The booklet Love Your Enemy? picked up on the debate in the UK, the central argument being that heterosexuality might well be enforced as a tool of patriarchy. “We think serious feminists have no choice but to abandon heterosexuality,” the manifesto reads. “Only in the system of oppression that is male supremacy does the oppressor actually invade and colonise the interior of the body of the oppressed.”
Many feminists considered sexuality purely a matter of innate desire, and the idea that lesbianism could be in any way a choice crazy. I understood that one did not “choose” to be gay or lesbian as such, more that if true choice for women existed, we may well be open to act upon our desires.
In her 1999 book Generations of Women Choosing to Become Lesbian: Questioning the Essentialist Link, Australian academic Lorene Gottschalk interviewed three different generations of lesbians, asking whether or not they believed in biology as the root cause of sexual attraction. Gottschalk found that those who became lesbians in the 1970s believed they chose their sexuality, but those who became lesbians in the 1990s thought it was biology.
I can see why today young lesbians are far more likely than their older counterparts to insist that being gay is biologically determined: feminism in its heyday provided women with the vision that it was possible to leave a miserable heterosexual existence, and many of them did. By the 1990s, however, the development of queer theory led many lesbians to identify more with gay men than with second wave feminists, and thereby adopt the “please tolerate us, we can’t help it” line.
The men of the 1970s-era Gay Liberation Front understood that homophobia came out of a desperation to maintain strict gender roles, and many believed that heterosexuality was oppressive to women and that all anti-sexist men worth their salt should be gay. But to say, as did the singer Tom Robinson in 1978, that we were “glad to be gay” invoked horror from many gays, and terror from straights. After all, many gay men wanted to be “tolerated” and believed they would illicit sympathy if they could convince people that they “could not help” how they were.
Heterosexuals on the other hand were comforted by the idea that we did not “recruit”, and therefore their offspring were safe — unless, of course, they happened to be born with the rogue gene.
Unfortunately, immutability has never helped black people, Jews or women escape bigotry and oppression, and it won’t save us, either. The determinist case is often used to argue against Christian gay conversion therapy, in which so-called therapists “pray away the gay”, the logic being that if we have no control over our sexuality, what’s the point of trying to change it?
But as I know only too well from my undercover investigation into the practice, which goes on in Britain as well as the US< the bigots who promote conversion therapy neither know nor care whether we are born or choose to be gay — they just want us to live a heterosexual lifestyle, or failing that become celibate and remain in the closet.
It is also argued that some of us only “realise” we are gay later in life, while others remain in the closet through fear or shame. For instance, Sex And The City actor Cynthia Nixon came out as lesbian in her 40s, having previously been in a long-term relationship with a man, and she was vilified by a number of gay men. “I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better,” she said, invoking the wrath of the biological determinists.
Nixon, despite being an excellent role model for young lesbians, was accused of playing into the gay-hater’s hands. If you can choose to be gay, they said, homophobes will argue that we can choose not to be.
Most recently un 2019, the largest ever study of its kind examined data and DNA information of 500,000 people and found there were thousands of genetic variants linked to same-sex sexual behaviour, most of the them having a minor impact. There is no “gay gene” as such, but many different mutations might play a small role — yet the researchers said that non-genetic factors, including upbringing, personality and nurture, had far more influence on a person’s choice of sexual partner.
I appreciate that scientists have instinctive wonder as why things are as they are, and to seek answers. But I cannot deny that the incessant search for the gay gene offends me, because of the underlying and unspoken implications. My sexuality is not a problem waiting for a cure, and nor is it an oddity which needs explaining. Lesbians and gay men should not have to rely on (slim-to-non-existent) evidence that we “can’t help it” in order to be tolerated.
Knowing there are scientists spending huge amounts of time, money and effort in an attempt to ascribe a biological basis to our sexual orientation makes me, and countless others, feel like a specimen under a microscope as opposed to a person deserving of rights and respect. To the governments and other bodies funding such research I say this: pour that money into challenging anti-gay prejudice and support for young people struggling with life. As the Alix Dobkin song goes: Every woman can be a lesbian.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI see we are at this stage in UnHerd’s irregular series, “Julie Bindel copy-pastes her old Guardian articles”. I read variations on this one a few times back in the day. It always attracted lots of comments whenever it was re-written for the Guardian, and I will do my best to contribute to UnHerd’s engagement metrics now.
But joking aside, I most wanted to focus on this:
Offence is, or ought to be, irrelevant to the progress of science. Whenever anyone bleats “I’m offended!” about something, especially in regard to scientific enquiry, the immediate response of every responsible, rational person should be, “Then I will fight my damnedest to ensure that that thing continues, until such time as we can discuss its merits without weaselly accusations of ‘offence’ being levelled at it.”
Whatever the eventual truth of the question will be, it will be the truth, and will exist without regard to our preferences. Truth is austere and magnificent like that: we can wail over it, and stamp our feet in frustration, and write long essays about why it oughtn’t be so, yet it persists in spite of us.
Worst of all, the existence or otherwise of a biological inclination towards homosexuality should, by Bindel’s own reasoning, be irrelevant to her. She has made her choice and is glad of it. What should it matter to her if there is or is not a biological basis for at least some homosexuals’ tendency? It clearly hasn’t prevented her from choosing so far, and won’t prevent her from choosing in the future.
I agree with you. However, in your last paragraph you say “She has made her choice and is glad of it. ” I’ve always thought that it’s most unlikely that choice comes into it. I’m straight so I can only speculate but I rather imagine that some young adolescents slowly come to realise that they are not as other youngsters of their sex and have to find some way of either accepting it or repressing it. I expect (and hope) that, in these relatively enlightened times, it is easier for them to accept it. Certainly, it seems to me that, if science eventually finds a way of giving them a choice, that must be a good thing and shouldn’t be discouraged.
Ms Bindel has always been admirably clear that for her, homosexuality was at least primarily a choice. I have no reason to doubt her self-report about that, and she has never wavered in that position. (As I say, I have been reading variants of this very article for decades. While I frequently disagree with her, I equally frequently find her work entertaining and well-written.) So while for others sexuality is experienced as an integral part of one’s nature that cannot be altered, I can believe that it is not that way for others.
As I said to Chris Gallagher, I don’t see why we must say that any personality trait is all genetic, or all environmental, or all choice. It will be a mixture of these, differing in proportion from individual to individual. Some (probably most) will be mostly genetic, some will be mostly environmental, and some few, like Ms Bindel, will be mostly by choice.
See my true story, coincidence or what?, above in response to a previous post. I’m not arguing ,by the way.
very few personality traits are genetic. Physical traits, eye colour, stature, etc, are usually inherited, personality traits are mostly acquied by imitation from a very young age, long before conscious awareness.
People who have had children themselves, if they have thought about it, must have realized that an enormous anount of interaction occurs between the primary providers, usually mummy and we hope daddy, and then others, in the first three or four years of life, and none of us have genuine memories of those early interactions.
what might have developed to “push” a child towards a conviction much later in life that they were homosexual from a very young age – we don’t know. Most people don’t have the full video available – it doesn’t really exist.
But it woud be scientifically erroneous to deny the possibilities of many interactions having occurred that “pushed” a child either towards or away from potential partners, or even from identifying with – or away from – their actual biological sex.
No, sex is not a social construct, that is utter nonsense, but as humans in many western soceties, we now have the freedom to dress, behave, relate to others in ways that were unacceptable in the past, and that today are still unacceptable in many other countries, and it is quite arrogant of some ultra-liberals to insist that of course we are better than they because we accept the open manifestation of these different ways of behaving.
I rather agree. In fact, being gay is a very good research subject to investigate the connection, if any, between behaviour and genetics, which is the holy grail of biology these days. Ms Bindel dodges this by talking of “upbringing, personality and nurture” – what is the source of personality is the interesting question.
She appears worried that the undoubted some, who did make a lifestyle choice, might be exposed by not displaying the genes.
To some people, I guess and I’m not trying to be offensive, sex, love etc. are fluid enough that they choose and perhaps settle eventually. I doubt that some kind of ‘gay gene’ if such exists, is the cause.
I don’t see what the problem is with thinking that homosexual tendency is multi-causal. That there is an element of genetic propensity, an element of environmental nurture, and an element of individual choice. Let us be honest, most things are at least somewhat genetic.
Agreed. But some timely news. A friend’s son a year or so ago, decided he was gay like his much older brother. All well and good. Today having not seen him or boyfriend for the lockdown period, he turned up with his girlfriend of several weeks having decided that he is not gay.
So choice, confusion and of course, certainty all play a part. But if this lad’s choice is hetero, then what gene made him believe he wasn’t?
The gene genie?
Didn’t he have some interesting underwear? ðŸ˜
As others have posed. Even if there is a gene, decision/choice plays a large part. Or why do so many gay people chose to come out at various different ages and life circumstances.
Ones nature can be ignored and potentially for a lifetime. Is being gay the expression of sexuality or if self represed for a lifetime, in favour of heterosexuality, is that person still gay?
Search me guv
you give the impression of being convinced that sexual choice is something fixed and permanent – while you are at least partially aware that it isn’t.
Many years ago, when some people as adults, who had been married and born or conceived children, left their opposite sex partner and chose to be with a same-sex partner, the term that was thrown about was “latent homosexuality”.
It was nonsense – but a part of that often desperate need of many self-identified homosexuals to answer that question “why am I the way I am, or why do I have these feelings and desires that historically have been rejected by most societies, and that still remain very much a minority?”
There is nothing wrong – per se – with the questioning, most self-aware people apply that to other areas of their lives, why do I prefer this to that, choose to do this rather than that, why did I really become the person that I am?
The problem with the homosexual search goes back to the title of the article, the foolish search that still exists to find a physical reason – in terms of the anatomy or physiology or biochemistry or genetics of the body – all of which have been pursed for years, with no solid evidence to substantiate any of those.
One study that has often been quoted – by Levay published many years ago – was tragically and pathetically flawed, and eventually the author publicly admitted his extreme bias – but it continued to be quoted by those who wanted such a confirmation of a “biological/physical ” cause for a long time.
More recently, the phrase “sexual orientation” is widely used, even in legal situations, yet it is scientifically inaccurate (I am being polite).
The correct term should be sexual preference or choice. People choose at different times of their lives to be attracted to and desire different people, at some time that may be people of the opposite sex, at other times people of the same sex.
We are humans, not animals, and we do make those choices. Immature people may claim they have no choice, or that they know that since they were a four-month old foetus they were “gay”.
But most people can see that as nonsense.
At present, there are even parents claiming that their little children are “transgender”, again the implication being that the child “has no choice” and there are some researchers looking for a physical brain causation of this.
The notion that the child may just be unhappy, or that an adolescent or an adult may be unhappy with who they are and want to be someone different, evidently is too diffixut for some people to accept – because it implies that the child’s unhappiness is a) a consequence of problems in the home, and b) that in some way one or both parents messed up.
Essentially, the same story applies to homosexuality. A physical or external cause must be found – because no blame must be implied to the parents or to other imporant surrounding figures.
Applying that to older adults who have been married and had children, whether it is choosing to be with a same-sex partner, or choosing to dress, adopt the mannerisms, of the opposite sex, and for some even going to the extent of taking hormones and having radical surgery, has become in modern times an expression of personal choice that many western societies have accepted, and many other societies have not.
But social acceptance and tolerance does not convey medical/scientific truth or accuracy.
This topic always seems to be somewhat lambasted (by everyone), every time it has emerged from the shadows over the last 20 years or so, especially when questioned by those people who seem to find it odd that we should try to discover a ‘gay’ gene and by to those who are desperate for it (an insane undertaking scientifically, given our current level of understanding of genomics, and biology – but perhaps that will change), but I doubt their motives. I do not doubt the motives of most biologists who find this fascinating (I’m married to one) , but rather the usual dismal crowd on both sides who can only be the political, in whatever form it may take. Are gay people special (no we are as utterly dull as the rest of you) ), are they a different type of being? no more that people with downs syndrome, or deaf people, or any person born with a condition considered (often unsaid) to be defective. We slap ourselves on the back nowadays when we see difference, we often call it diversity. But every day we allow those who are different to be murdered. I’m not entirely anti-abortion (but after all we have many less aggressive and painful methods of contraception, and I fully accept the right of a person to decide what happens to their own body, but why that rather a than a pill, it seems painful, and who wants an invasive procedure? But people are frail and tempted by pleasure (I often am) and should not be condemned for it. Except perhaps when they decide to deny that life based on a concept that life being be impure, whether that ‘impure’ part (not a full list) be being downs, being female, being gay. the categories are endless. being born of another human makes us human, a thing to be valued. If you do nor think that being human is the basis for all human rights, fight against it, despite my age, I will be in the army that fights against you.
“heterosexuality for women is a subtle yet forceful psychological prison from which most women could break free if they wanted” (attributed to Adrienne Rich) is without doubt one of the stupidest things I have ever read in print.
I agree without doubt this statement is so illogical it is remarkable that it ever saw the light of day
You know this I’m sure:
“some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”
Another stunning insight of George Orwell.
After I read it I wondered what Ms. Bindel’s assessment would be if two of its words were changed so that it read;
“homosexuality for women is a subtle yet forceful psychological prison from which most lesbians could break free if they wanted”
and was widely ridiculed at the time
What if Cynthia Nixon had been lesbian all her life, but had ‘come out’ as straight in her 40s, saying “I’ve been gay and I’ve been straight, and straight is better”? Would that have invoked the wrath of Julie?
I love the reversal argument. So many times, it shakes the ‘logic’ used by others. But only if they are open to real discussion and these days that can be sadly, lacking.
Its always funny that the trans stuff that she (rightly) fights against comes from exactly the same roots as her own ideology. She simply doesn’t like it when the same crazy illiberal principles are used against her.
Does she have a problem with scientists looking for other genes, ?
No doubt. Biology is anathema to feminism. It prevents them from making up whatever the heck they want.
As a non-gay person all I can say is, most, I repeat most, of the gay people I have known during my quite long life have looked distinctively different in some indefinable way, which makes me think they were born to be gay.
One of the great things about the 20th century, amidst all the horror, was the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK.
I just wish some people would get on with it and not make such a song and dance about it, it seems strange and sad to go on about your sexual preferences as if they define you more than anything else.
It’s moisturiser not genes.
