There has been a vast discourse on homosexuality in Western culture in the past three centuries, much of it discussing homosexuality as an act of sexual perversion and a disease or mental disorder. Even today, it is a politically controversial subject, and is still not an entirely socially acceptable lifestyle. There are undeniable socio-political implications in being a homosexual in the United States, and numerous injustices exist, even in a self-proclaimed “equal” state. The queer political movement has likely never been stronger than in the past few decades, but society will always have difficulty understanding the lifestyle if its origins in the body remain so unclear. Being such an intriguing topic of socio-political discourse, it has been subject to extensive scientific investigation, especially with the rise of genetic research and methodologies such as Sociobiology. The primary question has been: is sexual preference hard-wired in genetic make-up or is it the product of environmental influence? Because sexual identity is so interrelated with sex/gender identities, let’s first look at the innateness of gender in sex.
Undeniable physical differences exist between males and females, for instance differences in bone structure, reproductive organs, and amounts of hormones. But do these physical characteristics account for the existence of gender (which is the behavioral identity of “man” or “woman” that usually comes with the according sex)? There is no definite answer, and there is an ongoing effort to find it; however, there is evidence supporting both arguments. Simon Baron-Cohen, a scientist conducting gender research on infants, tested male and female newborns on their sociability (how the individuals reacted when presented with a human face and a mobile). He found that males looked at the mobile 10% more than females did, while females looked at the face only 3% more than males (Eliot, 72); Baron-Cohen concluded that the gender norms of girls having more empathy and boys having better spacial ability are so deeply encoded in biology that even infants exhibit signs of gender. The results of this experiment were enormously socially significant, despite the fact that they have not been replicated and other tests have given contradictory evidence (Eliot, 73). There have been identified errors in Baron-Cohen’s methods used to collect the data, including the collector’s awareness of the baby’s sex, to which she could have transposed pre-existing notions of gender. If the collector was already expecting a girl to gaze at her more, she may have unintentionally made more of an effort to meet the gaze of the infant (Eliot, 73). It seems that the research team went into the experiment expecting a specific answer according to social norms, and they collected and analyzed the data through that social lens; science is generally supposed to be unbiased, though this is not the only unbiased scientific research regarding the biology of gendered behavior.
Sociobiologists Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer studied the origins of rape, and how it is used as an evolutionary adaptation. Offensiveness of this piece aside, the analysis gave a relatively logical explanation of rape in an evolutionary sense, despite one significant flaw: a good portion of the argument was founded upon the idea that gender and sex are synonymous, and behaviors are encoded within sex. In order to follow the argument logically, one would have to completely accept that males are all “normal” males are aggressive hyper-sexuals (Thornhill, 8), all “normal” females are coy and monogamous by nature (Thornhill, 2), and sex is strictly used for procreational purposes. One look at the sexual revolution of the 1960’s and 1970’s, and that foundation becomes obsolete. Many researchers, the above included, that work to prove the hard-wired behaviors in sexes are many times basing their research in socially accepted gender-norms, rather than truly natural behaviors. There is little significant evidence that the behaviors of males and females are hard-wired, though there is speculation--some look to the hypothalamus for sex-drive (Fausto-Sterling, 249). So if the behavioral differences between men and women (who are biologically defined only by differing sets of sex-chromosomes) are unlikely set in genetics, it seems equally unlikely that sexual preference is determined in genetics as well.
But there is, nevertheless, an argument over sexuality and biology, and some data collected to support the gender vs biology debate is also being used to explain sexuality. Dr. Simon LeVay studied the hypothalamus region of the brain in rhesus monkeys, convinced that this area is linked directly to sex drive and sexuality. After destroying 5 of the 11 male monkeys, his team found that these males presented typical female behaviors (presenting their behinds for other males to mount), which were extrapolated to represent homosexual behaviors (Fausto-Sterling, 248). In humans, there is a recognized size difference in the nuclei of the hypothalamus (known as the INAH-3) between male and female, and this difference apparently determines typical gendered behaviors. That is, assuming that mounting is a male behavior, and presenting oneself to be mounted is a female behavior. Either way, there is evidence that the hypothalamus region quite possibly affects at least the sexual behaviors of rhesus monkeys, though not necessarily their sexual preference. Now whether or not the same can be said for humans is a different story.
But what would be the implications of a system of sexual orientation being determined by the structure of the brain? Sexuality would no longer be considered conscious choice, at least for many people, and it is thought that homosexuals would be granted more political acceptance, seeing as it is illegal to discriminate against: race, sex, handi-caps, etc (all things that are generally determined by biology) (Fausto-Sterling, 254). But once classified as biological, who’s to say the scientific community won’t try to find a “cure”, via surgery, hormones, or prenatal testing? People have tried to “cure” homosexuality in the past, even as late as the 1950’s, using methods like electroshock therapy (Fausto-Sterling, 255), locating the exact origin would likely only cause scientists and physicians to try harder.
Anyways, it seems that a good amount of research on origins of behavior and brain structure is founded on the assumption that the structure of the brain is permanent, when in fact the brain is plastic, and likely molded in response to certain experiences (Fausto-Sterling, 253). With such a malleable organ, the likelihood that sexual orientation is targetable as an effect of brain structure, with our technology, is not high, nor is it likely that any data is 100% reliable. That’s why a number of scientists look to genes to find the answer, assuming that genetics is far more rigid than the brain.
