jim@randvax.UUCP (Jim Gillogly) (12/01/84)
--------------------------------
From Science 84, December 1984.
"Biological basis for homosexuality?"
Stony Brook, NY. - Some homosexual men have been shown for the first time
to differ from heterosexual men in the way they respond to hormones.
Researchers at the State University of New York say that their study could
be a significant step in answering the long-debated question of what
determines sexual orientation.
Twenty-nine heterosexual men and women and 14 homosexual men were injected
with the female hormone estrogen. As expected, the heterosexual men's
hormonal systems responded to the estrogen much differently than the women's.
The homosexual men, however, responded in a pattern between that of the
heterosexual men and women. Psychobiologist Brian Gladue, one of the
researchers, cautions that this hormonal difference is hardly a reliable
test of someone's sexual orientation. "It only starts us looking more closely
at human sexual development," he says.
Previous studies have shown that hormones seem to affect many types of
behavior, even in young children not yet infludenced by social conditioning.
Research with animals suggests that some differences between the sexes --
females' tendency to be less violent, for instance -- are shaped by
hormones that begin affecting the brain even before birth. Gladue believes
that biological factors may also predispose someone to be homosexual.
"A lot of people think that homosexuality is a societal phenomenon caused
by factors like an absent father or a domineering mother," Gladue says. "It
would be a major leap to say that the orientation is established at birth,
but if people are willing to accept that heterosexuality is already
determined, why not homosexuality?"
--------------
Just reporting it - no opinion from here.
Jim Gillogly
{vortex, decvax}!randvax!jimsdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (12/03/84)
Many people, certainly many in the gay community, have criticized the
study on the following grounds:
sample size - 14 gay men is not a very large population, and the
number of gay men who actually demonstrated an
exceptional reaction to the administration of
estrogen was smaller--9 is the figure I remember.
screening - There was no screening for factors like drug use
which could have a large effect on hormonal
responses. Given the population from which they
selected their subjects (gay bars in urban
settings) this is worrysome.
selection - There were no gay women in the study, a glaring
omission explained away, rather lamely, by the
researchers asserting that they couldn't find any
gay women (sounds like they weren't asking the
right people.) Certainly, a demonstrable difference
from the baseline by gay people of both sexes
would have strengthened any conclusions they
might make.
As someone trained as a scientist, I am fascinated by basic research, but
it is also useful to remember the political and social contexts in which
scientific research, however "pure", operates. Where might we go from
here? Suppose that one's primary sexual orientation is linked to the
morphology of certain brain structures, that these structures differ from
the norm in people with an affinity for the same sex, and that it is shown
that hormonal changes in the mother during fetal development influence the
ultimate morphology of the child's brain, and thus exerts a strong
influence on the child's sexual preference? This is not too far-fetched
a theory, and the experiment mentioned above is a first step in data
collection.
What is thought to be benign, or even benevolent, individual variance in one
culture, or at some point in time, may be considered "bad", "evil", or a
problem, in other cultures, or at other points in time. Unfortunately, if
society finds a "cause" for a event which is considered a problem, it
immediately suggests the existence of a "cure." For comparison, look at the
attitudes of Victorian society towards masturbation and many of the often
hilarious, and sometimes chilling "cures" for this "affliction." Though the
strides of the gay rights movement in the past 15 years are well-recognized,
I think it is safe to claim that there is a very very long way to go, and
that same-sex sexual orientation is still classified by many as a "problem."
Even if one feels that a purely biological view of sexual behavior is
hopelessly reductive and unprofitable when taken out of the laboratory, many
will grasp at anything blessed with the imprimatur of "science" and use it in
the formulation of policy.
Let's examine the possible "cures" which might result if this research
in the biological bases of sexual preference bore fruit:
- during pregnancy, a woman is noted to have the hormonal changes which
predispose her child to homosexual behavior (surely a simple home
screening test of blood, urine or salive might be prepared.) She
decides to have an abortion on the basis of this finding.
- a woman with a previous history of this hormonal variance is treated by
her gynecologist to ensure that this does not occur during her next
pregnancy.