“it seems strange and sad to go on about your sexual preferences as if they define you more than anything else”
That’s just selection bias. I know a lot of gay engineers who are sci-fi fans first and foremost. They go on about sci-fi, not gayness. Sometimes I wish it was the other way around.
So it’s only the few who define themselves as gay first and foremost you ever hear. Selection bias.
Er, perhaps you did’nt notice but I used the word “some”, which I did on purpose because it is only “some” who do it, luckily.
Lesbianism was never illegal in the UK. As to gay people looking distinctively different, I’m not so sure. I’ve often been surprised to learn that so-and-so was gay. Maybe that’s because I lack feminine intuition (hope that isn’t offensive?!)
Not at all, offensive I mean.
Is there any truth in the ‘rumour’ that no legislation was ever passed because Queen Victoria refused to believe that such behaviour was even possible?
No
Then, how did it avoid becoming a criminal offence?
Haven’t researched the subject, but my understanding is that it was all about buggery, which lesbians tend to avoid
It may go back to Thomas Cromwell’s Buggery Act of 1533, that made sodomy a Capital offence. This Act is sometimes seen as an oblique attack on the Monasteries, a precursor to what was follow in 1536.
Given the disparity of wealth between the houses of Monks and Cannons, and those of Nuns,
perhaps Cromwell just ignored the subject?,
Or maybe he wasn’t averse to the idea of lesbianism in convents? I’m told there’s plenty of porn out there catering for such tastes…
Curiously my frivolous reply – something to do with goings on in medieval convents – fell foul of the Unherd censor
Wears the soap? 9. O’clock, candles out… You naughty boy you. ðŸ˜
Yes the ‘AI’Censor is irritating indeed!
However let’s try this out. It’s the preamble to the Bill for the Dissolution of the Smaller Monasteries that Thomas Cromwell put before Parliament in the Spring of 1536. My apologies if you already know of it!
“Forasmuch as manifest sin, viscous, carnal and abominable living is daily used and committed among the little and small abbeys, priories and other religious houses of monks, cannons and nuns……..”
One wonders what was going on in the Great Abbeys! However, as I’m sure you know, this is a wonderful example of Tudor ‘spin’, and it was extremely effective, as none can deny.
Thank you, wasn’t familiar with that. Cromwell certainly spun, but as with all persuasive spin there has to be some basis in truth. In the 12th century Walter Map recounts an abbot’s story about St Bernard of Clairvaux, who had attempted to bring back to life the recently-deceased son of a nobleman. ‘The saint laid his body on that of the boy, in the manner of the prophet Elisha, prayed, and got up, but no miracle occurred. Walter said ‘he was the most unlucky of monks. I have never heard of any monk lying on a boy without the boy immediately getting up afterwards’. The abbot blushed, and some of the listeners went outside and laughed’. Source: Medieval Children, by Nicholas Orme
Thank you.
Neither had I hadn’t read of that amusing ‘indiscretion’ of the great Cistercian reformer, nay scourge of Christendom, Bernard of Clairvaux.
I totally agree, Cromwell certainly spun well, but there was obviously a sound basis for his accusations, and thus this rendered the Monasteries particularly vulnerable to attack.
Next time I read about Bernard’s aesthetic influence on Cistercian architecture, I will remember those words of Walter Map.
I suppose in all fairness Walter Map was talking about other monks and not necessarily implying that St Bernard was up to hanky-panky
I have always been curious as to what, if any, ‘hanky-panky’ that other great Cistercian, and Papal Legate, Arnaud Almaric, got up to during the Albigensian Crusade.
Any particular reason to point the finger at him?
No, only that famous remark before the sack of Beziers , in 1209.
Well, I think he said kill them all. As far as I know he didn’t say let me shag them first then kill them
“Kill them all, let God sort them out” is a reasonable modern rendering.
No contemporary sources, as far as I know indicate any sort of ‘hanky-lanky’, but that remark in itself is interesting. It may indeed bring us to the difference between sacrifice and murder.
However either way he was obviously a bit of demented religious nutter. I think the source for that remark, another Cistercian from Germany, may have been surprised by its vehemence.
Mmmmmmphhhhhahaaaaaa!
There have been some interesting studies that suggest that people can pick out homosexual men from a headshot at better than chance rates.
Some people believe that it was gaydar that protected us from the Nazis in 1940 or did I get that wrong?
Ah yes sorry I did a bad thing and I got it wrong.
But seriously. I saw that report too.
Less seriously, in these days of anti violence algorithms, how did you get the word headshots and homosexual in the same sentence without the auto censor getting you?
I guess the algorithm fairies were on my side.
Seriously? A pedant might say that you did it again. Lol.
I didn’t find it offensive. But didn’t a scientific research project probably similar in statistical terms to the gene search, discount female intuition?ðŸ˜
Interesting how that has changed over time.
Used to be if you said you thought someone was gay because they looked gay, you were accused of being old-fashioned and naive about the ways of the world, because OBVIOUSLY there was no such thing as “looking” gay and you couldn’t tell. so you were being prejudiced.
