B139-DES88
Straight Talk On Queer Things
Copyright © by Dan Schneider, 3/20/04
As a white
heterosexual male there are some people who would state that that fact
disqualifies me from opining on anything non-white, non-heterosexual, &
female. Of course, this obviates any ideas of intellect, imagination, &
empathy. Since I disagree, here goes. I want to address homosexuality in a much
more plainspoken & less histrionic way than members of the far left &
right do. Before I do let me just give a brief background to what homosexuality
is. Currently it refers to either an individual sexually attracted to a member
of the same sex, or an act of same sex sexual behavior. The most important word
in the sentence I just wrote, however, is current. That’s because the
term only came into usage about 1870. Before then there was a distinction
between the act & the actor. A man might commit sodomy & be considered a
sodomite- but this was not thought to be a dominant factor in the person’s
life, nor did it equate with the feminine. Alexander the Great, as example, was
considered the most virile man of his time, yet he had 1000s of male lovers
& a few dozen female 1s to boot.
In short,
while there were people who had same sex sex they were not parsed ad infinitum
by the plethora of modern terms such as homosexual, bisexual, lesbian,
transsexual, transgender, omnisexual, etc. In short, the idea of sexual
‘orientation’ is a modern 1 suited to political climes that favor a more
automatonically genetic explanation for human behaviors, rather than a social 1.
Even a term like ‘sexual preference’ is considered offensive in the most
extremist elements of politicized sexuality. Yet, even as less explicit terms
like gay, queer, & even fag have gained acceptance in
such quarters there is a logical schism when 1 tries to account for such things
as ‘gay pride’. How can 1 have pride in something they’ve no control of?
This seems to most non-gays a tacit admission of a non-genetic factor (or
choice) at work. Indeed, a noticeable political schism has existed for decades
in the modern post-Stonewall gay rights movement- that between female & male
homosexuals, with lesbians- especially those of the lipstick chic variety-
openly claiming lesbianism as a choice, while the vast majority of male
homosexuals claim they ‘were born that way’. Of course, the more vocal &
butch ‘dyke’ lesbians tend to deny that their ‘lipstick’ kin are true
lesbians, & most also reject the term ‘gay’ as referring to only male
homosexuals, for whom they hold a palpable hostility.
The modern
basis for this hostility seems to be an outgrowth from the perception of AIDS as
a gay male disease & lesbians’ desire to distance themselves from that
perception of all homosexuals- even female- being carriers of death. This
distancing also echoes back to fundamentalist religious notions which chide
homosexuality as a sin (1 which could be engaged in by ‘normal’ people as
sexual groups were not subdivided in most human cultures), then being seen as a
crime, & later as a mental illness along the lines of paranoia, psychopathy,
& schizophrenia. While modern medicine has removed homosexuality from the
ignominy of mental illness its true nature remains as confounding as ever.
But, more so
than its basis & origin, I find puzzling the very obsessive desire to seek
its root. Yes, scientifically I understand the urge, but culturally I do not,
save for some remnant Puritanism stalking the recesses of our collective
unconscious. After all, it’s far more important to simply treat all people as
fairly as humanly possible. Thus, I support all gay rights- marriage, the desire
to kill for their country, adoption, fair housing, & employment, etc. For
this Right wingers have been known to call me a ‘fag lover’. Yet when I
state that I do not believe homosexuality is purely genetic nor purely social,
but a varying portion of each in any individual non-heterosexual, I am labeled a
‘fag basher’ by the Left.
This is
typical of the puerile dualism that haunts American discourse today. I say to
hell with it. Let’s look at some ‘facts’ that will never show up in
reports, studies, nor crusades. All attempts to pinpoint a biological basis for
homosexuality have proven to be as miserable a failure as those which seek to
prove environment as the main or sole cause. The ‘gay brain’- actually a
small portion of the hypothalamus that was supposedly enlarged in gay men, &
discovered in 1991 by a Dr. Simon LeVay- is as silly as the Freudian ‘weak
father’, & even less justifiable as it is well known in
neuroscience that the brain is remarkably plastic, & parts of it change
& grow with repeated usage. For instance, those parts of the brain thought
to regulate risk-taking have been shown to be more active & dynamic in those
people who engage in extreme sports & daredeviltry. Does this mean that
it’s genetic? No, because as those people got deeper into their pursuits those
regions increased. Similar attempts to remove responsibility from substance
abusers by showing ‘addictive brains’ have been fruitless since tests of the
very young progeny of known addicts has shown that enlargements of their brain
areas, in the same areas as their parents, is non-existent. But, let’s say 1
of the children grows up to be an alcoholic, with a seemingly more active brain
area for addiction, how would 1 go about proving which came 1st? That
said, LaVey’s research was shown not so after peer review. Later attempts to
revive the ‘gay brain’ with studies of glucose levels in the hypothalamus or
a bloating of the anterior commisure which connects the 2 hemispheres of the
brain via the amygdala proved as baseless & unrepeatable as LaVey’s.
