magazine article from last year about the direction of hair whorls in gay and straight men. absolutely ridiculous.
"The Science of Gaydar"

as mentioned above, why is no one searching for a bisexual gene? or do bisexuals only have half a gay gene? and personally, i don't fit into a gay, straight or bisexual category, so what's up with my gene?

on the other hand, saying that we were born gay is the leverage we use in society to obtain rights. frustrating.

a good book to read about using the born this way argument for rights is queer by choice by vera whisman

Studying the traits about people that are not normal as in "the norm" but may be normal as in "natural" is quite reasonable.

There's the science angle as mentioned. At the same time, people who *sponsor* these studies probably don't have scientific motives. And the media definitely doesn't. So maybe it would be nice if the publicity died down.

I'm not gay, so my perspective is probably different, but I find that the idea of wanting to know what influences sexuality is fascinating, and just not handled or reported properly.

I don't believe that anything is wrong with being gay, but it is something that is outside of the mainstream or social "norm" and thus interesting and cause for curiosity.

I was a psych major and I took a Human Sexuality class, so there is a big part of me that wants to understand the root of what determines sexuality and preference. No, I don't think it's a mental disease or a problem (I was horrified when I learned that homosexuality used to be in the DSM), but it's one of the complexities of being human that we don't understand and should.

The results may not be reported well, I'm with you on that. There are too many people who would take such results as a method for "un-gay-ing" people, which I certainly don't agree with. Or think is possible, mainly because I don't think it's a choice. I know some people who are gay or bi and come from a background that made it a very difficult realization (I'm sure it's never an easy one, but I have a friend who was raised southern Baptist with a very conservative family and recently came out). There are some people that I look at and think, there's no way it was a conscious choice. When my friend came out his brother warned him that if he ever brought a partner home he wouldn't be allowed to see his niece or nephews again. Which is horrible, and he knew what his brother was like, so I can't imagine he would have consciously decided to have that life.

Also, I think that sexuality in general is interesting, and I am as interested in figuring out what makes me straight as much as what makes someone else gay. I have a feeling if studies were presented in that way they would be both less offensive (trying to determine what makes something that is "normal" happen isn't as likely to be construed as a problem to be fixed) and less interesting (because who cares about what makes us "normal"? People want to know what causes others to be "different"). Generally determining the root of sexuality would helps us learn what makes you gay as well as what makes you straight.

There are also lots of confounding variables possible in sexuality studies, mainly because they require a lot of self-reporting and differing definitions of gay that could easily skew results.

Personally I straddle the fence on nature/nurture for most things. I think that for most psychological anomalies, there is a predisposition (nature) that must be triggered somehow (nurture). For example, someone could have a predisposition for depression, but if they don't suffer any event that would trigger a depressive episode (usually some kind of personal tragedy or hardship), they may go through life without ever having a problem.

I'm going to add my little disclaimer, I don't think that being gay is abnormal, and I only used "normal" because I couldn't think of anything better, and I am aware that those words can be stigmatizing. I put it in quotes on purpose because it's not MY view, but is unfortunately still the view of a lot of people. I think that we're too complex to define "normal" and "abnormal" when it comes to sexuality. Or most things involving the mind, except in cases where the difference leads to actual harm to oneself or others, or seriously impedes your quality of life. Unfortunately I was only taught words like "abnormal" and "disorder" to describe things, and am having a bitch of a time coming up with something else that's less offensive. I may just be under-caffeinated.

I totally agree, Mirium. It's just total common sense to not ask any questions if I'm worried that I may not like the answers.

Holy fuckballs, I didn't realize how long that was. Sorry for the novel I just wrote. :)

There is definitely a degree to which I agree with Miriam. Many many many, especially older, psychology studies are full of confounds and contradictions and faulty assumptions. Actually, having read a great number of such studies I don't think I managed to read one that didn't have at least a few holes to poke.

But! I also agree with commenters that it isn't necessarily the premise of studying homosexuality and how it arises that causes the problem.

What I'm really interested in addressing here, is a kind of sense I get of a fear of science. It's a fear that from a feminist perspective is really quite understandable since science is a traditionally patriarchal field. This is, I believe, a case in which we lose out by not getting involved in and interested in science. By not having a hand in directing research goals and underlying assumptions. Science is a tool and we should use it as one of the many ways to produce knowledge about ourselves.

