Can the biology of being gay combat bigotry?

Pseudojim · Nov 2, 2010

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/c...-the-biology-of-being-gay-combat-bigotry.html

Simon LeVay's theory of homosexuality in Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why nicely balances solid science and common sense

Deborah Blum, contirbutor

IN THE summer of 1991, neuroscientist Simon LeVay published a paper that would make him famous. It reported a study that clearly demonstrated a structural difference between the brains of gay and straight men. For nearly two decades since, LeVay has been in pursuit of more evidence to support the study's core implication: that sexual orientation derives from biology, not from personal choice.

Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why is the third popular book that he has published on the topic, and its publication raises two different but equally important questions. First, how far has the science of sexual orientation advanced since LeVay's seminal paper? Second, how far has the research - and effort by advocates like LeVay to spread its message - increased acceptance of gay people by the straight majority?

The answer to the first is: not as much as we could hope. I was dismayed to discover that many of the most influential studies cited here spring from previous decades. I'm all for historical context, but when a chapter on the importance of biology in sexuality contains 32 citations and 23 of them date to the year 2000 or earlier, a book can feel a bit dated.

I would venture to guess that the dearth of notable recent findings is due in part to the political climate of the last decade, which has not been particularly eager to fund sex research. Thankfully, though, there are some very good recent studies in human development, gender and, more sparsely, sexual orientation. LeVay does a deft job of pulling these varying threads together into his own theory of homosexuality, which nicely balances solid science and common sense.

So, gay... straight... what is the reason why? LeVay's central claim is that "sexual orientation is an aspect of gender that emerges from the prenatal sexual differentiation of the brain". A cocktail of sex hormones, genes and the womb environment, including factors such as stress during pregnancy, comes together to determine sexuality. That is, sexual orientation may not be determined at the moment of conception, but it's pretty much locked down by the time we are born. This is a fairly mainstream view, and it fits with the current understanding that humans are shaped by prenatal influences in far more significant ways than once appreciated.

But importantly, LeVay reminds us that those influences don't stop at birth. Instead, "genes and hormones exert a sustained or even growing influence over the life span". That means there is no time during which social influences stand alone, nurture without nature.

LeVay, who notes that he is gay himself, has made it a goal to foster greater acceptance of homosexuality by educating people about its biological influences. Nonetheless, he emphasises a point with which this reviewer agrees and was delighted to see: "I also believe that there would be plenty of reasons why gay people should be accepted and valued by society, even if being gay were proven to be an outright choice."

This brings me back to my second question. Has two decades of advocacy science by LeVay and colleagues helped change public perception of homosexuality? Again, the answer seems to be: not as much as we could hope.

Yes, I believe that many more people have grown comfortable with these ideas and more tolerant as a result. But given this season's ugly counter-examples - the hate-driven suicides of gay teenagers in the US and the violent anti-gay protests in Serbia - it's obvious that we haven't yet achieved the kind of acceptance that would allow us to truly value each other.

Here's hoping that books like this - rational, smart and compassionate - keep moving us in the right direction.
Click to expand...

NickT · Nov 2, 2010

"LeVay has been in pursuit of more evidence to support yada yada yada"

Treading on thin ice when saying that. It screams experimenter bias. When conducting experiments you have to be neutral on the outcome. You can have a hypothesis that x contributes to y for sure, but you still have to accept the opposite result.

Can the biology of being gay combat bigotry?

Pseudojim
Full Member

NickT
Full Member

Can the biology of being gay combat bigotry?

Thread Tools

Pseudojim Full Member

NickT Full Member

Pseudojim
Full Member

NickT
Full Member