- a child is born, the mother was notified of this hormonal variation
during her pregnancy, and it is noted on the child's medical record.
What effect will this have on the parents in their care and raising of
the child, given the societal mores which indicate this is a significant
enough problem that it should be measured at all? What effect will this
biological "marker", or Scarlet Letter, have on the child's own self-
esteem, integration into society and ultimate sexual behavior?
The issue here is not scientific knowledge or technology, but their use as
tools to implement what society feels is "good", often to the detriment of
individual variation and freedom. It is incumbent upon people to speak
against such goals when they are voiced, to question their underlying
assumptions, and to continue the goal of education, to help persuade people
otherwise when they describe same-sex sexual orientation as a "problem"
which needs to be cured.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAgam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (12/03/84)
> = /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA > As someone trained as a scientist, I am fascinated by basic research, but > it is also useful to remember the political and social contexts in which > scientific research, however "pure", operates. Where might we go from > here? Suppose that one's primary sexual orientation is linked to the > morphology of certain brain structures, that these structures differ from > the norm in people with an affinity for the same sex, and that it is shown > that hormonal changes in the mother during fetal development influence the > ultimate morphology of the child's brain, and thus exerts a strong > influence on the child's sexual preference? This is not too far-fetched > a theory, and the experiment mentioned above is a first step in data > collection. > > Let's examine the possible "cures" which might result if this research > in the biological bases of sexual preference bore fruit: > > - during pregnancy, a woman is noted to have the hormonal changes which > predispose her child to homosexual behavior (surely a simple home > screening test of blood, urine or salive might be prepared.) She > decides to have an abortion on the basis of this finding. Reality is the women have a right to an abortion for whatever reason. Women may also choose the sex of their child by abortion, abort Down's Syndrome fetuses, and even abort because it isn't desired to have a child (yet). In any case, the right to an abortion (in the first trimester) is UNCONDITIONAL. Are you questioning this right or what? You are hereby sentenced to 10 months of reading net.abortion. Furthermore, a woman may not want homosexual offspring because she hopes to be a grandmother someday. Granted that heterosexual children are no guarantee of this, but it is not in the mother's interest to have homosexual children in that case. > - a woman with a previous history of this hormonal variance is treated by > her gynecologist to ensure that this does not occur during her next > pregnancy. Women (with the co-operation of their husbands) also adjust the times and conditions for intercourse to adjust the probability of having a child of the desired sex. (Also see previous argument). > - a child is born, the mother was notified of this hormonal variation > during her pregnancy, and it is noted on the child's medical record. > What effect will this have on the parents in their care and raising of > the child, given the societal mores which indicate this is a significant > enough problem that it should be measured at all? What effect will this > biological "marker", or Scarlet Letter, have on the child's own self- > esteem, integration into society and ultimate sexual behavior? Children (almost all!) are born either male or female. This has far greater impact on their upbringing than any other characteristic. Moreover the sex of the fetus can be known long before birth, so even then the mother's behavior is altered by that knowledge. It may not be fair or just, but that's the way it is. We are all raised this way. Some males grow up to be feminists and defenders of the rights of homosexuals. Some females grow up to be mathematicians, politicians and construction workers. Obviously, then, the characteristics of a child at birth does not force specific roles on that child as an adult. > The issue here is not scientific knowledge or technology, but their use as > tools to implement what society feels is "good", often to the detriment of > individual variation and freedom. It is incumbent upon people to speak > against such goals when they are voiced, to question their underlying > assumptions, and to continue the goal of education, to help persuade people > otherwise when they describe same-sex sexual orientation as a "problem" > which needs to be cured. The future of humanity is in the hands (wombs) of women, as it always has been. Your arguments sound surprisingly like those of the "right to life"-ers, as though homosexual fetuses (?) have a right to life despite the mother's wishes. You even allude to avoiding such investigation into the causes of of homosexuality, given your arguments above. Is this really the voice of someone "trained as a scientist," or a political rhetorician in disguise? Why do you seem to be afraid to investigate the question at all? I am not saying that skewing the "randomness" of births is good or bad; it is simply a decision that is out of our (men's) hands when we resign the rights of reproduction to a woman's choice, and I defend that right. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!gam 37 22'50" N / 122 59'12" W [ This is just me talking. ]
