A lengthy, interesting Boston Globe article about why people are gay. It looks at all the recent studies and concludes that people are "born" that way, though well-funded studies are needed and there's a lot more to learn. Basically a sympathetic, friendly article for gays. But, hey, this is a blog and blogs were born to nitpick, so here goes. (Thanks to threader Gypsy Queen for pointing us to this.)
What makes the case of Patrick and Thomas so fascinating is that it calls into question both of the dominant theories in the long-running debate over what makes people gay: nature or nurture, genes or learned behavior.Actually, only the MSM would describe the debate that way. It's been pretty clear to researchers (and obvious to queers) that sexual orientation is typically due to some combination of genetics and "environment," with environment typically referring to in utero exposure to certain amounts of hormones, etc. People are genetically disposed to being gay and that orientation is "locked in" by the time we're three at most, and most of the factors that lead to it are in utero. (A gross generalization, of course.) But no one serious in the field has argued for many years that dad refusing to play catch with his eight year old son is a contributing factor. Of course, this doesn't account for rare and unusual cases where children are raised in extreme or oppressive environments that lead to sexual confusion or messed-up psychology, nor does it deal with frat boys who are really drunk and really horny.
Proving people are born gay would give them wider social acceptance and better protection against discrimination, many gay rights advocates argue. In the last decade, as this "biological" argument has gained momentum, polls find Americans - especially young adults - increasingly tolerant of gays and lesbians.No, young people are "tolerant" -- a better word might be "indifferent" or even "gay positive" -- not because of any biological argument but because quite simply they've grown up with gay classmates who've come out at earlier and earlier ages, they've grown up with TV and movies and cable shows where gay characters are common and unnoteworthy (everything from "The Real World" to "Will & Grace" and "Survivor") and thanks to gay civil rights movements many have gay relatives out there in the world. That's why young people think being gay is normal and a part of life -- it is normal and it's always been a part of their life.
Most women, whether they identified as straight, lesbian, or bisexual, were significantly aroused by straight, gay, and lesbian sex. "I'm not suggesting that most women are bisexual," says Michael Bailey, the psychology professor whose lab conducted the studies. "I'm suggesting that whatever a woman's sexual arousal pattern is, it has little to do with her sexual orientation."Yes, it's the return of J. Michael Bailey, a researcher who is quoted several times in this article, even though the simplest of Google searches would show Bailey is at the very least a controversial figure who shouldn't be quoted without some serious caveats. As Americablog readers know, Bailey lost his prominent post as head of department at Northwestern because of a lengthy year-long investigation that examined credible charges of unethical behavior including lying to subjects he used for studies, sleeping with subjects and more. Bailey has also been linked by the Southern Poverty Law Center to extremist fringe hate groups and pro-eugenics groups, with Bailey seeing no ethical dilemma if people want to abort babies they believe will be gay.
(In fairness, there aren't many leaders of groups representing social and religious conservatives who still argue that homosexual orientation - as opposed to behavior - is a matter of choice. Even as he insists that no one is born gay, Peter Sprigg, the point person on homosexuality for the Family Research Council, says, "I don't think that people choose their sexual attraction.")Here's an example of bending over backwards to be "fair" when in fact you're misleading readers. Far right hate groups don't deserve any "credit" for avoiding flat-out statements that being gay is a choice -- they've been forced to retreat on this stance simply because society won't accept that lie any more, the same way that racists have to be more subtle about their hatred of blacks and other minorities (you can publish "The Bell Curve" but you can't just spew the hate that other races are inferior). The writer doesn't even mock the spokesperson for the hate group Family Research Council who makes the contradictory argument that he doesn't think people choose their sexual attraction but they aren't born gay, either. Well, which is it? Both can't be true. Besides, what's with teh caveat "as opposed to behavior?" I suppose straight people are born that way but "choose" to have sex with people of the opposite sex, but that's a meaningless distinction, isn't it?
Still, no matter how imperfect these studies are, when you put them all together and examine them closely, the message is clear: While post-birth development may well play a supporting role, the roots of homosexuality, at least in men, appear to be in place by the time a child is born. After spending years sifting through all the available data, British researchers Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman come to an even bolder conclusion in their forthcoming book Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation, in which they write: "Sexual orientation is something we are born with and not `acquired' from our social environment."Fair enough. Do you agree? (And if you want to send an email, the address is letter@globe.com).
