Bio Prof on Homosexuality

[Swamp56]

I was at a New Year's Party, and one of the people there was a professor of biology and biochemistry at Tufts University (an extremely prestigious school). I got on the subject of homosexuality and I wanted to see his opinion.

He stated that, while there is no proof, he thinks that it's biological (though he didn't get any more specific). He mentioned that if it were in fact biological, that it would/could be considered a disorder. Of course, the definition of a disorder would be classified as an irregularity of a specific attribute (which alternative sexuality's are). He went on to express concern over the fact that many people think they can "cure" or "fix" certain disorders, when there really is nothing we can do (yet) about them; an example, of course, being homosexuality. Even with this view, it seems that he liked the fact that homosexuality was taken out of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).

As a matter of fact, I talked to him about my psych prof (who argued that he could change someone's sexuality with rigorous therapy in 1 year), and he scoffed and thought it was an outrage that someone could actually think that.

One of the things he touched upon was the fact that many people in the gay community wouldn't like their sexuality considered a "disorder". I'm guessing that this would be attributed to the pejorative sense the world "disorder" has in terms of everyday vocabulary and also societal views.

Overall, he seemed to be a real nice guy who was extremely well read in the biology/biochem field. He went on to talk about genetics and some other topics related to the field that he is involved with.

[Just Adam]

sounded a positive convo.

Originally Posted by Swamp56

One of the things he touched upon was the fact that many people in the gay community wouldn't like their sexuality considered a "disorder". I'm guessing that this would be attributed to the pejorative sense the world "disorder" has in terms of everyday vocabulary and also societal views.

What are classified diseases and disorders, especially when it comes to mental health, change over time and depend largely on the social context. Homosexuality is no longer defined as a disease but something like alcoholism for example is now a disease. What society defines as diseases are those things which keep us from becoming productive members of society. In Western society, where having kids is no longer the be all and end all of life, homosexuality no longer makes sense as a disorder. For my grandparents generation, having kids was probably the most important thing a person could do as a productive member of society and therefore homosexuality, which kind of prevented this, was disordered.

[Swamp56]

Originally Posted by LostandFound

What are classified diseases and disorders, especially when it comes to mental health, change over time and depend largely on the social context. Homosexuality is no longer defined as a disease but something like alcoholism for example is now a disease. What society defines as diseases are those things which keep us from becoming productive members of society. In Western society, where having kids is no longer the be all and end all of life, homosexuality no longer makes sense as a disorder. For my grandparents generation, having kids was probably the most important thing a person could do as a productive member of society and therefore homosexuality, which kind of prevented this, was disordered.

What you are citing as a disorder is society's definition and not the actual scientific definition. Society's definitions on things usually are incongruent with that of the scientific community.

But what the medical community calls a disorder is in many ways based on what the prevailing social mindset is. My point was just that diseases and disorders, especially when it comes to mental stuff, change with time and place depending on the social context. Two hundred years ago, depression likely wasn't considered an illness, now it is a very prevalent illness.

[Astaroth]

Actually, depression was considered an illness, and it was treated with shock therapy.

But I agree with the general gist of what you're saying. A lot of the non-viral and non-bacterial diseases, upon first glance, seem to be entirely social. However, most of those illnesses cause some sort of chemical change - particularly in the brain - that leads to destructive behavior. This is why homosexuality was eventually taken off the list. While it most likely does involve some sort of altered chemistry of the body (brain, genes, hormones... take your pick), it doesn't naturally lead to any destructive behavior. In fact, it's always benign. Therefore, it's not a disease, just an alteration of a societal "norm."

[Andromeda]

Who cares if it's a disorder? It's a good one, if even Lindsay Lohan has some of it!

Kind of what others said, but it would only be considered a disorder depending on how our culture views homosexuality. Homosexuality is *not* considered a disorder anymore (or mental illness). And even though our USA culture isn't super homo friendly, I think they would find it nearly impossible to call it a disorder lol. There would be a massive outcry, esp since all that "ex gay" stuff doesn't work.

[Revan]

It's funny to me, if homosexuality was considered a disorder, that means I have TWO disorders. Autism and homosexuality lol.

[Mondo]

Your little professor obviously isn't that well-read and I'm frankly surprised an educated gay man would give any credence to this disorder nonsense.

Here's why you're wrong:

Alright, I could go into the sexuality of other species where homosexuality is actually the norm (read: bonobos, giraffes, dragonflies, elephants, dolphins), but we’re all humans here so I’ll throw in some more compelling arguments.
I’m going to start with your claim that homosexuality is irregular and go from there. If you've done your reading, you know the prevailing theory in psychology on female sexuality is that it's fluid: there is no such thing as hard and fast orientation and most women seem to be at some level bisexual. Here's an abstract for a paper detailing a rigorous study on the subject: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...TOKEN=28817864

I guess half of the human population is irregular and diseased in the same way.

Now that that’s settled, let's take a look at the male side of the coin and consider why homosexuality is so damn persistent despite the fact that we sort of fail at reproduction. First, let’s establish that homosexuality is genetic. This website goes over some studies which show that most identical twins also have identical orientations. Now, we could attribute that to pre-natal influences rather than genetic pre-disposition except that fraternal twins (different DNA) have lower rates of concordant sexuality than do identical (same DNA).
http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twi...s/studies.html

The important part:
“For the monozygotic[identical] twins, a very different picture emerged. Of the 37 index cases whose cotwins were classified, all were concordant for homosexuality (Kinsey ratings 3-6); a concordance rate of 100%.”

Around now you might be asking yourself “But, Mondo, if homosexuality were really genetic, wouldn’t gays have died out a long time ago?” Good question! There’s a lot of research going on lately exploring the theory that homosexuality is a balanced polymorphism. That means that being heterozygous (having two different versions of the same trait, one from each parent) for a trait offers some advantage over being entirely recessive or entirely dominant in that trait. In very, very simplified terms that means that having half of the gay trait (no, that doesn’t mean bi) in most men and women is important enough to outweigh the loss in offspring from fully gay people.
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalke...sexuality.html
The author in the above article talks about homosexuality as a balanced polymorphism that makes straight men better fathers by increasing feminine instincts and behavior. That puts us at one end of a completely natural sexual spectrum, a balance between masculinity and femininity where gay men would be more on the feminine side biologically speaking. The article also goes into homosexuality as a way to increase female fertility. That last is well-substantiated, there’s documented evidence that relatives of gay people have more offspring.

TL;DR Gay people are actually crucial to the survival of the human race.

In short, homosexual behavior/orientation is a natural, maintained, and above all regular adaption that’s about as disorderly as light skin (another beneficial evolutionary adaptation that at one time would have been uncommon).

It’s not a disorder in any sense of the word, especially scientific. That word is most definitely pejorative in any context, so I’d rather you didn’t aim that at me. It’s the sort of claim that fuels homophobia and hate crimes. If you recall, “science” was used to back up slavery too. Like Lostandfound mentioned earlier in the thread, science is pretty heavily influenced by societal pressures and context (read: eugenics, which was once commonly accepted). That definition in your psychology book isn’t some absolute truth and you need to be careful how you apply it. Kthx!

[Ben]

Closed on request of the OP.