|
ENGLISH 101. ACADEMIC WRITING |
||
|
|
Nature or Nurture? This page shows a complete research project, start to finish. It was written by a former TC3 student in English 101. This student did an acceptable (not perfect) job in researching and writing about sexual orientation. You can visit each of the steps of this research project below: the
preliminary compare/contrast essay,
|
|
|
Student A More Research on Cause of Homosexuality is Needed This essay ex plores two opinions of the causes of homosexuality. B.A. Robinson reasons that individuals are not responsible for their own sexual preference, but Steve Calverley and Rob Goetze refute the scientific evidence that many have used to corroborate the "born gay" theory. Since there are so many opinions and myths about what causes homosexual orientation, it is clear that this is an area where more research is greatly indicated.In both articles, the authors refer to the relationship between natural and adoptive brothers of gay men and gay twins and how it proves or disproves the theory of genetic cause. When one identical twin is gay, the other twin is also gay about 52% of the time. With fraternal twins the likelihood of both being gay is 22% and with adoptive brothers both are gay 10.5%. Other biological brothers are both gay only 9.2% of the time (Calverley and Goetz 1). Calverley and Goetze discuss the research behind the se statistics of gay brothers, pointing out specific scientific problems with the study. In their research, Bailey and Pillard had used brothers that had been raised together by the same families. According to Fausto Sterling "for such a study to be meaningful, you’d have to look at twins raised apart" (qtd. in Calverley and Goetz 1). Another problem with the results was that the adoptive brother study showed a higher rate of both brothers being homosexual than that of biological brothers. According to an article published in the journal Science, that fact alone was enough to determine that homosexuality is caused by a familial factor, not a genetic one (qtd. In Calverley and Goetz 1). Calverley & Goetze also reason that if homosexuality were a genetic trait, whenever one identical twin was affected the other one would be also because they share the same identical genes (Calverley and Goetz 1).Robinson also refers to the "twin" studies. He argues that the percentages of twins that have only one homosexual can be explained using his theory of "penetrance ." Robinson believes that the "gay gene" has only about a 67% penetration rate, implying that if one is born with the gene, they have a 67% chance of becoming homosexual. This theory suggests that there are heterosexual men who have the gay gene but are not affected by it because it didn’t spark due to hormones in the womb or "events in early childhood" (Robinson 1).Based upon these two differing opinions of the results of the Bailey and Pillard twin studies, I have to believe that the study itself provided more questions than answers. The results of the study proved both the genetic and the environmental theories as causes for homosexuality, and left much room for subjectivity. < page break > Calverley, Steve, and Rob Goetze. "A Biological Basis for Homosexuality has not been Proven." Homosexuality. Ed. Mary E. Williams. Greenhaven Press 1999. Electronic Databases. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. TC3 Coll. Lib., Dryden, NY. 3 Mar. 2004 < http://galenet.galegroup.com >.Robinson, B.A. "Do Genes Cause Homosexuality?" Religoustolerance.org. 3 Mar. 2004 < http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm > |
Note: The Opposing Viewpoints database is fine for suggesting research topics, but its articles are often outdated and/or bears to cite. The publisher often does not provide information needed for proper MLA citation |
|
|
ssignment: Research Journal |
Student A March 7, 2004 Source 1. Byrd, A. Dean, Shirley E. Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson. "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis In Science." Narth. 30 Sept. 2002. 7 March 2004 http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html· This article also brings up research by Satinover, who treated homosexuals and was successful 52% of the time. Similar research by Masters and Johnson with similar results is also discussed. · This article discusses the 1973 decision of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their diagnostic manual. This article is interesting to me because it discusses treating homosexuality. I intend to find out more about the researchers Satinover, Masters and Johnson or others that have tried this. Source 2. Satinover, Jeffrey. "The Gay Gene?" The Journal of Human Sexuality. (1996) Narth. 30 Sept. 2002. 7 March 2004 http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html.· This article brings up the fact that the brain changes relative to the activities that we participate in.The point that the brain changes with use can be used to argue Simon Levay’s research which described differences in the size of the INAH-3 area of the brain in homosexual corpses. This research was described in one of the articles that I used in my compare/contrast essay but I left it out because I did not have an opposing view. Source 3. Cardoze, Christina. "They’re in love. They’re gay. They’re penguins…And they’re not alone." Columbia. 10 June 2002. 7 March 2004 http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp· This article describes the activities of homosexual penguins in captivity points out that there are many other species that have same sex relations.This article is very interesting to me because before this research project I am ashamed to admit that I made the argument "you don’t see same sex animals out there trying to mate with each other!" I’ve learned something! I look forward to learning more about homosexuality among other species. March 10, 2004 Source 4. Tygart, C.E. "Genetic causation attribution and public support of gay rights." International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 12.3 (2002): 259-276. TC3 Library Gateway. Find Articles and Databases. Databases. Proquest. TC3 Library. 