At the suggestion of Scott of Reality Cubed, I watched the seven-minute movie trailer for X-Men: The Last Stand. The movie’s story line appears to be a sensational, but somewhat oversimplified, mirror of the exgay debate:
If there were a medical cure for something that isn’t an illness, then is it ethical or humane to administer social rejection, discriminatory laws and involuntary medical treatment to accomplish that “cure”?
In a scene depicted in the trailer, a presumably loving father and conservative political leader with closets to preserve (or restore) is about to give an early dose of a newly developed drug cure to his mutant son. At first the son seems eager for a cure — or perhaps just resigned to it. But as the scene progresses, the son changes his mind — and the father tries to force the cure on his son anyway. The voluntary therapy suddenly becomes a handcuffed Love In Action-style compulsory treatment with an experimental, painful drug that will take away his mutant abilities. The son must then try to use some of his mutant abilities to escape.
I’m not familiar with the X-Men story line, but the exgay angle seems unmistakable in this scene and others that are included in the trailer. Village Voice columnist Michael Musto apparently agrees:
The most astute interpretation of the new X-Men movie, which deals with an attempt to normalize the mutants: It’s a giant metaphor for the ex-gay movement!
The simplistic genetic nature of the mutation in the movie may raise objections to an exgay allegory among those familiar with research into the origins of sexual orientation. Will audiences be willing to overlook clinical details to see validity in the mutant-exgay metaphor — or do flawed details invalidate the metaphor?
Back in January, Good As You quoted star Hugh Jackman speaking with AP:
“If you could actually get rid of your special power which alienates you from the rest of the world, would you do it?” said Jackman, who reprises his role as Wolverine. “It’s a metaphor very much about intolerance, I think, fear of anything that’s different. If you could choose to not be Jewish or not be gay or not be African-American. Life maybe is not as easy if you’re a minority. Would you take the opportunity to change that if you could?”
I think that is a great trailer and I can’t wait to see the movie. I hope that the public will get the metaphor. I especially liked the other video clip, in Reality Cubed, of the Village People. That was pretty steamy! 😉 The Awesome, Gay early 80’s. 🙂
This is actually not a new storyline for the X-Men. Both the comic book in the 80s and the cartoon in the 90s told the same story with mixed success. The best version, of course, was the comic book, because it could tell the story across a number of issues, and so could get more in-depth.
The fact that the story appeared in the comic book 15+ years ago and quite accurately predicted the way ex-gay programs could be politicized should be chilling for us all.
I certainly hope that in some way, this could help to convey the message (about the unethical fashion in which the gay community is being treated) across to a section of the audience who normally wouldn’t commiserate with our struggles. If anyone hasn’t seen the movie “Ultraviolet”, it’s not bound to be one of the great movies of the decade, but still worth a watch. It depicts some of the same scenarios that the gay community could potentially be made to face if the conservative fundamentalist side consistently has their way. (Though I’m not too sure that vampires make the best metaphor for homosexuals, I’m sure that fundies would love it in this context, hehe.)
For a less subtle – but very visually stimulating – warning, see “V for Vendetta”
X-men has always provided a wonderful counter-point to the ex-gay philosophy. I know that as a young gay man, reading these comic books helped provide a foundation for me to eventually accept myself as being gay instead of hating myself. One of the over-riding themes I always got from those comics was that ‘being different makes you no less human’.
I think ‘Bewitched’ and ‘I dream of Jeannie’ from the ’60s were far ahead of their time in depicting exgay thinking. Both Darren and Major Healy refused to let their supernatural partners live up to their full, natural potential. (And in Major Healy’s case, he refused all of Jeannie’s sexual advances…hmmm.)
If you’re me and you’ve been reading tons and tons of X-Men 3 news over the last year, this is nothing new. Ian McKellen has been talking about X3 through the eyes of a gay man for some time now, and it has always been clear that for him, mutantcy is a metaphor for gayness.
“There are people who think gay people can be cured,” said McKellen (Magneto), who has spoken publicly about his own homosexuality. “My reaction to the idea that I can be cured as a mutant is as contemptuous as my view of people who say I need curing of my sexuality. The idea that black people could take a pill that would cure them of being black is abhorrent to me.”
I got that from this article
https://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=3&id=34861
which I think makes it sound a lot more emotional then it really is (i’ve read a dozen articles about this interview and this is the only one who tries to sensationalize the conversation, it also edits hugh jackmans comments)
But the idea that the X-men/cure plot line is a metaphor for gayness being cured goes way back to the 80’s and it is still a reoccuring plot point. Joss Whedon’s Astonishing X-Men comic covered it last year.
I always saw connections between the X-Men story and growing up gay, from the comics and cartoons of yesterday and even more so from the recent movies. As for being a metaphor for the ex-gay movement, I see it more as a metaphor for the civil rights movement in general.
As much as the exgay conglomerate would love to think of itself as mainstream, it simply isn’t.
I have loved comic books all my life. X-Men in particular, or any hero that overcomes obstacles to fight for justice for strangers.
Most of these heroes are closeted. They can’t reveal who they are or their true abilities, let alone display them in their real identities.
They know that to do so would make them lose who means the most to them.
This is the sort of life gay folks live with daily.
And yet, gays folks don’t live to take vengence on those who have hurt them. Indeed, they work hard to integrate compassionately, contribute despite restriction on their best selves and have engaged in selfless participation in justice and protection for others.
And depsite all this, continue to be misunderstood and the public at large fearful of them.
Superhuman patience and respect is at work in gay life every day.
Imagine, more in common with superheroes than any other folks…
Can I get a witness?
Thanks for the link 🙂
I will say, however, from what I’ve seen of the trailer, the “mutant cure” is at least presented scientifically and is medically proven in the movie.
The real life ex-gay movement can’t make the same claims.
As SarahS mentions, Joss Whedon did this storyline in Astonishing X-Men recently, where a scientist discovers a “cure” for mutation. Therein he included this exchange between a mutant and said scientist, pointedly raising the comparison.
And I would also recommend everyone go see “Ultraviolet”, though only because my brother worked on it.
To present having superpowers/being a ‘mutant’ as a metaphor for homosexuality is moronic and annoying.
Having superpowers gives you an inherent advantage over other people; being homosexual doesn’t. Superpowers aren’t a psychological condition; homosexuality is. There’s no comparison whatever.
ab, your comment seems to boil down to “Mutation isn’t the same as homosexuality, therefore they can’t be similar!” I’ve seen this inability to grasp the concept of metaphors or comparisons before; mostly when people try to dismiss the miscegenation analogy by basically saying “Race and sex aren’t the same thing therefore this analogy is invalid!” To compare homosexuality and mutation is not to say that they are the same thing–any moron could tell you they are not–but they may be similar to some extent. For example:
* Homosexuality and mutation are both things that one is born with; one does not choose to be a mutant, nor to be gay
* Manifestation of mutations and of homosexuality generally don’t occur until puberty
* Only a small percentage of the population is a homosexual or a mutant
* This small percentage is feared, called “unnatural”, “evil”, and are the subject of persecution for being born the way they are–for being different
* We have in the movie a ‘cure’ for mutations, much like we have a ‘cure’ for homosexuality in the form of reparative therapy and the like
* We have in the movie clip a teenager being pressured and forced to take this cure against his wishes, as has happened to gay teenagers
There, you see? I have listed several points where these two different things are similar, thus proving that there is a comparison.
I forgot to point out that superpowers are imaginary and homosexuality is real. Still, that aside, superpowers and homosexuality may be similar in some ways, but the comparison doesn’t show anything important.
The second X-men movie had a scene where an anxious mother blames herself because her son is a ‘mutant.’ Now, what was the point of that cringe-inducing scene supposed to be? That it’s just as absurd for real mothers to blame themselves for making their children gay as it was for that imaginary mother to blame herself because her son is a ‘mutant’?
I hardly think so – despite what you say, it’s probably not true that people are born homosexual, and it’s not at all impossible that parental behaviour does influence sexual orientation. So parents may have to go on feeling guilty, if they consider homosexuality so bad.
Homosexuality isn’t the same thing as having superpowers?! Don’t be so sure.
When’s the last time you saw a straight guy turn a 25 yards of chiffon, a barrel of plastic fruit and a flatbed truck into a “Tribute to Carmen Miranda” float?
But seriously. I bet the producers are hoping the anti-gay crowd is going to get as riled over this X-Men movie as they did over “Brokeback Mountain,” thereby drumming up a lot of free advance publicity.
Keep up the good work, ab!
ab, part of the problem is that you seem to get annoyed quite easily by reality, This is evident by the fact that you find 1) the mutant/homosexual comparison and 2) the guilty mother scenes annoying. But the fact of the matter is, 1) there IS a comparison between the two (as Skemono ably demonstrated) and 2) those of us who are gay have played out that very scene with our parents.
You also seem to have a different definition of “probably” than I do. I am of the impression that “probably” means “more than likely”. You state that “it’s probably not true that people are born homosexual”. That is not only a minority opinion, but has been shown to be very very unlikely. Thus, your use of “probably” is, IMHO, inappropriate.
“…it’s not at all impossible that parental behaviour does influence sexual orientation. So parents may have to go on feeling guilty…”
Wow!! “not at all impossible” seems to be a pretty low standard for associating guilt.
One can’t be sure, but I think the ex-gay movement will take the position that this movie is not worth commenting on. Perhaps one shouldn’t waste time going into a long explanation of why they will take that stance?
