I had an interesting exchange with my best friend from my high school days, and then with my younger daughter, on the subject of LGBTQIA+. My friend is very conservative and views any sexual or gender aberration from traditional heterosexual and male/female roles to be a sin and a mental disorder. He said that he had sympathy for those who fall into these categories, but that society must strongly discourage them. He sent me a rather controversial Bill Maher monologue on the topic that I then forwarded to my daughter for her reaction. She sent a very thoughtful response that spurred me to write this blog entry.
The conservative backlash against gay marriage and gender issues is based partly on religious beliefs and partly on a general opposition to what they consider ‘unnatural’. In their view, heterosexuality is natural and there are only two sexes and they mirror the two genders – male and female.
As in many things that conflict with religious beliefs or deeply ingrained cultural mores, there can be a large chasm to bridge. A science-based approach to sexuality and gender does not give us all the answers, but it certainly does not align well with religious dogma. The genetic basis of sexuality is nuanced and has the potential for many variations. Recent studies of DNA in large numbers of people have revealed that there is often a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body. Some studies suggest that the sex of each cell drives its behavior through a complicated network of molecular interactions.
The process of sex determination is complex and subtle changes in gene activity or the number of molecules can tip the balance towards or away from the sex spelled out by the chromosomes.
Genetic studies have also found groups of genes that correlate with homosexuality. There is no single or definite ‘gay gene’, but there are genes that appear to play a strong role in predisposing one to same sex preference. The exact biological nature of sexual orientation is still somewhat a mystery, but what is clear from observation and scientific study is that it expresses itself very early and that it is not a ‘choice’ or a psychological condition.
If one accepts the facts of evolution, then it is not surprising that human sexuality is a spectrum. Millions of years of evolution, with the attendant genetic mutations, will certainly have produced quite a bit of biological and sexual diversity.
But if one believes that God created man and woman and that is that, then it is understandably very difficult to accept the impact and ambiguity of evolutionary influences in sexuality and gender.
Which brings us to the question of ‘what is natural’? A religious person will say that what God has ordained and created is natural. An evolutionary biologist will say that what is ‘natural’ is what nature, i.e. evolution, produces, and thus, what is ‘natural’ is forever changing and may encompass a large spectrum.
In a world that has long built its social and economic structures on top of a male/female, heterosexual foundation, confronting this brave new world of a sexuality and gender continuum is no easy task. We do not know what the mix of biology, genetics, hormones and environment is that place people at various points on this continuum.
The question of whether homosexuality, or any other variant of sexual orientation or gender, is genetically determined may be an interesting one to some of us, but to many gay people it is irrelevant. They believe that they are who they are regardless of the factors that may have played a role. And they want to be accepted unconditionally. They don’t see themselves as an aberration, but rather just as another part of humanity. This is a difficult change in perception for most heterosexuals, or at least those who have grown up surrounded by very traditional cultural values.
The fear that impressionable young people can be swayed by their peers or by social pressure to embrace a certain sexual orientation or gender is highly exaggerated, but it should not be entirely dismissed. Everyone should be free to find their own path without being influenced either by society at large, by social media, or even by their peers.
There are no definitive answers to the question of how to proceed in this world of LGBTQIA+ openness. The argument that we should not persecute or condemn sexual behavior and gender choices that do not harm others seems reasonable. But the thornier issues of gender therapy for young people and the development of sexuality/gender curricula in schools is no simple matter. We must strive for a healthy affirmation and acceptance of behaviors and choices, yet also avoid the potential pitfalls of harmful experimentation or premature decisions with long term consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment