For those of you who didn't read the article this "scientist" wrote, you can do so here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=30040&mesg_id=30040The article was written by Dr. Daniel Nebert of the University of Cincinnati, and purports to explain in scientific terms why homosexuality is abnormal and a "biological defect." It stops just short of recommending eugenic "cleansing" of this defective gene.
I wrote an angry letter to the doctor, which you can read here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=30040&mesg_id=30049Dr. Nebert replied:
My "Your Voice" article today is not at all about "homophobia" or "gay-bashing" but rather I was trying to inject some objectivity into a very vitreolic, emotional (also political? certainly religious) topic. Also, I had written far more than the 420-word limit, so the newspaper editors chopped where they saw fit (without consulting me)---which spoiled some of the flow of my logic.
I have often discussed with colleagues (yes, some of my best friends are "gay"), the possible evolutionary advantages for maintaining "gay" genes at 1%-2% expressivity in human populations. One reason might be as simple as a "nurturing" behavior (there is a gradient of "maleness" and "femaleness" in all of us. Alternatively, or one or more gay genes may be tightly linked with "creativity" or "intelligence", because most homosexual men or women I've known are also highly creative and intelligent.
Deleted from my article offered to the newspaper was this whole paragraph: Putting aside religious objections to homosexuality, let’s consider the science. If homosexuality were to become a dominant trait in any species, that species would soon become extinct. Imagine a nuclear holocaust wherein all people are killed and all transportation destroyed, except for six 20-year-olds on the entire planet: in a fertile valley on one continent are two males, on another continent two females, and on a third continent one male and one female. One hundred years later, what would we have? Obviously, generations would be multiplying on just one continent.
Genetically speaking, the ONLY thing important for evolution of a species is to reproduce sound, healthy offspring. Also genetically speaking, "wild-type, consensus, reference and normal" alleles are defined as those promoting future generations of the species. All alleles (and we have dozens of hundreds for each and every gene) other than the "wild-type" have been described as "abnormal, unnormal, minor, deviant, variant, mutant"---take your pick. So, alleles that reflect homosexuality, stuttering, dyslexia, lefthandedness, diabetes, color-blindness, coronary artery disease, obesity, asthma, cancer, etc.---are not normal (call them whatever you want). And (as one of my gay friends pointed out), even on "this continent where we started life over with one male and one female" (see paragraph above), would homosexuality re-emerge as a trait..? Yes, probably, within 500 or 2000 years, on the reasons I've stated above.
Finally, it has been estimated that "each of us has between 6 and 14 mutant alleles". I would contend it's probably more like 50 or 100 mutant alleles in the genome of each of us. So, of course, NO ONE is "normal", no one has 100% "wild-type" genes. Everyone should get over it, so that we can deal with more important issues in our society....! There is absolutely no "eugenics" discussed or intended in my article.
An obvious attempt to silence me with a torrent of jargon. Nice try.
My reply:
Dr. Nebert:
Thank you for your response.
1) I’m wondering where you get the 1 to 2% expressivity number, which seems to imply some discrete, phenotypical group whereas behavioral studies performed since the ’50s (I won’t name names) indicate a far more fluid pattern of sexual behavior across the entire human population, onto which stricter categories of identity have been socially imposed. Since you acknowledge the “gradient of ‘maleness’ and ‘femaleness’”—not the proper way to conceptualize it, but I won’t split hairs—it follows from your own assessments that human sexual behavior cannot be reduced to percentages. Furthermore, certainly it’s occurred to you that social, political (certainly religious) inhibitions make accurate assessments of same-sex attraction across the species nearly impossible.
2) While I understand your (misguided) desire to find some evolutionary purpose or advantage to a gay gene—nurturing or intelligence are your examples—don’t you think it a bit questionable to base these hypotheses merely on your (I’m guessing, limited) exposure to gay men and lesbians? For example, while to your perception male homosexuality is an appropriation of “feminine” traits, how do you explain the fact that most gay males actually exhibit a hypermasculine aesthetic and persona, and seek the same in their partners? Why need there be any evolutionary “purpose” to sexual diversity at all? Are there no other human physiological and behavioral features that have been recycled throughout evolution to present, despite their lack of a reproductive role?
3) I’m not sure how the omitted paragraph you provided helps your case, since it’s blatantly misleading. The failure of two men or two women alone on an island to reproduce has nothing to do with their respective sexual orientations, nor does such a scenario serve as an accurate model of a parallel gay universe. Were the continuance of the species in the hands of a gay man and a lesbian alone together on an island, believe me, they’d work something out. Thanks to our evolved cognitive capacities, human reproduction is not an enterprise limited to pheromones and mating calls. Admit it: the only possible purpose of your distorted hypothetical was to perpetuate the ridiculous lie that gays and lesbians can’t or don’t reproduce, and are therefore a biological dead-end—I’m sorry—a “defect.”
4) In general, I find your overall treatment of the subject of a “gay gene” unconvincing and manipulative. That is, I highly doubt that someone in your field actually believes that a single “gay gene” exists and is somehow separable from other “normal,” wild-type genes for sexual behavior. Isn’t it possible (and more likely) that different sexual behaviors obtain from a complex system of genes present in everyone, interacting both between them and with other chemical factors that control their expression, producing a wealth of phenotypes that we then socially categorize? The idea of a “gay gene” is basically a reductionist straw-man, and reflects a blindness to the great variances in sexual behavior that occur throughout a single lifetime and across the entire species. Of course, this type of complexity doesn’t make for a very compelling “opinion” piece singling out a particular group, does it?
5) I also find unconvincing your claim that the choice of the words “normal,” “normality,” “mutant,” etc. were merely an innocent reference to scientific terminology, especially since you didn’t alert readers that lefthandedness is also “abnormal” in geneticist-speak. The fact is, you were writing an editorial, not a peer-reviewed article. You had to know that average readers of your piece would conflate genetic “normality” with their own social conceptions of what is “normal.” The word “mutant” means something far more cruel and inhuman when applied to a person and not an allele. No matter; the fact remains that calling homosexuality a “biological defect” belies your story. Consider: would you write an opinion piece calling left-handedness a “biological defect?” At very least, I think you should apologize to the “biological defectives” who sit in your classes and pass you in the halls. I, for one, would find it very difficult to study under you or share a coffee in the faculty lounge after reading your article.
Let’s get real. This was a piece meant to bolster a political viewpoint by couching it in scientific jargon and academic credentials. Your resentful reference to the “secular-progressive movement” is evidence enough of that. To pretend that your intention was to “inject objectivity” into the topic by writing an opinion piece is intellectually dishonest. Express your personal viewpoints honestly in an article, fine. But don’t use science to impart an aura of authority to your own personal prejudices.
Yours,
(me)
These people are now trying to co-opt science, and must be stopped. I'm deciding whether or not to report him to the Department Chair or the Dean.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