schoet@ucbvax.ARPA (Steve Schoettler) (12/04/84)
> For comparison, look at the > attitudes of Victorian society towards masturbation and many of the often > hilarious, and sometimes chilling "cures" for this "affliction." In the olden (unenlightened) days, if you were left-handed, they would tie your left hand behind your back and force you to use your right hand. When this didn't work, they would simply stone you to death. Sound familliar? At least some things have changed. How much research has been done to find the "cause" for heterosexuality? Steve
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (12/04/84)
Gordon, I think you are being deliberately obtuse in order to post a quick response. In any event, you didn't understand my point at all, which wasn't an attack on abortion rights, nor a plea to avoid scientific investigation. One needn't have to question the rights of women to have abortions if one is to examine societal mores, their effects on individual decisions, and the subsequent cumulative effect of these decisions on society. The fact that one of my examples used an abortion was simply reflecting reality, since that would doubtlessly be one approach towards solving the "problem" of having a child who had a good chance of turning out gay. Since the gay topic seems to be a red flag of sorts, let's examine the situation that you use to buttress your replies: the ability for parents these days to choose the sex of their child. Some feminists are becoming concerned by this, because overall, boys are preferred to girls. Let's say that this choice became the norm, and with the result of all these cumulative decisions on the sex of a child, we begin to see a significant shift in the sex ratio of births in the U.S., and a resulting change in demographics. Is it not appropriate for those concerned to speak out about this, to ask people to examine the underlying reasons for their choices, to ask what this says about "male" and "female" in our society? Doesn't this present an enormous educational problem to those who disagree with this trend? Isn't it appropriate to discuss this BEFORE it becomes reality? I submit that the analogous situation with gay people is even more disturbing and more likely, and homophobia armed with biological means could easily lead towards the eradication of gay people, or more likely, to make a minority even smaller, to vitiate its power and presence in society, and to contribute towards the homogenization of society by removing those who are not like the majority. Your comment comparing finding the "marker" for homosexuality before or at birth with knowing the sex of the child makes sense only in a world without sexism and homophobia. My comments reflected the situation of someone born in a world which is fearful enough of homosexuality that it finds it necessary to measure it during pregnancy. >>=SDyer >> The issue here is not scientific knowledge or technology, but their use as >> tools to implement what society feels is "good", often to the detriment of >> individual variation and freedom. It is incumbent upon people to speak >> against such goals when they are voiced, to question their underlying >> assumptions, and to continue the goal of education, to help persuade people >> otherwise when they describe same-sex sexual orientation as a "problem" >> which needs to be cured. If it was worth saying once, it deserves repeating, especially on USENET. >=Gordon Moffett >The future of humanity is in the hands (wombs) of women, as it always >has been. Your arguments sound surprisingly like those of the "right >to life"-ers, as though homosexual fetuses (?) have a right to life >despite the mother's wishes. Sorry, gam, the future of humanity is in all our hands. Anyone and everyone has the right to question the direction society is moving in, and to attempt to persuade others to come around to their position. I don't weep for "homosexual fetuses", but I do question whether a world without gay people is a good world, or measurably better than what we have now. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
jtc78@ihuxm.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (12/05/84)