Regarding the other main point – do you consider claiming that people are born gay sufficient proof that this is so?
“do you consider claiming that people are born gay sufficient proof that this is so?”
nope. I sure don’t.
But I do consider the studies done on the deactivation of chromosomes in the mothers of gay sons a good indicator that AT LEAST SOME gay people were born with a predispostion towards finding the same sex attractive.
https://exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2006/02/new_study_suppo.html
When that is coupled with studies on same-sex attracted rams, pheromone responses in the brain, and body scent reactions, and observations of same-sex bonding among non-human species, there’s a lot of credibility to a biological basis for homosexuality.
While those opposed to the idea of biological origens like to try and find small areas of possibility that the studies may not be fully conclusive, they provide nothing to support any alternate hypothesis. It seems as though the totality of pro-active substantiation for a non-biological basis (at least to date) is limited to “because I said so”.
And I would say that simply claiming that “no one is born gay”, especially in the face of mounting evidence suggesting the contrary, certainly fails to meet all standards of sufficient proof.
https://exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/08/gay_rams_study.html
https://exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/05/study_biology_i.html
https://exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2006/05/throckmorton_qu.html
The point isn’t in comparing mutation and homosexuality, but in showing how the both of them are treated by society. People are treated as abnormal, freaks, sinners, evil, etc. because of a mere accident of birth that makes them different from the norm. That difference can be mutation, homosexuality, or race. What makes the comparison between mutation and homosexuality so poignant here is that people are heralding a “cure” for both, and forcing it on those who don’t want it.
Skemono said:
People are treated as abnormal, freaks, sinners, evil, etc. because of a mere accident of birth that makes them different from the norm.
I don’t find it hard to believe that our fear of those who are different than us is quite deep, almost genetic. At some point in our history it might have been a matter of life and death, sticking with groups with which we were familiar and fearing others. But it may also be the end of us if we don’t move on and learn to truly see people as individuals. Prejudice of any kind is extremely difficult to “unlearn”, but it doesn’t have to be learned in the first place. That’s the key.
Sorry, I was thinking a lot about this today.
David Roberts
Being born with a predisposition toward becoming homosexual (which might be true for some people) is very different from being born destined to become homosexual.
Most of the better known researchers on sexual orientation don’t believe that people are ‘born gay.’ Dean Hamer and Simon LeVay, for example, have both said that some environmental influence is also likely involved.
No study has so far shown that this is impossible or even unlikely. Homosexual behaviour in rams doesn’t prove anything about homosexuality in humans because humans aren’t rams. Dr. Ivanka Savic, who conducted one of the pheromone studies on lesbians, recently contradicted the claim that it showed that there is a biological basis to homosexuality. Warren Throckmorton has covered this (https://wthrockmorton.blogspot.com/).
It is untrue that there is no evidence to support environmental theories of homosexuality. Some studies on the family background of homosexual men do show that they tended to have close binding mothers and cold, distant fathers. Simon LeVay, as I’ve already pointed out, accepts this and leaves open the possibility that this relationship may exist for the reasons Freud though it did (https://members.aol.com/slevay/page22.html).
If I can add a personal remark, I am gay, and yes, I did have a close binding mother and a cold and distant father. There are various reasons why I don’t think this is a coincidence. The fact that my sexuality has shifted from exclusive homosexuality toward bisexuality is one of them. I don’t see how this is possible if homosexuality is exclusively biological – does it mean that part of my brain changed shape?
I’ve posed this question a number of times to people who accept the born-gay theory and never got any sensible answer out of them.
ab, it’s not going to help if you keep refusing to actually read LeVay’s page:
After assembling a very long list of historic and current notions about sexual development… LeVay says “I think, born that way”. It’s dishonest of you to claim otherwise. Far from offering support for non-biological developmental reasons, LeVay thinks it’s both biological and BEFORE birth.As for the rest, we’d have to assume your narrative is both correct and not a distortion or word games; or that no other (more likely) explanations exist. To echo your own words, you’ve given us no evidence.(Cuts both ways, doesn’t it?)
I think that these nature/nurture arguments oversimplify a complex reality. A person may well be born bisexual and then shaped towards one end of the spectrum or another, and various other scenarios can be thought out regarding the possible combinations. Pre-existing biology and environment combine to shape a person. How they do so is the key to understanding not only sexuality but humanity.
On studies, science is a tentative process. Rams cannot be directly matched with humans, but both species have complex brains compared to many other animals. Factors that affect a ram’s brain could also alter a human’s brain, so studying them can provide evidence for biological predisposition. Personally, I would like to see studies of bonobos, our very bisexual evolutionary cousins, as their behavior might give us insight into how our ancestors developed.
Regarding parents, I have also seen reports that state no such correlation has been observed, so I would have to look up more information. I can merely note that this theory does not match my experience, so they would need another environmental issue or blame my repressive subconscious. The brain is amazingly adaptive, but I do doubt that most people can greatly alter their sexual orientation.
PS Savic’s study — and reason for objecting to it being presented that way — did not look for a cause. A lowly Associated Press reporter wrongly overstated that it did after looking at a graph and not properly reading the text. The AP rapidly corrected the report.On the other hand, Savic’s work also does not preclude prenatal biology. It also equally does not support environmental notions of cause. Yet you placed it in a paragaraph starting “It is untrue that there is no evidence to support environmental theories of homosexuality.”Even forgiving your confusion of what is meant by environmental (something that includes prenatal hormones), neither Savic’s work or the original misquoting of it by a non-expert reporter provides any evidence to support your idea of “raised that way”.
grantdale,
Sometimes I would just really love to give you both a hug (and a cup of coffee that doesn’t require titanium shielding) 🙂
David Roberts
It is you, Grantdale, not me, who is misinterpreting what LeVay wrote. Declaring that biological factors influence sexual orientation does not mean that other factors do not also influence sexual orientation.
This is because ‘influence’ does not mean the same thing as ‘determine.’ If LeVay had written that biological factors determine sexual orientation, that would have left no possibility that environmental/family influences could also be at work – but that wasn’t what he wrote.
Once again you demonstrate your ability to differentiate between two dissimilar objects; my hat off to you.
And while it is true that this “proves” nothing except that rams have been observed to exhibit homosexual behavior, that is highly misleading. Besides rams, there are literally hundreds of species that have exhibited queer behavior, suggesting very strongly that such behavior is biological in nature and not sociological. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that the same, or similar, processes that lead to two animals being attracted to each other do not exist or do not work the same way in humans simply because we are humans.
It is of course conceivable that there is some sort of social factor to all this, but of all such explanations, none have been either necessary or sufficient conditions for causing homosexuality.
I must wonder, why on earth should this pose a problem? Of course human bodies change over time–did you think that they didn’t? I know that over time the degree to which they were attracted to either gender has changed for some people; I’ve met some who’ve said the same thing. But I’ve yet to see any evidence that it was a conscious effort on their part, or their “choice” to do so.
Now here I may be being unfair–you haven’t claimed that sexual orientation was a choice, you merely were suggesting that post-natal social factors were to blame rather than it all happening before birth. But if we recall what this thread is supposed to be about, what bearing does that have on the analogy? In either case orientation is something these people do not choose, just like mutation, and in both cases they are reviled for something they cannot affect.
One more thing, grantdale. I did not place my comments on Dr. Ivanka Savic in a paragraph starting, “It is untrue that there is no evidence to support environmental theories of homosexuality.” Read it again and see for yourself. Nor did I imply that, by itself, it supports environmental theories of homosexuality.
Skemono writes, “Besides rams, there are literally hundreds of species that have exhibited queer behavior, suggesting very strongly that such behavior is biological in nature and not sociological.”
How? I don’t see that it shows any such thing.
You also write “It is of course conceivable that there is some sort of social factor to all this, but of all such explanations, none have been either necessary or sufficient conditions for causing homosexuality.”
That sentence is ungrammatical and I’m not sure exactly what you are trying to say. Presumably it wasn’t what that sentence means taken literally, which is that explanations of homosexuality cause homosexuality?
You also write, “Of course human bodies change over time–did you think that they didn’t?” Yes, human bodies do change over time, but it is highly implausible to suggest that the shape of my hypothalamus, or whatever it is that supposedly causes my sexual orientation, changes each time my the direction of my sexual attraction shifts from gay to straight or straight to gay.
This has happened several times, and is usually related to mood swings, to how depressed I am or am not feeling at a given moment, and so on. So it could be argued (although I am not necessarily arguing) that my sexual orientation is indirectly a choice, at least to the extent that my state of mind depends on choices I make.
I think that invalidates the comparison between being homosexual and having superpowers.
ab said:
I think that invalidates the comparison between being homosexual and having superpowers.
What it does, at most, is provide some information on your own experience. As to the statement above, you completely missed the point of the original post.
David Roberts
I forgot to point out that superpowers are imaginary and homosexuality is real.
Picasso said that art is a lie that makes us see the truth. Jacob Bronowski said that art doesn’t set out to preach, but to shine a light in which the outlines of good and evil could be seen with frightful clarity. If all you can see in the stories of superheroes are the superpowers and the tights and the almost operatic drama then you’re taking them too literally.
That kind of high romance isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. That doesn’t mean it can’t speak to some of us in meaningful ways about things that are, in fact, very very real.