10 March 2004 http://gateway.proquest.com.ABSTRACT: In a random national sample of 600 English-speaking adults, the greater the degree to which these subjects attributed the causes of homosexuality to genetics, the greater was the support for extending homosexual rights in the areas of legalized domestic partnership and homosexual marriages. The effects of genetic causal attribution for extending homosexual rights seem to benefit from other ideologies: Having a deterministic rather than a free will world view, and political liberalism as well as conservative libertarianism. · This article discusses how the general public views homosexuality when they believe that the cause is genetic versus a free will lifestyle choice.· This article also points out that in 22 states it is (or was in 2000. will check current statistics) illegal to engage in homosexual behaviors, even in private. I will use this article because I have always believed that people are more accepting of (negative) behaviors when they think that the behavior is beyond the other persons’ control. I can use this article to support this opinion. Source 5. Drescher, Jack. "I’m Your Handyman: A History of Reparative Therapies." Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy 5.3/4 (2001). Proquest. TC3 Library. 10 March 2004 http://gateway.proquest.com.ABSTRACT: Reparative therapy has come to generically define talking cures that claim to change an individual's homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one. Although other treatment modalities have also promised to "cure" homosexuality, the history of reparative therapies has become inexorably linked with that of psychoanalysis. This paper reviews the history and theoretical assumptions of psychoanalytically-oriented practitioners, beginning with Freud's juvenilization of gay people to the later analysts who pathologized and attempted to change same-sex attractions. The evolution of reparative therapists from medically concerned practitioners into antigay political activists is also discussed. The evolution of one branch of psychoanalytic theory into an antihomosexual political movement illustrates the permeability of boundaries between clinical issues and political ones. In their open support of antigay legislation, reparative therapists have moved from the traditional psychoanalytic center and have been embraced by conservative religious and political forces opposed to homosexuality. In doing so, they have apparently adopted religious organizational practices themselves, preaching dogma and stifling dissent. The increasing marginalization of reparative therapists from the psychoanalytic mainstream illustrates how psychoanalysis per se is neither gay-affirming nor condemning, although psychoanalytic practitioners may fall into either of these categories. · This article greatly details Freud’s theories on homosexuality and his belief that it could be treated. Interestingly, Freud theorized that Homosexuality is a trait that we all carry and that only the least mature of us carry it through out of selfishness.At this point I am not entirely sure how I will add Freud’s research, perhaps I will use his treatment theories to refute the research of others (or vice versa). Source 6. Haldeman, Douglas. "The Pseudo-science of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy." Angles. December 1999. 10 March 2004 http://iglss.org/media/files/Angles_41.pdf.· This article describes the negative effects of treatment therapy. The author believes that when homosexuality is "treated" it projects it is an illness rather than a normal healthy lifestyle.This article describes conversion treatments as unsuccessful and harmful and can be used in argument to the Satinover results discussed in my day 13 articles. I am still seeking a good quality Satinover research article. March 15, 2004 (This week I gave proquest & infotrac a break!) Source 7. Herek, Gregory. "Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health." UC Davis . 13 March 2004http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html. · This article discusses Evelyn Hooker’s research, which proved that homosexuality isn’t related to psychopathology. In her testing, Hooker found that homosexual and heterosexual men scored the same on tests for psychological adjustment.This article works hard to prove that homosexuals are "normal" and there are many statistics and findings that will be useful. Source 8. "Homosexuality." Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology. 2nd ed. 2001. 13 March 2004 http://www.gale.com/servlet/BrowsePageServlet?region=9&imprint=000.· This source references many statistics and dates of different types of research, such as one survey completed in the 1950s that showed 37% of the men and 28% of the women who participated had had homosexual experiences.The various findings cited within this article will be very useful. This article also describes the 4 "components" of human sexuality. Source 9. "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality." American Psychological Association. 2004. 14 March 2004 http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html.· This article is in very clear question and answer format and touches upon almost every question I have had in my research.I will use this article in my research because it makes very specific statements about what causes homosexuality, conversion therapies and homosexual parenting. March 18, 2004 (This week I used the Ask Jeeves site.)Source 10. Braslavsky, Andrea. "Pointing the Finger at Androgen as a Cause of Homosexuality." MSN. 2000. 