The Science of Gaydar
Fascinating article in New York Magazine about the Science of Gaydar. If sexual orientation is biological, are the traits that make people seem gay innate, too? The new research on everything from voice pitch, thumb print density, hand dexterity to hair whorl. Can we equate a biological mandate with political motivation, and gay rights, what are the implications? While I can’t say that I understand or buy into some of the theories, I quite agree with the quote from Matt Foreman of the Task Force: “It’s bizarre to think some value systems might lump gayness in with—say—sickle-cell anemia or Down syndrome. It’s not playing with the number of toes you have; it’s really manipulating your very essence. So many people see gay people only in terms of sexual behavior, as opposed to what sexual orientation is really about, which is how you fit into the world. I don’t want to get mushy, but it’s about your soul.”
5 Comments so far
I get tired of reading about all this “science” devoted to understanding what makes someone gay. Most people I talk to are unaware that the whole gay/straight division is a relatively recent creation, and is a very limiting construct in which to put all human behavior. I fear that the only concrete results of research like this is to (falsely) identify traits or specific genes to prevent “gayness” in future generations.
So hopefully this doesn’t forbode that science will soon be investigating a genetic cure.
My fear is that this will be used in the same way that many fear insurance companies or potential employers could use DNA testing: exclusion based on an natural pattern of chaos, which causes such biological differences.
For example, if Insurance Company A doesn’t want to cover those with a potential for breast cancer, which has high genetic markers, DNA test results could be used as a deciding underwriting factor.
Now being gay isn’t a disease or even really a potential, you are or you aren’t. But if a gay gene could be found, what’s there to keep it from being used against that person? Very little in today’s America.
That being said, where’s the “survey” to hand out to the cute waiter to find out if he is or isn’t?
C’mon Stanford, do you ever really need to ask if the waiter’s gay?
This kind of research is scary, it implies that it will be used to do very bad things. Why should anyone want to have a test that can be applied to an individual to determine sexual orientation. You know if you are gay or not, why is it important for others to generate proof. I can’t help thinking that the next step will be In-Utero testing, and then we can all marvel at the speed at which religious conservatives change their position on abortion. I think it is also revealing that no one is doing research into what makes an individual a Homophobic Bigot, I mean there might be a Bigot gene, and then we could have a test to prove if some is a bigot or not.