The fact that my sexuality has shifted from exclusive homosexuality toward bisexuality is one of them. I don’t see how this is possible if homosexuality is exclusively biological – does it mean that part of my brain changed shape?
It seems that, contrary to previous beliefs, our brains are in fact constantly changing throughout our lives. That doesn’t make them blackboards that anyone can scribble their will upon. The trashcan of history is full of utopias that were based on models of human behavior and biology that turned out to be dead wrong. We change as we grow…all life is to some degree, change…and yet those changes take place within a landscape that we have utterly no say over.
Nearly all of us go through at least one change in our sexuality in our lifetimes. It’s called puberty. And yes, as it turns out, the onset of puberty can be affected by environmental issues. But what people using that term “environment” miss is that scientists generally use it to describe…well…environment. Famine can affect our bodies. Sickness and disease can. Environment. I don’t know of anyone who claims that a weak or distant father and an overbearing mother influences the onset of puberty. So when we hear the word “environment” with regard to puberty, people don’t automatically assume it’s family life being referred to. They need to stop making that assumption about sexual orientation too.
Family life certainly can determine how well a person goes through puberty, and how well adjusted they are coming out of it. But to say that environment influences when and how long we spend going through puberty, isn’t to say that going through it isn’t hard wired into us all the same.
My body has a predisposition toward right handedness. Environmental factors, such as a wasting disease or a terrible accident, can influence that by causing me to loose my right arm. A cult that imagines that there is something unholy about right handedness might cut that arm off some of us when we are very young, and then they’d have had no choice about growing up being, in a sense, left handed. Good thing I didn’t grow up in one of those I guess.
So…yes…environmental factors can influence which hand is my dominant hand. But the natural state of my body is to be right handed. And since there is nothing morally wrong with being right handed, or necessarily hazardous to either myself or to others, then people need to just let me be…right handed. And the same goes for all the lefties of this world.
…and the gays.
ab — I meant to say “post” not “paragraph”. My typo. If you think that’s important, so be it. But Savic provides NO evidence for “raised that way” — the rest of my post stands as is.Unless you say otherwise, franky, I’m goig to give up on science speak with you. “Influence” has a well understood terminology. As does “theory” and “hypothesis” and “notion”. You either understand what LeVay has said, or you are welcome to email him. I’m not asking you to take my word for it — ask for yourself. Read the entire page you have twice presented here as “evidence”.OK?(Last night I did “fractions” with an eight year old. For my sins. I feel the same way now as then — with one major differnce… the 8 year old knew they didn’t know, and wanted to learn. They asked “how” and “why” not “who”.)Apart from all that, honestly AB you have our blessing to bang anyone who’ll say yes to you. Feel free. Go crazy.
David — it’s 1:45am here. I’m still working. I’m sipping on a coffee with a pH of about 3. Several hours to go. Sigh.Actually a hug WOULD be mighty good right about now…. runs off down hallway… nope, the only person in our bed rudely told me to “Bugger off. I’m asleep.” (“But you said something, you’re not asleep”. “I am asleep. I’m taking in my sleep. And piss off.”)Ah, that charming Australian vernacular. Guess that hug will have to wait until morning 🙂
ab,
As I said before, “It seems as though the totality of pro-active substantiation for a non-biological basis (at least to date) is limited to “because I said so”.”
Your entire argument can be boiled down to: “No study has so far shown that this is impossible or even unlikely.”
You provide NOTHING to support your position. Literally you say “some studies” (not provided or referenced) and that Simon LeVay “leaves open the possibility”.
In other words, “because I say so”.
You seem to argue from the position that as long as you can continued to find possible flaws, however minor, in the evidence provided for a biological basis for the origens of orientation, then that proves you right.
It is not adequate to cast doubt on the other guy’s argument. You have to provide support for your own. And you haven’t. Why is that?
There’s an unexamined assumption in some of ab’s arguments – that people are normatively heterosexual, until and unless something happens to knock them off the ‘normal’ track and onto an ‘aberrant’ siding. The idea that this could be true of _some_ people, while some others are normatively bisexual, and still others normatively
homosexual, strikes me as explaining more of the observed phenomena without generating an excessive amount of new questions.
My husband, for example, is definitely bisexual, whereas I am most definitely not. As far as I know, my siblings, who were all raised by the same parents as me, are definitely heterosexual. My mother was not particularly close-binding or smothering – rather the reverse, in truth – and I was very close to my father. I’m one of those men who grows up to be his father, and lucky enough to marry someone very much like his mother – except for the whole ‘he’s a man’ part, that is.
Without reading all of the comments, I have to say I like Robert’s response – the assumption is of “normative” heterosexuality, in that all men MUST be attracted to women and vice versa. But to me, that assumption is fundamentally wrong because it highlights the differences between the two genders, with the concept of “opposite” sexes, as if there were little, if anything, in common between them.
Yet we are all, at the most basic level, half male and half female. And humans have only one chromosone to distinguish between genders – the rest are basically the same. We know that there are humans who are physically in between the two genders (the intersexed), so why is it so surprising that there are people who are psychologically a mixture? I got my body type from my father, but my feet and hands from my mother. I get my hair color from my Dad and my eye color from my Ma. It should not be surprising that I have my Mother’s attraction to men as well.
As for ab’s evolution of his sexuality – as anyone in statistics knows, an “n” of 1 is meaningless. No one can say exactly what is happening, either biologically or psychologically, in any one individual to cause a shift in sexual orientation. In fact, how can we even know it is a true “shift,” in that it represents a change in brain function? It may simply be that the normal course of development for ab’s brain was to become more bisexual over time, and that predisposition could still have been in place at birth (certainly the predisposition for schizophrenia is, yet no one calls it a “choice” even though the disease does not manifest itself until adulthood). In addition, using ab’s single example to somehow categorize all gay people is as wrong as using my example (I’m a Kinsey 6 all the way, have never had any sexual attraction to women) to state that all gay people are completely homosexual. I have no doubt that I am in a small minority of men who have no attraction whatsoever to women.
Timothy Kincaid complains that I provide no studies. A couple of relevant studies are mentioned in LeVay’s article, to which I provided a link. I would have assumed that you were capable of following that up for yourself, but for the record, the studies are those by A. P. Bell and Martin Weinberg in their 1981 book Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women and K. Freund and R. Blanchard in “Is the distant relationship of fathers and homosexual sons related to the son’s erotic preference for male partners, or to the sons’ atypical gender identity, or both?” in the Journal of Homosexuality 9: 7-25.
If you think there is something wrong with those studies, it would be helpful if you could say what it is. So far no one I have mentioned those studies to has shown that there is anything wrong with them.
In any case, I don’t see how you can honestly claim, however, that my argument boils down to ‘because I say so.’ You make no attempt to respond to my argument about how changing sexual feelings make the born-that-way theory implausible. This does not really surprise me.
“So far no one I have mentioned those studies to has shown that there is anything wrong with them.”
Well, so far you hadn’t mentioned them. You generically said “some studies” and linked to a page containing dozens of studies, most of which refute your position.
I’ll get back to you on the two you think supports your position.
“You make no attempt to respond to my argument about how changing sexual feelings make the born-that-way theory implausible.”
That’s probably because you have not presented such an argument. You made some disjointed comments about mood swings and their impact on your sexual desires personally. And you suggested that this on its own discounts the scientifically observed correlations with hypothalamus activity. But otherwise I didn’t see an argument. But let’s pretend that you had such a position and laid it out logically.
Well, to start one would have to assume that “changing sexual feelings” was a trait observable in a cross section of gay people. So far, that has not proven to be the case. Again, there is a dearth of study on whether “changing sexual feelings” occurs in any statistically measurable way.
The closest that can be given as a support for such a position is the Spitzer telephone study in which he concluded that “probably about 3%” of gay people were, with significant effort, able to show a shift in orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. In fact, from this study, we could conclude that gay people, on average, do not have changing sexual feelings.
I suppose one could hypothocize that that 3% of gay people were not “born gay”. But as this is such a miniscule sample that truly no conclusions can be derived.
As far as your personal changing sexual feelings, the fact that they are closely tied to mood swings and depression suggests that there is probably something else going on other than a change in your sexual orientation.
So, no, you have not presented anything.
Well, other than two studies (which I will comment on later) and a personal opinion based on your own personal experience (ie “because i say so”.
ab,
quickie response to Bell/Weinberg and Freund/Blanchard:
LeVey summarizes their reports thusly: “Retrospective studies confirm that gay men tend to describe their relationships with their mothers as unusually close and with their fathers as distant or hostile”. From this you conclude that parental relationships determine orientation.
I can see four immediate flaws in that logic:
1. There is a difference between correlation and causation.
For example, a recent poll showed that 51% of cell phone users support gay marriage while only 37% of the population at large indicate support. Yet only a very naive person would suggest that using a cell phone “causes” you to support gay marriage. Rather, the clue lies in the fact that those factor more associated with support for gay marriage (younger, better educated, etc) also are associated with owning a cell phone.
The relationship is correlating but not causal.
2. Causation may be the other way around. It may be the orientation of the men that resulted in a stronger relationship with their mother and a weaker one with their father:
As LeVay said, “A contemporary American analyst has suggested that parental attitudes to pre-gay children, such as a father’s withdrawal or hostility, may actually be a response to gender-variant traits in the child rather than a cause of them.”