17 March 2004 http://content.health.msn.com/content/article.· This article raises a few new points: 1. Higher levels of prenatal androgens are related to homosexuality. 2. The more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay.I’m not sure if I will use this article or not. My next article briefly mentions the androgen theory also, but this still seems a little too "left field" for me. Source 11. Chun, Trudy. "Born or Bred? The Debate Over the Cause of Homosexuality." Concerned Women for America. 17 March 2004 http://www.cwfa.org.· This author describes the hypothalamus, X Chromosome, Androgen and twin studies and then refutes all of the findings. Although it’s obvious that this site has it’s own agenda, the author is pointing out problems with the above research that seem to make sense. Other more objective articles point out the same facts. Source 12. Saunders, Peter., Rachel Pickering. "Homosexuality- the causes." Christian Medical Fellowship/UK. 1997. 17 March 2004 http://www.cmf.org.uk/. · This article details the nurture as well as the nature arguments.The author discusses culture, family, peers and choice as possible causes for homosexuality. March 22, 2004 Source 13. Bem, Daryl. "Exotic Becomes Erotic: Interpreting the Biological Correlates of Sexual Orientation." Cornell University. 2000. 17 March 2004 http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/bdem.· The author does not believe that homosexuality is genetically caused. He explains in detail his theory that a child’s temperament and subsequent relationships have much more to do with who we become attracted to as adults.I like this article. The writing is very complex but the theory is simple enough to make sense, I hope I can use this in my research report. Source 14. Medinger, Alan. "Great Myths about Homosexuality." Messiah College. 21 March 2004 http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/articles/regenera/6.htm.· This author believes that homosexuality is not a scientific issue and that people have reasons for what they do or do not do.· He mentions that the popular scientists who tried to prove the "born gay" theory were gay (leVay, Hamer, Bailey & Pillard) and that none of the studies could be duplicated. This author had homosexual feelings at one time and claims to have overcome them by using his faith. Source 15. Head, Sarah Jane. "Homosexuality." Faith & Family. 21 March 2004 <http://www.erlc.com/cc/cda>. · The author mentions that homosexuality has been around for thousands of years.· The author refutes the popular belief that 10% of people are homosexual and offers that the statistic is more like 2% · According to Head, children raised by homosexuals are more likely to become homosexual. This article also references the Bible frequently, but I have decided not to touch that. I am interested in 2% homosexuality statistic, she referenced the Centers for Disease Control for that one. Do I need to find something from the CDC to use this? April 6,2004 Late addition to my research journal….Source 16. Lopresto, Charles. "A Variety of Factors
May Cause Homosexuality." Opposing Viewpoints Resource
Center. ABSTRACT: Charles Lopresto contends that homosexuality most likely results from a combination of genetic, biological, and environmental factors. He asserts that human sexual behavior is highly variable because it is determined by ancient genes, brain function, biological processes, and cognitive influences such as social and cultural attitudes. For example, Lopresto points out, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual individuals could have a mild genetic inclination toward homosexuality that is modified in various ways by prenatal hormonal influences, parental conditioning, childhood experiences, and societal opinion. Lopresto is an associate professor of psychology at Loyola College in Baltimore, Maryland. While re-reading my articles I decided that I wanted more info on the "allele" that is possibly related to homosexuality. This article supports an article that I already have but is not from a religious source . |
|
|
Assignment: Research Narrative Essay |
Research Narrative Essay Student A When the research project was assigned I knew exactly what subject I would choose: homosexuality. The issue was everywhere. You couldn’t turn on the television or pick up a newspaper without reading about or seeing some same sex couple who wanted to get married. I had a few discussions about the subject with friends and coworkers and surprised even myself with my conservatism. I am a democrat! I am pro-choice! If people of the same sex want to get married I should be fine with it, but I wasn’t. I decided that I wasn’t fine with it because I didn’t understand it. This project has given me the perfect excuse to learn about the issue. Looking back, the first two articles that I chose clearly did not support the claim that homosexuality is genetic. My first selection was an article by Dean Byrd titled "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis In Science ," and discussed the treatment of homosexuality. Byrd estimated that treatment was successful 52% of the time. The second article I selected was by Jeffrey Satinover who questioned Simon Levay’s hypothalamus studies. LeVay had discovered that the hypothalamus in homosexual men more closely resembled that of a heterosexual woman than that of a heterosexual man. Satinover challenged these findings, claiming that the brain is a tool that changes with use. Satinover had also participated in the treatments that were discussed in Byrd’s article. Realizing that I was not off to an unprejudiced start, I tried to choose an opposing view for my third article. I found an article by Christina Cardoze with the intriguing title "They’re in