Something as complex as human sexuality can never be reduced to a "root cause." I do think science can lend some important insights, but scientists studying humans need to work hand-in-hand with social scientists to understand how their studies aren't as "objective" as they might think. I cite McCaughey's "The Caveman Mystique" here as a brilliant example of some problematic ways HBE scholarship covers sexuality.

And, though my knowledge in it is admittedly layfolk-level, wouldn't neuroplasticity play a role in turning these alleged "gay" genes on and off? (Assuming there are such things.) And I'm glad neonvillage brought up folks who identify as bisexual--how do gay genes explain bi folks who are more attracted to a certain type/sex/gender for a period of time and then find themselves shifting to another (possibly different) attraction later? As neonvillage implies with their post, gay gene/brain studies only serve to put people into confining identity boxes--which interestingly can influence their thoughts and actions regarding themselves due to neuroplastic properties... But I digress.

I find science compelling, as the quest for discovery and further knowledge is exciting, yet when it comes to studying an aspect of the social nature of humans, I wish science wouldn't view all the work social scientists have done on the subject as irrelevant to their work. We are animals, but we're social animals, and that's how we've made it this far as a species!

I am a neurobiologist. My response to this is that there are very few things more interesting than the biological basis of sexual behavior -- all kinds of sexual behavior, and in a wide range of species. A great deal of this does have a biological basis because there have been huge selection pressures working to regulate sex and its manifestations. Just look at a peacock's tail if you have any doubts about this, or the nests built by bower birds. Sexual dimorphisms in physiology and anatomy are very interesting indeed, as are the same polymorphisms when they systematically correlate with different categories of behavior (which is not to say that all the behaviors that fit into a category are identical -- rather, if you don't do some "lumping" in life sciences, you make no progress at all).

These kinds of observations are just as interesting in people as in fruit flies. Moreover, many of the best work on this subject has been authored by gay scientists. They are certainly not looking for the "basis of the pathology" or anything like that.

As to what people make of these studies, and how they are reported, all I can say is welcome to my world. Popular presentations of most of science suck beyond belief, unnecessarily so, and I have had many arguments with my university's press person on the right way to present research I have done. I have stopped cooperating altogether, because frankly what is interesting about my work is not "what it means for the average person in the street", and attempting to make it so only serves to distort what I am trying to do. By the way, my interests are not in sexual behavior.

As for the complexity of human behavior, nobody denies this, but it tends to obscure the biological basis of a portion of it that is higher than most people are willing to admit.

“Knowing the cause of a biological function does not mean that we are looking for a way to fix it.” I also love knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but some scientists are finding ways to reverse homosexuality or to turn flies bisexual. While that may be fascinating, there are also those who are trying to “CURE” homosexuality and its causes. They see it as abnormal. As something that needs to be fixed. I take the disability stance on this: Just because something is “different” doesn’t mean it needs to be “fixed.”

Jake: Watch the gender specific pronouns you’re using. He=they.

“My point is: don't assume malice or anything negative just because it's possible to draw those conclusions. You're making a leap here that shows your own biases more than the scientist's.”

This sounds a lot like MRAs who tell women that “it’s all your in own head.” Or to those people who say “You’re the one who sees the racism, so you must be racist!”

I see studies of sexuality as a threat to my existence as a queer/bisexual woman and to the existence of others in my LGBT community. I on the one hand am sick of studies that focus on my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and yet ignore the broad range that is sexuality. On the other hand, I don’t need these studies to tell me that my sexuality is real. I’m not the one who needs convincing, but I also think that relying only on biological or genetic evidence isn’t the point. I shouldn’t be treated like any other human being simply because of a biological explanation for my existence, but because I’m a human being and every human deserves the right to life without discrimination. I also think it is not safe to deem a study as true if it is only one study. Correlation does not equal causation and all that.

Also, this argument falls into the same issues with the “for the sake of knowledge” argument. A scientist may be interested in studying sexuality, but it still others queerness. I’d also argue that the study of heterosexuality is not reproduction. Those of us in the LGBT community also reproduce, but it’s definitely not deemed “normal” by some people in the mainstream. There are actually some studies done on heterosexuality and what it means to be heterosexual.