3. The results were self-reporting and long after the effect.
We often overlay our current attitudes about someone on top of our memories and then filter earlier memories according to more current filters.
Let me give you a contorversial, yet factual, example. George Bush was elected in 2000 as someone fairly neutral on gay issues. Conservative Republicans were furious with him that Jim Kolbe was allowed to speak to the national convention. Immediately after his inauguration was harshly criticized by anti-gay activists for being too pro-gay. He appointed a gay ambassador to Romania and a gay man to head his transition team, and kept Clinton’s protections in place.
In February 2004, Bush made an about face. He started championing the FMA and suddenly protections were removed from government sites. The administration became quite hostile.
Yet to most gay people, it has been six years of attacks on the gay community. It really hasn’t, but Bush’s new-found animosity to gays was so virulent that it flavors every memory of what came before.
So too may a gay man have such a difficult time with his father coming out that it flavors all early memories of his parental relationships. It seems to me (this is just anecdotal) that those gay adult men who have a good relationship with their father tend to recall a better childhood relationship and those who are estranged, a poor one.
4. Those reports are all from the 80’s of men who were adults at that time. Which means that the formative years that you are hypothosizing about were in the 60’s and 70’s. Culturally, there is much more acceptance today than then.
Additionally, there was a great deal of “newness” about the whole idea of sexual orientation. The Stonewall Riots were in 1969 and the following years had attention to gay pride parades. The news was full of Anita Bryant and her crusades.
This cultural phenomenon could have shaded both the reactions of fathers to young children displaying gender atypical attitudes or to the cultural associations of a young gay child in the way they later recalled their youth.
In other words, with authority figures “rejecting them” (such as preachers, newscasters, other adults) with vehemence (as did occur at that time) this rejections could have been transposed onto recollections of their fathers.
I have not read the studies so I don’t know if they addressed the issues I raised. Nonetheless, if they did not, these are valid points to consider. Perhaps if someone else has read the studies they could add to this.
In response to Grantdale: to be perfectly clear about it, I never said or implied that Ivanka Savic’s study provided positive support for environmental theories of homosexuality, only that it didn’t contradict them. What you say in the rest of your post doesn’t refute my interpretation of what LeVay wrote, since all it really does is repeat what you already said.
In response to Timothy Kincaid: you say that most of the studies on LeVay’s page refute my position. How, exactly, do they do this? It isn’t good enough to say that they refute my position without giving an argument about why they do so (and my position isn’t that there cannot be any biological influences on sexual orientation, only that whatever biological influences may exist aren’t enough to determine sexual orientation by themselves).
Other studies have been done on changing sexual feelings besides that of Robert Spitzer, which, as you probably know, is concerned only with whether therapy can change sexual feelings, not with whether sexual feelings can change independently, without therapy.
Jeffrey Satinover has commented on a different study, Sex in America, which shows that change without therapy does happen (https://www.narth.com/docs/satinovr.html).
In response to this, I hope you aren’t going to tell me that Satinover is a lightweight or a crank – I accept that he is both, and he is undoubtedly wrong about many things. I don’t think that Satinover is wrong about this, however, since here he is supported by a credible, ‘mainstream’ source.
One can argue that all that this would show is that homosexuality isn’t biologically determined in some cases. However, I think it is implausible to claim that in some cases homosexuality is is determined by biological sources alone and therefore not changeable while in other cases homosexuality is non-biological and therefore changeable.
This is not a very economical assumption. It would be much more economical to assume that psychological factors of one kind or another are always the immediate cause or causes of homosexuality (even if those psychological factors are indirectly influenced by biological factors, which is quite likely, given that the ‘psychological’ and the ‘biological’ overlap).
If homosexuality changes in some cases but not in others, this would be because the particular balance of psychological factors varies from case to case. If the psychological factors were such that change was not possible, then homosexuality might look biologically based even though it wasn’t.
Yet the reverse is highly unlikely – it is implausible that homosexuality could be biologically based and appear to be psychological, for reasons which I have already explained.
In response to this, I hope you aren’t going to tell me that Satinover is a lightweight or a crank – I accept that he is both, and he is undoubtedly wrong about many things. I don’t think that Satinover is wrong about this, however, since here he is supported by a credible, ‘mainstream’ source.
I’m a little fuzzy then as to why you’re citing Satinover, who is indeed an anti-gay crank and an utterly unreliable source, and not this mainstream source you say supports him. Why drag Satinover (and NARTH no less) into it, other then to wave an anti-gay crank in everyone’s faces?
…he is undoubtedly wrong about many things… Like when he said that masturbation is worse then heroin because it causes the release of naturally occurring opioids which are the most perfect addictive substance? We all wrong at one time or another in our lives, but there’s being wrong and there’s being a flaming goofball nutcase and the problem with Satinover isn’t that he’s the one but that he’s the other. Whatever he’s telling you, regardless of the subject matter, you need to examine it at some distance from him. And I mean, read the source, don’t get it second hand from that crackpot. Christ, the man thinks he’s seeing secret codes embedded in the bible.
…simply astounding.
All right, let’s try to take this slowly.
You have been theorizing that homosexuality is caused by social factors such as having “a close binding mother and a cold and distant father”. Such social factors are present in humans but not so much in animals; and yet we have many hundreds, if not thousands, of documented instances of homosexual behavior in animals. Therefore we cannot reasonably assume that such psychosocial factors are what cause homosexuality. I would be hard-pressed to make this any simpler for you.
Very well, let’s try again. The phrase “X is necessary for Y” is logically equivalent to “If Y is true, then X is true”. After all, if it is necessary to have X whenever you have Y, then whenever you have Y you know that you must have X. Savvy?
Okay, then the phrase “X is sufficient for Y” is logically equivalent to “If X is true, then Y is true”. X is a condition whose being met is sufficient to induce Y. With me so far?
Well, you’ve been trying to claim that homosexuality is caused by social factors of some sort. I rebutted that there have been many theories as to which social factors could cause homosexuality–your “close binding mother and a cold and distant father”, for example. But none of these factors are necessary, nor sufficient, to cause homosexuality. That is, one can have a close-binding mother and a cold and distant father and not become gay; therefore this is not a sufficient condition. And one can be gay and not have a close-binding mother and a cold and distant father; therefore this is not a necessary condition.
This is true of all such social influences that have been put forth as “explanations” of homosexuality. So it is hard for me to take seriously claims that social factors lead to homosexuality.
Bruce Garrett writes, ‘I’m a little fuzzy then as to why you’re citing Satinover, who is indeed an anti-gay crank and an utterly unreliable source, and not this mainstream source you say supports him. Why drag Satinover (and NARTH no less) into it, other then to wave an anti-gay crank in everyone’s faces?’
That Satinover (and NARTH) are anti-gay is not the issue. Anti-gay people are not necessarily any more prejudiced or prone to distort facts than pro-gay people. Being a crank, however, is certainly a problem.
I mention Satinover only because I think it pays to be aware, regardless of one’s own point of view, of what the anti-gay side has to say. If someone on the anti-gay side has a mainstream sources that supports his or her claims, you need to know that.
“and my position isn’t that there cannot be any biological influences on sexual orientation, only that whatever biological influences may exist aren’t enough to determine sexual orientation by themselves”
Thank you for clarifying. As every comment you had made to date was in effort to oppose biological evidence, I was lead to think that you thought that all biological bases were invalid.
“I think it is implausible to claim that in some cases homosexuality is is determined by biological sources alone and therefore not changeable while in other cases homosexuality is non-biological and therefore changeable.”
If orientation is truly changeable, the changes are so extremely rare that I think that it could be possilble that some other factors come into play outside of the usual ones that impact orientation. In other words, since the overwhelming percentage of gay people cannot change (97% per Spitzer), then the 3% are an anomoly. It is not a comparison of “some” and “some other”.
Just as there is a disease which turns some black people lighter (supposedly Michael Jackson has this) yet it would be crazy to apply your same assumptions to race: “it is implausible to claim that in some cases skin color is determined by biological sources alone and therefore not changeable while in other cases skin color is non-biological and therefore changeable”. The tiny percentage is an anomoly and not indicative of black people as a whole.
Furthermore, simply because something is biological in origen does not mean it is not changeable. Change does not preclude biological origens.
“If the psychological factors were such that change was not possible, then homosexuality might look biologically based even though it wasn’t.”
In other words, you know your answer regardless of what evidence is presented. Are facts not relevant to you?
If tomorrow a study was released that showed that 100% of gay people had one specific gene that functioned differently from hetersexuals, would you then say it “might look biologically based even though it wasn’t”?
Are you even remotely open to the idea that orientation could indeed in some people be entirely derived from biological sources?
ab,
“If you think there is something wrong with those studies, it would be helpful if you could say what it is. So far no one I have mentioned those studies to has shown that there is anything wrong with them.”
I provided four things wrong with your conclusions from these studies. Was it helpful? You didn’t mention.
“Jeffrey Satinover has commented on a different study, Sex in America, which shows that change without therapy does happen (https://www.narth.com/docs/satinovr.html).”
Sorry. You can’t simply provide a link to COMMENTARY by an admitted crank as a source for the study. If you want to reference that study, you should provide a link.
Until then, you remain without a source for your position other than:
1. two 80’s studies (the flaws of which you have not addressed)
2. a commentary by Satinover (author of Cracking the Bible Code)
3. “because I say so”
In response to Timothy Kincaid’s four points,
1. Yes, I realise that a correlation between a particular family structure and sexual orientation does not, in itself, show that the family structure caused the sexual orientation. Following on from this is point 2:
It’s true that LeVay suggests that causation might be the other way around, but he only mentions that as a possibility, and doesn’t insist it must be the other way.