> Since the gay topic seems to be a red flag of sorts, let's examine the > situation that you use to buttress your replies: the ability for parents > these days to choose the sex of their child. Some feminists are becoming > concerned by this, because overall, boys are preferred to girls. Let's say > that this choice became the norm, and with the result of all these > cumulative decisions on the sex of a child, we begin to see a significant > shift in the sex ratio of births in the U.S., and a resulting change in > demographics. Is it not appropriate for those concerned to speak out about > this, to ask people to examine the underlying reasons for their choices, to > ask what this says about "male" and "female" in our society? Doesn't this > present an enormous educational problem to those who disagree with this > trend? Isn't it appropriate to discuss this BEFORE it becomes reality? > > I submit that the analogous situation with gay people is even more > disturbing and more likely, and homophobia armed with biological means > could easily lead towards the eradication of gay people, or more likely, > to make a minority even smaller, to vitiate its power and presence in > society, and to contribute towards the homogenization of society by > removing those who are not like the majority. Well, hetero parents will, probably, always prefer a hetero baby; gay parents will ... there aren't too many of those. The reason is not necessarily the dreaded homophobia. The word "eradication" sounds repulsive, sure, but nobody in particular is getting eradicated. Lifestyles, habits, traditions, orientations, if you will, are continuously eradicated ih the course of history. If you want some tradition to continue, you should be able to show that it is a good one. Whatever is your definition of goodness, it must show. To rephrase it: what are the world's merits of having gay population? Why should gay (straight) tradition continue? Yes, it creates charming diversity, own subculture, but is that enough of a merit to make parents upset about having a child that can not fulfill their expectations? Again "homophobia" does not totally account for that attitude. Summary: you want gay tradition to be around forever, to be powerful. But you are not just as concerned with costs of keeping it around, as you are with possible disadvantages of doing away with it. There are usual parallels with ethnic groups (of questional legitimacy) I can understand the concern - you are a member of potentially threatened minority - but most of these are not applicable. Also: effect of changing male/female ratio are far more serious then any possible changes in the percentage of gays. Why? It affects more people more seriously. Mike Cherepov REPLIES to ihnp4!ihlpm!cher
gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (12/06/84)
> I submit that the analogous situation with gay people is even more > disturbing and more likely, and homophobia armed with biological means > could easily lead towards the eradication of gay people, or more likely, > to make a minority even smaller, to vitiate its power and presence in > society, and to contribute towards the homogenization of society by > removing those who are not like the majority. If homosexual behavior were hereditary (it isn't) you might have something to worry about. The fact that the population of (exclusive) homosexuals remains fairly constant (~10%, say), combined with apparently environmental rather than hereditary contributing factors, suggests that the abortion of "potentially homosexual" fetuses will have a negligible effect on the total population of homosexuals. (See also last paragraph). Even more important is the definition of "homosexual" here. In the late 50's Kinsey said "homosexual" should be used to describe BEHAVIOR, not people. He also pointed out that sexual orientation is a continuum rather than a clear division of "straight/gay/bisexual". To eradicate "potential homosexual behavior" in males, then, would mean eradication of approx 1/3 to 1/2 of all males. > Your comment comparing finding the "marker" for homosexuality before or at > birth with knowing the sex of the child makes sense only in a world without > sexism and homophobia. My comments reflected the situation of someone > born in a world which is fearful enough of homosexuality that it finds it > necessary to measure it during pregnancy. It is a reasonable scientific endevor to question and investigate why some people become sexually oriented to the same sex. First, because homosexuals are the exception, not the rule. Second, because the need for heterosexual behavior is fairly obvious -- ensuring reproduction. I think you are expressing homophobia-phobia towards anything that attempts to investigate homosexual behavior. > >>=SDyer > >> The issue here is not scientific knowledge or technology, but their use as > >> tools to implement what society feels is "good", often to the detriment of > >> individual variation and freedom. It is incumbent upon people to speak > >> against such goals when they are voiced, to question their underlying > >> assumptions, and to continue the goal of education, to help persuade people > >> otherwise when they describe same-sex sexual orientation as a "problem" > >> which needs to be cured. The research into the causes/origins of homosexual behavior does not assume that is something to be cured. It is an attempt at understanding HUMAN behavior, in all its various forms. > >=Gordon Moffett > >The future of humanity is in the hands (wombs) of women, as it always > >has been. Your arguments sound surprisingly like those of the "right > >to life"-ers, as though homosexual fetuses (?) have a right to life > >despite the mother's wishes. > > Sorry, gam, the future of humanity is in all our hands. Anyone and > everyone has the right to question the direction society is moving in, > and to attempt to persuade others to come