[review]
[excerpt]
[endlinks]
[purchase]
[review]
[excerpt]
[endlinks]
[purchase]
by
The MIT Press, 1996
Reviewed by
What causes people to be homosexual? It is a question that has been asked since antiquity. In Plato's Symposium Aristophanes suggests that people were originally "double" creatures, two halves making a whole. When these creatures - some hermaphrodite, some male, some female - were split by angry gods, human beings were forced to spend their lives searching for their "missing" half. For the hermaphrodites, the search is a heterosexual one. For the others, the search leads to homosexuality.
Centuries later, Saint Paul offered his own view on what caused homosexuality: a disbelief in God. When unbelievers exchanged the truth of God for a lie, they were given up to vile acts which are "against nature," he wrote in Romans 1:25-26.
So who is right? Aristophanes or Paul? Is homosexuality caused by nature or nurture? That is the crux of the debate, then as now. And not even science, which calls for a rational, systematic search for answers to questions, has been dispassionate about the topic of same-sex love.
When the debate over whether homosexuality is an inborn condition or a lifestyle more or less "chosen" by the gay or lesbian person burst from traditional religious and moral parameters, the argument was fiercely picked up by scientists and psychologists, some of whom approached the subject with sympathy, while others sought to eradicate the "disease" from the human population.
Even on the Web, where thousands of sites are dedicated to the topic, few ignore the nature versus nurture question.
In his book Queer Science, researcher and author Simon LeVay points out the importance of finding this answer even as he argues that the cause is meaningless.
In addition to asking why, he also asks, "Who cares?" Gay people are simply a fact of life. But he knows that is not enough. So he then argues that if homosexuality is found to be an inborn, genetically determined trait like being left-handed, the implications for the social and legal status of homosexuals is obvious. Gays and lesbians can then argue that they, like minority groups separated by skin color, deserve legal antidiscrimination protection.
But if science proves that heterosexuality is the "natural" state of men and women, and that gays and lesbians are created that way by their upbringing or moral turpitude, then discrimination based on sexual orientation would not only be legal but, perhaps, right, similar to how society "discriminates" against the criminally insane.
A third possibility offered by LeVay, and echoed by many of the scientists he interviewed for the book, is that same-sex emotional and physical attraction may arise from an array of social, genetic, and environmental effects that work together to make one person straight and another gay.
In other words, homosexuality is neither nature nor nurture, but both. That possible conclusion is the result of a century's worth of research into what makes a person gay, and it is this history of theories, attempted cures, and the occasional plea for understanding that LeVay uncovers in Queer Science.
Despite the book's dense, sometime jargony prose, it offers a careful, detailed and surprisingly dispassionate analysis of more than one hundred years of scientific research into homosexuality. Anyone with an interest in homosexuality, the gay-rights movement, or the history of psychiatric research will find the book interesting and enlightening, even if they disagree with LeVay's conclusions.
They also will find it impossible to ignore the thought that LeVay's own homosexuality has affected his presentation to some degree. The reader can easily discern LeVay's bias. Too many value judgments are placed on previous research (particularly the attempts to "cure" homosexuals) for the reader not to know where LeVay's sympathies lie. And some have argued that LeVay's presuppositions have biased his results. Still, his conclusions have made a significant contribution to studies on sexuality.
LeVay, a former neuroscientist at the Salk Institute, reported in 1991 in Science magazine the differences in brain structure between gay and straight men. He gives more details in this book. Basically, in studying the brains of 41 dead men, 19 of whom were homosexuals, LeVay found that a specific portion of the hypothalamus, the area of the brain that governs sexual activity, was consistently smaller in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. This suggested to him that there is a distinct physiological component to sexual orientation.
So while it is likely that LeVay's homosexuality led to his interest in the origins of homosexuality, he would not be the first researcher with a less than strictly for-the-sake-of science interest in the subject.
For example, in 1957 the late Evelyn Hooker conducted Rorschach inkblot experiments that showed there was no difference in how gay and straight men responded. At the time, inkblots were thought to give objective indications of a subject's mental health, but reviewers could not identify a subject as gay or straight based upon the result of these tests. This finding brought into question the long-held belief that homosexuality was a "florid psychopathology."
