1. Gay Genetics
The Equality Project Learning Center
October 30, 1997
The Needle in the Haystack
This essay is copyrighted by Katherine Burgoyne Brown. All rights are reserved.
The media has been announcing to us for quite a while that researchers are on the brink of discovering a
"gay gene" - a distinct genetic difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals that will put to rest all
the stigma associated with being homosexual. This being; it would merely serve to prove what
homosexuals themselves have been saying for a long time - that homosexuality is not a choice, it's
something that they were born with. Yet if we delve a little deeper into this media scandal and look at
some reports on the actual research, we see a raging debate which focuses not on sexual orientation, but
on interpretation of data.
This raises ethical questions. If we were able to prove beyond all doubt whether or not homosexuality was
genetic, then it would put everyone's minds at rest as to how we should all view homosexuals. This
research was intended settle the issue once and for all. Unfortunately, it has achieved exactly the opposite.
Like most statistical data, it can be interpreted to any purpose. And that creates great gaping holes in any
sort of self-esteem that homosexuals/bisexuals are trying to cultivate.
A "paper" written by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. about current research into the gay gene suggests that while
homosexuality may not be directly inherited there may be a number of inherited characteristics that, when
found together, make for a homosexual or bisexual person. Yet any of these traits on their own are not
necessarily going to denote homosexuality. Just as I may have the same eye color as my best friend, it
doesn't mean that we will both like grunge rock. So perhaps it is the culmination of these unknown
attributes in a person that makes them be "that way". Now you can hear the narrow-minded crying "See,
see, they can be taught to be normal." And to a certain extent, yes, homosexuals can be "taught" to be
heterosexual, but they are no more predisposed to this change of sexual preference than heterosexuals.
Homosexuals have been claiming for many years that this is what they are, what they have to be. There is
no proof for this other than feelings. Yet it cuts both ways, as is said in So you want to be a lesbian? of
lesbian wanna-be's;
1. What the hell does that mean?
2. If you're bisexual, great. Come out as such and help create the burgeoning bi movement.
3. If you're really and truly straight, there's nothing we can do about it. Sorry.
4. If you're a lesbian, and you're just not ready to talk about it, don't worry. We probably already know.
As flippant as the tone of the book is, So you want to be a lesbian? is intended as a lighthearted
look at a serious subject. Points three and four are the most important in that quote. Point three
illustrates the above comment perfectly. If people are really heterosexual, they can't do anything
about it any more than homosexual people can. Point four - in a very twisted way - does some
justice to the current genetics debate. The phrase we probably already know would suggest to
us that there are some characteristics that an old dyke can recognize that suggest to her that a
woman is a lesbian.
In essence, genetics doesn't seem to have a lot to offer the homosexual/bisexual community in
terms of orientation. People will continue to believe what they want to believe about the origins
of sexual orientation, but now they will have "scientific evidence" to support their claims - tailor
researched to their individual view point!

2. This debate is merely an extension of the age old "nature vs. nurture" debate. I believe that
geneticists should leave our diversity to rest and begin to investigate genetic disease. There is
no evidence that homosexuality is any way detrimental to our health (unless, of course, you
count the anxiety caused by the certain minority that cause homosexuals distress), and it should
therefore not be considered a disease. This probing into its causes only further segregates
homosexuals as "abnormal".
While homosexuality may be evolutionarily beneficial, there are many human traits that are
more conducive the evolution than others which we do not consider to be nearly so important.
Women having big breasts, for example, could be considered to be of an evolutionary
advantage, as this is more likely (so I'm told!) to appeal to men. And even though we are trying
to "rectify" this "problem" through the use of silicon implants, no one is actually looking for a
cause for breast cancer - any pectoral area research is focussed on breast cancer.
Homosexuality is targeted as abnormal precisely because it is not evolutionarily advantageous,
and yet there are a myriad of other, more "cosmetic" issues that are in the same category, and
are unexplored. In my opinion, trying to prevent homosexual children being born is just as
perverted as genetically engineering a child to look like Cindy Crawford or some other beauty. It
limits our capacity for tolerance. We should learn to celebrate humanity in all its diversity.
Bibliography
The Gay Gene?
By Jeffrey Satinover, M.D
http://www.anotherway.com/issues/gene.html
So you want to be a lesbian?
By Liz Tracy and Sydney Pokorny
St. Martin’s Griffin, New York.
The Gay Gene: Human Handedness & Human Sexual
Orientation.http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/traittab.htm
I also talked to people about issues surrounding homosexuality and/or genetics;
Jim Burke and Andrea Dixon
Ros and Andrew Brown
Sarah Knowles
Kerrie Willsmore
Karen Such
Mark and Emma Hutchinson
Klara Verbyla
James Fowler
My opinions and bias have been included in this essay, and it is in no way an objective look at
the "science" of this subject.
Katherine Burgoyne Brown is a 16 year old bisexual woman. You can learn more about her by
visiting her personal homepage at http://members.tripod.com/~femgrrl/ or her business
homepage at http://www.angelfire.com/me/wayoutyouth/.
© 1997 Beverly Greene is solely responsible for the opinions expressed here.