Born That Way? Facts and Fiction
about Homosexuality

Part II

Read Part 1 Here

Factors Beyond Biology

By A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH

Dr. Byrd gave this presentation at the recent FAIR conference held in Sandy, Utah.  FAIR is a Mormon apologetics organization.  To learn more about them and read other stimulating articles go to www.fairlds.org

If biology is insufficient to explain the development of homosexual attraction, what does the research say about the developmental or environmental factors?

I should preface this part of my lecture by stating that the homosexual population is not a homogenous population. There are likely different routes that lead to a homosexual attraction, a homosexual orientation or a homosexual identity. Not only do the processes appear to be different for men and women but a homosexual attraction does not necessarily lead to a homosexual orientation. And not all homosexually-oriented people claim a homosexual identity. Gender nonconformity is the single most common observable factor associated with homosexuality. 19

Hamer concludes: "Most sissies grow to be homosexuals, and most gay men were sissies as children...despite the provocative and politically incorrect nature of that statement, it fits the evidence. In fact, it may be the most consistent, well-documented, and significant finding in the entire field of sexual orientation research and perhaps in all of human psychology."20

In Hamer's own study, he asked the following questions: "Did you consider yourself less masculine than other boys your age, or were you ever regarded as a sissy as a child?" The answer was yes for 68% of the gay men compared with 5% of the straight men. Another question, "Did you enjoy sports such as baseball and football as a child? Of the gay men, 8% said very much compared to 78% of heterosexual men said very much. The gay men recalled substantially more gender atypical behaviors than the heterosexual men."21

LeVay noted that "...gays and lesbians were more nonconformist than heterosexuals in the following gender-differentiated traits:"

• Participation in rough and tumble play (RPT), competitive athletics, or aggression
• Toy and activity preference
• Imagined roles and careers (significant difference for men only)
• Cross-dressing
• Preference for same or opposite sex playmates
• Social reputation as a sissy or tomboy22

Friedman and Downey concluded that homosexual women were more likely than heterosexual women to report having been extreme tomboys as children.23 Saghir and Robbins reported that 70% of homosexual women recalled being "boy-like" in childhood compared to 16% of heterosexual women.24 The research data is extensive in correlating gender non-conformity and later self-identification as homosexual.

Another area where there has been substantial research is the area of sexual abuse. Schrier and Johnson concluded that:

• homosexually-assaulted males identified themselves as subsequently homosexual seven times as often as the non-assaulted group.
• the mean age at which the molestation was reported was 18.2 with a range of 15 to 24.
• the age at the time of the molestation ranged from 4 to 16 with a mean age of 10.
• of an extension group, one half of the victims currently identified themselves as homosexual and often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences.25

Friedman and Downey found that gay males are more likely than heterosexual males to become sexually active at a younger age (12.7 vs. 15.7).26 In clinical settings, homosexual men frequently report an early introduction to sexuality.

Tomeo et al conducted research with 942 non-clinical adults (97% of the men and women were participating in a gay-pride celebration).27 Gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did a comparison group of heterosexual men and women. Forty-six per cent of the gay men in comparison to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two per cent of the lesbian women in comparison to 1% of the heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. So did the molestation contribute to the identification as gay or lesbian in adulthood? The question is particularly intriguing because 68% of the men and 38 % of the women did not identify as gay or lesbian until after the molestation…

 …Another area where there has been considerable research is peer abuse. As boys, many homosexual men report name-calling, feeling rejected, being excluded by their peers. Daryl Bem, who is an activist theorist from Cornell, offers an interesting theory of how homosexuality develops. His theory is referred to as EBE or the Exotic Becomes the Erotic. His theory is that boys feel attraction for those who were different from them. The theory basically proposes that biological variables, such as genes, prenatal hormones, and brain neuroanatomy, do not code for sexual orientation per se but for childhood temperament that influences a child's preference for sex-typical or sex-atypical activities and peers. These preferences lead children to feel differently from same-sex peers-to perceive themselves as dissimilar, unfamiliar, and exotic. This, in turn, produces heightened nonspecific autonomic arousal that subsequently gets sexualized or eroticized in that same class of dissimilar peers: exotic becomes erotic.28  In essence, temperamentally sensitive boys sexualize that with which they are not familiar. Psychiatrist Richard Fitzgibbons has done significant work in this area.29 His conclusions strongly support the role of peer abuse as a factor in the development of gender confusion and later, homosexuality.