love. They’re gay. They’re penguins…And they’re not alone" which illustrated the activities of homosexual penguins in captivity. Cardoze also pointed out that penguins are not the only other species to have been spotted cavorting with the same sex.Even though I seemed to be drawn to the articles that did not support homosexuality as having a biological cause, I was becoming more and more skeptical about it being primarily a nurture issue. For every article that I found with supposedly ground breaking proof one way or the other, there were three more that clearly disagreed with the findings. I suppose that means that I picked a good subject? Over the next several "days" I found a varied selection of articles and opinions, including one that documented Freud’s opinion on the subject. Freud did not believe that homosexuality was genetic. He theorized that homosexuality was caused by traumatic experiences that happened in childhood or adolescence at a time when one would typically be drawn to the opposite sex parent. According to Freud, these events cause the young person to form an unhealthy attraction to the same sex parent. I was not surprised to read that Freud suggested lesbians suffer from penis envy. Now that my research journal is complete, I will try to make sense of these articles and draw my own conclusions. I don’t want to give away too much, but it is safe to say that I don’t think anyone has figured out what causes homosexuality. It is my opinion that no two people are homosexual for the exact same reasons, for some it is genetic, and yet for others I think it’s a lifestyle choice. < page break > Works Cited Byrd, A. Dean, Shirley E. Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson. "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis In Science." Narth. 30 Sept. 2002. 7 March 2004 <http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html>.Cardoze, Christina. "They’re in love. They’re gay. They’re penguins…And they’re not alone." Columbia. 10 June 2002. 7 March 2004 <http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp>.Drescher, Jack. "I’m You’re Handyman: A History of Reparative Therapies." Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy. 5.3/4 (2001). Proquest. TC3 Library. Dryden, NY. 10 March 2004 http://gateway.proquest.comSatinover, Jeffrey. "The Gay Gene?" Narth. 30 Sept. 2002. 7 March 2004 http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html. |
|
|
Student A
Sexual Orientation is not a choice. There are an abundance of theories aiming to explain the mystery of human sexuality. Some believe that it is genetic; some think that it results from environmental factors or upbringing; still others believe that it is merely a lifestyle choice. Until recently, I was one of the latter. I even argued that if same sex couples were allowed to marry, next we would see people marrying their dogs or their cars! Ouch! In this paper you will experience my journey, and come to understand why I now believe that homosexuality is not something people choose. This paper will discuss sexual orientation, the risks that homosexuals face, reparative therapies and three theories at the forefront of the debate, the twin studies, the hypothalamus theory and one take on the nurture argument. While many do not agree about what causes homosexuality, I contend that what is clear in all of these arguments is that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. According to the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, the definition of sexual orientation is "an enduring, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to individuals of a particular gender" (Gale 1). For human beings our sexual orientation is decided well before we reach adulthood (American 1). The matter that remains in question is whether this is a biological process, or one that evolves based on our personal experiences.Whether we choose to accept it or not homosexuals are a part of society. In my workplace 5% of my coworkers are homosexual. Nationwide statistics on the percentage of people who are homosexual vary, but most estimates come in between 5-10% (Saunders 1). This means that last year there were between fourteen and twenty-nine million homosexuals in the United States alone. It was the strength of these numbers that successfully pressured the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their list of mental disorders in 1974 (Saunders 1). An interesting fact that many are unaware of is that human beings are not the only species with homosexual tendencies. In the book Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl, the author names salmon, owls, grizzly bears, flamingos and even gorillas as species with documented homosexual behaviors (qtd. in Cardoze 1). Christina Cardoze adds penguins to Bagemihl’s list (Cardoze 1). While homosexuality is more widely accepted today than ever before, gays and lesbians are still at risk of violence and discrimination (Gale 1). C. E. Tygart surveyed six 600 random adults over the age of twenty-eight and showed that the more people believed homosexuality was caused by biological factors, the more they supported homosexual rights. Many still believe that homosexuality is just a lifestyle choice, which is why in 2000 twenty-two states still considered homosexual sex a crime (Tygart 1). People do not choose homosexuality just as they do not choose their eye color, or who their parents are. Few would make a conscious choice to lead a lifestyle that is widely misunderstood and discriminated against. Crimes against homosexuals are so common that ten U.S. states have been forced to enact legislation protecting Americans from being discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation (American 1). Not all homosexuals are happy being gay; some seek treatment. As homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder, reparative