For the orientation of the man to result in a stronger relationship with the mother and a weaker relationship with the father, homosexuality would have to be completely determined by genetic and/or hormonal factors, but LeVay has said this is probably not true.
3. There might be cases in which people misremember their childhoods or let later events distort their view of them, but for most of us, their memory of their relationship with their parents should be perfectly clear.
It is to me. Point 4 is basically the same as point 3. It was not particularly helpful for you to mention what you think is wrong with the conclusions I draw from those studies, since your view that they are wrong mostly depends on the born-gay theory, which I don’t accept.
It would have been more helpful if you could have pointed to some specific flaw with the methodology of the studies.
You seem to think that Robert Spitzer’s study was about seeing what percentage of gay people can go straight. This is not my understanding of what Spitzer was doing, which is that he was only trying to find out if change ever occured through therapy, not how often it worked, if it ever did. If I’m wrong about this, could you please direct me to a source that proves your claim?
**
In response to Skemono, let me explain: I suggested that a homosexual orientation in humans is due to close mothers/distant fathers, at least in many cases. One certainly can’t conclude that just because this particular way of relating to one’s parents doesn’t automatically produce homosexuality, that therefore it never does so.
Presumably the development of a homosexual orientation is influenced by various factors, and it might require some combination of environmental with biological factors, which could well vary from person to person. The issue has not yet been fully investigated.
Nor would each and every case of homosexual behaviour be caused by this sort of thing – it wouldn’t be true of situational homosexuality in prisons, for example. Homosexual behaviour in animals would also probably have different causes. This doesn’t show anything about the cause of homosexual orientation in humans.
**
I won’t address any other points in this post because it is already long enough.
From ab: Timothy Kincaid complains that I provide no studies. A couple of relevant studies are mentioned in LeVay’s article … I would have assumed that you were capable of following that up for yourself, but for the record, the studies are those by [Bell & Weinberg and Freund & Blanchard]Actually ab it is you who need to do the reading.You have again shown that you neither understand LeVay’s webpage, and also shown that you are blindly dropping author’s names.You have not read those those studies, let alone the sections that LeVay is talking to.Far from LeVay thinking these two studies provide any evidence for your arguament, he notes that they actually indicate the complete opposite. You should have got a clue from the fact LeVay mentions gender conformity as the real variable — not the adult sexuality.People have wrongly quoted from these studies for over 20 years. That is why LeVay lists them, and he also rejects them.Like LeVay, and unlike you, I have read them. These are direct quotes from the actual works:Freund and Blanchard (1983)
Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith (1981)
Is that clear enough for you? Those authors found there are no relationship between family realtionships and homosexuality itself.ab, if you are going to go around “quoting” studies — please take the time to read and understand them. LeVay has read them, and rejected them. Why do you insist on pretending the opposite?Your constant distortions are a bad habit that is rapidly wearing thin.
I mention Satinover only because I think it pays to be aware, regardless of one’s own point of view, of what the anti-gay side has to say. If someone on the anti-gay side has a mainstream sources that supports his or her claims, you need to know that.
We don’t need the crank in the discussion, since the crank doesn’t add anything to the discussion. And neither do you. You need to read the source, not the source by way of the crank, because the crank cannot be trusted to accurately relate what their sources have said. Subtract the damn crank.
If you can that is. You’re getting your “mainstream” sources by way of the cranks…aren’t you? That’s why you’re pretty consistantly wrong about what they’ve actually said about sexual orientation…isn’t it?
Hey ab…I’m just a straight woman that’s been here a long time.
I’m also a black woman.
Nothing about that, however biologically determined, didn’t protect me from discrimination or some kind of harassment or the certainty by some people that I was an inferior being to them.
The last generation of my family suffered even more risks and indignities.
So biological factors don’t matter.
What does, is how easily a minority of people, without the power to politically engage their voting power, are demonized as an unwelcome, dangerous or abnormal presence in society.
And this persists, regardless of the actual social and political influence gays and lesbians have on society.
Thus, what has been productive, compassionate and contributing on the part of gay people is trivialized aand grossly minimized.
But what is considered fearful, is blown way out of proportion to reality.
Consider not what creates gay people (if there are no genetic differences or abnormalities, it’s a NORMAL sexual orientation. Inversions occur in all life, and that doesn’t make the opposite of something a bad thing.)
Consider also, what gay people actually are doing in response to the way they have been traditionally treated.
Jailed, fired from jobs, expelled from school (even middle school), beaten, harassed, abandoned by family, murdered, children taken away arbitrarily, attempts at straight marriages destroyed, attempts at sainthood, or virtual priestly or nunly celibacy, or just plain intimidation into silence…
And how do gay people respond to that, by saying please, pretty please don’t DO that.
Let me speak for myself?
Going to court, to fight for their children and significant others.
Going into the very professions that us straight people are told they have no talent for, and outclassing everyone.
Or how about surrendering on occasion, but coming back by carrying a picket sign in protest.
ab, don’t you consider that all of humankind and human history is in symbiosis with gay people?
Not only a statement of normalcy and cooperative diversity…but what good for everyone have the traditional responses done for anyone, gay or not?
Quoting statistics from known anti gay people whose own backgrounds are as STRAIGHT people, or coerced or paid ex gays is clear bias and whose results are bogus, can’t fly any more.
It’s best you look at how straight people respond to gay people and how gay people have responded to IT.
Like I said before, with superhuman patience. Undeserved patience.
But THAT’S what has happened.
There is no question that many minorities, have been held back, from doing their best, reaching their full potential or compensated for their contributions, because the majority cannot and does not appreciate the presence of that minority the way they should.
The origins of homosexuality are not important.
The goodness, genius, talent and potential in gay people is.
I recall watching “Easter Parade” recently and in the scene where Hannah Brown (Judy Garland) is learning to dance with Fred Astaire. She can’t remember which foot is which.
She tells him she was born left handed, but her mother was told that she could become a dangerous criminal, so she was trained to use her right…but it only left her hopelessly confused.
I look at all the propaganda put out by ex gay ministries and therapy proponents and think they are doing exactly the same thing.
Telling people their gay child is at risk for a dangerous ‘lifestyle’, but they only confuse the parent AND the child with this trash.
Indeed, how can an orientation be called a ‘lifestyle’ when it transcends everything about human life that is cultural, religious, family or ethnicity?
Ab, although you might be playing devil’s advocate, perhaps you want to believe all those anti gay stats and information.
But segregationists spoke long and often on the ‘real’ motives and abilities of blacks, and look where that got everyone.
Misogynists are convinced of the weakness and positions that women deserve to be in.
And heterosexists are convinced of the superiority of their orientation.
Regardless of all that….reality has proven none of them were EVER right.
They are just putting off the truth coming to light, rather than revealing it.
I say let gay folks be allowed to do what straight people do. With the same protections and access guaranteed by the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and plain fair play….and ONLY then can the truth reveal itself.
Treating people badly, makes expecting positive outcomes from that treatment, rather insane, don’t you think?
Anyone who advocates for exclusion of gay people from being treated the same, and with the same expectations, couldn’t POSSIBLY know any truth they don’t want others to see.
I haven’t read any of the studies in question, so I won’t pretend to address the science of this topic. But since ab bases his rejection of a biological basis to homosexuality largely on his own experience, I might as well jump in with my own.
ab offers two reasons he cannot accept the “born gay” theory. First, he believes his own family pattern—“a close binding mother and a cold and distant father”—contributed to his homosexual orientation. Second, he has experienced some shift in his orientation and says, “I don’t see how this is possible if homosexuality is exclusively biological.”
I also had a troubled relationship with my father and closer bonds with my mother. For years, including 12 years of ex-gay therapy, I believed that was the primary cause of my own homosexual orientation. Yet since I came out (the second time) four years ago, and have met a much wider range of gay people, I’ve grown steadily more convinced that nature trumps nurture on sexual orientation.
To begin with, I’ve been struck by how many of the gay men I know do not seem to have had particularly troubled relationships with their fathers. That includes my own partner, who is one of two gay brothers in a family that had four boys and two girls. Neither Thom nor the rest of his family remembers any particular tension or distance between him and his father. Yet from as early as he can remember, Thom knew he was attracted to boys not girls. It wasn’t anything that troubled him—he just took it for granted, and still does.
I find that Thom is hardly unique. (Well, he’s definitely unique, but not in his relationship with his father!) Plenty of my gay friends recall perfectly healthy relationships with their parents. If the primary cause of homosexuality is rooted in parent/child interaction, how can there be so many homosexuals who don’t fit the classic family pattern?
I’ve also learned a lot by watching my own children and their cousins and friends grow up. One of my nephews seemed clearly “gay” in terms of interests and personality from the time he was two years old. Yet my brother-in-law was a close, supportive, affectionate, and also very masculine father. More than twenty years later, it’s no surprise to anyone who’s known him since age two that my nephew has come out as gay—just as it’s no surprise that his younger brother, who grew up with exactly the same parenting, is straight.
