To recap:
* There is a genetic component, but only about 40 percent, and only if you’re a guy.(1)
* Scientists don’t really know why a genetic trait that reduces the rate of reproduction continues to thrive, at least from an evolutionary standpoint.(1)
* If you are a biological LGBT woman, it’s still pretty much a mystery what’s going on there.(1)
There’s a bigger mystery for many LGBT people, however: Why all this stuff matters in the first place. Note the following conversation inside my high school GSA when I brought this up last week at lunch:
Me: “Why do you think LGBT people continue to thrive when, from an evolutionary standpoint, it would tend to reduce the human rate of reproduction?”
Them: ??? (Insert blank states here.)
Me: “Haven’t you ever wondered why that would be?”
Them: ??? (Insert more blanks stares here, followed by intense examination of their school-provided spicy cajun chicken patty disc on a bun.)
Me: “Don’t you think that’s interesting?”
One of them: “Why does it matter?” (Followed by more stares, this time switching between me and the chicken disc.)
Me: “Well OF COURSE it matters!”
Or does it? And this is why I hang out with high school students. They are very smart people (even if we do insist on clogging their arteries with weird foods). For they are not alone in raising this question. In John Corvino’s Huffington Post blog he talks about the recent study at Northwestern University that has so many people talking:
“It's also troubling that this paper, like much research in this area, singles out homosexuality as a particular riddle to be solved. It's as if heterosexuality were the default setting, requiring us to figure out ‘what went wrong’ when people turn out gay.”(2)
Taking the issue of reproducibility head on, he writes: “Evolutionary theory holds that we should expect species to reproduce themselves, not that we should expect each individual to do so. There are plenty of features of human evolution that defy explanation when considered in isolation at the individual level (for example, the fact that women live well past menopause).”(2)
Some people, however, are more than troubled by research, they are scared of it. Though given the media reaction in some places, it’s not hard to see why. In 1993, when scientists first discovered a possible link between LGBT status and genetics, the Daily Mail of London praised the research, writing: ''Abortion hope after 'gay genes' findings.”(3)
The idea you could now abort your kid if you found out they’d be gay was terrifying to a lot of people, and should be. Obviously, it was never that simple and never will be, but even the mere possibility suggests to some this type of research is too easily misused to be continued.
Obviously, no ethical scientist or society would allow their work to be used for this purpose, and to demonize scientists doing this type of research is unfair. Science and discovery in and of themselves are neither good nor bad, and certainly not evil, as Tim Spector notes in the Sydney Morning Herald: “One reason people react so violently to these studies is a lack of understanding of basic biology and science, and realising that homosexuality is for a scientist just another human characteristic or trait, like sporting ability, obesity, optimism or depression.”(4)
Still, given the hatred that members of the LGBT community have experienced throughout history, whether in Nazi Germany or places like Stonewall, it’s hard to just discount people’s genuine fear. People who ignore history are condemned to repeat it, as the saying goes.
Still, however, facts are facts, and just because the facts might lead society’s more demented members to ponder the horrible, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t explore the truth.
(Author’s note: If at this point you feel like you’re watching a tennis match with your metaphoric mental neck getting snapped back and forth, I apologize. There’s just a lot of too and fro in this debate, and this seems the best way to explain it. And remember this: It’s still better than eating a faux-Cajun chicken disc.)
Again, Tim Spector tries to explain why understanding the scientific nature of humanity matters: “Almost all human traits studied have some genetic (heritable) component, usually in the range of 30 to 70 percent.”(5) In other words, everything we are is tied in some ways to genetic. You can’t just ignore it.
Not that everyone who questions the need for a genetic understanding of LGBT people does so on the basis of fear. Some, like my students, wonder why it’s necessary from a human standpoint. Their need and right to be seen as equal isn’t a question of biology, it’s a question of fairness. Frank Bruno of the New York Times agrees:
“There are problems with some gay advocates’ insistence that homosexuality be discussed and regarded as something ingrained at the first breath,” as people search for a scientific reason for anti-LGBT bigotry to end.“Bigotry isn’t rational.”(6)
Worse, bigots could use these same scientific findings as a weapon: “Finding a determinative biological quirk, deviation or marker could prompt religious extremists who now want gays in reparative psychotherapy to focus on medical interventions instead. And a person’s absence of agency over his or her concentration of melanin has hardly ended all discrimination against blacks.”(6)
Sadly, Bruno’s right, which returns us to asking if this type of research does more harm than good. (Yep, the tennis match is back.) In the end, I think there’s a good case to be made for both, and I see why people on both sides believe as strongly as they do. If you’re looking for a definitive answer, I’m not sure it exists.
I do, however, like the thoughts of Jamie Tabberer, living proof that British journalism seems to have evolved somewhat in the last 20 years, who writes about the questions of his sexuality:
“In truth these questions are far too one dimensional when it comes to the infinitely complicated spheres of gender and sexuality, and part of me wants them to remain beautiful enigmas, anyway. Like most non-heterosexual people, I have my own beliefs about how my sexuality came to be, and I don't actually want or need a study to validate that. For me, a resolution will come when people stop asking about it – because acceptance shouldn't depend on the answer.”
References:
1) RainaBowe.Weebly.com: Only in America can there be a gay gene only about 40 percent of the time
http://rainabowe.weebly.com/2/post/2014/03/only-in-america-can-there-be-a-gay-gene-only-about-40-percent-of-time.html
2) Huffington Post: Born This Way?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-corvino/born-this-way_b_3111186.html
3) The Independent: The 'gay gene' is back on the scene
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-gay-gene-is-back-on-the-scene-1536770.html
4) The Sydney Morning Herald: Gay genetics research still causes irrational fears
http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/gay-genetics-research-still-causes-irrational-fears-20140218-32ysh.html
5) Slate: Why Does the Search for a Gay Gene Freak Everyone Out?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/18/gay_gene_research_why_does_it_make_people_freak_out.html
5a) Actually, this is the exact same article from the Sydney Morning Herald. I just thought I’d spread the attribution love around a little bit.
6) The New York Times: Genetic or Not, Gay Won’t Go Away
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/opinion/sunday/bruni-gay-wont-go-away-genetic-or-not.html?_r=0
7) The Independent: Gay genes: Haven't we had enough of the nature vs nurture debate on homosexuality?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/gay-genes-havent-we-had-enough-of-the-nature-vs-nurture-debate-on-homosexuality-9128925.html