Besides the problem of relying on the inkblots to determine mental health, LeVay points out that Hooker, having befriended a gay couple and realizing the men were not pathological or mentally disturbed, set about to find proof that gays can be and often are mentally and emotionally healthy individuals.
Hooker, however, is one in a long line of researchers with either a pro-gay or anti-gay agenda.
One of the earliest researchers into homosexuality was German jurist Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, who was openly gay and even argued for the abolishment of sodomy laws before the legislature of Germany in 1867. Ulrichs, like Aristophanes, argued that homosexuality was inborn and, therefore, not "against nature" as Paul believed.
Another early researcher, Magnus Hirschfield, continued Ulrich's theories on the inherent nature of homosexuality; however, like many researchers, he was ambivalent about the nature of gayness. While arguing that it is inborn, he compared it to a congenital deformity such as a harelip. But unlike a harelip, he wrote, homosexuality was not curable.
Throughout the book, LeVay continues to discuss succeeding theories, including relatively recent studies on genetic markers that may determine homosexuality through the X chromosomes inherited from mothers. He also devotes a chapter to the gay-rights movement and the legal implications of being gay.
At the end of "Queer Science," however, he returns to his original question: Is finding a cause really important?
While the reader senses LeVay would like to answer that question with a "no," he already answered it in the introduction. A study has shown that those who believe homosexuality is an inborn trait, similar to being left-handed or redheaded, are more accepting of gays and lesbians than those who believe it is a choice.
If the origins of homosexuality is a choice, then, the argument goes, people can chose not to be gay. If it's an inborn trait, then society should accept gays as a minority (with the legal privileges that entails) and move on. However, as LeVay points out, to determine a genetic or in utero cause of gayness would be to suggest the possibility of a cure, which could be anything from gene therapy to aborting the "defective" fetus.
Keena D. Lykins is an award-winning writer and editor with more than 10 years of experience in journalism.
The consensus seemed to be that the cause of homosexuality was not as significant as its results. And here research such as (Evelyn) Hooker's played a significant role. For what, to most of us, could easily be learned by getting to know a few gays and lesbians was for many psychiatrists only persuasive in the form of inkblots and multiphasic inventories.
A quick search for Web sites on homosexuality or sexuality will reveal thousands and thousands of pages. The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force's statement on the National Institutes of Health Genetic Study on Homosexuality reiterates LeVay's position that regardless of the origins of homosexuality, discrimination based on sexual orientation should be ended.
Another site's document, Homosexuality: Choice or Fixed Orientation? discusses the nature versus nurture origins of homosexuality, and though the site is religiously oriented, it urges tolerance as it examines the issues.
In the essay New NIH Study indicates Homosexuality Is Learned, its author discusses a recent fruit fly study that he says indicates that homosexuality is a choice, not a condition.
And while the religious arguments against homosexuality are usually based on the Bible, in Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism, A. L. De Silva writes that the latter teaches to, and expects from, its followers a certain level of ethical behavior.
Author Simon LeVay wrote another book for MIT Press in 1994, The Sexual Brain, which discusses scientific evidence about the brain mechanisms that produce sexual behavior; how these mechanisms differ between men and women; how differences develop; and what determines a person's sexual orientation--genes, prenatal events, family environment, or early sexual experiences. The above link takes you to this page at Amazon.com, which provides brief review excerpts and a table of contents.
Genetics press cuttings on Simon LeVay from The Knitting Circle, a gay and lesbian Web site from South Bank University in London, includes review clips and press items about Queer Science. Navigating backward through the site brings up the Resource Center which includes resources and bibliographies on genetics and endocrinology as they relate to homosexuality.
You may purchase this book directly from Amazon.com (list, $25.00; Amazon.com price, $22.50, a $2.50 (10%) savings). Amazon.com also features a review and table of contents for Queer Science. You can also purchase it at the Internet Book Shop.