Knowing my nephew has actually helped me understand my own childhood and my problems with my father. I’ve learned over the years that my three brothers also experienced my father as distant and difficult. But it’s clear that from the time I was very small, my father worried that I was a bit of a sissy (ok, more than a bit) and that created a higher level of tension between us. In other words, my particular problems with my father resulted from my early signs of homosexual orientation, rather causing it. As Timothy Kincaid quotes LeVay, “parental attitudes to pre-gay children, such as a father’s withdrawal or hostility, may actually be a response to gender-variant traits in the child rather than a cause of them.”
My father rejected my sissy traits, and I turned out gay. My nephew’s father accepted and loved him with his sissy traits, and he turned out gay. The common trait between us isn’t our relationship with our fathers, but the fact that when we were very little kids, people could already see we were probably gay!
Finally, ab’s objects that his shift toward bisexual attraction proves that orientation cannot be biological, since a biological trait presumably can’t change. I tried for 30 years to change orientation with no success, so you’d expect me to argue that homosexuality is immutable. But I have known or known of a few people who do experience a shift in orientation over their life time. It works both ways, in fact: one friend never had a homosexual impulse or attraction until he was over 40, and now identifies exclusively as gay.
My own belief is that orientation is pretty much fixed for each person, but orientation itself is more fluid than people think. I was married over 25 years. I thoroughly enjoyed our sexual relationship, even though I never felt sexual attraction to women in general. I believe that many people who think they are exclusively homosexual or heterosexual can experience sexual attraction outside their usual orientation, and that those attractions can grow as they accept them. Has their “in-born” orientation actually changed, or was that orientation always less fixed than they thought?
ab,
You start with the conclusion that you “don’t accept the born-gay theory”. And no study or evidence will ever be enough to make you lose your faith in that presupposition.
But there’s simply no point in having a conversation with someone for whom facts are irrelevant.
Okay…we can look around us at the black families in cities everywhere. I have a family too, rife with ‘woman families’, that is to say, GENERATIONS of boys (and girls) who didn’t grow up with a father that was attentive, let alone lived in the same home.
These women had children, not only with different fathers, but sometimes those fathers were incarcerated or on drugs.
Many times there is a subtle abuse of the mind.
Name calling, put downs by these mothers or other women who have these children alone, or with only OTHER WOMEN around to raise them.
Often these families are poor. But by the logic that Exodus and other ex gay groups have, black males should make up the majority of gay people.
And there would be LESS black lesbians.
Latino homes are rarely bereft of male influence. The machismo standard of male bonding is very strong, but still there are plenty of Latino gay men (who are macho too).
The truth is, those who are anti gay and think they know the origins, KNOW NOTHING.
There IS no origin that’s documented and specific.
And what does that have to do with how we are going to treat gay people?
Badly or well?
Ex gays and whatever ministries support it, look to me like they want an excuse to force gay identity out of any discussion on it.
They are sticking to a bogus theory that only works for a few people, but they blow up as being applicable to ALL or a large majority of gay people.
Depending on what you’re discussing with them, they’ll say it’s something else and stick to THAT theory.
The origins of homosexuality is elusive. And I think for a good reason.
It doesn’t require any thought on it.
What’s required is settling on treating gay people equally and letting THAT decide if it’s brings the best outcomes.
All the bad things have been done to gay people already.
And nothings changed and no origins presented themselves.
And homosexual orientation ISN’T nurtured at large.
Most people don’t even want to have the conversation, even with the person who is most authentic to it, the gay person themselves.
So to say it’s cause is nurture vs. nature doesn’t apply uniformly.
We’ve all had this conversation many times for years….and no argument is made on it’s own merit AGAINST nurturing gay identity to it’s full extent and outcome.
Except on Biblical grounds, not current ones.
The writers of the Bible thought the world was flat and they were all men….what should THAT tell you?
Grantdale is correct in supposing I haven’t read the two studies. Very clever of him to work that out (I have an unread copy of Bell and Weinberg’s book sitting in a box, waiting for me to read it – I promise I will one day).
Grantdale is, however, still incorrect in his understanding of what LeVay wrote, and this is a more important matter. Grantdale writes, “Far from LeVay thinking these two studies provide any evidence for your arguament [sic], he notes that they actually indicate the complete opposite.” Well, no, LeVay doesn’t note that. That is Grantdale’s assessment of what LeVay wrote, and it appears to me to be a misunderstanding. What LeVay wrote (let’s remind ourselves once again) is this:
‘These retrospective findings don’t necessarily mean that parental attitudes influence the child’s sexual orientation in the way Freud envisaged, however. A contemporary American analyst has suggested that parental attitudes to pre-gay children, such as a father’s withdrawal or hostility, may actually be a response to gender-variant traits in the child rather than a cause of them.’
As I’ve pointed out before, this leaves the question of whether the boy’s relationship with his parents causes his sexual orientation or the reverse open. This is indicated by LeVay’s use of the expression ‘do not necessarily’ (which, as opposed to ‘does not’, leaves the issue open) and the word ‘may’ (which, as opposed to ‘is’, shows that there are two different possibilities).
Let me point out that if I’m wrong in taking those studies as support for the claim that gay men do tend to have close mothers and distant fathers (regardless of whether this causes their sexual preference), then LeVay is also wrong, because he draws the same conclusion on that point.
Perhaps you had better e-mail LeVay and politely ask for clarification? You were suggesting that I do that – why not take your own advice? LeVay says he welcomes comments. You might want to e-mail the URL of this page to LeVay and ask him to comment.
ab, are you actually hanging your hat on “do not necessarily” and “may”? With all due respect, this is not interpreting LeVay’s remarks, it is cherry picking modifiers in a desperate attempt sustain your own views. I’ll let grantdale (they are two persons, btw), respond as your comments were directed at them, but I find your attitude impervious to any contradictory data at all.
David Roberts
Anyone who wants to know what LeVay meant should probably ask him. I recently did just that.
ab, we don’t need to email LeVay. OK? (Make of that what you will.) It’s also not “clever” of us to point out that you have failed to do even the most basic of research. It may have been clever if that much wasn’t so obvious.We’re also going to do this one more time, but only for the benefit of others who could get confused by your comments. Follow LeVay’s logic here:Some people have suggested that Freund and Blanchard (1983), or Bell, Wienberg and Hammersmith (1981), as example, provide evidence that homosexuality is caused by family relationshipsNo. As others have pointed out, those studies instead indictate a relationship between gender non-conformity and poor family dynamics; not homosexuality itself.What actually causes homosexuality cannot be found in those studies.(at conclusion of the page) On balance, I think it’s biological; and this includes those environmental factors that impact on the biology [such as hormones etc].LeVay is talking as a scientist, and using the careful and specific language of science. He is running through all the notions put forward, and slowing boxing in what can and cannot be established from the evidence.If you do not understand what is occuring when terms such as “not necessarily” and “no evidence” are used, then you have rather more reading to do than just that 25 year old book. And in that case, you’ll have trouble reading Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith. You may find it more productive to instead start with a google of “process of elimination”.You are free to place your interpretation on anything you feel like. Knock yourself out. But LeVay’s own interpretation is more than clear enough, and contrary to your own. LeVay’s words speak for themself and we don’t need your perverse interpretation placed over them.Personally, we believe homosexuality — and any loose change found under a pillow — is caused by the tooth fairy. LeVay has certainly left open that possibility too, we are pleased to note. Unless you can prove us wrong, then this means we must be right.Aah, the warm and comforting logic of heresay…
ab — feel free to post, directly, your questions and anything that LeVay said in reply.
ab,
On the one hand I appreciate your persistence in discussing a complicated subject.
On the other hand, the quality of your arguments had deteriorated: You have begun to exemplify this site’s concerns about a number of exgay activists (as well as fringe activists of other sorts): Unsubstantiated claims, disregard for key facts, anecdote-based “science,” assertions of alleged fact that seem to be invented out of thin air, unaccountable anonymity, and a kind of egocentrism — specifically, the notion that if something seems subjectively true for oneself, then it must be true for God and for all people.
I am troubled enough when any commenter, regardless of his or her politics, hides behind a fake screen name and invalid e-mail address. But your anonymous claim to have spoken with LeVay violates a key line of accountability for me. In order for you to continue participating at XGW, I would prefer that you identify yourself and provide evidence of your communications with LeVay. If you prefer to keep your identity private, you may contact us via e-mail.
Thank you Mike. That last comment about speaking authoritively as if on behalf of LeVay did step beyond the pale.And that’s a pity, because LeVay’s one page summary — offered by ab — is actually a wonderful run-down of much that has transpired over the past decades.We’d also offer, say, Jeramy Townsley’s pages in a similar vein. Lots of good lists, info and places to begin; if people care to.
In response to Mark Airhart: no, I am not going to identify myself. Sorry. I think online anonymity is perfectly reasonable and I wasn’t aware that there was a rule here that you had to use your real name. Whether I use my real name or not has nothing to do with the quality of my arguments, which, like anyone else’s arguments, should be assessed on their own merits or lack of them.
If you want confirmation that I really e-mailed Simon LeVay and really got a response from him, then ask him yourself. I’m not sure if any other proof is possible. For the record, LeVay didn’t say I was wrong in my interpretation of what he thought (which was that it is still an open question whether parental attitudes/behaviour influence their children’s sexual orientation or the reverse), and I think his view of what he meant is worth more than grantdale’s.