around to their position. > I don't weep for "homosexual fetuses", but I do question whether a > world without gay people is a good world, or measurably better than > what we have now. I do not dictate to women what kinds of babies they should bear. If I were the father, I would certainly influence the choice, but I still realize the choice is not mine. I doubt that homosexuals can be eradicated any more than females. Clearly females are necessary for reproduction, but I also believe (unfoundedly) that homosexuality exists for some natural reason, (will you agree with that?) and that whatever the imbalance -- male/female, homo/hetero -- Nature will restore that balance in time. I think we are in fundamental agreement, Steve, but I have more confidence in societal choice and natural controls. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!gam 37 22'50" N / 122 59'12" W [ This is just me talking. ]
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (12/06/84)
> If homosexual behavior were hereditary (it isn't) you might have > something to worry about. The fact that the population of > (exclusive) homosexuals remains fairly constant (~10%, say), combined > with apparently environmental rather than hereditary contributing > factors, suggests that the abortion of "potentially homosexual" fetuses > will have a negligible effect on the total population of homosexuals. > (See also last paragraph). > > Even more important is the definition of "homosexual" here. In the > late 50's Kinsey said "homosexual" should be used to describe BEHAVIOR, > not people. He also pointed out that sexual orientation is a continuum > rather than a clear division of "straight/gay/bisexual". To eradicate > "potential homosexual behavior" in males, then, would mean eradication > of approx 1/3 to 1/2 of all males. Gordon, a couple of points: you are knocking down an argument which was being assumed for the purposes of this thought experiment, so it isn't strictly relevant. That is, the reasoning goes this way: 1.) IF (big if) researchers found morphological differences between straight and gay people 2.) and IF they found the situation responsible for this difference (to name a few: genes, hormonal variance in utero, during childhood, whatever--it isn't important to the argument) 3.) wouldn't it be possible or even very likely that society would find a "cure" for the situation. You forget, too, that something can be biologically based without being hereditary. Perhaps the Kinsey continuum of 1 (entirely heterosexual) to 6 (entirely homosexual) is based on the level of certain hormones during pregnancy, and that the natural variation and fluxuation in all women "causes" the continuum. Now, stepping outside this discussion, I entirely agree with you, but that's not my point. > It is a reasonable scientific endevor to question and investigate why > some people become sexually oriented to the same sex. First, because > homosexuals are the exception, not the rule. Second, because the need > for heterosexual behavior is fairly obvious -- ensuring reproduction. > I think you are expressing homophobia-phobia towards anything that > attempts to investigate homosexual behavior. > The research into the causes/origins of homosexual behavior does not > assume that is something to be cured. It is an attempt at > understanding HUMAN behavior, in all its various forms. I wasn't arguing against research. I wasn't arguing against this particular research. I think it's fascinating. Really. What I was asserting is that the results of any research can be misused. We all know this, just look at the bomb. In this particular situation, I was presenting a thought experiment of what MIGHT happen, given the history of our society and assuming that current attitudes about gay people don't change significantly, and assuming that a particularly reductive view of sexual preference gains evidence. The points I make now will have to be made soon IF (big if) science can ever point to "causes" for homosexual behavior. It is important to get people thinking EARLY about the consequences of technology and how it can be used or misused. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (12/07/84)
I have trouble with the notion of a biological basis of sexual orientation.
It stems from my belief that our concepts of gender and of homosexuality
are culture bound.
There is a difference between biological maleness/femaleness and cultural
maleness/femaleness. To be a biological male is to have a certain biological
characteristics: certain sexual organs, certain genetic material, etc.
To be "culturally" male is to have those characteristics a particular culture
considers appropriate to males, i.e. MASCULINE characteristics.
When I think of my own sexual orientation, it's not biological gender
but rather cultural gender that is a major factor in my sexual taste.
I am not attracted to all males (despite the rumors :-) ).
And then there are physical characteristics unrelated to biological and
cultural gender that are part of my sexual taste, e.g. hair color, height,
ability to carry on a conversation, intelligence, etc.
Furthermore, just because someone is attracted mainly/exclusively to say,
males, doesn't mean s/he is attracted to what s/he considers masculine.
