.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, August 15, 2005

 

Boston Globe article on sexual orientation

Here is an interesting read in the Boston Globe regarding biological origins of sexual feelings. Nice they mentioned D. Bem, but he got little coverage.

Comments:
C'mon Warren -- admit it. You lurk at XGW to get all the interesting links... :-)

I feel Bem got fair enough coverage given all he has done is speculate. Interesting characters, no plot.

I'm sure if someone on "the other side" actually started pulling out clipboards, tape measures, and cranking up their DOS-based versions of MINITAB on their wheezy old PC's -- that is, do research instead of just invent another theory -- someone might give them more time.

But then, I'm like that aren't I.

What is interesting about the article is the decent depth that the Globe and Swidey devoted to the subject. He's bothered to try and understand, instead of looking for a snappy quote.

What is also interesting is the tour de force that is rapidly accumulating in the biological sciences (and not just on this subject of sexuality). Wilson and Rahman should be a good read when it arrives.

And I hope you enjoyed the pithy quote from Bocklandt as much as I did...

"I have the genes in my body to make a vagina and carry a baby, but I don't use them, because I am a man."

But surely, I hear a self-styled gene expert cry (pick any, Mrs. Yvette C. Schneider for example) if he has the gene that MUST make him a woman...

sigh.
 
Well, I don't need to. Michael Hamar makes sure I know everytime one of these articles is published.

I disagree with your characterization of EBE theory as speculation. Theorizing based on data is what I would call it. I feel sure you have seen this article.

The article quoted one of the experts as believing 40% of sexual orientation might be genetic. This is a long way from determinism.

Of course, I will pay out good money for the Wilson & Rahman book, but after reading Rahman's past efforts, I am not as exuberant as you.
 
I'm out the door asap, so it's bullets.

Michael Hamar? Cannot place him, was I meant to?

OK a brief of what is not answered by EBE for me:

> based on Bell&Wberg sample from 1970's bar-culture of San Francisco. I'd have to locate it, but I recall Weinberg making a categorical statement against using the sample for these purposes. likewise others used.

> more exotic that what? Did anyone ask if they felt more or less different to boys or to girls as comparison? No, they asked if they felt different to other boys. But they may have felt still more different to girls, EBE falls down since it is based on that delta.

> recall -- was the memory accurate, or a latter interpretation of why they were gay based on prevailing or still commonplace theories? following suggest not

> as more gay men have become open about their sexuality, and available for interview, and as the earlier thoeries have faded away; what has happened to the % of gay men that answer they had a girly childhood? It's falling.

> is interracial coupling the most common, or least common? why does this run counter to EBE? actually, EBE would suggest racism wouldn't be sustained.

> what of all those gay men that had no such childhood? please don't tell me there's two types of homosexualities...

> bisexuals? EBE would suggest an intermediate exotic difference. do we see it?

> gay sheep? penguins? etc

So, while I think EBE will certainly fit the background of some gay men, so would the zodiac. It doesn't explain homosexuality or heterosexuality as such.

Ironically, you seem more taken by EBE theory than I recall Bem himself is :-) Which is a little odd, since it's as deterministic as any of the purer biological theories...

I presume the "40% of SO" refers to Bailey's earliest work that found a .4 correlation (or what ever it was) between twins? (sorry, cannot read the whole paper again in the next 2 minutes to see if that is it)

But that's the correlation with the expressed trait, not the cause. Type II diabetes is about 30% in MZ twins -- it's genetic. It's near 0% for finger prints -- genetic.

got to run! excuse all typos
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
On EBE, I think the best thing would be refer interested readers to Bem's page at Cornell U. All of his work of gender roles and sexual orientation are there.
 
From the Boston Globe article:

Some advocates of gay marriage argue that proving sexual orientation is inborn would make it easier to frame the debate as simply a matter of civil rights. That could be true, but then again, freedom of religion enjoyed federal protection long before inborn traits like race and sex.

I am wondering what the impact on civil rights arguments might be if we learn that sexual orientation is hard wired for some men and not others almost never for women.
 
Nathan: Religion is not the best comparison since religion is constitutionally protected. But I agree with you that the issue of origins is not necessarily related to one's views regarding civil rights. My question is aimed at those who do feel the two are connected.
 
? I'm no U.S. constitutional beak, but isn't the Constitution about the establishment (or promotion or curtailing...) of religion by government -- not civil rights as we understand between private citizens.

Until very recent times, you could fire a Catholic for being a Catholic (or nominate any other religion). Discrimination based n religion by one citizen to another was legal, and the Constitution was silent on the matter (if you are a Scaliaite). To clear this up, I guess you could ask a Grove City administrator if their hiring/firing practices based on religion are unconstitutional...

Religion has been more recently covered by Civil Rights codes that legislate the behaviour between private citizens -- with noted let out clauses such as that around GCC.

As to the question: I don't think the two are related in any practical sense.

Nobody denies race being biological. Despite that, racism continues to exist even though race-based protection was an early reason for Civil Rights codes.

Religion and marital status are both behavioural choices. They are covered.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Please let me remind people to keep remarks respectful. Strong feelings on this topic are understandable but flaming will get you deleted.
 
I agree. The author made it seem like it was a religion vs. science issue.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?