And we’ve been so busy concentrating on the negative, that we haven’t also acknowledged the positive. Us bad :(Thanks Nick. It confuses the heck outta a lot of people to try and match up two (and it seems true) statements:most sissy boys grow up to be gaymost gay men were not sissy boysWe often wonder, too, how much of when people “realise” they are gay or straight or bi is not only driven by the social environment around them (causing, say, repression/denial/etc) but also the plain old bell-shaped curve of development. We expect all people to have fully developed their sexuality by (pick an age) 18; but we all develop at our own pace. Don’t see any reason why some could not be still developing well into “adulthood”. For these people it may appear that their sexuality is fluid, or we could simply regard them as otherwise a bit unfocussed up to that point. Just like teenagers…Yourself and Thom sound like you have a good cross-section within your own families. Just like us. And ain’t that always a joy to behold 🙂
ab — you do realise it is quite impossible for anyone to email LeVay and ask him if he has “at some time” ever said “something” to “someone” about “this thing”?Oh. Of course you do.You don’t need to use your real name. Or be publically identified. Mike seems more than happy to accomodate that — but we’re both also pleased that Mike does try to keep it real here: and that means watching out for potential fakes who provide nothing to support their statements.You may cut and paste from the email exchange between yourself and LeVay. Please also provide the date this occured, for one obvious reason.If you cannot offer it, then drop it. Inadmissible.
I think online anonymity is perfectly reasonable and I wasn’t aware that there was a rule here that you had to use your real name.
Mike wasn’t saying you had to post your identity openly. As you can see by his last line, he is willing to accommodate you by taking that information privately via email. Even the email address you provided when posting is bogus, so I can understand his concern. It’s a matter of accountability. I could say that I emailed LeVay and he said you were a nut, but Mike would then email me and ask me to provide some evidence of that or retract it and stop posting irresponsibly in the future.
You can call yourself anything you like to the public.
David Roberts
If anyone wishes to email Simon LeVay and ask him whether he recently received an email titled, “I’m not sure of your view of psychoanalytic theories – help needed”, in which the first line was “Dear Simon LeVay, I am writing to ask you for clarification about part of your article on the biology of sexual orientation”, then they are free to do so. Far from being impossible, this is very easy. I suspect LeVay would find that question a bit paranoid, but I doubt that he would decline to answer. Anyway, I am the person who sent him that e-mail.
(I’m not going to cut and paste from LeVay’s response, because it wouldn’t prove he sent me one – if you are going to be paranoid, you could claim that I wrote it.)
Please note that I haven’t tried to claim LeVay’s support for most of my own personal views on sexual orientation – only whether he considers it an open question whether or not parental behaviour can influence children’s sexual orientation, which he does.
Grantdale attacks me for not having read the studies I mentioned – fair enough. In my own defense, I didn’t read the Journal of Homosexuality one because I didn’t find a way of getting access to it until very recently. I ordered a copy today, so I’ll know soon enough whether you are summarising its conclusions correctly. Forgive my paranoia, but I doubt whether you have read it either.
This is because the quote you provided from it could have been cut and pasted from this website:
https://www.haworthpress.com/store/Toc_views.asp?sid=FA7VQ4BR7KX48LUGVNFQCN8TRD993879&TOCName=J082v09n01%5FTOC&desc=Volume%3A%209%20Issue%3A%201
Note that the typo is the same! That should be per se, not pre se. I’m not at all sure the study proves what Grantdale thinks it does. Here’s another quote from it: ‘The androphiles, the only group among those compared known to exhibit a measurably greater degree of cross gender identity in childhood, were also the only group to report significantly poorer father-son relations.’
So far as that goes, it is perfectly compatible with psychoanalytic views. It also seems to contradict what Bell and Weinberg say in Sexual Preference: ‘[Our] findings indicate that boys who grow up with dominant mothers and weak fathers have nearly the same chances of becoming homosexual as they would if they grew up in “ideal” family settings.’ I don’t see how both of these claims can be correct.
Sure, the Freund/Blanchard study in the Journal of Homosexuality goes on to say that ‘The consistent pattern of results obtained from these studies suggests that the emotionally distant relationships of father and androphilic sons relate to the sons’ atypical childhood gender identity (or observable gender role behavior) rather than to the sons’ erotic preference from male partners pre se [sic]’, but how does this show that there’s no relationship between parental behaviour and children’s sexual orientation? It is compatible with saying that there is such a relationship if you think that firstly, the relationship with the parents causes the atypical gender identity, and secondly that the atypical gender identity causes the homosexuality.
If bogus e-mail addresses are a problem, I will stop using them. I’m using my real e-mail address with this one. I’m not sure, however, what difference it makes.
I’m not sure, however, what difference it makes.
I thought I explained that fairly well but if nothing else, why do you think we would ask for an email address if we didn’t want it? On the whole, commenters here are quite responsible so we haven’t needed to verify the validity of email addresses before allowing an individual to post; it is just assumed that you will put a real one in the box.
David Roberts
Anonymity is fine, as long as you don’t like being held accountable for your actions, or expect people to believe a word you are saying. Certainly hiding behind a facade is something that can be done here, but it limits the impact of your words, the believability of your statements, and the value of the time for anyone to read them.
It certainly is in keeping with the concept of hiding in the closet as long as possible.
Another problem in reading through your posts…it appears that you read through these journals and books for the purpose of validating your deeply held beliefs. As long as that is your goal, you will see what you want to see and nothing else, no matter what the ‘truth’ might be in reality. Do not look for validation when reasearching these things. Search for what is really being said, without preconcieved notions clouding your mind and your judgment. Until you do that, there will be no ‘truth’, only preconcieved notions being affirmed, or rejection of what you’re reading because it does not conform to those preconcieved notions.
“Another problem in reading through your posts…it appears that you read through these journals and books for the purpose of validating your deeply held beliefs.”
Which is how many (if not most) Christians read the Bible, too. Funny that.
ab — I did indeed go immediately to the online version and cut and paste from the abstract. (I added the clarification of what androphile means). We do this all the time, as do most people here.Do you imagine any of us feel like typing any more than we need to?We’re also not interested in whether or not you’ve ever sent LeVay an email. We want to know what you asked, and what he said in reply. It is the subject we are discussing. (Frankly, you could live next door to LeVay and go bowling with him every Friday night for all we care.)And feel free to cut and paste from that email — we don’t expect you to retype something that is already in electronic format.(No cutting and pasting on blogs??? Whatever next!)
In response to Dan Kirk: I don’t like the threatening sound of your talk about holding me ‘accountable.’ I suspect that burning me at the sake like a medieval heretic would be your favoured way of doing this. In that case, further discussion is obviously pointless.
Grantdale: I’m most surprised that you want to know what I asked LeVay and what he said in response. You earlier indicated that you were in no doubt about what LeVay thought, based on his article – so why should it matter to you what LeVay had to say when I asked him for clarification about it? I’m not sure that it is a serious request.
ab said:
In response to Dan Kirk: I don’t like the threatening sound of your talk about holding me ‘accountable.’ I suspect that burning me at the sake [sic] like a medieval heretic would be your favoured way of doing this. In that case, further discussion is obviously pointless.
Good grief ab, get a grip. In this context, being “held accountable” is the same as “being responsible for”. I’ve already explained this and you seem to have blown right past it. XGW is not a free-for-all, we don’t allow people to make unsubstantiated claims forever. As in my example above, if someone makes such claims repeatedly then Mike may email them privately to ask them to either provide credible references to substantiate the claims or retract them and refrain from doing the same in the future.
In general, there are some things that are better said privately and this is one reason that we request your email address. Another is that it reduces the likelihood that someone may post under different names and thereby reduce the quality of discourse. For instance, suppose someone else were to drop by who didn’t like you and so logged in under your name, saying things that you don’t want attributed to you. How are we going to know for sure who is who without at least your correct email address from your original posts.
You earlier accused someone of paranoia, but I must say you are displaying a healthy dose of that right now. What dastardly thing do you think we are going to do with your email addy anyway? If you are really so concerned, get one of the many free email accounts (gmail, yahoo, etc) and use that for your various Internet posts. You may call yourself anything you like on your comments (as long as you are consistent), but we should be able to contact you and distinguish you from someone else if necessary. If you can’t understand this, you probably don’t need to be posting on the Internet at all.
David Roberts
The wrong email address with my last post was just a case of me slipping up. I’m giving you the correct one this time.
This discussion seems to have served its purpose. I will post my exchange with LeVay, however, if anyone can give a good reason for wanting it.
ab said:
I will post my exchange with LeVay, however, if anyone can give a good reason for wanting it.
That seems like an odd request to me. To be honest (and candid), you have been so polarized up until now that I’m not sure I could fully trust a post like that. This is, I’m afraid, one of the byproducts of such behavior – it’s hard for people to trust you. If you keep participating and display a less dogmatic bias (i.e. an open mind), that may change.
Grantdale can speak for themselves, but I rather doubt they are going to beg by “giving a good reason for wanting it” even if they are interested. Perhaps they will agree as well that this thread is pretty much done.
David Roberts
Well you’re right about that David — begging is something we only do with each other. In private :Pab — you know full well why we asked. You claim to have secret information from LeVay that he has, for some odd reason, not wished to place on his web pages. Or in his books. Or in his public interviews.And you used this secret information to claim you are right, and others are wrong.And David’s correct on one other count — this exchange is spent, largely because you have lost all your dignity. You were called on your claim and are still dragging your heels, delaying and making up “conditions”. We’ve been around the block long enough to know what game’s being played here.And we’re not playing.