Now if you can’t tell, you are old-fashioned and have led and sheltered life and are naive about the ways of the world, because you have no GAYDAR…Any modern with-it person should have a finely-honed GAYDAR…
‘… the fantasy that a biological basis for sexual preference does exist.’
Of course it does! How else do you think some animals reproduce sexually, whilst others asexually? We evolved from animals that reproduced asexually, and because of genetic mutation two sexes developed which made organisms so differentiated, more successful at reproduction. So here we are, two sexes.. thanks to biology.
Oysters can change their sex according to changed environmental factors, earthworms are hermaphrodites, but are not self-fertilising.
To say there is no biological basis for sexual preference is remarkably uninformed.
Study of genetics shows presence or absence of a gene or combinations of genes determines characteristics of the organism. Additionally conditions in the womb can affect outcomes. Biological male fœtus not developing testes and therefore in the absence of testosterone, influenced by maternal oestrogen develop physically, secondary sex characteristics as females with a sexual attraction to males.
Biology.
Yes, the idea that Bindel does not see that heterosexuality is biologically normative for the entirely obvious reason that it is strongly favoured from a passing on the genes perspective is pretty odd.
Unless she is saying that it is normative, and that anyone who is gay has chosen that despite being biologically oriented towards the opposite sex. But it seems she would really have to discount people’s reports of their experience of sexual desire to say such a thing. And it also doesn’t seem to fit with observations of nature where, while homosexual activity happens, in most cases heterosexual interest is clearly a strong biological drive.
It almost makes me think she is using the terms in an unusual way.
Scientists look into all kinds of things. Get over it.
Anyway, I assume you, as someone who has claimed your sexuality was a deliberate choice ““ yeah, right ““ would be delighted if, after years of painstaking research, scientists discovered that everyone’s sexuality is a deliberate choice.
Scientists look into this subject because it is a problem for evolutionary theory. Selection removes any gene that reduces your fitness to breed. There must be some advantage to the hypothetical ‘gay gene’ or it would be gone.
If you could show that the non-breeder was caring for younger sibs, or even nephew/nieces, that would be a start.
Worker bees do it, but their genetic equations make it profitable to them.
Who cares if Bindle is offended?
If she wants to argue that homosexuality should be considered legal and socially acceptable for reasons that have nothing to do with whether it is socially constructed or biologically based, she should and I think a great many people would agree.
But there are reasonable distinctions and arguments that people could make based on whether they believe one or the other of those things to be true. This piece largely comes off as Julie not wanting to have to make a convincing argument against ideas she disagrees with.
Forget this stuff. Look for the gene that makes us elect the stupidest people on earth to positions of authority over us.
There is no selective gene for that.
Its hardwired into our cells I’m afraid
This article is so replete with logical non sequiturs and biological misunderstanding that it is difficult to know where to begin.
First of all, it does indeed make a difference whether being gay is a choice or not, and for precisely the reasons Bindell rejects out of hand. If being gay is a choice, then homophobes will always be able to argue that it is a wrong choice, for a variety of usually absurd reasons, in order to justify their bigotry.
But most of us are smart enough to realize that people cannot be held morally culpable for behaviour beyond their control, eliminating the very basis for the homophobe’s argument from the root. There will always be a few who ignore the science, but for the majority, the fact that sexual preference is biologically-based destroys the anti-gay bigot’s entire argument.
Second, it is highly unlikely that there is a gay gene, because it would be eliminated by evolutionary forces. The more likely explanation is that humans sexual orientation is formed by hormones after the sixth week of pregnancy, when androgens produced in the womb physically sexualizethe body. The obvious implication is that the same process sexualizes the brain, probably by wiring different engrams in male and female brains to prefer the other sex. Without such an innate preference-forming mechanism, both animals and humans would waste 50% of their time trying to mate with members of their own gender. From an evolutionary perspective, this is a dead end.
But if that hormone-induced preference is not set because of a problem in hormone production, males will retain the female preference for men. Too much androgen produced in a womb containing a female fetus, in contrast, would lead to females with a male preference for females. In other words, being gay is biological, but not genetic.
But admitting that sex is biological would run counter to the feminist narrative that all human traits are somehow “social constructs”, a thesis lacking any empirical evidence. Instead, feminists have chosen to bury their heads in the sand trying to defend a dubious ideology in the face of countervailing facts from evolutionary theory.
It matters very much, Julie, whether sexual preference is biologically based. Because if it is, much of feminist ideology is simply nonsense.
But I suspect you know that already.
The mission of science is to explain the phenomena found in the universe. Gay people are phenomena in the universe. It is clear to me as a Bioscientist that the research says there is more than one way to be gay & more than one gene. But there are genes, there are environmental effects, including in utero.
Surely this is a good thing since there are clearly different ways to be gay as Pride should celebrate? (before the Woke took over). The message from science is you can be yourself & still have it determined to a greater, lesser or just different degree. Different strokes for different folks. What is wrong with that?