Someone may be attracted to hairless males with slight builds but consider
burliness to be masculine (and not sexually attractive).
Sexual orientation involves a lot more than biological or even cultural gender.
But I think we categorize our sexual taste on the basis of gender
because our culture encourages us to categorize people on the basis of
gender. Gender is one of the first things we notice about a person,
and in fact, we have a hard time ignoring gender.
Our culture (it seems to me) considers males and females more different than
they are biologically.
Our culture overemphasizes and exaggerates the differences between males
and females. In another culture where maleness and femaleness were not
exaggerated beyond the biological, I would suspect that
gender would play less of a role in one's sexual orientation.
And sexual tastes would not be so simply categorized on the basis
of the gender of the sex object.
So my first suspicion of claims of a biological basis of sexual orientation
is that sexual orientation seems to me to be mostly culturally based.
Secondly, different cultures seem to have different notions of homosexuality.
In many Mediterranean cultures, I am told, one is considered to be homosexual
if one is a male who is sexually "passive" with other males. A male who
inserts his penis in another male is NOT considered to be homosexual.
The category of homosexuality seems to be a cultural category.
So before we start entertaining the possibility of a biological basis
of sexual orientation, we'd better make sure that we are not looking for
a biological basis for a category created by/in our culture. Permit me to
exaggerate: looking for a biological basis for homosexuality is like
looking for a biological basis for preferring a rural lifestyle to
an urban one.
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!pbauae!robsaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/07/84)
> > Well, hetero parents will, probably, always prefer a hetero baby; > gay parents will ... there aren't too many of those. > The reason is not necessarily the dreaded homophobia. > The word "eradication" sounds repulsive, sure, but nobody in particular > is getting eradicated. Lifestyles, habits, traditions, orientations, if > you will, are continuously eradicated ih the course of history. > If you want some tradition to continue, you should be able to show > that it is a good one. Whatever is your definition of goodness, it > must show. > To rephrase it: what are the world's merits of having gay population? I think the answer to that are pretty obvious: 1/ stop in growth of world population (overall) 2/ acceptance of different ways of loving people (and not mere replacement of one kind for the other either. There ARE some bisexuals around too!) > Why should gay (straight) tradition continue? > Yes, it creates charming diversity, own subculture, but is that enough > of a merit to make parents upset about having a child that can not > fulfill their expectations? Again "homophobia" does not totally account > for that attitude. I don't think that Steve is worried about the continuation of gay "tradition" but the impact on the gay population that the ease with which homosexuality could be prevented in utero would have. Another analogy can be drawn with these proposed devlopments and the development of other methods to determine abnorbalities in fetuses. The reason amniocentecis (sp?) is performed is not in order to cure potentially "damaged" fetuses in utero, but rather to give parents of such fetuses the opportunity to have an abortion. Now, of course, retardation, birth deffects, etc, will never be erradicated, but if it becomes a common practice to "cure" such problems by abortion, then society will probably be less compassionate towards people who refuse the "cure" and their offsprings. This issue is apparently causing great concern in groups for disabled people. While I am certainly not in favour of restricting women's right to abortion for any reason (and anybody who reads net.abortion can attest to this) I am worried about the impact of the widespread acceptance of abortion of deformed fetuses. Like many of the pro-lifers, I too am worried that people might abort problem fetuses just because there are no societal structures in place to support disabled people. And it is a vicious circle: it becomes easier to abort those fetuses rather than accept them into our society, and as there are less and less of them, the ones that are there are not as easily accepted or can even be blamed (or their parents can be) for existing in the first place, and thus refused assistance that they might have been given if they were a more visible minority. I think there is a parallel with this situation and the problem of "detecting" people's homosexuality in advance. If homosexuality is seen as undesirable, and can be detected earlier on, and people can "cure" it by aborting would-be homosexuals, and this becomes common-place, then existing homosexuals will certainly not be tolerated as well by society. > > Summary: you want gay tradition to be around forever, to be