The direction of this thread reminded me of an email discussion I had with my Behavior Genetics professor last year. I'm pasting the text from it here, in the hopes that it will make us think of even more questions.
This has been bugging me a bit....so please forgive me for writing a short paper in an email.
~Christopher
I question the relevance of the studies into the biological differences associated with sexual orientation in people living in societies with a social proscription against any deviation from pure heterosexual orientation and behavior. Based on historical, cultural and logical accounts, I believe such a restrictive orientation is not natural for our species, and prior to the spread of Judeo-Christian-Islamic philosophy, many cultures did not show evidence of negative connotations to expression of homosexual behavior (and in many cultures, it was actually encouraged). What the studies I have read do not seem to acknowledge is that while strict homosexual orientation is atypical and rare, so is strict heterosexual orientation (unless there is a social learning mechanism enforcing it as in ideal). Measuring differences between those of homosexual orientation from those of heterosexual orientation within a population maintaining a social bias against any non-heterosexual behavior is thus including individuals who may otherwise engage in a bisexual orientation, if there was not social rejection from heterosexual relationships based on prior homosexual behavior, who have succumbed to social pressure to fall "on one side of the fence or the other." This will result in a blurring of any biological distinction between the two groups, and also fails to recognize that self-assigned orientation may be "one or the other" but impulses are likely to be more general. Sexual desire that contradicts self-assigned orientation is likely to still exist, but be overridden cognitively as a result of learning social taboos for the respective orientation.
This would result in another factor leading to self assignment into one orientation or another -- conformity versus non-conformity. Individuals with a greater need for social conformity may be more likely to restrict their sexual behavior to fit into a self-assigned orientation group. I am reminded of the Asch experiment, wherein individuals were seen to agree with incorrect responses of confederates of the experiment so as to avoid a small degree of social ostracism on about a third of the questions, with about three-quarters of participants agreeing with an incorrect answer at least once. When we are examining differences between individuals of self-assigned homosexual versus heterosexual orientation, a confounding variable will thus be degree of conformity.
Another factor which can influence self-assignment of sexual orientation is overall sexual drive. Individuals with diminished sexual drive may be more likely to "fall in line" with that which is expected by social norms. If, for example, two individuals have a similar Kinsey Scale number, each falling within the middle of the bisexual range, but the overall sexual drive is quantitatively much lower for person A than person B, then the non-heterosexual desires felt by person A will be a much weaker force than in person B. This could result in person A self-identifying as heterosexual in orientation because any homosexual desire, while relatively equal to heterosexual desire, is still ultimately weak, and less likely to result in deviation from a social norm. Conversely, the relatively equal and ultimately strong opposing sexual desires of person B could cause conflict with the social norm, resulting in either suppression of non-heterosexual desire in order to conform, or defiant expression of both which could cause ostracism from the rest of the population of heterosexual orientation, causing an end-result of more social acceptance within the population of homosexual orientation.
As a person self-identified as homosexual in orientation (but acknowledgedly not strictly so as far as desire and behavior), I have seen that there are many "kinds" of people who call themselves gay. Some are obviously presenting gender-atypical behavior to various degrees, and have for most of their memories. These are the "kinds" of people who seem most often to be representative of what the non-gay population characterize the gay population as being, and I believe this has carried over into scientific research. It is understandable that to those not frequently acquainted with gay people, the "gender atypical" are more readily apparent, but are they representative of all gay people? When I read about correlations between gender-atypical physiology and homosexuality, I wonder if what is really being measured is not homosexuality, but gender-atypical behavior. I have yet to read a study (though this does not imply that they don't exist) which qualifies homosexual individuals on a scale of masculinity to femininity when comparing to opposite-sex heterosexual counterparts. How do we know that we are not comparing feminine heterosexual women with feminine homosexual men? Does this not result in another confounding variable?
