Faulty Research

After living in Massachusetts at the time of the gay-marriage court decision and during the gay-marriage debate, and in particular after having attended Wellesley College, I was curious to find out more details of this study. I have frequently heard pro-gay arguments using the vague claim that “there is scientific research proving that homosexuality is natural.” Before now, unfortunately, I just took these claims for what they were worth, and never took the time to look up the exact research to which they were referring. Now, however, I believe it is critical to point out to conservatives – all, or at least many, of whom “have a gay friend” or neighbor, if not more than one – the details upon which the gay platform bases its claims.

Background on Sexual Behavior

• The evolution of human sexual behaviour is complex. It involves instinct, developmental factors, possibly a genetic component, social pressures and the availability of partners of the preferred sex.

The History of the Homosexual Platform

• Homosexuality since Ancient Greece
• Homosexuality in New Guinea and Crete
  • New Guinea & Crete: In some tribes in New Guinea, young boys ages 8-15 are inseminated daily by the young male warriors of the tribe. In Crete, every adolescent boy undertook a homosexual relationship as a rite of passage into manhood [10]. In these two instances, the homosexuality is accepted; however, it can be argued that it is also forced, not a natural expression. (See Note #7)
• The first homosexual studies
  • Kinsey, one of the first sexologists, found that 37 per cent of males in his studies admitted to experiencing at least one homosexual encounter to the point of orgasm. Another study involving almost 3,000 college males aged 18¬25 years found the equivalent figure was 30 per cent. (See Flaw #1)
  • Kinsey (1930s), found that at least 10% of males have engaged in homosexual acts: Experiments in biological research date back as far as the late 1930's, beginning with the pioneering research of Alfred Kinsey (for the University of Indiana) on human sexuality. Kinsey had two goals for his tests: 1) to find out how many adult males engaged in homosexual behavior, and 2) to suggest theories about it came to be [9]. When asked if they had engaged in homosexual sexual relations, a large percent of the population tested answered "no", however when asked if they had engaged in same-sex sexual relations, the percentage answering "yes" nearly doubled. The experiment yielded that 30% of males had experienced at least orgasm in a homosexual act. The results of this research became the widely popularized Kinsey Scale of Sexuality. This scale rates all individuals on a spectrum of sexuality, ranging from 100% heterosexual to 100% homosexual, and everything in between [7].
  • The 1994 UK National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles found that 6 per cent of 8,000 males reported some kind of homosexual experience, of which 3.6 per cent was genital contact with another man. Only 1.4 per cent had had a male sexual partner within the previous two years, a figure that seems extraordinarily low. (See Flaw #1 again)
• Freud
• Definition of homosexuality as a disorder  Spitzer’s findings
  • Hooker (1957), determined that homosexuality was not a mental disorder: Karen Hooker executed the first psychological test done to test for biological determinism in 1957, on a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health [2]. The study was meant to explore the relationship between homosexuality and psychological development and illness. Hooker studied both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Both groups were matched for age, intelligence quotient (IQ) and education level, and were then subjected to three psychological tests. These three tests, the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) and the Make-A-Picture-Story Test (MAPS), were then analyzed by psychologists, and the results were tabulated. The results of Hooker's experiment yielded no significant differences in answers on any of the three tests. Because both groups' answers scored very similarly, she concluded a zero correlation between social determinism of sexuality. As a result of Hooker's finding, the APA removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973. In 1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality was not a mental disorder. In 1994, two decades later, the APA finally stated, "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality" [2].
  • Although the APA currently states that sexual orientation is not a choice, rather that "...it emerges from most people in early adolescence with no prior sexual experience"[1], social theorists argue that an individual's upbringing can directly influence this [sexual orientation].

What the Homosexual Platform Seeks

• It is not difficult to see why gay activists want the public to believe that they are born gay. If the theory that sexual orientation is genetically determined is accepted by the general public, then it would greatly aid their political campaign for gay rights, gay marriages, adoption of children by gay couples and state benefits.