Genes, or genetic information, is passed from parent to child through chromosomes, one set of chromosomes from each parent, 46 chromosomes in all. This genetic information is stored in DNA (nucleic acid), and when used in combination with RNA, the genetic information acts as a code for which protein to make. DNA and genes do not act as a metaphorical catalogue for human beings and “there isn’t even a simply cause and effect relationship between a particular gene and a particular anatomical feature” (Bleier, 43), contrary to popular belief; technically all they do is assist in the production of proteins. Scientists nevertheless search for the answers to sexuality and behavior in genetics, as genes are presumably the most fundamental image of human beings. One science team, headed by Dean Hamer, studied homosexuality in relatives, brothers in particular, and attempted to gauge homosexuality against inheritability, looking near the Xq28 gene. However, their methodology seemed rather mendelian (the simplest form of genetic theory, rooted entirely in inheritability), so the experiment was replicated by George Rice et al, with modifications: they searched for four genetic markers. The result contradicted Hamer et al, with little indication of sexual orientation being determined near Xq28, though there was evidence of the “possibility of detectable gene effects elsewhere in the genome” (Rice) (see Xq28).
So it is possible that sexual orientation is indicated in genetic structure; allowing this evidence the benefit of the doubt, would it then mean that sexual orientation is as concrete as a person’s genes? Though the debate over sexuality and biology is indeed a hot one, many agree that both biology and experience play a role in the development of behavior (Rogers, 27). If this is true, the argument transforms into the ratio of influence genes and environment have over behavior, rather than whether behavior is triggered by one or the other; in other words, the argument is over social construction, and the power struggle between genes and experience in the body.
So what does it mean for the gay social identity if homosexuality is both environmental and genetic? If people were told that it is neither/both a choice or/and a biological disease, there isn’t really any one place to put the blame, and therefore would be more difficult to “cure” and legally discriminate against. It’s possible that homosexuality would be more tolerable by design, because there is no one clear cause of it. But the problem is the media (newspapers, science journals, etc.), and that it is far too invested in creating a sexual dichotomy, judging by the scientific research that it does or doesn’t advertise. The sexuality discourse is so controversial that studies like LeVay’s, that may or may not provide substantial evidence for a biological sexual preference, are major articles in journals like: The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News (Fausto-Sterling, 245). Newspapers only run stories that people would be interested in (it’s fundamental business), so a headline on the state of homosexuality should hint at how invested the United States is in the sexuality discussion. But as we’ve seen, not all of the scientific evidence on homosexuality, or even on sex differences, is sound. Some of the evidence is insignificant, some of it is only significant if the reader plays into gender normalities, and some of it is open to interpretation entirely.
So for the Gay political movement searching for equity in the US, it would make the most sense to say that homosexuality is both biological and environmental, and that sexuality is fluid, not dichotomous. Over all, there is little significant evidence that sexual preference goes as deep as an individual’s genetics, but it does exist, so it shouldn’t be discarded. At the same time, environment and experience should not be overlooked, as child-rearing and social influence have a great effect on the behaviors of an individual. Many scientists agree that behaviors are both environmental and biological, so why shouldn’t homosexuals argue that it is, in fact, a hybrid of the two? Politically, homosexuals could not be discriminated against because it’s something that they can’t help (like skin color or a physical handicap). But the effort to find a “cure” would also be obsolete, because one would have to locate the environmental influence as well as a genetic influence, which at this point seems impossible, before one could ethically “cure” the disease. And even if someone eventually found the social influence that “causes” homosexuality, how could they possibly go about changing it? It would also be more difficult to consider a simple sexual perversion (Terry 34), like pedophilia or necrophilia, because it wouldn’t be a conscious choice. If it is accepted that a homosexual develops that behavior through no means of his/her own, then it might be hard to describe a homosexual as a pervert. Like I said before, homosexuality, by that design, would have to be legally tolerated.
But one has to ask, what is the threshold for being gay? What behaviors constitute homosexuality, or bisexuality? Sexuality is fluid and far from dichotomous. So in order for a political movement based on homosexuality to make progress, it has to have a working definition of what exactly homosexuality is; this definition would have to be used by scientists, activists, lobbyists, and politicians alike, so that actions made by each party would be compatible and understandable with the other. There is no definite notion of what homosexuality is, so when politicians that use one definition take scientific evidence that uses another, the true significance of the evidence get’s misconstrued and lost between the voids. Before any real progress can be made, an understandable collective definition of sexuality must be established by the movement. With this basic definition as a foundation, an argument for homosexuality originating in both biology and experience can be formed. Not that there won’t be resistance, as bigotry is far from dead, but the movement will have the best of both biological and environmental arguments. With hope, the idea that homosexuality has more than one “cause” will bring society as a whole to simply accept the lifestyle without spending so much time regarding it as a disease and a genetic anomaly.
written by Dylan Partridge
Works Cited
Bleier, Ruth. "Sociobiology, Biological Determinism, and Human Behavior." Science and Gender: A Critique of Biology and Its Theories on Women. New York: Pergamon, 1984. 15-46. Print.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. "Myths of Gender: Homosexual Brains?" Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men. New York: Basic, 1985. 245-59. Print.
Rice, George, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch, and George Ebers. "Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28." Science. Science, 23 Apr. 1999. Web. 01 May 2012. <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/284/5414/665.full>.
Rogers, Lesley J. "Sex Differences Are Not Hardwired." Gender and the Science of Difference: Cultural Politics of Contemporary Science and Medicine. Ed. Jill A. Fisher. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2011. 27-42. Print.
Terry, Jennifer. "Modernity and the Vexing Presence of Homosexuals." An American Obsession: Science, Medicine, and Homosexuality in Modern Society. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1999. 27-39. Print.
Thornhill, Randy, and Craig Palmer. "Why Do Men Rape?" A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2000. 53-84. Print.
