Confirmation that sexual preference is genetic should not make any difference
NOTHING IS more likely to stir anger than a column that begins with mention of Richard Dawkins. This writer, a hardened atheist, is not alone in finding the great biologist’s patrician manner more than a little irritating. Still, we shouldn’t be too hard on the guy. He was, perhaps, born that way. A chap shouldn’t be blamed for harbouring a genetic propensity towards sounding like Malcolm Muggeridge’s more pompous younger brother.
All of which is a sly way of edging us towards the professor's recent comments on the Huffington Post.The subject under discussion was the so-called gay gene. One argument against this slippery entity – and the whole notion of being "born gay" – touches on the supposed improbability of the gene being passed through the generations. Sceptics argue that, as our make-up is governed by evolution, being homosexual must in some way aid the propagation of the species. An obvious logical conundrum presents itself.
Rich is in good form here. He offers three suggestions. He begins by proposing the “gay uncle” theory: homosexual hominids took care of children while their rougher brothers went out to slaughter mastodons. Then there is (his words, not ours) the “sneaky f**ker” supposition: males who possessed the gene were often not wholly gay. Having got that profanity off his chest, Prof Snooty went on to detail a more esoteric notion: that some genes only have particular effects under precise environmental conditions.
All three theories sound fairly reasonable. More rigorous support for the existence of a gay gene has been offered in a series of studies by respectable academics. I would pretend to have read Scott L Hershberger's Biological Factors in the Development of Sexual Orientation, but readers of this newspaper are, surely, too clever to fall for such transparent deceit. Cursory, trivial research – the sort that fuels Ben Goldacre's great Bad Science column in the Guardian – does, however, convince this idiot that a solid case can be made for the notion that genetic factors influence sexual preference.
Oh, that’s all right then. We can stop making gay folk sit at the back of the bus. We need no longer force them to eat at separate lunch counters. It’s not their fault, you see.
Why does this issue stir up such heat and noise?
Well, it is, of course, worth investigating the genetic triggers for human behaviour. Such research unquestionably adds to our understanding of the species.
True, some gay people feel their sexuality is such a defining trait that it must be hard-wired into the metabolism. To suggest that some sort of “choice” has been made is, for this contingent, to undervalue the significance of sexual preference.
Fair enough. But it’s hard to avoid the feeling that the argument is – particularly in the United States – really about something much more fundamental. Much of the Christian right takes the view that, by actively choosing their supposedly sinful life, homosexuals forgo any sympathy or any right to equality under the law.
Many in the gay movement feel that if it can be proved sexual preference is pre-determined then it becomes easier to oppose homophobic attitudes.
One cannot but have some sympathy for the latter argument. If you feel your blood is insufficiently chilled then make your way to the website for the brutish, euphemistically named Family Research Council. Click on “What causes homosexuality?” and you will encounter a 34-page document – fully decked out with bar charts and bullet points – explaining at great length why babies aren’t born homosexual. Some of the research is quasi-sound. Not all the logic is completely screwy. But a question remains. Why is this right-wing lobby group so interested in one modestly significant confluence between genetics and sociology?
You know why. Elsewhere on the council’s website, the masochistic reader will encounter a chapter entitled: “Are homosexuals a disadvantaged minority?” (It hardly needs to be said that they could have saved a lot of keyboard time by answering the question with one spluttering monosyllable.) The council argues that any discovery that people are born gay “would advance the idea that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, like race; that homosexuals, like African-Americans, should be legally protected against ‘discrimination’; and disapproval of homosexuality should be as socially stigmatised as racism. However, it is not true.”
Really? Now, it is, as we’ve already noted, probably true that firm proof of the gay gene’s existence would make it easier to stigmatise “disapproval of homosexuality”. But for any tolerant person it should make no difference one way or the other. Here we get to the nub. A person who disapproves of somebody on the basis of his or her recreational activities with consenting adults is a bigot. Confirmation of the gay gene’s existence – or proof that it is myth – does not alter that situation in any fashion.
Got that? Why are we still having this conversation?