powerful. > But you are not just as concerned with costs of keeping it around, costs of keeping it around? huh? what are you talking about? > as you are with possible disadvantages of doing away with it. > There are usual parallels with ethnic groups (of questional legitimacy) > I can understand the concern - you are a member of potentially threatened > minority - but most of these are not applicable. > > Also: effect of changing male/female ratio are far more serious then > any possible changes in the percentage of gays. Why? It affects more > people more seriously. That is all a matter of opinion! One possible side-effect of drastic changes in male/female ratios would be an increase in homosexuality so it is all related. ****** FLAME ON ****** How can you DARE say that the problems that heterosexual people might have in finding mates might be more "serious" than problems homosexuals might encounter because of discrimination! Seems to me that food & shelter are much more basic needs than sex and companionship. This kind of attitude really pisses me off!!!! I find it SOOOOO reminiscent of the usual crap that men used to feed women about how men's worries were so much more "serious" than women's worries, and how men's work was so much more "serious" than women's work... etc.. ad infinitum. And usually in this kind of situation, the truth was that those who were concerned about "seriousness" could afford to do so because they had free time on their hands unlike those who were spending all their lives working at less "serious" tasks such as making sure that their families did not starve. Your attitude is so patronising, it is disgusting! Just because a concern is not yours, then immediately it is less serious, and just because a concern is shared by a majority of people, then it happens to be more serious then other concerns minorities might have. Yes, I bet there are more people in the world who are worried about sex than there are who are starving (or are things worse than I think they are?). I guess that makes the problems of the starving people less "serious" too by your definition. ***** FLAME OFF ******* > Mike Cherepov > REPLIES to ihnp4!ihlpm!cher Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
hxe@rayssd.UUCP (12/10/84)
I am replying to Steve Dyer's original posting, not to Gordon Moffett's
followups. Steve asked a question that was disturbing to me because, no
matter how hard I tried, I could not answer it for myself. His question
(paraphrased) was, "What would you do if you found out, while your child
was in the womb, that he/she was homosexual?" (Actually, he asked it in
a general way and I took it personally because I believe that that's the
best way to approach any theoretical problem.)
Suppose I'm pregnant and have a routine amnioscentesis (sp?) done for
whatever reason. Without my asking, the doctor volunteers the informa-
tion that my child is a boy with genetic "homosexual tendencies." (This
is in Steve's scenario; I'm not just finding a farfetched story here!)
Like it or not, and with all my best *intellectual* intentions over-ridden
by gut instinct, you can bet that I'm going to treat him differently. I'm
not going to *want* to, mind you, but I'm human. I will have been told
that he's 'different' and that will affect me, as I assert that it would
affect anyone in that situation. I'm already scared to death of raising
a child because I want him/her to be non-sexist, peace-loving, non-racist,
non-homophobic, non-anything-bad, etc. (In other words, perfect.) *Now*
I'm faced with trying to provide my son a non-heterosexual-stereotypical
upbringing and I have no experience. How many words/actions/thoughts/values
that we pass on to our children assume that they are heterosexual? All.
I would probably turn to all my gay friends and ask them, "What would you
like to have heard and how would you like to have been treated when you
were growing up? Anything different?"
And therein lies the other problem. I don't want to treat my son
'differently'. I want him to be like any other kid, for his sake. I also
don't want to make any false assumptions on his behalf about his sexual
preference based on some hormonal test performed before he was born. I
know a man (my old roommate) who was gay from the age of 14 to the age
of 22 and then decided he was straight again. I don't know why he decided
to be straight again, but I do know that he decided to be gay because he
was told by his gay sister and her gay husband (none of my business why
they married) *from the time he was about 5 years old* that he was gay.
I'm not making any judgements here and I'm not assuming that he was either
"really gay" or "really straight" or somewhere in between. All I know is
that he made (what he thought to be) a conscious decision to be gay because
he was told he was. He decided later that it wasn't right for him. How
did you all decide you were gay? Was it your own decision? All I'm
saying here is that I don't think it's the job of a parent to tell a child
what his sexual preference is. Then again, don't they really do that
already by assuming everyone is heterosexual?