therapies are primarily offered by organizations that are inherently against homosexuality. While organizations such as the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH) repeatedly claim that sexual orientation can be changed, their research is widely criticized due to inadequate documentation (American 1). In the early 90’s the American Psychological Association made this statement regarding the treatment of homosexuality, "scientific evidence does not support conversion therapy; in fact, the evidence reveals that it can actually be psychologically damaging to attempt conversion." (Gale 1). Attempting to change the sexual orientation of a person is risky because it is such an integral part of their identity (Gale 1). Is homosexuality all in their heads? Simon Levay thought so. His hypothalamus studies suggested that there was indeed a difference in the brain structure of homosexuals when compared to heterosexuals. Levay examined the brains of 41 corpses and concluded that the hypothalamus of homosexual men resembled the size of a woman’s hypothalamus. The hypothalamus of heterosexual men was larger than that of women and homosexual men (Calverley 1). The hypothalamus studies were by no means a smoking gun, even Levay himself said, "…sexual orientation, although an important variable, may not be the sole determinant of INAH3 [hypothalamus] size." (Chun 1). There is also research proving that the brain changes with experience, suggesting that homosexuality accounts for the difference in the size of the hypothalamus and not the other way around (Breedlove qtd. in Chun 1). If the hypothalamus is responsible for sexual orientation, this theory lends the strongest argument that it is not a matter of choice. No one can consciously alter his or her own brain chemistry. Bailey and Pillard’s Twin studies actually support both the nurture and the nature arguments. The researchers used twins and brothers that had been raised together and found that with identical twins, when one was homosexual the other was homosexual 52% of the time. Fraternal twins had a homosexual match rate of 22% (Calverley). These numbers are well over the national average of 5-10%. Steve Calverley and Rob Goetze question the results of Bailey and Pillard’s research. The men point out that identical twins have identical genetic makeup. This suggests that if one twin were homosexual, the other twin would also be homosexual 100% of the time (Calverley 1). N.E. Whitehead of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) agrees with Calverley and Goetz, stating "If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes…if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too" (qtd. in Religious 1). What all of these men fail to acknowledge is that there are many genetic traits that are not shared 100% by twins, regardless of their genetic similarity. A few examples are Diabetes and schizophrenia. With schizophrenia, when one twin is affected, the other twin shares the disorder only in 60% of the cases. Type 1 early onset Diabetes has an even lower match rate of only about 30% (Religious 1). Charles Lopresto, a psychology professor at Loyola College in Maryland gives another example why having the same genes does not always promise the same outcome:
If genetics were not at least partially responsible for sexual orientation statistics of homosexuality among twins would not be any higher than the national average. Returning to my point that Bailey and Pillard’s study supported both the nature and the nurture arguments, their results with non-twins deserve a look. With biological brothers that were not twins, both were homosexual 9.2% of the time. Adoptive brothers that do not share any of the same genetic make-up were both homosexual in 11% of all cases (Chun 1). While adoptive brothers do not share genes, what they do share is the environment. It is significant that brothers of homosexuals have a higher rate of homosexuality than other siblings however; to determine the cause of these results a study of brothers raised apart must be completed (Chun 1). We have discussed at length two theories about the possible genetic development of sexual orientation. Most researchers confer that both genetics and environment play important roles in sexuality (American 1). Daryl Bem of Cornell University has produced the "Exotic Becomes Erotic" theory based upon his research of how sexuality develops during childhood. Bem does credit genes for the very first segment of the development of sexual orientation (Bem 1). Bem’s "Temporal sequence of events leading to sexual orientation." [Bem's flow chart could not be copied into SLN format--sorry, Dr. G] A. Biological Variables B. Childhood Temperaments C. Activity Preferences, either sex typical or atypical D. Feelings of being different from opposite or same sex peers E. Physical arousals to peers of opposite or same sex F. Sexual attraction to opposite or same sex peers From sequence A to sequence B our prenatal hormones and genes dictate what kind of temperaments we will have as children. For example, some children are passive; some exhibit higher energy levels than others. In sequence B-C, whatever temperament we have been blessed with decides what types of play we prefer to participate in. We seek playmates that enjoy the same activities. Boys who prefer drawing or reading to sports will usually have female playmates and girls who are athletic will have male playmates. When a child prefers opposite sex playmates they are described as being gender nonconforming (Bem 1). In sequence C to D the children who are gender conforming and have same sex peers will begin to separate themselves or "feel different" from their opposite sex peers. The same is true for gender nonconforming children; they begin to separate themselves from their