• (Look up the homosexual platform)
• Infidelity in homosexual relationships: In a large survey of 4,329 homosexuals and 962 lesbians conducted by K Jay and A Young, The Gay Report (New York: Summit, 1979), only 7% of homosexuals had been in a relationship that lasted more than 10 years. 55% had never been in a relationship that lasted more than 2 years. The most thorough study of homosexual relationships to date is reported by A P Bell and M S Weinberg in their book, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978). They found that 74% of male homosexuals reported having more than 100 partners during their lifetime, 41 % more than 500 partners, 28% more than 1,000 partners. Comparing this with the general population, a recent study by C Leigh, M T Temple and K F Trocki, The Sexual Behaviour of U S. Adults: Results from a Nation Survey ( American Journal of Public Health 83, October 1993) found that among adults in a "close-coupled" relationship, 79% of homosexuals reported being "sexually unfaithful" in the previous year, compared with 10% among married heterosexuals and 23% among cohabiting heterosexuals.
• Depression among homosexuals: Even in the Netherlands, psychiatrists have found that homosexuals suffer from depression and psychiatric disorders significantly more frequently than others. (Same- Sex Sexual Behaviour and Psychiatric Disorders Findings From the ! Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS) by Theo G. Metal, (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000, 58:85-91)).
• We should not legitimize the gay political agenda: While we should not discriminate against gay people in the routine of life (eg. I seeking employment in the civil service), it is quite a different matter to legitimize the promotion of homosexual rights, activities and the unfounded belief that homosexuality is inborn and people who have homosexual inclinations are doomed to live as homosexuals. Do we want to condone homosexual acts? Do we want our young people to believe that homosexual relationships are good and healthy?
• To say that someone who has a same-sex attraction is fixed in his sexual identity and cannot change, is to relegate that person to a lifestyle that is much more highly associated with STDs, substance abuse, depression, suicidal thoughts, and broken relationships. The fact is, homosexual identity and behavior can indeed be modified, and in some cases, there is substantial development of heterosexual responsiveness. The AMA would not recommend that individuals addicted to alcohol continue drinking, or claim that alcoholics are “born with those desires” and should not be supported --when they request such help-- in modifying their unwanted behavior. Scientific Claims Used to Promote the Homosexual Platform What the GLBTF Community Has Failed to Tell Us
• Research on homosexuality is riddled with errors – on everything from homosexuality’s prevalence to the ability of homosexuals to change to the “born that way” myth. All major research studies conducted in the past few years counter the popular 10% myth – that is, that approximately 10% of the American population is practicing homosexual – finding, instead, that homosexuals account for only 2-3% of the population.
  • Biased scientific reporting: Gay activists have presented scientific data selectively by citing only those that do not dash their hopes of finding a biological cause. They keep out of public knowledge the scientific results which contradict the idea that people are born gay, thereby misleading the public. Their claims have gone largely unchallenged because politicians, scientists and even medical professionals are reluctant to be labeled conservative, right wing bigots by the immensely powerful militant gay activists
  • Please see “The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis In Science,” by Drs. A. Dean Byrd, Shirley E. Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson who quote several researchers --including researchers who are themselves homosexual--and have an obvious social-political stake in the outcome. [6] Gay-activist researcher Dean Hamer, M.D., for example, says this: “There is not a single master gene that makes people gay … I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.” [7]
  • Many other researchers have reached the same conclusions. In fact, there is no recognized researcher in this field who claims that homosexuality in simply "inborn."
  • The evidence in support of the brain structure hypothesis is riddled with inconsistencies and the studies designed to test this hypothesis suffer from methodological weaknesses that prevent us from concluding that sexual orientation is determined by the brain. Furthermore few of these studies have been successfully replicated. The results of these studies are also open to different interpretations. However, even if these studies are successfully replicated, it will not justify drawing extravagant conclusions. As already argued, establishing a distinction in the brain structures of homosexuals and heterosexuals is not the same as establishing a cause. The direction of causation may be difficult to establish because behaviour both affects and is affected by brain structure and function. In any case, our current understanding of the brain is inadequate to explain how such quantitative differences could account for such a complex phenomenon as homosexuality. Besides, there need not be a causal connection between sexual orientation and the brain structures in question. The two may be caused by a third variable such as a developmental event during gestation or early life. It is also important to note that the brain structure hypothesis is based on the questionable presumption that homosexual men more resemble females than males, and that therefore one should expect to find a female brain in a male homosexual. This supposition, as a review of human sexual history reveals, is culture bound and inadequate. In some societies, those with predominantly same-sex desires were considered the ‘most manly of men and womanly of women’19. Among the Sambia of the highlands of Guinea and the ancient Greeks, for example, homosexual relations between men was regarded as perfectly compatible with masculinity.
  • Me: Major expansion of the brain occurs post-natally; so, even if the study was correct in finding that homosexual men’s brains work differently than heterosexual men’s brains, the study does not prove that homosexuals are “born that way” or that homosexuality is natural.
