The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a “gender-identity” problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” states the following:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….”

That contrasts with the APA’s statement in 1998: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

Read the rest of the article…

With this admission that their former stance was wrong, will the APA respond differently to the stories of many people who have found freedom from a homosexual identity?  Hopefully this will be an open door for dialogue and respectful conversation on this topic.  The APA’s stance, whether it be embracing the gay gene theory or offering the possibility of change from a homosexual identity, has no bearing on my own beliefs.  No institution can discredit the fact that God has done a significant change in me.  He is the bearer of change in my life.  But, this is a great step in perhaps reducing the discrediting and judgmental attitudes many in the psychiatric world have against organizations such as Exodus.

It’s good to see the APA admitting the truth of our experiences.

]]> http://exodusyouth.net/2009/05/21/apa-revises-gay-gene-theory/feed/ 9 http://exodusyouth.net/2009/04/09/what-does-science-say/ http://exodusyouth.net/2009/04/09/what-does-science-say/#comments Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:33:26 +0000 Frank Carrasco http://exodusyouth.net/?p=266 The headline in the July 16th, 1993 issue of the Wall Street Journal read “Research Points Towards Gay Gene.” It was a headline that ran in papers across the nation. This instance was speaking about a research study a scientist by the name of Dean Hamer had conducted where he suggested that based on his findings, Homosexuality may actually be an inborn trait rather than learned.

This was not the first study of its kind, neither would it be the last. For years, scientists have been trying to discover the etiology (or cause) of same gender attractions.  Far from purely scientific the research has political consequences as well. Studies have shown that the public’s beliefs about the origins of sexual orientation are directly correlated to their attitude regarding homosexuality and serve to further political causes.  As such a lot of the science has fallen into the hands of political Ideologies. But apart from the politics of science,  what does the research actually say? Is homosexuality learned or innate? Furthermore, is change possible?

To begin, it’s important to clear up a common misunderstanding about the language used in research. Much of the research to date suggest that there may be a biological link to homosexuality. Many have mistakenly taken this to mean that people are born gay – but that is not necessarily what the research suggests. Many things have been found to have a biological link yet we consider within our control. In fact, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth makes the illustration that a person could be born with genes making him tall with great eye-hand coordination, but his genes alone did not make him a basketball player, in fact he had to train and be exposed to basketball before he could become a basketball player. The same kid could have easily devoted himself to academia and become a lawyer, his genes simply gave him the tools needed to become an accomplished basketball player… this is why many scientist are now choosing to say there might be a “pre-disposition”  to homosexuality. The same way we can be predisposed to heart disease, smoking or basketball.(94)

As for actual studies that have been published, three in particular are held up by some as pointing to a ”gay gene.” Simon LeVay’s Hypothalamus study, Bailey and Pillard’s Twin studies as well as Dean Hamer’s Chromosome study of 1993. The studies made  headlines when  first published years ago making the case for innate homosexuality, and in fact headlines such as the Wall Street Journals which claimed “Research Points Towards Gay Gene” may lead the casual reader to believe a gay gene was found, but what did these studies actually find?

First lets look at the Dean Hammer study mentioned at the beginning. Newspapers claimed the study found a Gay Gene, but is it true? In this study, Hammer and his colleagues noticed that some gay identified men typically had gay identified uncles as well, but only on the mothers side. concluding that since women have (XX) Chromosomes while men have (XY) Chromosomes, Hammer and colleagues hypothesized that if there was a gay gene, it would likely be in the “X” Chromosomes since mothers can only pass on an X chromosome. After studying a group of families who fit their model of gay men with gay uncles of maternal lineage, a deviation was found in a portion of the X chromosome labeled Xq28. The Report concluded that if homosexuality was genetic, the cause could probably be found in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome. Though the study does raise some interesting questions, the population studied was too small to be of any statistical significance and the results of the Hammer study have not been able to be replicated. In fact as of June 25th 1995, Science magazine confirmed that Hammer was under investigation by the Office of Research Integrity at the Department of Health and Human Services for selectively reporting his data. In other words he reported only the data that would suggest homosexuality was innate.

Another famous study is that of Simon LeVay. In 1991, Levay studied the brain structures of deceased men attempting to see if there was any difference in the structures of heterosexual and homosexual men’s brains. What he found was that on average, the INAH-3 section of the Hypothalamus (a part of the brain widely believed to be involved in sexuality,) was smaller in gay identified men than in heterosexual men. Again, criticism of the study includes that the sample was too small to be of any statistical significance. Furthermore, the report stated that “on average” gay men’s hypothalamus was smaller… but in fact some gay men had larger INAH-3 sectors. Therefore,  though “on average” these gay men had a smaller hypothalamus, it was not uniformally small and could not definatively be linked as the cause of homosexuality.