I have a background in science and I'm gay, so I'm more than a little interested in all the studies of genes and hormones involved in homosexuality. I've read about the concern that conservatives will push for genetic therapy (which is still a very knew area of research) if a cmpletely biological cause for homosexuality is found. So I have had mixed feelings--on the one hand, it would be very satisfying to cripple the argument that we chose to be gay. On the other hand, the last thing I want is some conservative zealot telling me I should have gene therapy to eradicate my homosexuality.

Given the knowledge we currently have, I'd say it's highly unlikely that there will be a single "gay gene" with an "on/off" switch--eye color is more complex than that! I also don't know if you could change a person's genetic expressions for something so complex. I think it's likely that there will be multiple genes involved, perhaps even different genetic and hormonal cues in different people. So while I understand the "fix it" fear, I don't think it's likely to happen.

It also really bothers me when studies about heterosexual relations are conducted. You know, "essential" differences between men's and women's sexuality. They just send a shudder up my back. I work at a library and I recently came across a book (by a woman, no less) about 'whether female sexuality is really as flexible as male sexuality'. I got really angry right away. It's just like a gut reaction. Like one poster above said, science is traditionally rigid in its views and male-dominated, and all these "studies" about the supposedly massive differences between men and women sort of reeks of essentialism and always has a patronizing tone to it. Kind of like they're saying, "see girls? your sexuality IS inherently different from men so stop whoring around, you sluts."
just makes me mad. I think it all depends on the individual. I have a lot of girlfriends and female family members who are very sexually active, and I also have an equal number of males I know who are just the opposite.

Yes, there are a number of problems with scientific studies of sexuality. Problems range from assumptions and poor reading of the data--studies can only find correlation, not causation. And sometimes interpretations are made ideologically, not skeptically.

However, assuming that orientation is a problem is not one of them, unless you confuse the scientific term "problem," such as a question one wants to solve, with the vernacular term "problem," which is a wrong that needs to be righted. There's nothing inherent about a scientific inquiry that puts a research question in a negative light, although others who interpret findings may decide as much.

Moreover, it's simply dogmatic to assume that there is an incorrect relationship between biology and sexuality before anybody runs any scientific study of this relationship. Until this is undertaken, YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW that relationship does not exist. If you go ahead and assume it does, ignoring the studies that undertake it, then you are making an ideological argument based on your own personal opinions and a selective understanding of gender/orientation studies.

The fact is that there may be a causal relationship between biology and sexuality, and there may also be a societal connection. Or both. Or one multiplies the others. Or one is causally prior to the other.

Until we do scientific studies about this, nobody, not me, not Miriam, not thousands of gender and orientation studies professors, and nobody in this forum, knows the real level and presence of causality between these factors.

Most people aren't gay, so I would say that homosexuality fits the definition of "abnormal" pretty well.

I simply can't agree that studying a well-known deviation from the norm is a value judgement. When people refer to the "problem" of the cause of homosexuality, they're referring to the "problem" of being unable to straightforwardly explain it. If there were to be a single cut-and-dry "gay gene," it wouldn't mean that it produced a pathology. Pathology is in the eye of the beholder (who may very well be wearing glasses).

It all makes you think about the way the term "deviant" is used and what it implies about the importance placed on conformity in our culture.

I think the problem here is that the people in the media writing about these studies are not scientists, and like most non-scientists, do not understand the depth and nuance of scientific inquiry. As a result, they present these studies in an overly simplistic manner, written in terms that the general public can understand.

As others have pointed out, scientists usually ask these kinds of questions out of genuine curiosity, not with the goal of "curing" an abnormality. The media are interested only in grabbing your attention with a sexy lede. Please, do kill the messenger.

Some within the queer community have fought in support of the "I was born this way" logic, because they feel that it is the easiest way to fight against discrimination. Since I can't help being the way I am, you have to respect me and my lifestyle. That doesn't hold up too well though if scientists (or psychologists) decide they have a "cure" for homosexuality.

Good research is always welcome (there sure is a lot of pseudo-scientific crap out there when it comes to gender and sexuality though).

But I agree that "Because I was born that way" is a poor foundation for explaining why LGBT rights are important.