  • Me: Even if it were natural, homosexuality, like alcoholism or depression, need not be encouraged. Support and treatment should be offered to people who have homosexual tendencies if they so choose.
• Flaws of pro-gay studies
  • Actual research into these differences can be traced back to the late 1970s, when Roger Gorski and his co-workers discovered a group of cells in the medial preoptic part of the rat’s hypothalamus that was 5 to 6 times larger in volume in males than in females3. Gorski and his group named this cell group the ‘sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area’, or SDN-POA. In rats, the SDN becomes sexually dimorphic as a result of perinatal hormone exposure. Investigations have shown that prenatal stress or castration of male rats on the first day of life reduces the volume of this nucleus permanently4,5. Conversely, when newborn female rats are injected with tamoxifen (an antiestrogen) the volume of their SDN-POA is decreased, suggesting demasculinization6. A study by De Jonge et al.7 has shown that lesioning the SDN in male rats produces lordosis and affects their libido.
  • The human analogue of the SDN-POA is thought to be contained in one of the four interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus or INAH, but precisely which of the four is unclear. One morphometric study of what Swaab and Fliers considered to be the human SDN-POA (formerly known as the intermediate nucleus), revealed that the volume is more than twice in men as it is in women and contains twice as many cells in men8. It is important to note that no difference in SDN cell number was observed between homosexual and heterosexual men. This finding has been interpreted as refuting Dörner’s hypothesis, which holds that male homosexuals have a female hypothalamus.
  • Nevertheless, the existence of sexual dimorphism in the SDN-POA is somewhat controversial, as two other groups of researchers have failed to confirm the initial report9,10. Swaab has tried to account for this apparent anomaly by pointing out that the subjects in their own study and that of Allen et al. were drawn from two different age groups. He notes that while in Allen’s study 70% of the adult subjects came from the age group in which SDN size difference is minimal (50 to 60 years), in their own study only 29% of the subjects came from that group11. Unfortunately, this argument cannot be applied to LeVay’s study, which also failed to find a sex difference in the volume of this nucleus in spite of the fact that his subjects belonged to the same age group as the subjects in Hofman et al.’s study.
  • The first attempt to test the homosexual brain hypothesis was made by Swaab and Hofman and involved a region of the brain known as the suprachiasmatic nucleus, or SCN in short12. Swaab and Hofman’s study involved 34 postmortem subjects; 18 of whose sexual orientation was not known which served as a reference group, 10 homosexual men who had died of AIDS, 4 heterosexual males who had died of AIDS and 2 heterosexual women who had died of AIDS. The study reported that the SCN volume in homosexual men was 1.7 times as large and contained 2.1 times as many cells as the SCN in heterosexual men. Interestingly, the only difference that this study found between heterosexual men and heterosexual women in this area was one of shape. In heterosexual men, this region was shaped like a sphere while in heterosexual women and gay men it was more elongated. Since the SCN also acts as a biological clock, Swaab and Hofman have hypothesized that sleep patterns of homosexual men should differ from those of heterosexual men. Support for this prediction comes from Hall and Kimura’s study, which found that homosexual men had a rise-and-retire pattern that was more like that of heterosexual women than of heterosexual men. On average, homosexual men tended to get up and go to bed earlier than heterosexual men just like heterosexual women13. However, it is not clear why the sleeping patterns of homosexual men should resemble those of heterosexual women given that the size of the SCN itself is not sexually dimorphic.
    1. Swaab & Hofman relied on hospital records to arrive at the sexual orientation of the experimental subjects. This kind of information can, at best, only suggest behavioral rather than a dispositional account of sexual orientation and is therefore not very helpful.
    2. Another major difficulty with this study is that although the homosexual and the heterosexual subjects died of opportunistic infections arising from AIDS, they were not matched for clinical diagnosis.
    3. Although the SCN is located within the hypothalamus, which is intimately involved in sex hormones and sexual behaviour, the SCN is not known to play any direct role in sexual behaviour. It is therefore difficult to understand its relationship to sexual orientation or to see any significance in Swaab et al.’s findings.
    4. Homosexual behaviour may actually have increased the neuronal number in the SCN of the brains of the homosexual men that Swaab et al. studied. Laboratory experiments on rats have shown a close correlation between the size of the sexually dimorphic nucleus and the level of sexual activity.
    5. The size of the SCN did not vary with sex. The cell number in the SCN of both heterosexual men and heterosexual women was the same and this contradicts Dörner’s hypothesis that homosexuals have an intersexed brain.
