Some gay and bisexual advocates are condemning "Straight, Gay or Lying?" regarding a study suggesting that bisexuality may not exist among human males - something those of us familiar with the scientific literature have known since, basically, forever.Very apt. Well said! Thanks for writing that, Chandler Burr.
Compare this hysterical - and anti-science - reaction to the conservative Christians' anti-science reaction to studies showing that homosexuality is an inborn orientation like left-handedness. They're identical.
The right hates science because the data contradict (in the case of homosexuality) Leviticus; the left because the data contradict the liberal lie that we're environment-created, not hard-wired in any way.
These particular scientific facts are making these advocates scream like members of the extreme right, though it's they who always tells the right to let go of concepts that are contradicted by science.
Chandler Burr
New York
The writer is the author of "A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation."
I would love to hear, in the comments, from readers who have found themselves in college courses where instructors taught about sexuality and pressured students to accept theories of culture and actively excluded biological science. (Please don't name individuals.)
(Here's my post from last week on the bisexuality article.)
Posts
35 comments:
I am a little confused by Mr. Burrs statement that the left maintains the "liberal lie" that we are envornoment created. In fact, I think Mr. Burr sets up a straw man with his column. He sets it up by making a ridiculous statement that everyone knows is not a liberal position. He does this for the specific reason of trying to discredit the "conservative christian" point of view. Thus, Mr. Burr is using an old political trick to make his point of view seem more moderate.
How, I think Mr. Burr has it wrong regarding the "Conservative Christian" view. It seems to me that conservative christians do not reject the idea that people are hard wired, they reject the idea that people don't have choices. I.e. that God gave people the ability to choose right or wrong and that people make choices to be gay (which they believe is wrong).
I have always thought that the other point of view maintained that there is no choice, that people are born gay and are not choosing to become gay. Therefore, how could something be wrong if you cannot make a choice (you cannot be "wrong" by being born a man or woman).
Moreover, I would disagree entirely with Mr. Burr's statement that "both" sides get upset over scientific data. In fact, I would argue that liberals in general put much more stock into biology than conservatives for most issues.
I was taught that we don't know what science says about homo-, hetero- and bi-sexuality for sure, so it is best for us to default to cultural inclusiveness, instead of doing something stupid, like telling a self-identified bisexual person they're wrong. I think it is a pretty good and practical strategy.
I have been over at volokh.com commenting on the Harvard Summers fiasco. As all can, I assume, remember, some female professors were mortally offended that Summers would even suggest that there might be biological or inate sexual differences between the sexes when it comes to the highest reaches of mathematics.
The problem for these women is that there are numerous studies out showing just that. Plus, you have to add in the differences in math SAT scores between the two sexes. The figure I saw recently is that at the 700 level, males outscored females 13 to 1. This seems a bit high to me, given all the superb female mathematians in my family. But in any case, it is hard to reconcile this sort of difference with the politically correct nurture justification.
Let me make clear, I am suggesting that the bell curves for mathematical ability for the two sexes have different medians, and, thus, the right hand tail at various places of the male bell curve is larger than the female one at the same location. This means that there are still plenty of superb female mathematicians - just not as many as there are male ones of the same caliber.
In any case, I am positing that the Harvard fiasco is an example of political correctness overriding science.
A.I. Romens,
But the problem is that there is some science out there that says certain things about homosexuality, etc. I will also suggest that there would be quite a bit more if it weren't politically correct to not allow questions on such.
For example, I am reading "the Essential Difference" right now, and just covered the differences between male and female brains (as usual, bell curve means). Not surprisingly, homosexual male brains apparently have some of the characteristics of female brains.
Sloanasaurus: Burr is talking about comparable extremists on the left and right, not the whole left or the whole right. I don't know which college classes you took, but I know very well that there are lefty profs who will shut down any student who dares to speak of biology. I would like to hear from readers who have been subjected to that sort of abuse.