In addition to the possibility of biological "cures" being found, being born a certain way is not what makes a behavior okay.

It could turn out, for example, that some people are "born" pedophiles. That does not make having sexual relationships with children, who are unable to give consent, okay.

What makes being gay okay is that sexual relationships between consenting adults are okay.

"It's a choice" arguments are obnoxious though, because of the implication that people just kind of randomly "choose" to subject themselves to societal discrimination and hatred in the same way that they might choose what color socks to wear in the morning.

The overly simplistic "choice" stuff usually can't stand up to common sense arguments though, even leaving research aside. How easily do most of these folks think they could be converted to "the straight lifestyle"?

But when it comes to human rights, I don't think the question of why people are attracted to who they're attracted to really matters. What matters is that adults have the right to love and/or have sexual relationships with other adults. Period.

I see this issue in many different ways. Yes, I see the point that if we can pinpoint the genetic or otherwise biological reason for "queerness" then there will obviously be groups of people who claim that we can subsequently cure this "abnormality." Of course, this is as asinine as saying that we can "cure" one's skin color as that indeed is the basis upon which many humans have (and still do) gage superiority/inferiority. Now we know the whys and hows we see a myriad of differences in skin/hair/eye color and body form. They are created by nature as a response to environment. So what's the big deal? As we can see many many other animals exhibit homosexual behavior. From this we can make the assumption that perhaps it is nature's way of population control. Or it could be a from of bonding as seen in Bonobos (our cousins) where the females engage in sexual behavior with one another to maintain cohesion and cooperation within the group. Some other primates do it as a way to ease aggression (i.e. end an argument) towards one another. I could go on and on.

Aside from observing the behavior of other animals, specifically other primates (like ourselves), we must realize that for humans sexuality is not so black and white. It is a very physical, mental and emotional act.

Yes, I believe that there is nothing wrong with scientists trying to better understand human physiology and behavior. However, we must also be contented with the fact that science may never be able to fully explain human nature due to the extreme complexity of our species.

Are you kidding? What the heck do you think reproduction is?

Um, a result of heterosexuality, not the cause.

gaimangirl commented at June 25, 2008 11:34 AM: "I agree that sexual orientation should be respected whether it's a 'choice' or not, cause really, who the hell cares.

"But I completely disagree that scientific studies on homosexuality implies that there's something wrong with it and it needs to be 'cured.' I'm not saying that the attitude doesn't exist anywhere in the scientific community, but really these studies mean one thing--we're human and curiosity is an enormously important aspect of human nature. In a way we never outgrow being the little kid constantly asking 'why?'"

Indeed. It's like the way scientific studies on astronomy don't always necessarily imply that there's something wrong with the cosmos.

Dio commented at June 25, 2008 11:34 AM: "It seems the problem is more the application or re-publication of the science by non-scientists than the science itself. It's nothing new, though; bad people have been using good science in bad ways for ages."

Exactly!

ellestar commented June 25, 2008 12:05 PM: "For example, it was good research that has shown us that the differences between men and women are nothing compared to the differences within men and women."

Likewise, that good research is valuable in debunking the ones who claim men and women are opposites instead of staying no more credible than they are.

How easily do most of these folks think they could be converted to "the straight lifestyle"?

Oops, meant to say "converted from"

Xana: I also love knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but some scientists are finding ways to reverse homosexuality or to turn flies bisexual. While that may be fascinating, there are also those who are trying to “CURE” homosexuality and its causes. They see it as abnormal. As something that needs to be fixed. I take the disability stance on this: Just because something is “different” doesn’t mean it needs to be “fixed.”

You're still assuming that because "some" scientists are doing this, then that means that all studies into homosexuality are a threat. For example, you say:

Xana: I see studies of sexuality as a threat to my existence as a queer/bisexual woman and to the existence of others in my LGBT community.

This seems pretty reactionary, don't you think? What's the harm in studies being done on the topic of homosexuality? Does it make you less gay? Is more knowledge of homosexuality bad? How is it a threat?

Also, what would you say if, hypothetically, I said something like "I see studies of sexuality as a threat to my existence as a heterosexual man."? It seems sorta like a ridiculous statement to me.

