An Old Question, Newly Plausible
To anyone who identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, the question posed by the recent Tierney Labs blog post in the NY Times is not a new one. It’s just becoming pressing, with the possibility that genetic manipulation–as opposed to reparative therapy–can influence one’s sexual orientation.
One of the researchers involved in the recent fruit fly study (which everyone agrees is a long way from turning Elton John into John Wayne), Dr. Featherstone, commented on the ethical questions it raises. He says, “The question of whether or not homosexuality should be turned on and off is not a scientific question. It is an ethical/societal dilemma.” Okay, so he’s neatly ducked his responsibility as a researcher, putting the problem onto “society.” Then what are some conceptual steps forward in addressing it? He brings up transgendered persons managing their bodies through regimens of pills. Comments on the blog bring up the deaf community, designer babies, autism and so on.
Where to begin?
Vaccinations against Dangerous Genes
One way to look at the question is to consider what genetic/personality trait features in our society we do not tolerate and work backwards to see whether it would be justifiable to include homosexuality in that group. What do we mandate vaccinations for? (Of course, this opens up a can of worms for the people who abstain from vaccinations for religious reasons, but we’ll set that side.) If homosexuality belongs in that group, then we might want some kind of genetic H-vaccine to prevent mothers from bearing gay sons and lesbian daughters. If it doesn’t, then each individual would need to make the choice on their own whether they wanted to change the direction of their orientation.
This line of reasoning might bring us to focus upon traits which are damaging to society as a whole and highly contagious. “Damaging”, though, needs to be clarified, since opponents of gay rights have been beating the “death of traditional marriage” drum ad nauseum. Suppose we came up with a sufficiently narrow definition of damage–bodily harm, impinging upon the freedoms of others–how can we ascertain empirically that “homosexuality” is responsible for these ills?
While I don’t want to go down the social constructivist path so far that I get lost in a Foucaldian jungle, what is simple to observe in fruit flies is complex in human beings. Switch a gene and male fruit fly courts male fruit fly. Switch the gene again and the male returns to females. In humans? Are we isolating a constellation of sexual acts or a psychological desire (companionship, romance, intimacy)? How do we group persons partnered with the opposite sex who contain these desires? Do we separate gender identity from sexual acts? What is a male-identified, female-bodied individual who partners with a biological man? Homosexual? Heterosexual? Something else?
Even if we could successfully group people in order to look at the statistical incidence of damaging repercussions in society (the number of lesbians who are murders compared to straight men who are), how do we determine causation? Is sexual orientation responsible for any negative actions performed by the person, or are there other factors? Statistical studies of the LGB population are notoriously difficult.
Social Darwinism and Innate Capabilities
The question as framed, too, is very close to the social Darwinism that would try to exclude from the human population groups which are “unfit.” But, the H-vaccine proponents might say, we aren’t putting anyone into gas chambers or even subjecting adults to sterilization or forced re-orientation. We are preventing homosexuality in utero, which causes no harm. What heterosexual person would wish, once they have an orientation, that it were reversed? And, if left to ourselves in a “natural state”, gay people should soon die out anyway, because they cannot reproduce. So we’re just fixing what modern society has messed up!
Let’s look at the first argument: apply the question to autism. Even though we might value an autistic person for their uniqueness, their humanity, etc., that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t want to prevent them from being autistic in the first place.
Arguments might run: “But person X would never have been born if we fixed autism! And look at their contributions/value/personality!” There are, however, all kinds of contingencies which we are not aware of: perhaps person X’s contributions/value/personality would have been increased without autism. Another reply would be that person X would not be the same person without their autistic point of view. That’s another way of phrasing the same objection.
Most autistic people are not high-functioning, although there are quite a few exceptional persons who are and have garnered media attention. So, autism as a whole, potentially has a limiting effect on the innate capabilities that we would want to see humans in a position to express (not that all do).
Survival of the Queerest
The question is whether homosexuality has a limiting effect as well. Assuming (which I do) that there is nothing in same-sex sexual activities or erotic attraction which has a negative effect on society–we are not more likely to be murderers, child molesters, psychopaths, etc.–then that is the real question. And, in and of itself, I do not see evidence that it does. Limitations due to a same-sex orientation are primarily societal, not based on the attraction. Being a lesbian does not diminish my capability to “show concern for other human beings…[have] the capability for both justice and friendship…[be] able to be treated as a dignified being whose worth is equal to that of others.” (Martha Nussbaum). Arguably, a brain without functional ability for compassion would. Deafness is a more tricky concept, since it is a functional “limitation” which modern science and technology has, in many ways, overcome.