A final area of developmental factors is associated with family relationships. In homosexual men there appears to be a disconnect between them and their fathers as well as an overconnect with them and their mothers. The psychoanalytic literature seems to hold true in many case where there is a perception of the father being distant, uninvolved and unapproving. Many clinicians report that fathers have a difficult time connecting with their gender atypical sons. Bell, Weinstein and Hammersmith30 and Rekers31 concluded that the relationship of the child to the father may be more critically predictive of outcome than any other aspects of the relationship with the mother. In Bell, Weinstein & Hammersmith's study they found that 72% of the homosexual men recalled feeling very little or not at all like their fathers.32

So what does all of this mean? Regarding homosexuality, there are simply no variables that are by themselves, totally predictive. What we know is that the probable genesis of homosexuality lies in a combination of temperament and environmental factors such as sexual abuse and peer abuse along with familial factors.

Leaving aside this etiologic discussion, the next question is homosexuality immutable? Is it fixed, or is it fluid and amenable to change? There is a fairly good body of research that demonstrates that homosexuality is more fluid than fixed.33

Throckmorton's research suggests that some kind of changes occurred for many who now identify as ex-gay.34 A study by Lisa Diamond, a professor at the University of Utah, concluded that sexual identity is far from fixed in women who are not exclusively heterosexual.35 Kenneth Zucker, renowned Canadian researcher, acknowledging the lack of evidence for the biologic theory of homosexuality, offers an interesting observation. Referring to those on both sides of the debate, the politically and ideologically conservative and "rightest" as well as the politically and ideologically liberal and "leftist," he noted that both sides agree that homosexual orientation is "more fluid than fixed." "At times," Zucker noted, "there really is something to the expression that science and politics make strange bedfellows."36 My own research published in peer reviewed journals also supports this fluidity.

Perhaps the most significant study completed to date was conducted by Robert L. Spitzer. Against tremendous protest and politics of intimidation, the study was published in the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behavior. Ironically enough, Spitzer was the psychiatrist who led the charge to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the psychiatric manual in 1973. Spitzer is a self identified secular humanist atheist Jew who has been consistent in his support of gay rights. Briefly, Spitzer conducted a study of 200 people who reported that they had changed from homosexual to heterosexual. Spitzer found that 66% of the men and 44% of the women who had participated in therapy to change their homosexual orientation had arrived at what he called "good heterosexual functioning." Additionally, 89% of the men and 95% of the women reported that they were bothered slightly or not at all, by unwanted homosexual feelings. In Spitzer's own words: "Like most psychiatrists I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue-some people can and do change." Spitzer concluded that the changes occurred not just in behavior but in core features of sexual orientation.37

In a commentary published last year, Dr. Scott Hershberger, a scientist from the University of California at Long Beach, a long time supporter of gay rights and a self-identified essentialist (a individual who believes that homosexuality is biologically determined), reviewed the Spitzer research. Instead of just commenting on the Spitzer research, he elected to conduct a Guttman Scalability analysis. Basically, this is a mathematical test used to determine whether or not the reported changes occur in a cumulative, orderly fashion. His conclusion, "The orderly, law-like pattern of changes in homosexual behavior, homosexual self-identification, and homosexual attraction and fantasy observed in Spitzer's study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. Now it is up to those skeptical of reparative therapy to provide comparably strong evidence to support their position. In my opinion, they have yet to do so."38

While it is beyond the scope of this lecture to talk about the theory and methods that are helpful in diminishing homosexual attractions, perhaps I can offer a very simple statement with which most therapists in this area would agree. The basic theory is that social and emotional variables affect gender identity which in turn determines sexual orientation. The work of the therapist is to help individuals understand their gender development. Subsequently such individuals are able to make choices that are consistent with their value system. The focus of treatment is to help individuals fully develop their masculine or feminine gender identity.

