The battle of St James - first letter in the Straits Times

source: Straits Times forum, 27 April 2007

27 April 2007

Are homosexuals truly born gay?

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said in a dialogue with 400 Young PAP members on Saturday that, 'if in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual - because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes - you can't help it. So why should we criminalise it?' Are homosexuals born gay? Why the importance to prove this issue? The reason is simple If society is convinced that some people are indeed born gay, then there would be a need for the Government to not criminalise this behaviour, and, by extension, even protect homosexuals as a designated minority class.

In the United States, this debate is far from over. While a publication by research journal Science, claiming that we were 'on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeable, a normal variant of human nature', generated much media interest in the early 1990s, scientific attempts to prove homosexual genes have yet to really bear fruit.

A study conducted in 1991 which attempted to show that homosexuality occurs more frequently among identical twins than fraternal twins actually provided support for environmental factors versus genetics.

If homosexuality were indeed in the genetic code, then both of the twins should be homosexual 100 per cent of the time, yet this was not the case.

The LeVay brain study of 1991, which tried to find differences in the hypothalamuses (a very small part of the brain) of homosexual and heterosexual men found no evidence that there is any genetic cause for homosexuality.

Other prominent researchers concluded that there was a lack of evidence to support a biological theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where 'temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges'.

With respect to possibly decriminalising homosexual behaviour in the upcoming Penal Code review, I urge the Government to refrain from proceeding hastily in view of inconclusive findings on 'homosexual genes'.

Agnes Chai Shiang Jen (Ms)

* * * * *

Excerpt from a rebuttal by Tan Wah Pheow, posted on his blog:

Ms Agnes Chai has managed to distort the interpretation of the original study by cherry-picking the data (from the perspective of someone trained in scientific research and statistics, this is just pure evil). Furthermore, even though it was true the authors were cautious in their interpretation of the data in the original study (as all scientists are...... you will never catch a scientist saying: huh, I've proved this to be true......), more and more studies that have come out to suggest that our sexual orientation is innate. Doesn't it strike you strange that Ms Agnes Chai said that a new article in Science (a very highly respected journal) said that they have overwhelming evidence that our sexual orientation is innate, and then goes to cite a study 15 years old ago to reject that point. Unlike wine which gets better with age, scientific research gets obsolete with age, as scientists are always coming up with better techniques, and better measures in order to address the issues they are investigating. 

* * * * *

My letter to the editor (unpublished)

27 April 2007

Dear Editor

Agnes Chai, in her letter, ST 27 April 2007, disputed MM Lee's view that homosexuality is genetic. While indeed, I believe MM Lee overstated the case, Chai's attempt to position the "familial and social milieu" as explanatory is even more false.

In the last 2 decades, no peer-reviewed literature in reputable scientific journals has given any credence to upbringing and socialisation as factors. The only people who continue to insist so are affiliated with the religious rightwing of America; their claims of scientific professionalism are considered laughable by mainstream scientists.

On the other hand, a massive literature has accumulated to indicate various biological bases for sexual orientation. Where MM Lee went off the mark was to use the word "genetic" instead of "biological". Genes have a role to play, but other factors at the forefront of research today include womb conditions and hormonal influences during foetal life. These are what scientists usually refer to when they speak of "the environment".

More importantly, it has been recognised for decades that sexual orientation, however it may have come about, is immutable in any given person.

As Ms Chai asked, "Why the importance to prove this issue?" Indeed, why does the gay minority have to prove their biological basis to get equal treatment from the state?

After all, we each choose our religion, or none at all, and at any time, we can change our minds. Yet we hold it as a fundamental right that a person's choice of religion, living his life in accordance with it, should be treated with respect, tolerance and equality under the law. Just because one group of people dislike another religion, or dispute the basis of another's faith, is no reason for the state to enshrine that dislike into legal discrimination. Shouldn't we take a similar approach to sexual orientation? 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None