You can't support "knowledge for knowledge's sake" and then turn around and say that certain knowledge is forbidden because you don't want to accept the possiblity that there might be bad consequences to it. If you follow that line of reasoning, you might as well oppose all scientific research, since scientific research has lead to bad things like nuclear weapons (never mind anything else it begets).

Knowledge isn't a bad thing in and of itself, it's what people do with it. Oppose that, not the knowledge itself, or the pursuit of said knowledge. Don't be anti-science just because it doesn't support your idealogy.

As an aside: I apologize for any gender-specific pronouns. Sorry, force of habit; I'll try and be more aware of what I type.

It seems the problem is more the application or re-publication of the science by non-scientists than the science itself. It's nothing new, though; bad people have been using good science in bad ways for ages. That fact does not justify censoring science.

True, but I wouldn't say that's the only problem. People have also just plain been doing bad science for ages.

Which also does not justify censoring science, of course.

I think you need to make some serious distinctions before condemning all studies of gender, sex, and sexuality.

First of all, there is the reporting, which many people have mentioned already.

Second, there is/are the researcher(s). Some scientists are terrible researchers, some are mediocre researchers, some are amazing researchers. But like any other intellectual field, one can't just take an authority's word for it because s/he has an advanced degree and some power.

Third, there is the bias the scientist brings to the study. All scientists have bias but the best ones recognize it and do their best to reduce, mitigate, or openly identify these biases.

Fourth, the climate in which research is done is important too. You wouldn't just accept a study done by a right-wing thinktank or commissioned by, say, the Family Research Council, and there are finer distinctions to be made between sponsors and institutions that have an impact on the findings and our interpretation of them.

Fifth, most scientists are not doing groundbreaking work. We are often lead to believe that people like Darwin and actions like his realization of the possibility of evolution are common in science but the truth is that most science seeks to support the status quo. I can't explain this like Thomas Kuhn can but basically, most research is performed as checking of previous research; if you remember, one of the requirements of certain scientific tests is reproducibility.

And finally, the field the research comes from is important too. Biology can't usually, for instance, tell us much of significance about our cultural categorizations beyond their actual meaninglessness.

So there are lots of problems with science, and I do think we should be skeptical, but dismissing this kind of thing altogether is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I think it's very important to be aware of the difference between the scientific community and the media. Although the media may portray a study that has a basis in figuring out homosexuality often it is based in a larger study of sexuality. The media often skews the results of studies by over-simplifying it. One must not necessarily judge the scientist (unless one has had her/his paper) but more so the mass media.

I share some of Miriam's concerns, butI tend to think (along with a lot of people on this thread) that much of the problem is in the reporting on these studies and the public understanding of them.

The biggest thing that bothers me is the way people constantly conflate "socially created" with "optional": assuming that if we could prove that homosexuality (or some other characteristic) was socially created, a person can just change it by force of will. This is, of course, silly: just try becoming a native speaker of Estonian by force of will, for example.

And this is really just a part, I think, of the widespread sense that social and cultural effects are essentially "unreal": which leads to people, e.g., observing different physical effects in male and female brains, and then saying "see! it's genetic and unchangeable" -- on the assumption, of course, that differences produced by culture take place only in the mystic, intangible soul, and have no manifestation in the physical world. Almost nobody would actually claim this, but people constantly act as if it were true.

So I don't really mind scientific studies on sex, gender and sexuality, as long as people understand what they're finding and what they aren't.

"But what if it was a choice? I think that should be respected just like anything else. I'm in support of sexual practices between consenting adults, no questions asked."

Exactly. As an activist I am more concerned with creating that kind of world, one where it'd be okay to choose to be gay, than with what scientists are studying.