And finally, in evolutionary terms, if a gene spreads more rapidly in a given environment, it is fit. So, if we’re in a society where gay people are (for the sake of argument) passing on their genes more than previously because of sperm donor banks, in vitro fertilization, etc., then they are fit. Just because they cannot produce offspring “naturally” via a sexual act does not make them unfit, evolutionarily. Fit is a relative concept, not an a priori one. You and I would probably not be the “fittest” in the Cambrian period.
In any case, it seems like the balancing act in ethical questions concerning human nature is weighing the capabilities that we value with the unforseen ways in which our physical makeup influences what we might value in the future. Evolutionary fit is descriptive, not proscriptive. But on the other hand, what we are and what we have evolved from influence what we proscribe as good.
Image: Darwin’s Fruit Rainbow treats.
December 12th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
I suppose the question I wished to be answered is—Does queerness have some inherent purpose from a evolutionary standpoint?
December 13th, 2007 at 1:09 am
I’ve heard scientists make some speculations about that (cant remember where though)….
The idea is that since homosexuality is observed in so many species, in asking the same question you did, their response has been that maybe since the gay couple dont have children of their own, a social species might improve their overall survivability if children have aunts or uncles who are gay.
So either a surrogate parent role for other children, or have time enough to specialise in some activity.
December 13th, 2007 at 2:24 am
Does queerness have some inherent purpose from a evolutionary standpoint?
Well, that’s a possible question, but there’s also the question whether being left-handed or being blond has an inherent purpose.
If not, and it is the equivalent of a “spandrel” (Stephen Jay Gould–some argue that this is a poor analogy), then does that have moral implications?
Would we want to eliminate left-handed people because it makes life difficult for right-handers (making all of those special scissors, for example!)?
That’s in part why I didn’t use left-handedness to start with as an example, because it doesn’t have (I don’t think) moral qualities. If I compare being gay to that, then I’ve stacked the deck.
Anyway. Just a few thoughts.
December 13th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Comrade K, the answer is yes.
You see, evolutionary success is a population thing, not an individual thing (individuals die). The question is, does gene Z (or the expression of gene Z under condition N) benefit the population?
Population share genes–so if we have six sibs and one’s gay, the question is how does that affect the success of our gene pool? In a natural population, people stick close together. Our gay relations aren’t segregated off in enclaves. They associate and assist in the feeding and care of their nephews and nieces, they help educate them. And since they’re gay, not part of a breeding couple, they don’t have kids who are competing for those “parental” resources. More food, care, education, attention–for a group of kids.
Who are thus likely to be healthier, alive, etc.
That’s beneficial to the population, and to the shared gene pool. So a limited expression of the gene (assuming that it is such a simple thing as a gene…) is beneficial. Clearly, at some level… it might impair the reproductive capacity of a population. But… that could be pretty high. Thinking of wolves (a good comparison, since in a natural state, we were probably effective competitors for a similar niche), where in almost no case does anyone other than the alpha pair reed, there are a bunch of other adults in the pack. No, they’re not (generally) homosexual in behavior. But in practice, the same result (Nature has a whole quiver of approaches). A large number of adults care for and feed a number of young. Since humans rarely have multiple births–but do remain infantile/juvenile for a much longer period… any system that provides aid and support for those raising young would be beneficial.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
When asking why does homosexuality maintain itself at a consistent percentage, the situation may be similar to sickle cell trait genetics.
An individual who is homozygous for the sickle cell trait has sickle cell anemia. An individual who has the non-sickle cell and sickle cell hemoglobin gene has improved reproductive fitness when compared to those who have totally “normal” because of resistance to malaria conferred by the sickle cell hemoglobin.
Perhaps something is similar with sexual orientation. If a person is totally gay, they may have reduced reproductive fitness because (as a group) there are fewer babies being made. But the heterozygous person who isn’t totally gay or totally straight may demonstrate improved reproductive fitness when compared to the totally straight persons.
If anyone is interested in the population genetics theory behind this suggestion, there’s a good article on the “Price Equation” on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation