Homosexuality: not by science alone

source: Straits Times, 30 July 2003, by Andy Ho

Homosexuals and their sympathisers tend to assume that an explanation of biological destiny - that gays are hard-wired to be gays - will lead to greater sympathy since this would mean they 'can't help' being gay.

To my mind however, that approach is surely off-tangent. Not only has the so-called 'gay gene' proven elusive, but sexuality is also a much more complex business.

The dream of tracing human traits to specific single genes is an old one. Popular science speaks loosely about an obesity gene, a criminality gene, and so on. But there are no such things.

Molecular biologists will tell you that it is the whole cell, rather than specific genes, that controls human life processes.

These scientists talk to each other in terms of DNA sequences rather than genes. These sequences are involved in metabolic processes that form complex networks which result in certain proteins being made.

The sequences form genes but they are usually not even continuous. Yet it is not known how the cell knows - but it does know - that it is this sequence that really needs to be translated into parts of a protein, while another sequence should be skipped, yet another sequence is to be used, while the next one ought to be ignored, and so on.

And although the human genome has been fully mapped, we are nowhere nearer any useable knowledge about which sequences do what, something that would remain true even if we map out all the proteins which the genome makes.

This is because these processes interact with one another and with the proteins they produce, in very complex ways to form networks.

And it is all these networks taken together that control everything, that is, the whole cell rather than genes alone.

This is why research hyped as proving the existence of a gay gene has not been replicated to any extent.

Of course, there is a biological element to heterosexuality or homosexuality, as there is in the generic desire for sex, or hunger, for that matter.

Indeed, sexuality may be like hunger in the sense that what people eat when they get hungry depends on available cuisines, which can vary with cultures.

Moreover, our tastes can change over time. Some foreigners here learn to like durian. You might love kopi-o now but live in Boston for a decade, where you have only Starbucks, and kopi-o might taste like drain water when you come home.

So even if hunger is biological, the fact is, people satisfy it out of a panoply of choices that are not infinite but limited by their cultures and the market: burger or briyani, cheese sandwich or chicken rice.

The point is this: talking about a gay gene or biology is much easier than looking at the totality of an individual's life, including his or her social surroundings and cultural contexts - but it is untrue.

It is easier for gays to say they are born that way and have always been attracted to people of their own gender.

Many would protest if you said that they chose to be that way.

Yet some progressive gays argue that this is really a homophobic approach: It is defensive and implies that you would change if you could, which in turn means implicitly that homosexuality is wrong. This is something many gays vehemently deny.

Moreover, not only does this approach embrace the victim's psychology of helplessness, but it is also fixated on the 'sexual' at the expense of the non-sexual aspects of relationships.

A person's sexuality is a psychosocial complex of behaviours that can be defined in various ways by different societies at different junctures in history.

In this nuanced understanding, choice is not like picking one thing from column A but not another from column B, as in boysenberry not pistachio ice cream, or French fries not rice.

Even if a gay person cannot remember when he decided on men, not women, it does not mean he did not choose.

Rather, people choose from within their life experiences taken together as a continuous journey.

There are decision points all along the way and they decide at certain times depending on what options are available. These decisions then mould their futures. This choosing is a constrained one but it is still choice.

After all, we choose where to live and what to eat or wear. So why is it so hard to believe that we also choose whom we like or love?

In short, gays choose to be gays given their individual life histories within their cultures because they prefer it to heterosexuality.

* * * * *

30 July 2003
Letter to the Straits Times, by Siew Kum Hong et al 
unpublished

We refer to the article "Homosexuality: not by science alone" by Mr Andy Ho (ST, July 30, 2003).

It seems to us that the article, after asserting that "the so-called 'gay gene' [has] proven elusive", and that "research hyped as proving the existence of a gay gene has not been replicated to any extent", does not itself provide any evidence or proof to substantiate its own claim that homosexuality is primarily environmental and not biological.

But at a more fundamental level, we believe that the entire "genetic vs choice" discussion in relation to homosexuality is misconceived and misguided.

Should it really matter whether or not homosexuality is a biological imperative or a lifestyle choice?

We say: no.

We believe that everyone, gay or straight, is entitled to his or her privacy and freedom of action in his or her own personal sphere. So long as no laws are broken and no wrongs committed against other persons, it is not for any of us to stand in judgment and condemn another person.

As a result, we do not see the relevance of the "genetic vs choice" debate. Once we accept that a person has the right to conduct his or her personal life within the boundaries of the law without any interference from another, then what does it matter whether a person¡¯s lifestyle is the result of genes or personal choice?

We therefore think that to focus on whether homosexuality is genetic or chosen, is to miss the point.

We would also like to take this opportunity to voice a broader concern, pertaining to the ongoing public criticism of gays in the mass media.

We respect the right of others to criticise gays. But we believe that the relative lack of public disagreement to the recent spate of militant and radical anti-gay comments published in the mass media should not be taken as indicating that most Singaporeans agree with those views.

In other words, silence in this case is not to be equated with consent or agreement with the anti-gay arguments that have been made.

Gays make for very easy targets in Singapore. Public attacks on gays are not likely to be rebutted in public, because of the continuing stigma attached to being gay in Singapore.

Very few people are willing to publicly adopt a stance that may be interpreted as being pro-gay. The fear is that you will be seen as being gay, because only gays will speak out in support of the rights of gay people.

All the signatories to this letter are straight. The very fact that we feel we have to explicitly state this, to lend weight to our argument and/or to avoid being seen as being gay, is in itself a disturbing indication of the troubling state of affairs in our society.

We urge all gays in Singapore to take heart from our letter, to know that there are a lot more people out there who support their personal rights and freedoms, than is apparent from an examination of the views espoused in the mass media.

We also urge other straight persons to take any and every opportunity they may have to voice their own opinions, to prevent a misleading picture of public opinion from being painted.

This letter was initiated by Siew Kum Hong, but carried 32 signatures, all of whom were straight persons.

* * * * *

30 July 2003
Letter to the Straits Times, by Richard Ammon
unpublished

Andy Ho's psycho-journalistic conclusions about the nature of sexual orientation are infuriatingly ignorant at best.

Tying the enormous complexity of homosexuality to a single gene is absurd, which Mr Ho at least acknowledges. (The original usage of 'gay gene' was intended as a metaphor, not as literal science.) Attributing it to a DNA complex is in the right direction, but he goes on to jump the rail of scientific thought to engage a stereotypical insistence that ultimately sexual orientation is a choice -- like choosing french fries instead of rice.

Such a simplistic and ill-informed opinion obviously lacks deep insight into the nature and formation of sexual orientation. I wonder when he 'chose' to be straight (assuming he is)? I urge him to go to www.Fridae.com (Singapore) and take a survey of how many gay or lesbian people believe they chose to be gay. The vast majority of gay humanity have not the remotest idea that their sexual orientation was anything but an inherent tendency that first flickered in early childhood. There it remained in the 'closet' of their own consciousness until they had self-understanding enough to articulate it to a close ally and eventually come out to a larger community.

Or, in the case of many others afraid of public opinion, suppressed and denied it by hiding in a straight marriage.

Sexual behaviour is a choice but sexual orientation is not. Mr Ho should know better if he is to intelligently inform the public mind.

Richard Ammon, PhD
Clinical Psychologist   

Footnotes

None

Addenda

See my rebuttal to an earlier article of Andy Ho's, on the subject of civil society, Under the banyan tree