  • A study done by Laura Allen had shown that INAH-3 and INAH-4 were sexually dimorphic in human beings. They were significantly larger in men than in women. LeVay hypothesized that INAH-2 and/or INAH-3 were large in individuals sexually oriented toward women (heterosexual men and homosexual women) and small in individuals sexually oriented toward men (heterosexual women and homosexual men)15. The study consisted of forty-one cadavers of which nineteen were self-described gay men, all of whom had died of AIDS; sixteen presumed heterosexual men, six of whom had died of AIDS and were intravenous drug users, and six presumed heterosexual women, one of whom had died of AIDS. It is important to note that there was no brain tissue from homosexual women available. LeVay reported that the INAH-3 was half the size in women and homosexual men as it is in heterosexual men. In other words, in addition to finding that INAH-3 was larger in heterosexual males than in heterosexual women, he also found that it was smaller in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. He could not find any differences between the INAH-1 of heterosexual and homosexual men. Two recent studies have partly corroborated LeVay’s findings by showing that INAH-3 occupied a significantly greater volume and contained significantly more neurons in males than in females16,17. However, it is important to note that the size differential was not as large as that reported by LeVay in his 1991 paper. Like LeVay, Byne et al. postulate that the sex differences in the human INAH3 may partly depend on sex differences in developmental exposure to gonadal hormones but he also points out that early experience can influence brain structure and that major expansion of the human brain occurs post-natally. In the second study, Byne did not find any difference within INAH-3 based on sexual orientation. However, this nucleus did occupy a smaller volume in homosexual men than in heterosexual men as LeVay had predicted18.
    1. Sampling: Subjects were drawn from a small, highly selected and unrepresentative sample consisting mainly of AIDS patients.
    2. Subject classification: LeVay did not verify the sexual orientation of his subjects. Heterosexual subjects were assumed heterosexual on the basis of the numerical preponderance of heterosexual men in the general population. Those subjects who did not die of AIDS were assumed (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) to be heterosexual. LeVay also assumed that all the men who died from AIDS but whose sexual orientation was not indicated in the medical records were heterosexual. Again this was a wrong assumption to make given that when this study was carried out, AIDS was confined to homosexual and bisexual men. It is almost certain that that some of the men who died from AIDS and whom LeVay classified as heterosexual were in fact homosexual. Furthermore, LeVay failed to take into consideration the complexity of how sexual orientation is variously defined and experienced in the course of an individual’s lifetime and across historical periods and cultural contexts.
    3. Made no effort to find out how the sexual orientation of the subjects was determined, and did not use any kind of sexual orientation scale: With regard to the brain tissue of the ‘homosexual’ subjects, he relied on hospital records to determine the subject’s sexual orientation. He made no effort to find out how the sexual orientation of these subjects was determined. And since all the brain tissues studied were obtained from cadavers, there was no way that LeVay could have used a sexual orientation scale (such as the well-known seven-point rating scale developed by Kinsey) to determine the range or extent of the experimental subjects’ sexual orientation.
    4. Failed to consider a sexuality that is neither heterosexual nor homosexual: By adopting a bipolar view of sexual orientation, LeVay eliminated the possibility of a person with a sexuality that is neither heterosexual nor homosexual.
    5. Findings did not hold across individuals, and were not conclusive: Some of the individuals that LeVay identified as homosexual had an INAH-3 that was larger than the average size of the INAH-3 of the heterosexuals and some of the heterosexuals had an INAH-3 that was smaller than that of the homosexual men. In other words, the differences were statistical rather than absolute. What this in essence means is that although the two groups considered as groups showed some clear differences, one could not tell an individual’s sexual orientation by simply looking at his hypothalamus. In other words, if all that we know about LeVay’s subjects is INAH-3 size, we cannot predict whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.
    6. Does not explain bisexuality: LeVay also does not give a satisfactory explanation of why the only bisexual subject in the study had an INAH-3 that was the same size as the heterosexual subjects. (p. 3)
    7. He did not use a double-blind approach, standard practice even in animal work: All the tissue processing as well as anatomical measurements and statistical tests in this study were carried out by one investigator. A double blind approach would have been more appropriate since it is methodologically superior. This, as Byne says, is the standard practice even in animal work19.