Furthermore, LeVay’s sample of heterosexual men was an assumed sample, in other words, he assumed the men in his heterosexual sample were indeed heterosexual though it could not be confirmed. What’s more, LeVay points out in his own book Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality that “the observations were made on adults who had already been sexually active for a number of years. To make a really compelling case, one would have to show that these neuro-anatomical differences existed early in life – preferably at  birth. Without such data, there is always at least the theoretical possibility that the structural differences are actually the result of differences in sexual behavior.” And admits that “another limitation arises because most of the gay men whose brains I studied died of AIDS.”(143-144)

The media repeatedly touted the LeVay studies as proof of a biological basis to homosexuality, but LeVay himself dismissed these claims saying in a 1994 issue of Discover magazine that “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”

Lastly a major study cited is Bailey and Pillard’s “Twin Studies.” The study was based on a very simple premise: If homosexuality is genetically determined, then Identical twins (which share Identical DNA) should both be gay. In 1991, the researchers released their findings which stated that 52% of Identical twins were both gay. Some argue that this would prove homosexuality is genetic since the concordance rate of both twins being gay is higher than the prevelancy of homosexuality in the general population, but other scientists argue that the findings in fact make a strong case that environment is key in developing homosexuality. They argue that if homosexuality was genetically determined (as opposed to influenced) it must reach close to a 100% concordance rate, much like twins having the same colored eyes (a trait which is genetically determined). However the research seems to indicate that homosexuality may be genetically influenced much like weight in identical twins which can vary due to environmental factors such as diet and exercise. Criticism of the study includes that the sample was self selected, meaning people volunteered knowing the purpose of the study, as such it can be expected that homosexual twins would have overwhelmingly volunteered as opposed to twins in general.

An interesting interpretation concerning twin studies comes from lesbian author and researcher Lisa Diamond in her latest book titled Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire in which she chronicles the natural shift of sexual identity in women over a ten year period. Concerning twin studies she writes: “When considering these heritability estimates, it is useful to compare them to heritability estimates that have been calculated for other complex behavioral traits. For example, twin studies have found that the heritability of smoking (a behavior that most people consider to be under conscious control and yet situationally influenced) is also around 60 percent. Similar estimates have been found for the heritability of marijuana and alcohol use. Even job satisfaction shows significant heritability, most likely because it is strongly related to personality, which yields heritability estimates ranging from 45 to 60 percent. We tend to trumpet biological effects when it comes to homosexuality, but I have yet to see the cover of Time or Newsweek display a newborn baby with the headline ‘Born unsatisfied with his job?’”(31-32)

Some more recent studies that shed a new light on the issue of sexuality include the one mentioned above, Lisa Diamond’s own research documenting the sexual fluidity she discovered in women. She demonstrated that women can not only to go from heterosexual to homosexual but from homosexual to heterosexual as well. She states that “The most unexpected finding was that five women actually gave up their lesbian or bisexual identities, and an additional five women started calling themselves heterosexual!…The women who started calling themselves heterosexual typically reported that their same-sex attractions simply were not strong enough to justify identifying as lesbian or bisexual. They were generally more interested in men and expected to end up with men down the line.” (63)

Also, recently published was another longitudinal (meaning long-term) study of Ex-Gays by Dr. Stanton Jones and Dr. Mark Yarhouse. In their book Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, Drs Jones and Yarhouse conclude after following former homosexuals involved in Exodus ministries that “We believe we have provided evidence that change of homosexual orientation may be possible through involvement in Exodus ministries. The change may take the form of a reduction in homosexual attraction and behavioral chastity; it may also take the form of a reduction in homosexual attraction and an increase in heterosexual attraction with what might be described as satisfactory heterosexual adjustment.” They add that they also found little evidence that trying to change ones sexual orientation would be harmful and in fact found that in some cases, it reduced anxiety and stress in some individuals. (387)

Perhaps the greatest shock to the mental health community came in 2001 when Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University published his study on the efficacy of efforts to change one’s sexual orientation. The upset came in that Spitzer has long been known to be a friend of the gay community, and was instrumental in removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders from the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual (DSM), the manual by which mental health professionals diagnose and treat mental illnesses. After extensive study, the skeptical Spitzer published his findings in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2001 concluding that sexual orientation can successfully be changed.

So are people born gay? Studies suggest that sexual orientation is an inter-play of both genetic and environmental factors. Genetics being able to predispose a person to homosexuality, but still relying on intricate environmental factors such as upbringing and social interaction to fully develop what some call the “homosexual potential.” Much like obesity has been discovered to have a genetic link, its understood that a person’s weight is ultimately dependent on environmental factors like diet and exercise.

Is change possible? Recent studies as well as first hand accounts confirm that sexuality is fluid and can indeed change whether through therapy or coincidentally over time. Researchers are careful not to claim that everyone can change their sexual orientation. Such absolute statements are as irresponsible as statements saying “people are born gay.” Researchers Yarhouse and Jones write that “some respondents experienced significant, meaningful change of sexual orientation in this sample, but we did not find that everyone (or anyone) can change. The fact that some human beings can break the four-minute mile barrier establishes that running a four-minute mile is not impossible, but that same fact does not establish that anyone (every human being) can break the four-minute mile barrier. So also our findings firmly refute any notion that change of sexual orientation is impossible.”(372)

In the end, I like the way psychologist John Money put it. He compared sexuality to the development of language. He argued that a person is not born speaking English. And nothing in their genetics made them learn English rather than Swahili. Rather, the fact that a person learned English depended on their native culture. It has been shown that brains are innately predisposed to assimilate a language, whatever language that may be. Once it is aquired, the language becomes so natural to us that it’s as if we were born with it. Yet no matter how natural our native tongue may be, we know we are not born speaking English. In like manner, no matter how natural our same gender attractions may seem, let us not confuse that to mean that we were born gay.