AJ: You describe what Burr and I are talking about. The view is: don't pursue scientific research because it might prove unhelpful to goals we have set. That is the counterpart to conservative religionists who oppose science because they are afraid it will undermine the good that comes from believing in religion.
Lars: There is a type of leftist academic who will not accept the "we were born that way, we can't help it" approach that is popular in the ordinary political sphere. They are very deeply committed to the belief that culture is everything.
It seems to me that the reaction from the left to the study results from the logical conclusion that the study appears to bolster the "Conservative Christian" view that people have choices in sexual orientation. For example, if it is true that people are not born bi- sexual, then how is it that people choose to be bi-sexual? The "Conservative Christian" would argue that the study adds weight to the argument that people do make conscious choices to be gay or not.
Im not sure if this is the right conclusion, but it would certainly cause fear among those on the left that people would make such conclusions.
Ann: I never said "science doesn't know, and let's not scientifically pursue it." I merely said that science doesn't know for sure... yet. This is only one study.
I was taught that science will will eventually find the truth, and we should let it. But until we know something really conclusive, let’s continue to be inclusive.
It's my experience that both sides embrace or disregard science at their political convenience. The raging Evolution/Intelligent Design debate, with neither side's willingness to budge even an inch, is enough to make your head hurt.
Can you really blame a bisexual male for getting upset about a scientific study that basically says he's a liar? What would you expect their reaction to be? "Oops - you're right. I've been bullshitting the entire time."
I'm not denying the study. I have known lots of gay men who used to self-identify as bi. And they truly thought they were bi. But now they're all gay (well, most of them).
But I don't know any gay person who is actually upset by the fact that there was a study. I do know people, however, who are very vocal in that they think the study is wrong. Probably because they believe their bi friends are telling the truth (even though we now know they are actually bullshitting us).
It WAS a small sample. Further studies are required. Better bring out those electrodes again!
How about leftists re: genetically modified crops?
When I was college in the mid-80's I was denounced as a Fascist by Leftist for suggesting that homosexuality probably had a biological basis and was therefor innate. Leftist of that era believed that implying a biological basis would lead to homosexuality being defined as an illness needing curing.
Now of course, Leftist embrace the idea of innate biological homosexuality even though the basic science has changed little. They simply found it more politically expedient to switch scientific models. Now they can portray homosexuality as akin to race in political debates.
The pattern in rejecting scientific claims has nothing to do with Left vs Right but rather whether a particular scientific idea transgresses on ones political prejudices. Emotional commitment to political beliefs destroys peoples ability to dispassionately analyze evidence. What they want to be true subsumes what they can prove true. Individuals who are passionate about politics but who will nevertheless jettison treasured political ideals because sciences says its wrong are very rare.
Stranger: I'm not fishing. I have direct information about classes like this. I'm just trying to see how widespread it is.
Downtownlad: As my post on the original article shows, there are a lot of problems with the study, which can be attacked from a scientific perspective. What's objectionable is being outraged at results just because they challenge accepted beliefs. There ought to be more and better studies. People who go into a huff and act offended that they've been called "liars" are being unscientific. I think supporting science is a good idea for people all spots on the political spectrum, but I especially think it will be helpful toward gay rights.
"Bisexuals" might be considered unscientific if they get into a huff. But not all bisexuals are leftists.
At least amongst the gay community (again not all leftists), I don't know anyone who was offended by this study. Gay blogs mostly found it humrerous. Most of them had the attiude of "we've been saying that for years" and the bisexuals just consider the study silly, because they innately think it's wrong.
So who are these people who are in a huff?
I will add that many leftists are anti-science. They refuse to look at data on global warming that might refute their assumptions, etc. Genetically modified food has already been mentioned. They're opposed to nuclear power, etc. Very irrational if you ask me.
But as for studying sexuality. I don't think they mind, nor do they have any preconceived ideas about the results.
I think some people have touched on this. But, the arts, especially critical theory, are filled with people who claim that we can, at will, bend the boundaries between hetero- and homosexuality and masculinity and femininity.
I was not in this course, but I do know that a course at Yale started its course description in the course catalog: "This course starts with the assumption that gender is a social construct."
I understand this is not quite the same as the homosexuality question, but is highly related. I believe that much of sociology, which sort of a priori seems to assume nurture as the answer in the nurture/nature debates, seems to reject the biological bases for hetero- and homosexuality.
Stephanie: it's like getting upset at evidence that Darwin was right when you've been telling people all your life that you know the story in Genesis is the truth.
Downtownlad: My "in a huff" language was meant to refer to your sentence "Can you really blame a bisexual male for getting upset about a scientific study that basically says he's a liar?" So whoever that is getting upset is who I'm talking about. You tell me who they are!
Yevgeny: I know a certain Critical Legal Studies lawprof who got angry at me -- back in the 80s -- for mentioning a study that showed a difference in brain structure in homosexual men. Her view was that the whole study was the work of bigots. My statement that a finding of biological origin could help the cause of gay rights (if condition were shown not to be a "lifestyle" choice) caused her to lash out at me with great anger, as if I had said the most bigoted thing possible. That's how much of a hardcore article of faith "social construction" was.
The one constant is the seeming rhetorical imperative to proclaim as loudly as possible one's allegiance to science in general while ignoring or discounting as inconclusive whatever empirical findings seem inhospitable to one's worldview in specific. This tendency is not monopolized by any particular ideological congregation (though this latter claim is admittedly advanced more as an article of belief than on the basis of any systematic empirical analysis).
I have had collegues that used science in the classroom to prove their political theories. In one course on Albert Einstien the professor tried to show that quantum mechanics has to be wrong as it is anti-socialist. I spent a semester with students coming down to my room to ask my opinion of QM.
Not to just pick on the left, at AAPT meetings I get to here about some whacked out thoughts from right-side collegues in other disciplines.
Stephanie: I don't think you have enough of a sense of how (at least some) people feel their religious faith.
Stephanie: It seems to me that opposition to science is anti-intellectual and emotional.
Opposition to science is certainly emotional; opposition to conclusions drawn from scientific studies may be emotional--or may not be.
Jonathan
The problem with arguing that sexual identity is on a continium is that it is highly likely that a vast majority of people are fairly strongly heterosexual. I think in the long run, for men, the statistical curve is going to have a huge bump and one end, and a much smaller one at the other, with it being mostly flat between. Women may end up with a larger transition between hetero and homo-secuality.
Of course, I could be wrong, but it sure seems to me that a vast majority of at least the male population is significantly heterosexual.
Here's an interesting article to ponder considering the nature vs. nurture dispute just in general...
(I found it reading Too Beautiful.)
"Intelligent Design is creationists budging an inch."
I'm not so sure proponents of I.D. are the same people as "Creationists," in the strict sense of the word--taking the Bible literally, world created in 7 days, etc.
And I have found that most "Darwinists" tend to dismiss I.D. as nonsense with the same fervor as they do Creationism--they do not seem to take it as a reasonable compromise.
A little different from the usual nurture v. nature debate, as that usually revolves around the effect of genetics, or possibly in the case of male homosexuality, lack of testosterone in utero. To some extent, this is closer to what Tom Cruise is pushing right now. While I dislike his religion intensely, after they significantly abused the legal system in some computer cases a decade ago, he does have some good points on esp. the use of drugs to drug boys to keep them quiet in school.
That post is related insofar as many people would consider a compulsive gambling problem to be a nurture issue, or perhaps more accurately a matter of personal choice. But here's some evidence to suggest that a chemical reaction in the brain could cause compulsive gambling (note that it's compulsive gambling, not compulsive hand-washing or other typical compulsive behaviors). So, what about compulsive gamblers who don't take Mirapex?
"I'm not so sure proponents of I.D. are the same people as 'Creationists,' in the strict sense of the word--taking the Bible literally, world created in 7 days, etc.
"And I have found that most 'Darwinists' tend to dismiss I.D. as nonsense with the same fervor as they do Creationism--they do not seem to take it as a reasonable compromise."
I will tell you that while I never found Creationist claims convincing (or even particularly interesting, since so many of them are obviously ignorant of the science that they are attacking), I do find some of the questions that Intelligent Design advocates raise quite powerful criticisms of Darwinian evolution.
This doesn't make ID "science" since ID necessarily precludes any sort of predictive capability--and that's a fundamental part of science. It does make ID a legitimate tool for raising questions about Darwinian evolution (which still has lots of little holes in it). A little humility in the sciences, especially in an area that lacks the ability to verify theories by experiment, is a very wise thing.
Johnathan:
In some sense, evolution does have to do with emotions about your experience as a "sentient" being. First, people say all the time (even distinguished philosophers) that we have the experience of free will. There is no way that evolution from single-celled organisms could in any way give us the type of free-will most people say they experience (a real experience of making and willing explicit choices). Second, people deny that emotions are entirely chemically based. One easy example is romantic love toward another person. These are experiential claims that would throw a huge wrench into the evolution debate. So, I do think that certain aspects of evolution can be denied by appeals to emotion.
Your interesting comment, however, does pose a good question for science in general. Ought we reject or at least be suspicious of scientific research that seems to posit a secret self (e.g. that bisexuals, in their secret selves are really mostly homosexuals). I am not sure what to think here. There seem to be good arguments in both directions. But what would you say to a study that measured arousal at images of women other than one's wife? If a man said, that no, he's only attracted to his wife and only finds her sexually appealling, would research showing that men are very frequently aroused by women other than their wives be suspect? Would it be silly or absolutely justified for this man to get upset and decry the scientists as anti-monogamous bigots?
My question, as is Prof. Althouse's in some sense, is what should be the first to go, the science or the feeling? I would say that given sufficient science, the feeling should go. But if people get all huffy and puffy whenever science comes out that contradicts their feelings, we're never going to get anywhere. You can criticize the science on scientific grounds and ask for more research. But being "insulted" by the research isn't going to get a person anywhere in discovering what the likely truth is about him or herself.
John: The reason I'm equating the two things is that both upset persons have a subjective mental experience that they feel expresses the whole matter under consideration: belief in God and belief in one's own bisexuality. Both try to define the subject so that the external information that challenges their subjective information doesn't count. Admittedly, they anti-evolutionists have more evidence to explain away, but that doesn't mean they don't try. It's not hard to say that this particular study of bisexuality is so deficient that the subjective feeling wins easily, but why get mad at the scientists for studying it? The scientists didn't claim they've definitively found the answer, only that it could be studied on the level they explored.
I actually don't think the issue of believing in the pre-eminence of hard-wiring over environment has anything to do with left versus right wing politics. The same with nature versus nurture. Robert Wright - the man who wrote one of the leading tomes defending "hard-wired" male/female differences ("The Moral Animal") - was also was one of Slate's most left-wing columnists.
I'd even like to leave religion out of this equation. It became a cliche last year to contrast Fahrenheit 911 with The Passion of the Christ. The idea being that if you were sincerely moved by the latter film (or even directed it, as Ann Althouse pointed out), that meant you were also for lower taxes and the military invasion of Iraq. If you liked Fahrenheit, you had no interest in the crucifixion.
cathyf said, "So one week we find the brain structure that determines left-handedness. The next week we see the brain structure for liking chocolate. The next week the brain structure for homosexuality. The next week the brain structure for child molestation."
I wonder: when science finds 'brain structures' for all of mankind's micro-hostilities, sensitivities to imaginary harms, cluelessness and smug self-assuredness, whose brain structures will press the strongest claims on moral theology?
Post a Comment