same sex playmates. From D to E we begin to become aroused by the peer group that we have separated ourselves from. For gender conforming boys and girls, this means they begin to pay more attention to each other. In sequence E to F we become sexually attracted to the peers that we are aroused by (Bem 1). A San Francisco study containing 1500 heterosexual and homosexual respondents supports Bem’s theory. Results indicated that 70-71% of the homosexuals surveyed had "felt different" from their peers of the same sex while growing up. Of the heterosexuals questioned, only 8% described the same experience, and different reasons were cited. For heterosexuals these feelings of being different were results of being "poorer, more intelligent, or more introverted". For homosexuals the reasons were much more "gender-related", for example, the females were more interested in sports than their same sex peers (Bem 1). More support for Bem’s theory comes from the old adage that boys with controlling mothers and weak or missing fathers become homosexual. Boys without strong male role models may be less interested in gender appropriate activities such as sports. According to Bem, they then would begin feel removed from their own gender and as they reach adolescence become sexually attracted to males (Bem 1). Obviously, no child has control over who their parents are or how they are raised. To conclude, I believe that to it is incorrect to credit only genes or only experiences for an element of our personality that is so complex. Science may never be able to pinpoint the exact moment that sexual orientation is determined for each individual. Human beings, even twins, are so unique from each other that the precise factors determining sexuality for one, do not determine it for all. Yet with so much research done by those on both sides of the debate, there is no evidence to prove humans can control their sexuality. Now that we understand sexuality is not just a matter of taste we can control how we view the sexual preference of others. < page break > Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality." American Psychological Association. 2004 14 March 2004 http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html. Bem, Daryl. "Exotic Becomes Erotic: Interpreting the Biological Correlates of Sexual Orientation." Cornell University. 2000. 17 March 2004 http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/bdem Cardoze, Christina. "They’re in love. They’re gay. They’re penguins…And they’re not alone." Columbia. 10 June 2002. 7 March 2004 http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp Chun, Trudy. "Born or Bred? The Debate Over the Cause of Homosexuality." Concerned Women for America. 17 March 2004 http://www.cwfa.org "Homosexuality." Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology. 2nd ed. 2001. 13 March 2004 http://www.gale.com/servlet/BrowsePageServlet?region=9&imprint=000. Lopresto, Charles. "A Variety of Factors May Cause Homosexuality." Homosexuality. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 6 April 2004 http://www.sunytccc.edu/library/lib-databases2.htm Saunders, Peter., Rachel Pickering. "Homosexuality- the causes." Christian Medical Fellowship/UK. 1997. 17 March 2004 http://www.cmf.org.uk/. Tygart, C.E. "Genetic causation attribution and public support of gay rights." International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 12.3 (2002): 259-276. Proquest. TC3 Library. 10 March 2004 http://gateway.proquest.com. |
||
|
Student A Nature
or Nurture: Sexual orientation is not a choice. There is an abundance of theories that aim to explain the mystery of human sexual orientation. Some reason that it is genetic; some assume that it results from environmental factors or upbringing; still others believe that it is merely a lifestyle choice. Until recently, I was in this last group. I even argued that if same-sex couples were allowed to marry, next we would see people marrying their dogs or their cars! Ouch! In this paper you will experience my journey, and come to understand why I now believe that homosexuality is not something that people choose. This paper will discuss sexual orientation, the risks that homosexuals face, reparative therapies, the twin studies, the hypothalamus theory and the nurture argument. While there is no general agreement about what causes homosexuality, I contend that what is clear in all of these arguments is that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. According
to the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, the definition of sexual
orientation is “an enduring, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction
to individuals of a particular gender” (Gale 1).
For human beings our sexual orientation is decided well before we
reach adulthood ("Answers to your questions" 1). The matter that remains in
question is whether sexual orientation is
a biological process, or one that evolves based on our personal
experiences. Whether
we choose to accept it or not, homosexuals are a part of society. In my
workplace 5% of my coworkers are homosexual. Nationwide statistics on the
percentage of people who are homosexual vary, but most estimates come in
between 5% and10% (Saunders 1). This means that last year there were
between fourteen and twenty-nine million homosexuals in the United States
alone. It was the strength of
these numbers that successfully pressured the American Psychiatric
Association to remove homosexuality from their list of mental disorders in
1974 (Saunders 1). An
interesting fact that many are unaware of is that human beings are not the
only species with homosexual tendencies.
Bruce Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance names salmon, owls, grizzly bears, flamingos and even gorillas as
species with documented homosexual behaviors (qtd. in Cardoze 1).
Christina Cardoze adds penguins to the list (Cardoze 1). While
homosexuality is more widely accepted today than ever before, gays and
lesbians are still at risk of violence and discrimination (Gale 1). C. E. Tygart surveyed six hundred randomly selected adults over the
age of twenty-eight and showed that the more people believed homosexuality
was caused by biological factors, the more they supported homosexual
rights. Many still believe that homosexuality is just a lifestyle choice,
which is why in 2000 twenty-two states still considered homosexual sex a
crime (Tygart 1). People
do not choose homosexuality just as they do not choose the eye color they
are born with, or the color of their skin. Few would make a conscious
choice to lead a lifestyle that is widely misunderstood and discriminated
against. Crimes against
homosexuals are so common that ten U.S. states have enacted legislation
protecting citizens from being discriminated against based upon their
sexual orientation (Answers to your questions 1). Not
all homosexuals are happy being gay; some seek treatment. As the American
Psychiatric Association no longer considers homosexuality a mental
disorder, reparative therapies are primarily offered by organizations that
are inherently against homosexuality. While organizations such as the
National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH)
repeatedly claim that sexual orientation can be changed, their research is
widely criticized due to inadequate documentation (Answers to your
questions 1). In the early 90’s the American Psychological Association
made this statement regarding the treatment of homosexuality,
“scientific evidence does not support conversion therapy; in fact, the
evidence reveals that it can actually be psychologically damaging to
attempt conversion” (Gale 1). Attempting
to change one’s sexual orientation is risky because it is such an
integral part of human identity (Gale 1).
Is homosexuality all in the head? Simon Levay thought so. His hypothalamus studies suggested that there was indeed a difference in the brain structure of homosexuals when compared to heterosexuals. Levay examined the brains of 41 corpses and concluded that the hypothalamus of homosexual men resembled the size of a woman’s hypothalamus. The hypothalamus of heterosexual men was larger than that of women and homosexual men (Calverley 1). The hypothalamus studies were by no means a smoking gun, even Levay himself said, “…sexual orientation, although an important variable, may not be the sole determinant of INAH3 [hypothalamus] size.” (Chun 1). There is also research proving that the brain changes with experience, suggesting that homosexuality accounts for the difference in the size of the hypothalamus and not the other way around (Breedlove qtd. in Chun 1). If the hypothalamus is responsible for sexual orientation, this theory lends the strongest argument that it is not a matter of choice. It is assumed that no one can consciously affect the size and shape of his or her own brain.
Bailey and Pillard’s twin studies actually support both the
nurture and the nature arguments. The researchers used twins and brothers
that had been raised together and found that with identical twins, when
one was homosexual the other was homosexual 52% of the time. Fraternal
twins had a homosexual match rate of 22% (Calverley).
Steve Calverley and Rob Goetze question the results of Bailey and
Pillard’s research. They point out that identical twins have identical
genetic makeup. This suggests that if one twin were homosexual, the other
twin would also be homosexual 100% of the time (Calverley 1). N.E.
Whitehead of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of
Homosexuality (NARTH) agrees with Calverley and Goetz, stating “If
homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the
genes…if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his
brother would be too” (qtd. in Religious 1).
What all of these researchers fail to acknowledge is that there are
many genetic traits that are not shared 100% by twins, regardless of their
genetic similarity. A few examples are Diabetes and schizophrenia. With
schizophrenia, when one twin is affected, the other twin shares the
disorder only in 60% of the cases (Religious 1). Type 1 early onset
Diabetes has an even lower match rate of only about 30% (Religious 1).
Charles Lopresto, a psychology professor at Loyola College in
Maryland gives another example why having the same genes does not always
promise the same outcome:
If
genetics were not at least partially responsible for sexual orientation,
statistics of homosexuality among twins would not be any higher than the
national average. Returning
to my point that Bailey and Pillard’s study supported both the nature
and the nurture arguments, their results with non-twins deserve a look.
With biological brothers that were not twins, both were homosexual 9.2% of
the time. Adoptive brothers that do not share any of the same genetic
make-up were both homosexual in 11% of all cases (Chun 1).
While adoptive brothers do not share genes, what they do share is
the environment. It is significant that brothers of homosexuals have a higher
rate of homosexuality than other siblings however; to determine the cause
of these results a study of brothers raised apart must be completed (Chun
1). We have discussed at length two theories about the possible genetic development of sexual orientation. Most researchers confer that both genetics and environment play important roles in sexuality (Answers to your questions 1). Daryl Bem of Cornell University has produced the “Exotic Becomes Erotic” theory based upon his research of how sexuality develops during childhood. Bem does credit genes for the very first segment of the development of sexual orientation (Bem 1). Bem’s "Temporal sequence of events leading to
sexual orientation." A. Biological Variables B. Childhood Temperaments C. Activity Preferences, either sex typical or atypical D. Feelings of being different from opposite or same sex peers E. Physical arousals to peers of opposite or same sex F. Sexual attraction to opposite or same sex peers From
sequence A to sequence B our prenatal hormones and genes dictate what kind
of temperaments we will have as children. For example, some children are
passive; some exhibit higher energy levels than others.