    8. It may not be possible to measure the INAH-3 accurately, especially with swelling and shrinkage: The INAH-3 is quite small and it is questionable whether it can be accurately measured considering that it is made up of the same type of cells as the surrounding tissue. Scientists disagree on the question of whether this nucleus should be measured by its volume or by the number of neurons. Swaab, as quoted in Marshall, argues that the results of LeVay’s study could have been stronger had he counted the number of cells within INAH-3 instead of just measuring the volume20. This, he says, would have gone a long way in ruling out errors that may have been caused by swelling and shrinkage.
    9. All homosexual subjects had died from complications arising from AIDS, but most of the control group of heterosexual men had died of other causes. People with AIDS are known to suffer from testicular dysfunction and this may directly affect their brains21. A related point is that some of the drugs used to treat opportunistic infections associated with AIDS may have lowered the level of testosterone in the bloodstream of the study subjects and this could have had an effect on the size of the INAH-3 (ref. 22). What this means is that the differences in the size of INAH3 that LeVay observed may actually have been caused by endocrine imbalances associated with AIDS. Research by Deborah Commins and her co-workers has shown that the size of the SDNPOA of Mongolian gerbils, which is thought to be analogous to INAH-3 in humans, varies with the level of the circulating testosterone23.
    10. Varying life-span of patients: When this study was carried out, those who contracted AIDS through homosexual intercourse tended to receive better medical care than those who contracted the disease in other ways such as intravenous drug use. What this in essence means is that the homosexual patients may have lived longer than non-homosexual patients. This may have affected the hypothalamic structures differentially.
    11. Effect of the time between death and autopsy: Some critics have gone on to postulate that the length of the time between death and autopsy may have affected the hypothalamic structures that LeVay studied.
    12. Assumption that the INAH-3 is essentially the same as rats’ SDN-POA: LeVay based his study on the assumption that the human INAH-3 was essentially the same as the SDN-POA in rats yet, as mentioned previously, the SDN-POA does not play a critical role in male-typical behaviour in rats although it is located in area that is associated with sexual behaviour. It is not clear whether it is INAH-3 or INAH-2 that actually corresponds to the SDN-POA of the rat25.
    13. Even if LeVay was able to establish a correlation between homosexuality and INAH-3, he did not establish a causal connection. It remains to be proven that the enlarged INAH-3 was the cause rather than the result of altered sexual orientation. Indeed, we do not have any proof that the size of INAH-3 has any causal effect on sexual orientation, heterosexual or homosexual. LeVay himself has admitted that the results of the study do not allow one to decide whether the size of the INAH-3 in an individual is the consequence or the cause of that individual’s sexual orientation. It is possible that the enlarged INAH-3 that LeVay observed in the brains of homosexual men was in fact the result rather than the cause of homosexual behaviour. As Harrison et al. explain, ‘the promiscuous behaviour and associated lifestyle likely to have been common among the homosexual men who die of AIDS may have caused the shrinkage of the INAH-3 (ref 26). Brain’s neural networks are known to reconfigure themselves in response to certain experiences. For example, research has shown that when blind people learn Braille, the area of the brain that controls their reading finger becomes more active and enlarged27. As another example, Eleanor Maguire and her co-workers at the University College London have shown that the hippocampus (a region of the brain involved in navigation and memory) of licensed London taxi drivers is larger compared with that of other people28. The effect of behaviour on selected brain cells has also been demonstrated in studies of cichlid fish29. Research has shown that specific cells in the preoptic area of the brains of a male cichlid become enlarged when it acquires territory after dominating others. However, these particular neurons shrink in size when the same male loses its territorial status. Thus it is possible that differences in brain structure between homosexuals and heterosexuals that LeVay observed were caused by the frequency of sexual activity. Indeed, a number of studies have shown that homosexual men are sexually more active than heterosexual men30,31.
  • Allen and Gorski reported another difference between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men in another part of the brain known as the anterior commissure (AC)32. The anterior commissure is one of the two clusters of nerve fibers that connect the two hemispheres of the brain. It has been found to vary according to sex. The other commissure is known as the corpus callosum. The exact function of the AC is not known but it is unlikely to be directly involved in sexual behaviour. An earlier study by Allen et al. had shown that the anterior commissure is sexually dimorphic33. This nucleus was found to be 12% or 1.17 mm larger in females than in males. When Allen and Gorski compared the size of the structure in homosexual and heterosexual men, they found that it was larger in the homosexual men than in heterosexual men. The size of AC of the homosexual men was found to be 18% larger than in heterosexual men and 34% larger than in heterosexual women. ???? These numbers don’t add up…?