In contrast to being Trans which science is busy failing to find a biological basis for despite much searching using modern genome tools (one study gave up after processing a lot of Trans genomes & finding nothing). Being Gay is certainly not all in the mind though & we can prove it enough to know that is not the case even if we don’t have a full accounting of nature vs nurture and since both are involved doing that for every individual is likely to be impossible. So we can only draw broad brush strokes. So don’t feel like a specimen Julie, we are not looking at you personally & the data can always be anonmysied anyway.
What a lack of intellectual curiosity.
The same could be said of a lot of scientific research: What a lot of wasted time and money, who cares?
Kids are very intellectually curious, wanting to know, Why is the sky blue, and the grass green?
How do fish breathe underwater? Why are some people short, and others tall? Some blonde, and some dark-haired?
Where do babies come from? Why are some people gay and others straight? etc.
All perfectly valid questions, and asking them does not mean any of these phenomena are
oddities, or in need of a cure, etc.
Plenty of people care about understanding how the world works, various aspects of it, and that is a GOOD thing.
I rather enjoyed this potted history of gay history since the 70’s.
However, I’d argue that in most contentious situations, the heated arguments about nature and nurture are cooled when scientists finally turn up evidence for “it’s a bit of both”.
Science has always undermined bigotry. That is the nature of science vs. bigotry.
As for the politics, the centrist totems of “choice”, “tolerance” and “consent” are what won the gay argument politically, not the extremist “inclusivity”.
Surely sexual preference is down to the attraction we feel on both an aesthetic level and an emotional one, particularly relating to trust. Here I believe that for a woman it’s about her relationships with men as she grows from a baby through to puberty and for a man with women. Obviously most of us have grown up with a dominant female figure (mother) and a slightly lower percentage with a dominant male who may or may not have been our father. The love and nurturing (or not) from these must have had an impact. Did we feel love and respect for them? Did we trust them? How did they generally treat the opposite sex? How did they treat their own sex? These factors must carry some weight but the aesthetic one is an inexplicable factor. Lesbians not only don’t find men physically attractive; many find them repellent. Perhaps those who initially tried sex with a man were underwhelmed by the perceived selfishness because many young men don’t understand that penetration alone isn’t enough for most women. Whereas other women know exactly what works! It’s complex but I think scientists are making too much fuss about it. Homosexuals are different that’s all. They’re still just as human but make up a small proportion of the population. Their militancy is perhaps understandable but actually does them no favours.. They haven’t chosen their lot and if they’ve ever attempted to live a heterosexual life it usually ends in their recanting and going gay.
From what I can tell , homosexuality has been around in the human population for a very long time across all cultures and geographies.
It seems to have existed as far back in history as we can go and maybe even into prehistory.
If that is true, it must thereby have some wider advantage to humans or groups of humans in some way. Evolution is rarely wasteful. There are numerous theories around on how this might have given some of our ancestors advantage in some scenarios
If there is a “gene’ for being gay then that is neither a “bad” or ” good” thing. Those labels are merely cultural . Evolution is blind to individual cultural choices made by mid to large sized apes. If it is advantageous to have a percentage of the population gay, then that is what will happen.
As for being “offended” about people doing research…. That should be completely irrelevant. If we took notice of that, there would never be any research done
Oh yeah, there’s no biological basis for our sexuality, just as there is no biological basis for any of the ‘choices’ we make in life, such as our choice of partner (irregardless of gender or sexuality), our choice of career or vocation, or our choice of what we feel like eating for breakfast any given day. It’s all ‘our choice’, and we make our choices in our brains and our hearts, and our brains and our hearst have nothing to do with biology! It’s not like they’re, and by extension we, are made of biological material or anything after all…
you have 2 choices –
regardless – or irrespective
your “irregardless” is what we call a neologism, a new made-up word of your own, it ain’t English
But it has a biological basis, no doubt!
“Are you asked probing questions about your sexuality on a regular basis? Do people want to know why are you that way inclined? Was there trauma during your childhood? Did your mother take too many tranquilisers during pregnancy? If your answer is “no”, it’s probably because you’re straight.”
As a gay man this has not been my experience. Most people simply don’t care. They’re just not that interested.
Has it not occurred to Ms Bindell that if homosexuality were indeed a choice, if “every woman could be a lesbian”, then gay conversion therapy would work?
But it doesn’t. At best, it provides a rationalization for some gay people to repress their feelings and go back in the closet.
But if, as I have argued elsewhere, sexuality is a consequence of hormones produced prenatally, shaping the preferences in the limbic system, then being homosexual is a result of that system occasionally producing people with sexual preferences misaligned with their physical sex. No doubt there have always been, and will always be gay people, just as there are left-handed ones. But no one argues that being left-handed must be a choice out of a sense of resentment over the claim it is innate.