In sequence B-C, whatever temperament we have been blessed with
decides what types of play we prefer to participate in. We seek playmates
that enjoy the same activities. Boys who prefer drawing or reading to
sports will usually have female playmates and girls who are athletic will
have male playmates. When a child prefers opposite sex playmates they are
described as being gender nonconforming (Bem 1). In
sequence C to D the children who are gender conforming and have same sex
peers will begin to separate themselves or “feel different” from their
opposite sex peers. The same is true for gender nonconforming children;
they begin to separate themselves from their same sex playmates.
From D to E we begin to become aroused by the peer group that we
have separated ourselves from. For gender conforming boys and girls, this
means they begin to pay more attention to each other.
In sequence E to F we become sexually attracted to the peers that
we are aroused by (Bem 1). A
San Francisco study containing 1500 heterosexual and homosexual
respondents supports Bem’s theory. Results indicated that 70-71% of the
homosexuals surveyed had “felt different” from their peers of the same
sex while growing up. Of the heterosexuals questioned, only 8% described
the same experience, and different reasons were cited. For heterosexuals these feelings of being different were
results of being “poorer, more intelligent, or more introverted”. For
homosexuals the reasons were much more “gender-related.” For example,
the females were more interested in sports than their same sex peers (Bem
1). More
support for Bem’s theory comes from the old adage that boys with
controlling mothers and weak or missing fathers become homosexual.
Boys without strong male role models may be less interested in
gender appropriate activities such as sports. According to Bem, they then
would begin feel removed from their own gender and as they reach
adolescence become sexually attracted to males (Bem 1).
Obviously, no child has control over who his or her parents are or
how he or she will be raised. To conclude, I believe that to it is incorrect to credit only genes or only experiences for an element of our personality that is so complex. Science may never be able to pinpoint the exact moment that sexual orientation is determined for each individual. Human beings, even twins, are so unique from each other that the precise factors determining sexuality for one, do not determine it for all. Yet with so much research done by those on both sides of the debate, there is no evidence to prove humans can control their sexuality. Now that we understand sexuality is not just a matter of taste we can control how we view the sexual preference of others. >page break< Works
Cited “Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.” American Psychological Association. 2004 14 Mar. 2004 < http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html >. Bem, Daryl. “Exotic Becomes Erotic: Interpreting the Biological Correlates of Sexual Orientation.” Cornell University. 2000. 17 Mar. 2004 < http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/bdem >. Calverley, Steve, and Rob Goetze. "A Biological Basis for Homosexuality has not been Proven." Homosexuality. Ed. Mary E. Williams. Greenhaven Press 1999. Electronic Databases. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. TC3 Coll. Lib., Dryden, NY. 3 Mar. 2004 < http://www.galenet.galegroup.com >. Cardoze, Christina. “They’re in love. They’re gay. They’re penguins…And they’re not alone.” Columbia. 10 Jun. 2002. 7 Mar. 2004 < http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp >. Chun, Trudy. “Born or Bred? The Debate Over the Cause of Homosexuality.” Concerned Women for America. 17 Mar. 2004 < http://www.cwfa.org >. “Homosexuality.” Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology. 2nd ed. 2001. 13 Mar. 2004 < http://www.gale.com/servlet/BrowsePageServlet?region=9&imprint=000 >. Lopresto, Charles. “A Variety of Factors May Cause Homosexuality.” Homosexuality. Ed. Mary E. Williams. Greenhaven Press 1999. Electronic Databases. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. TC3 Coll. Lib., Dryden, NY. 6 Apr. 2004 < http://www.galenet.galegroup.com >. Robinson,
B.A. “Do Genes Cause Homosexuality?” ReligiousTolerance.org.
2004. 14 Mar. 2004 < http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm Saunders,
Peter., Rachel Pickering. “Homosexuality- the causes.” Christian
Medical Tygart,
C.E. “Genetic causation attribution and public support of gay rights.”
International Journal
of Public Opinion Research. 12.3 (2002): 259-276. Electronic
Databases. ProQuest. TC3 Coll. Lib. 10 Mar. 2004 <
http://gateway.proquest.com
>.
|
||
|
|
gutchess@englishare.net Academic writing home page Gary Gutchess © 2003 |
|
