“Our result says that genes are involved in male sexual orientations, although they certainly do not determine a person’s sexual orientation,” said Dean Hamer, an author of the study. (St.Louis Dispatch)The growing fad to closely examine gay men and lesbians to find out what causes their emotional and sexual orientation towards members of their own sex has caused a stir in both scientific and religious communities. Many researchers on a quest to reveal the mystery of human sexuality have exploited genetic determination of sexual orientation.
Born gay is the idea that homosexuality is genetic. The scientific community has released information that genes predetermine links homosexuality and genetics. However, there are flaws that contradict what researchers say. Born that way is neither new nor proven. In this paper, I will enlighten my audience on the lack of scientific evidence and contradicting flaws in the scientific findings based on a study done by Simon LeVay.Simon LeVay studied human sexuality and brain structure. His studies are often used to help the scientific community to build their own ideas.
Time and again I have been described as someone who proved that homosexuality is geneticI did notSimon LeVay in The Sexual Brain, p.122 (qtd. In What Causes Homosexuality, p. 23)The neuroscientist, LeVay, conducted a study of the brains of corpses, which included 6 women, 19 homosexual males and 16 straight men. In the process of conducting his examination, he found a small area of the brain that was the same size in homosexual males and women.
The INAH-3 was larger in straight men. These finding suggested that this could be the evidence that would link genetics and homosexuality. (Calvery p.
23) This was the information that reached the media and that the scientific community embraced.However, there were 19 homosexual men who died of complications due to the HIV virus, 6 heterosexual men who died from AIDS complications, and the 6 women had died of various causes. The most obvious problem with LeVay’s study is that all the homosexual men died after a long period of being infected with HIV, which could have affected the size of the INAH-3, addressed by showing that heterosexual men who died from AIDS did not show the smaller nucleus that gay men did. Statistical comparisons of data also showed significant differences even with the extremely small sample sizes that LeVay worked with. Defining sexuality was difficult, as the heterosexual brains could only be presumed so, and one brain known to be from a bisexual was simply added to the sample of homosexual. Most of the sexual histories of the heterosexual men were not available. It had been assumed that he comparing heterosexual INAH-3 samples (Calverley, p.
23). The scientific evidence is called into question based on this, making the research inadmissible in determining the sexual orientation based on INAH-3 samples. Based on LeVays studies, the scientific community does not have evidence.Contradicting evidence is found when scientists and laboratories each measure the INAH-3 differently. LeVay measured the volume while others measure the neutrons. Clarifying a potential problem, some have suggested that using a volume method to project impact on sexual orientation may be like trying to determine intelligence by a persons hat size. (Calverly, p. 23)Another point that could cause contradiction in LeVays studies would be the fact that different laboratories have measured the four areas of the INAH, which conflicted with LeVays studies.
For example, Dick Swaab et al (1985) found that the INAH-1 was larger in men, while LeVay (1991) found no difference between men and women. Laura Allen et al (1989) found the INAH-2 to be larger in men than in some women, while LeVay (1991) again found no difference. (Calverly, p. 24)LeVays findings are called into question; the test-retest process of the scientific method has left him standing on his own findings without any back up. Other scientists and researchers have found other answers to the same questions.
This leaves the public with contradicting evidence.In conclusion, with the science behind the facts crumbling from its foundation, the scientific community studying genetic homosexuality is in ruins. With no firm foundation for their findings but a neuroscientist whose research has been contradicted and lacking, the study of genetic homosexuality goes on. These findings do not support born that way biology. Rather, they illustrate the scientific communitys pressure to prove gay biology.