Me Bindell’s argument seems to rest on her resentment that scientists are searching for a gay gene, and that therefore her sexuality is an oddity (it is, because only 4% of the population is gay) and that gay people have to rely on homosexuality being genetic in order to be tolerated (they don’t, because regardless of whether it is genetic or chosen, one’s sexuality is no one else’s business ).
No Julie, this is just an ill-informed argument based on your own irrational defensiveness, one that flies in the fact of evolutionary theory.
I have a nephew.. He was bought up by very christian god fearing parents. Whilst I don’t know, the question of homosexuality is likely to have been discussed in a Christian context… as in it’s a sin and wrong.
Recently he “came out”, much to the upset of his parents. But here is the odd bit. He has suddenly started smiling with a genuine smile that touches his eyes. From memory and also looking through his family photo album, he never really smiled as a teenager.
Very fortunately, his parents have come to accept him as he is and have welcomed his partner into their home. Which for devout Christians is something. But it tells me something about being homosexual..
Great analysis. The hunt for the causes of same-sex attraction should only be of interest to evolutionary biologists as to why it persists in many species, not for bigots to find a way of eliminating it.
But what is this: “…they would illicit sympathy…”? Should this be “elicit”?
There are other errors and typos too (I won’t list them here). Unherd seems to have little or no sub editing or proofreading.
And Bindel herself lacks the competence to write at length without committing such howlers: a perilous combination.
It would be better if there was a typo button we could suggest editing corrections to the author directly. I think proofreading and editing are expensive, and UnHerd is free.
If its an evolved trait ( and it seems to be so) then being gay can only persist if it gives some kind of advantage to the species. That how evolution works. It seems to me that having a small percentage of the populstion must therefore give humans some advantage.. or at least did so in the near past. (100,000 to 50,000 years ago). It may continue to do so. Its neither a good thing nor a bad thing … its just an evolved thing and species cannot consciously control their own evolution.
Well done for finding something to whine about. It’s a skill that’s in such short supply. Oh, wait… that’s not true.
I’m pretty sure the gay community will whine under the following circumstances:
There is a gay gene.
There is not a gay gene.
There might be a gay gene.
We could maybe look for a gay gene.
Eurovision is cancelled.
Just wasted another 8minutes of precious life reading this.
Just get a proper job Julie.
It’s very likely that she’s unfit for any proper job.
I heard, on the toney book-talk show in Chicago some years ago, a developmental evolutionary biologist maintain, with reference to homosexuality and lesbianism, that every complex behavior has both genetic and environmental causes. That sounded pretty reasonable to me. It seems to me that this author’s insistence that any attempt to discover the genetic basis for homosexuality and lesbianism is wrongheaded is ideologically motivated.
The reason it’s interesting is because if all people were attracted to their same sex, there wouldn’t be people for very long. So, it’s a fascinating piece of biology that some people have sexual urges that don’t result in the advance of the selfish gene. That Julie is offended by this is of no consequence whatsoever.
Offence is irrelevant to the progress of science, opinion are also not part of science subjects.
the only thing that matters is the facts
The whole nature vs nurture debate is not just about being gay. It’s about how human beings become who there are: aggressive/timid, caring/uncaring, happy/sad, gay/straight. The author is making it all about her – which is just one of the many reasons why identify politics is ultimately a narrow and narcissistic way to view the world.
It’s as if she is saying “Stop following these leads. What you discover could be used to hurt my people (unless of course you settle on the answer that I want)”. Yeah, sorry, that’s not how science works.
Even the author admits that the gay community is divided on nature vs nurture. They are not just divided on what they think the answer is, but also on what answer will best serve their interests – which apparently changes depending on which decade they “became” a lesbian.
Again, this is not how science works. Even in “these supposedly enlightened times” – science will continue (and should continue) to explore the fundamental questions of human behavior.
Lastly, the author justifies her objection by bringing up case after case where certain groups have used various scientific theories to justify their bigotry. She is completely missing the point. It doesn’t matter if it’s a choice or not – these people don’t like gay people either way. Their intolerance is the enemy, not scientific inquiry.
Brilliant! As always.
Buggery Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
Of course the gay gene exists, in fact gayness is completely natural under natural selection.
Why ?
Because the selfish gene can ‘block’ other genes by being gay and absorbing the procreation they would otherwise have enjoyed.
Gay men and women prevent heterosexual multiplication of competitor genes, which means their brother or sister’s genes, whcih they share, will prevail.
Even better is to be bisexual. That way you both multiply your own genes while blocking others. The most successful model is to be a nurturing parent and ultra-promiscuous gay. The internet will show you that this is indeed very common.
Also explains the promiscuousness of gays – there is nothing to nurture – and also the preference for younger partners. The earlier you block the greater the number of future competitor genes you deny.
Simples Julie.
PS Gayness is more prevalent the higher the population density. Because blocking in low density makes the pool of your potential hetero partners dangerously low. In a high density population there is no shortage of partners so blocking is not a threat.
