Gays and Trans Should be Careful About Using Science in Politics
For years, scientific evidence has been mounting to indicate that sexual orientation is determined by a mix of biological and genetic factors, and that it is not, as opponents of homosexuality try to argue, a 'choice,' or learned behavior.
For more than 10 years, genetic research and new insights in fetal development have shown that sexual identity and behavior are likely pre-determined before birth. Another important study adds further weight to this already strong and growing scientific belief.
Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles School Of Medicine say they have identified 54 genes in mice that could explain why brains of males and females differ, both in how they are biologically structured and how they operate.
The scientists are careful to note that their study did not set out to answer the why's and wherefor's of homosexuality per se. And they are not claiming they have found 'the gay gene,' if, indeed, one exists. ( Most scientists now doubt it is anything that simple. )
But the researchers do believe their findings discount the outmoded notion that both homosexuality and transgender sexuality are choices. Their research adds to the body of evidence that helps us understand human sexuality, both gay and straight. And it is no doubt more information and good news for activists who use the biological/genetic argument as a tool for fighting discriminatory policies against GLBTs.
But what puts this research on the cutting edge is the possibility that the findings could help doctors do a much better job of gender assignment in cases where the genitals of a newborn are ambiguous. In about one in 3,000 births, doctors are unable to tell parents if their child is a boy or a girl. Traditionally, the doctor, or the parents, make a judgement call based on little more than unclear physical traits and personal biases. The poor child is then raised as either a boy or a girl according to the parents or the doctor's whim. There have been numerous studies where such children have detailed their struggles with a life that is forced into a gender identity that conflicts with their minds.
The new research supports the theory that the brains of men and women are different in significant ways, and that those differences cannot be explained simply through the affects and influences of hormones.
The research discovered that 54 genes were produced in significantly different amounts in male and female brains even before hormones affected the brains. Male brains produced 18 of these genes in significantly higher amounts; female brains produced 36 of the genes in substantially higher levels. The scientists now intend to study each of the 54 genes, to determine their roles and functions.
'This may explain why we feel male or female, regardless of our anatomy,' Dr. Eric Vilain, a genetics professor at UCLA, told Reuters. 'These discoveries lend credence to the idea that being transgender ... is a state of mind.' He also said it further strengthened the argument that sexual orientation is not a 'choice.' Obviously, transgender and queer activists will be happy with this, and will no doubt add it to their arsenal of arguments for fighting discriminatory public policy.
I'm not saying they shouldn't.
But I do believe we as a movement must be careful with the sensitive question of 'choice.'
Obviously, activists are eager to use the scientific evidence that bolsters the theory that sexual orientation and being transgender are not conscious choices. Polls have shown the public is far more willing to accept GLBTs if they believe being so is inherent, rather than learned. It's a strong argument, and clearly a persuasive one.
But I am a little fearful of basing our movement, and our rights, too heavily on the genetic and biological argument. Though the evidence is mounting significantly, I worry more about the philosophy of the argument than about the hard science it is based on.
I wonder: Suppose homosexuality and being transgender are, at least in part, learned behavior, even partly a matter of choice. Do we then somehow deserve less rights, less protections, less freedom from discrimination because of it? The purely scientific argument is a slippery slope that could be twisted by our enemies to say that, yes, if we can counter genetics and biology in some ways, then we should do so to prevent homosexuality. And those who don't take such measures deserve to be discriminated against.
I prefer a movement based more on the philosophy that all of us—regardless of how we got here, either through our genes or our environment—deserve equal respect and rights for the lives we choose to lead.
----------------------------------------
