The Gay Science
Mike Riggs | June 18, 2008, 2:14pm
The gay blogosphere is heralding the results of a new study from the Karolinska Institute that provides even more evidence that sexual orientation is biological, as "the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait."
According to the study, gay men's brains resemble those of straight women, and gay women's brains resemble those of straight men. But while victories like California warrant popping the cork on some champagne, this occasion is far more ambiguous.
Blogger Breaktheterror leads his post on the study by calling it something that the "Religious Right never, ever, ever wants you to see," but the truth is exactly the opposite. Opponents of gay rights have been steadily losing ground in the political fight to maintain a moralistic hetero-hegemony, and they're adapting their culture war strategies to the scientific frontier.
Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has been pushing the anti-gay rights movement in this direction for over a year. In an essay published in March 2007, Mohler called for a revision of the Baptist Church's stance on interference in the genetic development of embryos, for one reason only:
"If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin."
The Karolinka Institute's study suggests that sexual orientation might result from too much or too little exposure to androgen in the womb, suggesting to some that it might be changeable using hormone therapy.
So, congrats to gays and lesbians. According to science, you're hardwired to prefer members of the same sex. I'm genuinely glad to hear it. But be mindful of the the ugly history of the use and abuse of science to justify persecution of gays, and tread warily.
Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey responded to Albert Mohler here last year.
John Pearley Huffman | June 18, 2008, 6:23pm | #
We already know what happens when genetic testing allows prospective parents to "preview" their children.
As early as the mid-Seventies with the development of amniocentesis procedures pregnant women were able to determine the sex of their developing children. The result was, no surprise, the development of sex-selective abortions. I don't know of anyone tracking them in this country, but they occur in some substantial numbers. And, of course, they're rampant in countries like China where one-child laws lead many parents to prefer boys.
In the Nineties tests were developed to locate the genetic condition that results in Down's Syndrome. The result has been that the number of children born with the condition has radically decreased as abortion of Down's Syndrome fetuses has become almost the norm.
There's no doubt that if there's a test for a "gay" gene that the result is going to be some number of abortions of those fetuses so identified. And that, ultimately, will mean less gay births and less gay people.
The irony here, of course, is that while homosexuality may clearly be identified as genetic in nature, by knowing that, millions of individual decisions by prospective parents may ultimately mean a significant reduction in the number of gay people who are allowed to be born. Just as there are few girls born in China, and fewer and fewer Down's Syndrome babies around the world.
This is where the whole abortion debate is headed. Will gays (or women in China (or even here) or, if they can, Down's Syndrome adults argue that abortions based on sex selection or genetic testing amount to a form of genocide? Will they have to argue that some prohibitions on individual choice are necessary to ensure a healthy population of women and gay people? Can feminists continue to argue for absolute abortion rights as it becomes obvious that those rights bring with them fewer and fewer baby girls? Will gays and feminists find themselves at odds on this issue?
We're in for some interesting times.