I'm not feeling Miriam's argument here. Science is about finding answers to questions, and we shouldn't ignore topics if we think we may not like the answers. And homosexuality does raise some interesting questions. At first glance, it seems like it would hinder a species' survival to have some of its members not participating in reproduction, and yet every time homosexuality has been looked for in a species, it has been found. Scientists wondered why this was, and found that having some homosexual members in a species is beneficial to the species' survival.
Heterosexuality doesn't raise as many questions--obviously, if a species is to survive, it needs to reproduce, but there is still research on heterosexuality and why certain characteristics are favored in mate selection and the like.
Researchers can, obviously, be biased. This is more prevalent in social sciences, but even in the natural sciences researchers can let their biases get in the way of their objectivity when it comes to controversial studies. However, this is no reason to discontinue studies on the differences between men and women, gays and straights, blacks and whites, etc., just a call for more objectivity training. There are differences between us, and some of these tend to be grouped along certain demographic lines. Some of these differences are biological, some social and cultural, but the only way to find out is to research them and expand the body of knowledge. And most of the time, that research is going to disprove the popular "wisdom" about "natural" differences between us that encourage discrimination.

Here's a nice example of a lousy article reporting a (possibly lousy) study on men and women's attitudes towards one night stands. It is too simplistic and irritating for words. I will say that I just love it when reporters/scientists evoke notions of evolutionary fitness and totally ignore socialization.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7475695.stm

Are you kidding? What the heck do you think reproduction is?

Um, a result of heterosexuality, not the cause.

One of the full-time biologists here might need to correct me if I'm wrong (I'm a dabbler), but if my memory doesn't betray me, I think the general understanding is that "heterosexuality" (or at least the urge to mate with the opposite sex) is the consequence of reproduction. Weren't different sexes of organisms that reproduce by shedding/dispersing gametes were around with only unicellular company for a long time before coitus-dependent animals had to find a way to get their gametes to tango?

On a less technical note, I also am not categorically opposed to research of this sort (although I am pretty categorically opposed to the mainstream media's handling of it). Learning more about why people work the way they do, whether in terms of sexuality or depth perception, can be very beneficial. As to why it matters whether sexuality is innate or chosen - my understanding is that this does have some bearing in terms of legal considerations and standing in many systems. For that matter, I don't think I've ever met anyone who felt s/he'd chosen to be straight, gay, bi, or anything else.

You know, looking at this thread -- and the comments of helen and Xana, as well as the original post, I have to say part of the problem is a lot of feminists don't understand science well.

This isn't because they are women or stupid. It's the same reason brought up by CP Snow waaay back in the 50s; I can graduate a humanities program at any university and never take a science class.

The same isn't quite as true of scientists. I made the switch from science to the humanities, and I have to say the level of ignorance about my former field was a hell of a lot higher on the part of humanities students than it was the other way around. This was, by the way, independent of the gender politics of the person involved.

Also, it's a lot harder for a humanities student to switch to science if they haven't taken it before. That's because physics, for instance, requires a lot of math that is built up over years -- you can't just jump into calculus and differential equations without the building blocks.

The humanities, on the other hand, are a little more fragmented, and frankly just don't require as much preparation.

I can be a science guy and jump right into Plato. Having read a lot of greek philosophy beforehand isn't as necessary, though it helps. I can be an expert on Joyce and never read Plato. I can read Audre Lourde and understand it pretty well without ever having read anything like it before.

I'm not saying science isn't divided into different fields, but there are some basic concepts that are common to all the sciences, and it means that a biologist and a physicist at least have some common basis for discussion. It also means that once you learn one science field it's a lot easier to understand the others, just as learning a first foreign language makes it easier to pick up more, even if you never become fluent.

All this means is that a lot of feminists are humanities people who usually haven't been exposed to much in the way of science or math. I'd bet the last time Miriam took a heavy science or math class was a long time ago.

This creates a lot of distrust.

Because the sciences were a male-dominated field (just like medicine, by the way) for so long, and there was a lot of bad gender "science" out there, a common attitude I see (such as helen's comment) is that because there was a bad science before we should never listen to them or study stuff like this again. But I implore you to remember that those same patriarchal scientists invented the Pill, which has done a lot for women.

Plenty of feminists are damn good experts on all kinds of literature, class analysis, and the like. I have met very few if any who were really interested in physics, for instance, and few who understood what scientists mean when they say "problem," "theory," or "result." Those words are very different to a scientist.

In one sense it isn't any worse than in the general population. But since the consequences for women are important, i'd say that's *more* of a reason to learn about this stuff.

I think the distrust and misunderstanding would be less if feminists treated Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould the way they do Catherine McKinnon or any other "canonical" feminist writer. I'd even argue that an understanding of science should be considered essential to be a feminist, if for no other reason than it's necessary to discuss women's health, for instance.