Even more
publicized was the ‘gay gene’. This notion 1st gained notoriety
in late 1993 when a gay researcher who was gay, himself, named Dean Hamer,
published a study in Science magazine. The piece detailed a ‘linkage
study’ done by DH & colleagues & found that certain genetic variants
existed in slightly higher proportions of family lineages with gay members than
those not, & that the variations were more frequent in certain members of
those families. On the surface there seemed to be some correlation, but this
heritability (meaning can be passed along) does not equate with being
inherited (meaning definitely passed along). Also, such higher
frequencies are normal in regards to many human traits. Even Hamer, when asked-
by the rival Scientific American- if homosexuality was simply
biologically rooted stated, ‘Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already
know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not
inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the
psychosocial factors.’ Yet, the media & gay rights movement seized
upon this term until it crumbled away in the late 90s.
1 of the most damning bits of research came from the previously
apolitical ‘twin studies’ being conducted to see the level of genetic
influence on twins reared apart. Studies showed that if 1 identical twin were
homosexual then the other was only about 38% of the time if male & 30 % if
female. Here’s where the trouble with a gay gene arises- if homosexuality is
biologically- or genetically-based then if 1 twin is gay the other would be gay
100% of the time. While biology has an influence, it is clearly not the only nor
dominant influence.
Unremarked in all of this is that even were similar biological influences
shown to be present in all homosexuals in the same degree, that would still not
resolve the issue, as all people- even twins- react differently to different
stimuli. 1 of the major problems with all twin studies in fact is that they have
greatly overstated the effect of biology in all twins in all traits- besides
homosexuality. This seems to be part of a larger general movement to remove
responsibility from individuals in all spheres. Let’s face it- it’s easier
to pawn off behavior on a devil, a voice, or a gene. We all seek to make
ourselves feel better & to lessen guilt. If society constantly looked down
upon people who enjoyed mathematics do you not think that people who loved math
would seek to deny that love’s complex causes in favor of the easy out
provided by some ‘expert’? Things have gotten so ridiculous in today’s
world that the most recent attempt to show that a biological difference exists
between gays & straights is a British study of the way eyes blink in
response to loud noises. The relation to homosexuality that this has is
anyone’s guess.
More intriguing to me than homosexuality is homophobia- literally the
fear of homosexuals, but more generically the hatred or disdain of gays. Gays
have tried to portray this ‘fear’ as meaning that straight folk fear they
are gay, & while there are closet homosexuals who feel this fear, the
majority of straight folk are more properly homtaediot- they suffer from
homotaedium, or a disgust of things homosexual. When I’ve encountered most
people who don’t like gays the overwhelming response is that of disgust- their
faces scrunch, a ‘yuck’ comes to their lips, etc. Even I, who don’t care
about others’ private lives, admit that when forced to picture same sex sex I
cringe, more so than when I think of heterosexual sex (where I’m not
involved)- I cannot help it. But, this reaction is far different from a bunch of
rednecks who beat up some 1 they think is a ‘fag’- that sort of reaction is
far more easily explained as a typical human reaction to ‘the other’- be it
on a gay, ethnic, racial, or religious basis. The disjunction from the real
reason some straight people shun homosexuality & the reasons gays
‘believe’ are behind it are mostly political. Gay rights activists have
propagandized such myths as a sliding scale of sexual preference (oddly, even as
some deny bisexuality), that all people are homosexuals if they’d just admit
it (the old saying lesbians use is ‘once a woman’s tasted snizz
[female ejaculate] she’ll never go back to plain old gizz!), & that
homosexuals make up 10% of the human population.
The last myth was propagated by the 1948 Alfred Kinsey Report, & has
long been discredited for Kinsey was a homosexual who was displeased with the
fact & sought to create reasons/excuses for his displeasure. His ‘study’
reached the 10% figure by a combination of interviewing prison inmates, known
pedophiles, & by asking leading questions such as if the person ever thought
of a same sex person sexually. A yes to this was taken as a yes to being
homosexual. The most recent studies have put the figure between 1 & 3%. Of
course, this depends on what defines homosexuality & the truth of the
reporting participants. This is not to diminish gay rights, only recognize that
its activists have been as deceitful as their fundamentalist counterparts who
attack all homosexuals as pedophiles. Recall actress Anita Bryant’s infamous
declaration in the late 1970s: ‘As a mother, I know that homosexuals
cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our
children.’ It is this sort of thinly veiled Rightist hatred that gay
activists have uses as a rationale for their deceptions.