Interesting.
If a gay had a ‘gay gene’ their brothers and sisters would be 50% likely to have it too.
I don’t see how they can block heterosexual multiplication at all if their partner is bisexual and is breeding.
And, how does that cause their sibs to give them any more nephews and nieces?
Your own offspring are r=0.5 related to you. Your nephews/nieces are r=0.25
It only benefits your genes to forego one offspring if you thereby get more than two nephew/nieces.
I don’t see how you would.
Gay ‘couple’s still procreate on the sly, but its better to be bi.
Behaviour varies with population density.
Even partly blocking a bi-sexual partner blocks some potential procreation, because they may have had a hetero session otherwise.
Gay / bi men are even more promiscuous and unfaithful than hetero.
Behaviour changes with age. A man / woman who has children may revert to blocking as a gay when they are older.
There may be no gay gene at all. Its within us all to a greater or lesser extent and triggered by events or density.
Perfectly good argument in a species that only mates a few times in a mating season.
Humans mate thousands of times more than they actually have offspring. Keeping a bi partner busy for an hour won’t make any difference to their lifetime score of offspring.
Depends upon the split between hetero and bi sessions. You may be surprised.
Besides, natural selection works over long periods and very slight advantages.
“natural selection works over long periods” – not necessarily so! Also natural selection has nothing to do with how people define themselves, the boxes they lock themselves into or the tussle between modern freedom of expression and Abrahamic morality.
I am sure you are right. But our present genetic and selection behaviour was surely determined over millenia before Abraham or being able to define oneself.
IMHO we are still animals
I presume you were trying – not succeeding – to be funny
You presume wrong.
What do you find funny or wrong about it ?
A most interesting subject. There must be a value to the species of gayness or it would be very very rare. It is likely we have achieved what we are through eons of simpler times (Unless we were an advanced civilisation for millennia and suffered a cataclysm for which there is mounting evidence!) and those not busy with the immediate and instinctive responsibilities to maintain the offspring from successful reproduction were an added asset but how is that selection made? Some evidence from what we witness is that entertainers are disproportionately gay and entertainment is likely a vital part of an advancing civilisation. Also it seems that the hormone doses during gestation in the womb dictate the sexuality of the body and at different stages the brain. Apparently in Germany there were more gay men whose mothers lived through the stress of the war than for other generations indicating that stress could have interfered with the normal hormone activity. If this is so then disruption of the normal hormone routine could result in males with female brain preferences and vice versa. You can add to this the extent of sexual preferences that accommodate for sexual relief in male only environments like armies and hunting parties etc where a tolerance of same sex action would add to successful association and survival and similarly for females in concubines and harem cultures. We will eventually understand why we are the way we are? (Meanwhile some species start as female and then change to male which means all the females are young and all the males are experienced so that would be a good target for reincarnation?)
This article is a currently fashionable internally incoherent ramble peddling the Woke narrative that sexuality is a social construct.
It isn’t. Sexuality as in female and male is a biological fact. As J.K. Rowling perceptively noted, a woman is a human being who menstruates.
There is incontrovertible evidence that sexual orientation/preferences are biologically based. In all the cases I am aware of, some of them in my immediate family, the person’s sexual orientation was as clear as bright sunlight early on, becoming explicit in puberty. Suggesting that these preferences are socially based/driven is contrived ideological nonsense.
In contrast, transgender is a social construct – in direct opposition to the biological male/female – and a trans man is not a male in the biological sense and likewise for a trans woman.
To anyone who doubts or disputes this, I suggest the following straightforward experiment: take cells from a trans man and clone them and you will find those cells are female at the chromosomal level. Likewise for a trans woman where you will find the cells are male at the chromosomal level. Hard to argue with.
This reality may well cause cognitive dissonance or other forms psychological or emotional discomfort to some, but is incontrovertible. Other than in modern Homo Sapiens, across species the driving purpose of sexuality is reproduction and to paraphrase Einstein, Mother Nature does not roll dice.
As a rejoinder to my earlier comment, a guideline I’ve used in bringing up my children and in my professional endeavours:
We are all entitled to our opinions – but not to our own facts.
Cor my goodness old Guardian articles regurgitated , where’s the up chucky bag please. . Being Gaye, gay , queer as a bottle of chips , homosexual bisexual , lesbian or a half blind knob burning onanist any combination of them is down to personal choice , You don’t have to do it of free choice if you don’t want to , get over yourself if you think it’s any different .
Has it occurred to this writer that if, in any previous generation, ‘every woman [had been] a lesbian’, the human species would now be extinct?
I don’t care if you are gay…. as long as you don’t try and shove it in my face. By whch I am refering to things like the BBC queer art season that was broadcast last year.
Seems to me that being gay, homosex, lesbian is just another part of tye human condition in much the same way as dyslexia schizophrenia and manic depression.
It is probably worth studying… but not to find a “cure”. Just to better understand our own nature