Before the flaming starts, I want to say that my concerns over people not getting science are the same whatever their sexual politics. I come to it thinking that without a firm understanding of the subject we're defenseless against the religious (and completely anti-woman) religious nutjobs who are bent on taking over our schools and pushing things like abstinence only education or creationism.

"Why do they bug me? Because the premise behind studying the why of sexual difference is unfair. When we decide to look for the cause of queer sexual orientations to me that says "here we have a problem. let's find the root cause!" Queer sexualities are not a problem, or an abnormality, or a disease that we need to cure."

I disagree. Studying sexuality is about learning about how it works, what we find attractive, and finding out new information about what makes us human. Sexuality is a fascinating topic that deserves inquiry. It's not at all about saying there is a problem, especially with queer sexuality.

Science tries to not be influenced by liberal and conservative politics, sociological mores, and psychological "studies" that are often very politicized. Plus the media often makes its own spin on scientific studies. Have you ever read a media article on a scientific study, and then actually tracked down the study? I have, and I've seen how the media "report" was actually a boilerplate political hack piece that misrepresented a scientific study in order to support or reject a political position. The "report" actually had very little to do with the actual scientific study.

I have a different take on why a lot of people are wary.

The level of good science and quality reporting in some areas of study have become degraded in recent years.

Furthermore some areas of study are just too heavily based on observation. Controlled studies (on the origins of human sexuality) that would be rigorous enough to actually demonstrate a hypothesis beyond simple correlation would be unethical or downright impossible without a time machine.

So to compensate scientists do a lot of looking around: checking out nature, old bones, other animals; or imaging a person's brain, taking hormone levels and asking people questions.

Don't get me wrong. We can learn a lot about human sexuality be making observations. We can understand more about group trends, but the data usually tells us less about individuals.

Furthermore, we know that culture tends to exaggerate or reinforce biological differences. We also know that scientists making the observations sometimes make false assumptions due to their own biases or limited understandings.

We know all this, yet data still gets overblown and book deals still get made. And even when data unequivocally point to a truth, the brightest of us can fall into the naturalistic fallacy (the one that says if something is natural then that means it's OK or desirable or if something unnatural then it is bad).

Okay, so we're a culture obsessed with find the genetics behind things. For instance, we found the breast cancer "gene".
Having the gene doesn't mean you'll get breast cancer. Not having the gene doensn't mean you'll never get it. It means your more susceptible.
Humans are a complex organism. We can break down the brain into a simple one -answer explanation. There's nature, there's nuture and there's choice. There's a complex play of things that go into making a person what they are.

Jer: you said you'd love the choice people to be disproved. But what about people who CHOOOSE to be queer? http://queerbychoice.com What do we do with them?

In short, I believe, there is no short answer to the question: what makes people gay?
It's like asking what makes people shy, or outgoing, or like a certain type of music.

Okay, so we're a culture obsessed with find the genetics behind things. For instance, we found the breast cancer "gene".
Having the gene doesn't mean you'll get breast cancer. Not having the gene doensn't mean you'll never get it. It means your more susceptible. (forgive me if this came through twice)
Humans are a complex organism. We can break down the brain into a simple one -answer explanation. There's nature, there's nuture and there's choice. There's a complex play of things that go into making a person what they are.

Jer: you said you'd love the choice people to be disproved. But what about people who CHOOOSE to be queer? http://queerbychoice.com What do we do with them?

In short, I believe, there is no short answer to the question: what makes people gay?
It's like asking what makes people shy, or outgoing, or like a certain type of music.

My objection to the study is that it assumes a "women's brain vs. male brain" dichotomy. Where did they get this idea from? Testing adults, primarily in Western countries given the location of the likely researchers.

As an Anthropology concentrator, I know that socialization starts right when the kid comes out of the womb, from how he/she is handled to how the child is dressed. Thus, the brain differences may actually be a result of such socialization to cultural norms.

"You know, looking at this thread -- and the comments of helen and Xana, as well as the original post, I have to say part of the problem is a lot of feminists don't understand science well."

/snort Wow, fuck you. Some of us understand science but don't necessarily ascribe to all of its foundations or need science to tell us about our sexuality.