See why I'm confused? Of course the problem doesn't exist for me, or for
anyone for that matter. Not yet. But Steve is right to bring it up for
discussion *now*, not when it's too late. Remember that I'm someone who
wouldn't mind (I say now) a gay child; I just don't want to screw up his
upbringing. What about the people who would really persecute a child
they thought was gay from birth on?
No answers, just questions.
--
--Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, ccice5} rayssd!hxe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think my company *has* an opinion, so the ones in this
article are obviously my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Such a foolish notion, that war is called devotion,
when the greatest warriors are the ones who stand for peace."rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (12/10/84)
Well said, Rob! I think sexual orientation is a complex matter, which goes far beyond matters of biological gender or cultural gender role. This is not to deny that sexual orientation is a profound facet of personality, perhaps as permanent as any other facet (any personal trait can be changed; after all, torture works), & as valid. This is also not to ignore a lot of data which suggest that most people are predominantly gay or straight in North America, with a smaller middle group of bisexuals, or to rule out in advance biological factors which may at least partly underlie this fact. However, much of the discussion of candidate biological factors that I've seen is mired in gender stereotypes often peculiar to North America. Sexual orientation is problematic, in all its variety. Eg, why are there heterosexuals at all? The darwinian sketches of an explanation I've heard seem meager, ad hoc, & not very confid- ently advanced. I think it's time (is net.motss the place?) to open a possible pandora's box by making the case for homosexuality (& hetero- sexuality, too? I see "procreation" lingering like a ghost around most people's attitudes toward it) as a matter of totally voluntary choice. I should seek out not only sexual but emotional relationships with people of the same sex (or the opposite sex) simply because I WANT TO, FEEL LIKE DOING SO, & to HELL with any other justification! & society, law, etc. should SUPPORT these choices as they have those of hetero-not-too-sexual monogamy cum marriage. (I assume most readers of net.motss understand "orientation vs. preference" and don't entertain the silly notions of homosexuality implicit in American homophobia -- that it's temporary, a result of peculiar formative influences, pseudo-feminity/masculinity etc. I also assume readers don't regard heterosexuality as god-given, natural, more valuable, etc.) Ron Rizzo
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (12/12/84)
First, I think Ron's and Rob's rejoinders to this discussion are extremely
valuable, and help ground the discussion of sexual preference a bit more in
reality than our discussion had been going. In seizing on the reports of
scientific inquiry into the biological basis of sexual preference, I hoped
to point out three very probable results:
1.) the scientific method is VERY powerful, and I do feel
that some positive influence (i.e. for biology) will be
discovered.
2.) what these results mean at the level of an individual or
for society is EXTREMELY arguable, but that will not stop
those who grasp for easy answers under the blessing of
science.
3.) the results of this reductionist view of human sexuality
can have many unfortunate consequences.
Heather's musing on her reactions to this thought experiment are very
affecting, and illustrate the kinds of quandaries which may be elicited
if this kind of research is misused.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAjtc78@ihuxm.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (12/13/84)
> - Sophie >> Summary: you want gay tradition to be around forever, to be powerful. >> But you are not just as concerned with costs of keeping it around, >costs of keeping it around? huh? what are you talking about? But Steve was speculating about biological basis alone. It does not look like anybody thinks it is the only one, but if it were, you could say that being homosexual is similar to being a leftie. There are costs the world if paying for having leftie population - those conversion attempts, left-handed instruments, ... Would not it be nice to make everybody a rightie with one injection. For homosexuality there are: discrimination (best case), gay children - straight parent conflict... All specifically gay problems that gays experience. >****** FLAME ON ****** >How can you DARE say that the problems that heterosexual people might >have in finding mates might be more "serious" than problems homosexuals might the problems of the starving people less "serious" too by your definition. While appreciating your need to flame I would not subscribe to that bull. Given proportions of S. Dyer's topics ("eradicatoin of gay people") I meant big shift of male/female ratio. Major sociological, psychological, economical changes. For everyone. More wars? Matriarchy? More gays? Who knows. Asking about merits of gay tradition vs its problems is patronizing for a heterosexual? Give me a break. Mike Cherepov REPLIES to ihnp4!ihlpm!cher