Dean Hamer is the geneticist whose groundbreaking 1992 research is periodically misused by exgay activists to conjure up an imaginary belief (among unnamed and impossible-to-find gay people) in a solitary “gay gene.”
Hamer was profiled Oct. 3 in The Philadelphia Inquirer. (Hat tip: Queer Day.)
Money quote:
“Many straight people have the ‘gay’ version of the [X chromosome] marker as well. Scientists now know sexual orientation can’t be detected from testing any single gene – it’s set by a complicated combination of genes and environmental factors.”
Hamer makes an important statement about self-awareness at the age of 5. I too had the same type of awareness and remember vividly looking at the men’s section of the Sears catalogue and finding comfort in looking at those pictures. Perhaps not a keen sexual awareness, but an awareness that there was something appealing about the male body. I have heard similar accounts from dozens of gay friends and acquaintances. I have said in an earlier post that it is erroneous to consider that all gays are a product of poor parenting, gender confusion or sexual abuse. All three of those factors produce millions of straight persons. I was/am a jock who participated in rough and tumble play who happens to be gay and always has been. I could throw a football that would knock James Dobson unconscious. It is ludicrous to suggest that I could cease being gay and become attracted to females through psychotherapy and religion for two simple reasons: I am not gay due to a mental health issue and two, I do not believe in god and organized religion. That is why I have such a problem with the ex-gay movement because they suggest that we all are of the same mould and ought to change with the power of religion. It is very clear that gays are not a 100% product of nurturing and thus, attempts to convert are futile and unnecessary.
Okay, so we’re made up of a collection of factors sexually and it’s true for all of us, gay or not.
Well then, there’s not ENOUGH distinction worth all the crap ladled out to who is gay.
If it takes all those tests of genetic markers, or conversion method, rooted in FAITH and not science…then what’s the point at all?
We already know ENOUGH about gay people right now, to show that the way the laws are applied and discriminate and isolate gay people in mean spirited ways are inappropriate.
We know that one’s genetics is no protection from discrimination.
We know that if all heterosexuals did was LISTEN to gay people and believe that the self knowlege and realization of one’s gay identity can come early, regardless of family structure, faith or ethnic identity-then what’s the big deal?
Religious people treat gay people like a CULTURE, instead of human beings with a unique sexual characteristic with less distinctions than a right hander from a left.
Communicating and being truthful about one’s identity shouldn’t be a problem, but it is… so even THAT would skew most studies.
When, when, when…are heterosexuals going to get over that they aren’t the only orientation in this world or a superior one, so we can all just get ON with what the future really holds.
We won’t know, if we don’t really want to allow the truth to bear it all out on it’s own.
When I was young, I was attracted to males. My kindergarton teacher told my parents I was gay, and it started my parents on the road to try and make me not gay. I would do stuff at age 4 and 5 like get on top of another male and just lay there. I would get aroused. I would fantasize about the Sears catalogue also (the underwear section). No, I was not molested ever. No, I did not even know what gay was until I was 12–but I was never attracted to females.
One reason I think that homosexuality is largely innate for me is that I would imagine sex acts before I even knew about straight sex. When I heard about straight sex, it made no sense to me whatsoever and I did not care about it because for years I had imagined male sex in my mind (and it was accurate). If it was not innate, where did my thoughts come from? I never saw anything or heard anything and was never molested. Gay sexthoughts came very naturally to me as a child.
Before I went off to first grade, we didn’t have kindergarten where I was, I thought Ricky Ricardo just about the most handsome man on TV and possibly in the world!
When I was very young, I had heterosexual fantasies. I would molest girl’s vaginas, and get in trouble for it. But then, when I was 10, I had long series of sexual encounters with the neighbor hood “cool” kid (an older boy), and after that, all my fantasies and sexual longings became fixated on penises. (the boy convinced me to do it, saying that he would be my best friend if I did it)
Now, I am a bisexual male who likes vaginas and penises. However, I personally feel that if I never had those experiences, I may have been 100% heterosexual, not that it really matters in the end.
Genes encode for proteins. How they do that in the human genome is very complex. There was a recent article in Scientific American that described the discovery of an extra level of complexity in the genome. It was fascinating for those of us who might be “nerds.”
On a more topical level, it strikes me that it is questionable that people should be reluctant to consider the “nurture vs. nature” issue as a dichotomy. I have discussed this on more than a few web sites. Nature begets nurture, and nurture, subsequently, begets nature. An endless cycle.
Aaron White,
“However, I personally feel that if I never had those experiences, I may have been 100% heterosexual, not that it really matters in the end.”
Perhaps. However, it is also possible that you were vulnerable to the boy’s approaches simply because you were bi-sexually inclined.
As humans we like to have things under our control. We are always seeking to find a “cause” for things. I broke the milk-jug right after I walked under a ladder, it must be bad luck. Granny Smith looked at my cow funny right before it died, she must be a witch. If we just avoid ladders and kill Granny Smith, things will be as we want them to be.