I would like to see a study comparing differences between orientations which assigned people based on physiological reaction to selective stimuli, rather than self-assignment. I remember reading about a study at the University of Georgia from about ten years or so ago that involved self-identified heterosexual men who were rated on degree of homophobia via questionnaire, and then escorted to a room where they were told to affix a device to their penises which measured blood flow (as a measure of arousal). They were then presented a series of "imagery" ranging from neutral to male-female, female-female, and male-male porn. A positive correlation was found between degree of homophobia and degree of arousal at male-male "imagery." It was theorized that the homophobia was an emotional response to the individuals' own homosexual desires that were unresolved and unexpressed. Interesting, but my point in mentioning this is that self-identified orientation (in this case, strictly heterosexual) is not necessarily the same as physiological measures of arousal would indicate. If we are to seek biological mechanisms at play which result in differences in sexual orientation, then biological measurements of arousal would more clearly define the study populations than self-reported orientation, and remove some of the social-learning confounding variables.
----------
From: XXXXXXXX <
[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:29 PM
To: XXXXXXX <
[email protected]>
Hi Christopher,
I understood where you were going in general, but thanks for taking the time to write it out.
For the most part, I agree with your points. As with ALL behavior genetics, one must be very careful interpreting the results of these studies. I have tried very hard to emphasize the importance of asking whether one is actually measuring what one thinks they are measuring. I also try to get people thinking about what one might actually be measuring. These papers on sexual orientation illustrate how important this is perfectly. Maybe you can ask about this in class? This could be a fun discussion!
On a personal note, I can see we have a lot to discuss and could probably eat up a lot of electrons corresponding. If you have the inclination, please feel free to make an appointment. I generally prefer talking to writing. I am very interested in the topic and obviously enjoy thinking/talking about it.
Ill try not to compose my own tome as a response to your e-mail, but I have a feeling Ill fail in that endeavor.
Im not sure I agree that strict homosexual or heterosexual orientation is rare or atypical. I think that depends very much on how one defines sexual orientation. I hope it is clear that I do not define orientation by behavior, per se. That is, a heterosexual can engage in same-sex sexual contact without fitting my definition of a homosexual. Likewise, a homosexual may engage in opposite-sex sexual behavior without being heterosexual. I contend that orientation is strict, but behavior is not necessarily strict.
I have unconventional thoughts about the bases of homosexuality, not all of which are accepted by or popular among my peers. I do not think that the empirical evidence supports incomplete masculinization of the brain as a potential cause of homosexuality. Gay men know they are men, demonstrating that there is no issue with masculinization of the brain circuits that underlie the establishment of gender identity. There is quite a bit of evidence supporting the idea that gay men engage in more gender atypical behavior than heterosexual men (e.g. the UCLA sissy-boy studies). However, as you point out, the motivation behind the GAB is not elucidated by these studies. I do not think the GAB is related to feeling feminine per se and could certainly be related to cognition, as you point out. GAB is also clearly not predictive of sexual orientation. We both know very feminine heterosexual men and very masculine homosexual men. (Im ignoring lesbians for the time being my thoughts on the bases of homosexuality in women is even more nuttier. I think gay men and lesbians should not be lumped together. Yes, both are homosexual but I think the bases of homosexuality are vastly different in men and women.)
One thing I think it might help for you to know when considering the literature: many of the lead researchers identify themselves as homosexual. Bailey, Pillard, Hamer, LeVay, Byne are all gay men. The point being that these researchers are not out-of-touch academics perched atop an ivory tower who have no clue about homosexuality. Granted, each has their own experience and perspective which undoubtedly differs markedly from other individuals, e.g. LeVay thinks/believes that homosexuality is a result of developmental processes in utero, whereas Byne thinks/believes that homosexuality is a result of environmental influences during psychosexual development. However, they are not clueless and are probably less affected by the stereotypes you mention.
You might be interested to know that I am writing an article tentatively titled something like The Brains of Gay Men are as Masculinized as Heterosexual Men: Time to Let Go and Test Some New Hypotheses for the Archives of Sexual Behavior. I need a better title, but you get the idea. I have a feeling the peer-review process will be ugly on this one. A lot of careers have been spent investigating the idea of incomplete masculinization in the brains of gay men. I begin by defining sexual orientation, which lead me to a question: how do YOU define sexual orientation?
Non-sequitor: If ever you are interested in doing an independent study/directed readings course on this topic, please consider letting me act as your faculty mentor.
Best,
Scott