It is interesting that there has even been questions as to whether or not an individual should have the right to seek treatment to diminish unwanted homosexual attractions. The alleged justification for disallowing therapy is that such individuals seek help because of society's pressure or because of "internalized homophobia." From a clinical perspective, the choice to seek treatment can be a rational, self-directed goal, as should be the case with patients from any population group.

I would like to begin closing by citing the conclusions of 4 activists on the fluidity of homosexuality and therapy to diminish homosexual attraction.

Camille Paglia:

Homosexuality is not normal. On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm...Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.

Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, once sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition-a phenomenon obvious with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction--helping gays to learn how to function heterosexually, if they wish is a perfectly worthy aim. We should be honest enough to consider whether or not homosexuality may not indeed, be a pausing at the prepubescent stage where children band together by gender....Current gay cant insists that homosexuality is not a choice; that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort.39

Douglas Haldeman:

A corollary issue for many is a sense of religious or spiritual identity that is sometimes as deeply felt as is sexual orientation. For some it is easier, and less emotionally disruptive, to contemplate changing sexual orientation, than to disengage from a religious way of life that is seen as completely central to the individual's sense of self and purpose...

However we may view this choice or the psychological underpinnings thereof, do we have the right to deny such an individual treatment that may help him adapt in the way he has decided is right for him? I would say that we do not.40

Simon LeVay:

First, science itself cannot render judgments about human worth or about what constitutes normality or disease. These are value judgments that individuals must make for themselves, while possibly taking scientific finding into account. Second, I believe that we should as far as possible, respect people's personal autonomy, even if it includes what I would call misguided desires such as the desire to change one's sexual orientation.41

Dean Hamer:

...biology is amoral; it offers no help in distinguishing between right and wrong. Only people, guided by their values and beliefs can decide what is moral and what is not.42

It's intriguing that the researchers whose studies have been used to perpetrate the myth that homosexuality is innate and immutable are speaking out. Friedman and Downey, psychiatric researchers at Columbia University who are very supportive of gay rights, provide a strong response to the argument that homosexuality is somehow fixed and unchangeable. Listen to their strongly worded conclusion, "At clinical conferences one often hears...that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true... The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology."43

Robert Perloff, former president of the American Psychological Association, became uncharacteristically angry with activist attempts to ban therapy for homosexuality. He condemned the APA's narrow politicism. Of re-orientation therapy with homosexuals, he said, "It is considered unethical...That's all wrong. First the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants to change, listen to the client. Third, you are barring research.44⁴⁸

In my view, homosexuality is an issue of ethics and morality. Science--good science--can add a dimension to the discussion. However, I am in full agreement with the activists noted above--individuals who experience unwanted homosexual attractions have a right to treatment aimed at diminishing those attractions. Whether or not others agree with that choice is not as important as respecting the right to make those choices.

Tolerance is a two way street. A confounding of politics, psychology and therapeutics has occurred because of anti-gay bias in some cases and gay activism in other cases. This co-mingling of facts and fiction by anti or pro homosexual political groups-both of which claim to have science on their side does little to help. Accusations of homophobia or heterophobia serve to diminish dialogue, not to encourage dialogue. Patient self-determination, the cornerstone of all the mental health professions, must rise above the political debate. Contrary to the prevailing climate, the data on homosexuality is far from complete, but there is much that we know.

Ethicality would suggest that the suppression of data and discouragement of further scientific research should not be tolerated. It is well within the purview of science to study issues such as the change from homosexuality. The well-intentioned caretakers or our national organizations slide down a slippery slope when advocating what amounts to a virtual censorship of scientific investigation of politically unpopular views. Fortunately, that is changing. Within the last year, I have had nine master's or doctoral students from prominent universities throughout the country contact me for assistance with thesis or dissertation topics. Science progresses by asking interesting questions, not by avoiding questions whose answers might not be helpful in achieving a political agenda.

Being supportive of the basic civil rights of self-identified gays and lesbians does not require a belief in the false notion that homosexuality is invariably fixed in all people. It is not. As a final note, I personally repudiate any uncivility, religious or otherwise, toward self-identified gays or lesbians. At the same time, suppression of research and the intimidation of scientists must not be tolerated. Under no circumstances should science be pre-empted by activism. No one benefits when that occurs.