I think your feeling about your pre-adolescent experiences contributing to your sexual orientation may be in some ways similar.
The non-NARTH psychological community seems to agree that sexual orientation is generally determined at an early age. Without disrespecting you or what you believe, it does seem unlikely that your childhood experiences at 10 “caused” your bisexuality. Perhaps that was just the first time you became aware of it.
https://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
One thing I did notice, though perhaps I’m reading too much into it… You seem to equate sexuality with an interest in body parts. For most of us here, sexual orientation has more to do with the person that we find to be the object of our desires and affections and less to do with a particular organ.
Let me be very clear–I am not Aaron White.
Too many Tims and too many Aarons around here I say. 🙂
Only ONE Regan!
I’m really starting to get a sort of perverse pleasure out of all the ninny headed and lily livered things homophobes say to
justify their weak positions on gay folks.
I laugh at the ludicrousness. They don’t seem to be hearing themselves.
They don’t know HOW they got to be heterosexual.
But somehow would deny that the same is true for a homosexual.
Since both sides say that ‘it just happened, I just feel that way’… I’m like, BINGO!!
What’s with all the other noise?
Gay or not…we’re SEXUAL.
And we’re gay and not gay just to keep it from getting boring, too imbalanced and certainly better for all it’s ‘flavors and spice’!
“Perhaps. However, it is also possible that you were vulnerable to the boy’s approaches simply because you were bi-sexually inclined.”
I guess there is no way we can ever know for sure what the answer is, unless we can magically go back in time, undo the past, and see if it impacts the future, with me not turning out bisexual.
For the time being, I have my beliefs about it that I stand by.
I too had a hint of gayness at a very young age – although I did not equate it with sex acts until much later. However, I do distinctly remember being appalled, at age 7, when I learned exactly where babies come from. I could not understand how anyone would want to put their “thingie” in that place on a girl. My parents calmly assured me my attitude would change in time. When I first realized I was gay, in my early teens, I held onto the belief that they were right, and I would eventually turn straight – nearly 20 years later I finally gave up the ghost on that one and came out.
The more I read about it, however, the more I wonder if we are not all wrong in looking for a “gay gene.” Just because something is genetic does not mean there is a specific gene just for that characteristic. In the relatively simple genetics we learn in high school, e.g., eye color, there is typically a gene for one characteristic and a different gene for another – one gene wins. But it is clear that for most genes, that is not the case. Look at skin color, if you are the child of one very dark-skinned parent and one very light-skinned, you will not be either dark or light-skinned, you will be somewhere in the middle, and the specific combination will vary based on the person (e.g., Mariah Carey vs. Halle Berry – both of whom are biracial).
Since we all get genes from our mothers and from our fathers, and all fetuses begin as females, it would be surprising if there were a specific “gay” gene. Instead, we are much more likely to find that homosexuality is the result of a “mis-firing” of female genes in the male and vice versa (not that I think of homosexuality as a mistake, mind you). The indicator found by Hamer could be simply a sign of those more susceptible to another, pre-natal environment occurrance, like hormonal levels, that can lead to homosexuality.
In fact, given the very process of pre-natal human development, you almost would have to predict homosexuality and bisexuality as a potential result. If the differentiation between genders really is dependent upon hormonal influences (to which it appears all genetic characteristics are susceptible), then of course you are going to find more feminine boys (defining feminine broadly here) and more masculine girls.
Aaron White
“For the time being, I have my beliefs about it that I stand by.”
Fine by me. And you may even be right.
I certainly wouldn’t ask you to change what you believe you experienced based on nothing other than my opinion. I only ask that you don’t then extrapolate your experiences onto others.
From what I can tell, the huge vastly overwhelming percentage of gay people were gay long before they had any sexual activity. And from what I can tell, the huge vastly overwhelming percentage of persons that were sexualized in childhood are not gay.
Considering that non-NARTH professionals place orientation somewhere before 4 years old, and considering the above, I think it is fair to state that – in general – childhood sexual activity (above the infant stage) has little to no impact on one’s sexual orientation.
However, you may be an exception.
You are certainly entitled to believe so.
CPT:
“(e.g., Mariah Carey vs. Halle Berry – both of whom are biracial)”
And both of whom are stunningly beautiful!!!
Back when arguments to ban marriage were mixed-race rather than gay, if they could have looked into the future and glimpsed Halle Berry it would have been a compelling argument against bigotry.
Just by coincidence, I went to the law library this past weekend to look up the briefs that were filed to the supreme court for Loving vs Virginia, the 1967 decision that struck down race restrictions to marriage laws in 17 states.
When you look at the briefs that were filed in support of those restrictions, it is obvious they never came close to contemplating the possiblity of a Halle Berry — or of a Tiger Woods or Barak Obama!