That said, there is the fear of pedophilia that infuses much of the
arguments against homosexual civil liberties. As a child I knew many a runaway
child who ended up working as a fluffer behind glory holes in glory rows in gay
bars. Such exploitation of children has never been admitted by gays in general,
just as the fact that those gays who have done so represent a minuscule % of the
gay population is not admitted by the Right. My own belief is that sex abusers
& deviants of all sorts are a bit higher in gay males than in general for
the same reason that straight men are more sexualized than straight woman, gay
men are more sexual than straight men, so consequently sex offenders are going
to occur more often in gay males. This is just a logical extrapolation. What is
not logical is the de facto assumption, then, that all or most gay males are
sexual predators. Any gay male is just as likely or not to be a sex abuser as
any straight female. Increased %s of a trait in whole populations
does not equate with a higher % in any given individual in that
population. This is the unfortunate, & misguided, basis for racial
profiling. In my last 2 jobs I had 2 terrible bosses- 1 was a gay male & the
other a straight female. Should I seek to link their inability to deal with
underlings & competently do their jobs with their sexuality? Of course not.
Another point often overlooked is that sexual repression tends to lead to more
deviant behavior in sexual practices (from rape, sodomy, & incest all the
way up to bestiality & serial killing)- & what group has been more
sexually repressed than gay males?
Other people have sought to disprove homosexuality’s having ANY
biological cause via Darwinian reasoning- i.e.- were homosexuality to go
unchecked it would quickly be eradicated since they would not reproduce. A good
argument, but only as far as it goes, because homosexual attraction or behavior
has never been shown to abnegate the desire to reproduce. Nor could it be out of
the question that some homosexual traits are recessive & occasionally pop up
every so often.
Similarly
shortsighted arguments are made from the side that believes homosexuality is
TOTALLY biological. Statements like ‘I however know for sure that they DO NOT
voluntarily pick the orientation. Why would anyone CHOOSE to be ostracized?’
are callow. Many of the runaways I knew led ‘gay’ lives because that was the
only support they ever got. Don’t believe that it could happen in less extreme
situations than runaways? Then I’d wager you have not lived life that fully.
Humans are plastic & more adaptable than credited, & a moment here or
there can change a life. Had I, at 12, when insecure over being rejected by many
females I liked, been given nurture by another male who was gay, would I have
responded, & suppressed my natural desire? Maybe- but probably not. Still, I
cannot know for sure, nor speak for all. I have seen & known ‘closeted
heterosexuals’ though.
Does this
mean gays can change? Perhaps….some? Others- no way. But, if they’re really
happy why should any of them change? To ease someone else’s fears or
insecurities? While human sexuality is mysterious the hate-tinged motives of the
most vocal anti-gay activists are not. I believe that if you could
metaphysically prove why 1000 homosexuals were homosexuals you would get 1000
different answers in all arrays & %s of reasons from strictly biological to
too-strict mothers, & everything in between. As I’ve said I’ve known too
many people who were definitely nurtured into their sexual preference & too
many ‘faggy’ men & ‘bull’ dykes who were naturally that way to not
say that a plenum of reasons for homosexuality exists. Most of the answers to
hard queries reside in the moderate, middling ground.
Even Simon Le
Vay stated, ‘At this point, the most widely held opinion is that multiple
factors play a role.’ If we realize this for most of life’s endeavors
why is it so difficult to accept for homosexuality, or any other human trait?
Or, as neuroscientist & researcher Dennis McFadden said, ‘Any human
behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and
environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality.’
What needs to end is the deceit that emanates from both sides. Anti-gay folk
need to simply mind their own business- is not the implicit right to be left
alone considered the bedrock of American political thought? As for the gay
activists, it would be wise to drop their politicized myths. The 10% myth took
off not long after W.E.B. DuBois’s idea of a Talented Tenth (10%) of the black
population faded politically. It seems to be 1 of those #s that just was plucked
out of the air like 6 million for Jews killed by the Nazis. The problem is that
pre-WW2 #s do not support such a figure- thereby letting sick Holocaust deniers
peck away at the credibility of ALL Holocaust claims, & that the 6 million
figure totally segregates the rest of the millions killed by the Nazis- Gypsies,
gays, unionists, Communists, Poles, Lithuanians, etc.- which made up about 50%
of the 10 million killed in the Final Solution.
Unless gay
activists want to find their ideas permanently marginalized they need to be far
more honest & scrupulous about their claims, & the motives behind those
claims- in other words, practice what they preach to their opponents. If they do
so essays like this will be superfluous in the future.
In
closing, I do not feel that a lack of a definitive answer is a bad thing, for
such lends life its very power & mystery. & does not the mystery make
life all the more interesting?
Return to Bylines