Grantdale writes, “You claim to have secret information from LeVay that he has, for some odd reason, not wished to place on his web pages. Or in his books. Or in his public interviews.”
I did not make either of those claims. I did not call LeVay’s response to my email ‘secret information’ and neither did I claim that he had an ‘odd reason’ for not placing it on his web pages, in his books, or mentioning it in public interviews. Those are you words and not mine. Speaking of loosing one’s dignity, I don’t think it is very dignified to put words into someone else’s mouth.
My suggestion that you should give me a good reason why I should share that exchange with you was my way of trying to bring it home to you that, since you thought you had everything sussed out already, there should be no reason why its contents would be of interest to you. Isn’t it a bit undignified to ask for something which, by your own reasoning, you shouldn’t want or need?
Aside from that, I was slightly reluctant to post email correspondence with LeVay without asking his permission first. Under normal circumstances, one just doesn’t do that kind of thing. Thinking about it, however, I suppose that there is no problem in this case, since all LeVay did was to answer a question about a document which he had already made public by placing on his website, and I have no reason to think he would have given a different answer to anyone else.
*******
In a message dated 5/19/2006 7:56:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, porthman75@yahoo.co.nz writes:
>Dear Simon LeVay,
>I am writing to ask you for >clarification about part
>of your article on the biology of >sexual orientation.
>You write,
>”Early in the 20th century, Sigmund Freud postulated
>that family dynamics influence a >child’s ultimate
>sexual orientation. For example, >a dominant,
>close-binding mother, or an >absent or distant father,
>might steer a boy toward >homosexuality by disrupting
>his exit from the postulated >“Oedipal phase� of
>psychosexual development >(Freud 1957). Girls might
>become lesbian because of >unconscious hatred of their
>mothers, envy of a >brother’s penis, and the like
>(Freud 1955). Retrospective >studies confirm that gay
>men tend to describe their >relationships with their
>mothers as unusually close and >with their fathers as
>distant or hostile (Bell, >Weinberg et al. 1981; Freund
>and Blanchard 1983).
>Comment: These retrospective >findings don’t
>necessarily mean that parental >attitudes influence the
>child’s sexual orientation in >the way Freud envisaged,
>however. A contemporary >American analyst has >suggested
>that parental attitudes to >pre-gay children, such as a
>father’s withdrawal or >hostility, may actually be a
>response to gender-variant >traits >in the child rather
>than a cause of them (Isay >1989; >Isay 1996).”
>I think this means that it is an >open question whether
>parental attitudes influence the >child’s sexual
>orientation or the reverse. Is >this a correct
>interpretation of what you >wrote? I ask because
>several people I have >mentioned this to claim that you
>are siding with Isay’s >interpretation of this finding,
>rather than suggesting it as one >possibility.
>(You can see the sort of debate >that results from this
>here:
>https://exgaywatch.com/blo>g/archives/2006/05/xmen_movi>e>_>>muta.html
>- I am the poster ab).
>Yours Sincerely,
>John Porthman
John:
Wow, I had no idea that people were analyzing my writings so minutely 🙂
I think both you and the other folks on the thread are right. That is, the scientist in me does not believe that the issue has been settled: there is still the possibility that parental attitudes (close-binding mother etc) might have some influence on a son such as to increase the likelihood he would become gay, as suggested by Freud. However, I don’t think there is really much evidence to support that notion, for the reason that I stated in my article: the child might actually provoke certain parental treatment, as suggested by Isay. For someone so interested in childhood psychosexual development, Freud spent remarkable little time actually studying children. If he had, I think he might have been struck how “queer” some kids can be, and how unrelated such traits are to any particular pattern of parental treatment.
The biological hypothesis, on the other hand, has some fairly robust (though also very incomplete) evidence in its favor, of the kind I talk about in the article. While remaining open to the possibility that some Freudian-style psychodynamic mechanism plays some role, I would put most or all of my money on prenatal biological models.
Best wishes
Simon
******************************************
Simon LeVay, Ph.D.
https://members.aol.com/slevay
*****
There you are. Satisfied? (I’ve slightly edited this by adding the > marks to distinguish my question from LeVay’s answer).
In response to David Roberts, let me point out that you don’t have to ‘trust’ me: you can simply ask LeVay if that was what he actually wrote. You might think that I would post fake correspondence with LeVay if I thought I could get away with it – I have no way of convincing you otherwise. But do you really think that I would be dumb enough to think I could get away with doing it?
ab, is it any wonder you were reluctant to directly quote from LeVay’s email to you.Now, let’s go back to where you started… To support your opinion about the ‘cause of homosexuality’, you claimed:
That seems clear enough: you forward LeVay as someone who doesn’t believe homosexuality has a pre-natal biological cause. You add LeVay thinks family environment is probably involved as the cause. You offer his webpage as proof.We said you are talking nonsense. This is what we gave as our assessment of LeVay’s opinions over several posts:After assembling a very long list of historic and current notions about sexual development… LeVay says “I think, born that way”. It’s dishonest of you to claim otherwise. Far from offering support for non-biological developmental reasons, LeVay thinks it’s both biological and BEFORE birth.Far from LeVay thinking these two studies provide any evidence for your argument, he notes that they actually indicate the complete opposite.On balance, [LeVay] think[s] it’s biological; and this includes those environmental factors that impact on the biology.LeVay is talking as a scientist, and using the careful and specific language of science. He is running through all the notions put forward, and slowing boxing in what can and cannot be established from the evidence. If you do not understand what is occurring when terms such as “not necessarily” and “no evidence” are used, then you have rather more reading to do than just that 25 year old book.Did you get all that?”On balance”, “I think”, “indicate”, “talking as a scientist”, “what can and cannot be established from the evidence”. But also clearly saying that LeVay nevertheless comes down in favour of both biology and before birth.OK, now to cut to the chase: what did LeVay say to you in that email?[The] scientist in me does not believe that the issue has been settled: there is still the possibility [of family dynamics being the cause] … However, I don’t think there is really much evidence to support that notion, for the reason that I stated in my articleThe biological hypothesis, on the other hand, has some fairly robust (though also very incomplete) evidence in its favor, of the kind I talk about in the article … [While remaining open to the possibility] I would put most or all of my money on prenatal biological modelsAll of which is both fair and reasonable, and as we had said.Look, you’ve plainly nailed your flag to an (unsupported) notion about family dynamics. And, so what. You’re hardly the first. You won’t be the last.But to support the unsupportable, you manipulate LeVay’s careful and honest desire not to speak as if he or any other honest researcher is 100% sure of anything. You attempt to present this as if he and others are in step with your ideas, or at least might be. Oh, yes, that old saw — an argument of the gaps.(That much we realized, when we mentioned he had also left “open” the possibility of the tooth fairy as the cause.)But in doing that you misrepresent what LeVay personally thinks. In your opening remarks about the man, you managed even worse and claimed the complete opposite to what he apparently personally thinks.Well, dear, he has now told you what he thinks:
How odd – that’s also what he said at the conclusion of that webpage.(And yes David, now well and truly over and done with it. AAAHHHH!!! Actually, we should be getting hold of LeVay’s new book “soon”…)
Grantdale writes, “All of which is both fair and reasonable, and as we had said.” No, it is not. If you are capable of claiming that it is, then this discussion has crossed the line into complete absurdity.
The sole justification that you offer for your interpretation is LeVay’s last comment, “I would put most or all of my money on prenatal biological models.”
Science isn’t about gambling, however. It’s about evidence. I think LeVay knows this very well, even if you don’t. This would be why he starts his response by saying what ‘the scientist’ (as opposed to the gambler) in him thinks.
ab, it crossed that a long time ago. We’ll be generous, again, and assume you are being deliberately argumentative and deliberately attempting to confuse what both LeVay (and, wider, the biological sciences) has to say on the subject. For what end, god/s only know.LeVay point blank told you that he does not think there is evidence for family environment etc as a cause.LeVay point blank told you that he does think that biology has the robust evidence behind it.LeVay admitted he might be wrong, as any secure and apolitical scientist should do. And time will tell.Even after he told what he actually thinks — something that needs NO interpretation by us or anyone — you didn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t absorb that. Do we need to take a site poll on what he said to you?Nope. Now you have to start inventing a story about him speaking in two different frames of mind. When he says “Of course, I might be wrong”, you think he’s a scientist thereby confirming your pet inventions as fact. Yet when he says “I think it is caused by this”, you ignore his words and rudely call him a gambler. Sheesh. You’re social manners are appalling.And I certainly don’t need to be lectured by you about what science is or is not. (I had an awful feeling someone was channeling “raj, the lawyer” at that point… although in his case, apparently, he actually was a lawyer.)
ab quoting LeVay:
I would put most or all of my money on prenatal biological models.
Translation: “While the science continues, I am more and more convinced of the prenatal, biological models.” This is the same as asking someone, “if you had to pick which was most likely given the findings at the moment, which would it be?” It has nothing to do with gambling – that was a metaphor.
The dogma you display is incredible ab and as long as it remains i don’t see how you can genuinely participate in such discussions – they truly go no where. A prerequisite of such is intellectual honesty and without it we are all just wasting our time.
As agreed, the thread is spent and now closed to future comments. It’s shear length will make it difficult for future readers to parse through. If you decide to participate in other threads, please try to do so with an open mind.
David Roberts