    1. AIDS might be a controlling factor: The researchers relied on autopsied brains, many of them from men who had died after a long period of being infected with AIDS. It is noteworthy that 24 out of the 30 homosexual subjects had AIDS while only 6 of the 30 heterosexuals died of AIDS. Although deliberate effort was made to exclude the brains of all persons who showed any evidence of pathology affecting the brain tissue, critics have pointed out that AIDS could cause subtle brain pathologies that might not be easily detected36.
    2. No proof of sexual orientation: Allen did not obtain adequate information on the sexual background of his subjects and relied on medical records to determine the sexual orientation of the subjects. We do not know how the health workers who were attending to these subjects as patients arrived at the conclusion that they were homosexual. Was it because they contracted AIDS through homosexual contact? How were they rated on the Kinsey sexual orientation scale? It was not possible to verify the sexual orientation of these subjects since they were all dead. It is also noteworthy that the ‘heterosexuals’ were classified as heterosexual if the hospital records did not indicate otherwise. Again, as with LeVay’s study, given that homosexuality is a stigmatized trait, it is likely that some of the patients who were classified as heterosexual were in fact homosexual.
    3. Size variations within each group: The significant size differences that were observed in spite of the misclassification may actually be an indication that even within each group the variation in the size of the AC was very big. What this would imply is that differences in the size of the AC might not be very helpful in distinguishing homosexuals from heterosexuals.
    4. There is no proof that the AC is even related to sexual behavior: There is no proof as yet that the anterior commissure is directly involved in regulating sexual behaviour. The only possible connection comes from the observation that homosexual men are much more likely to be stutterers, left-handed and dyslexic than heterosexual men and these conditions are related to the two brain hemispheres that are joined by the AC37–39. However, this possible connection is yet to be fully explored.
    5. There was considerable overlap between the AC sizes of the two groups. The sizes of the AC in 27 of the 30 homosexual men in the study were within the range of sizes found among the 30 heterosexual men in the control group.
    6. Assumed AC as a causal factor: the homosexual men in this particular study may have had a smaller anterior commissure as a result of years of action peculiar to a homosexual lifestyle, rather than the structure of the AC causing them to be homosexual.
    7. Does not consider a third variable: Another possibility is that there is no causal connection between sexual orientation and the size of the AC, but both co-vary under the influence of some third, unknown variable.
    8. Measurements could not be duplicated: Allen’s hypothesis has been contradicted by two separate studies, the first by Demeter et al.40 who found the AC to be larger in males than in females and a more recent one by Lasco et al.41 who failed to detect any variation in the size of the AC with either sex or sexual orientation. Studies in rats have also produced discrepant results regarding possible sexual dimorphism of the AC42,43. The contradictory nature of these findings does not allow us to conclude that the size of the anterior commissure can be used to distinguish male homosexuals from heterosexuals.
  • Summary of findings from the LeVay and Allen’s studies: This theory was recently strengthened by the finding that an area in the anterior hypothalamus in homosexual men has the anatomical form usually found in women rather than the structure typical of heterosexual males. The cluster of cells involved (INAH-3) is on average smaller in gay men (and the same size as the cluster in women), while another area, the suprachiasmatic nucleus, is twice as large. Further research [Philadelphia?] also suggests that the cables of nerves connecting the left- and right-hand sides of the brain are larger in gay men than in heterosexuals. However, some gay men have an INAH-3 nucleus which is the same size as heterosexual males and, in any case, size differences are small and may be subject to measurement errors.
  • Swaab (1990), found that the suprchiasmatic nucleus (SCN) was twice the size: D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a gay man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart [2].
  • Allen (1990s), found that the anterior commissure (AC) was significantly larger: Laura S. Allen found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Consider (Counter-Argument in favor of prenatal development of homosexuality): The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind. (See Note #1)
  • LeVay (1991), found that the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was 2-3 times smaller: Simon LeVay conducted another experiment regarding the hypothalamus of the human brain in 1991. LeVay, like Swaab and Allen also did a post-mortem examination on human brains; however, he did his examinations on patients who had died from AIDS-related illnesses. He examined 19 declared homosexual man, with a mean age of 38.2, 16 presumed heterosexual men, with a mean age of 42.8, and 6 presumed heterosexual women, with a mean age of 41.2 [3]. LeVay discovered that within the hypothalamus, the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was two to three times smaller in homosexual men then in heterosexual men. The women examined also exhibited this phenomenon. LeVay concluded the "homosexual and heterosexual men differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that control sexual behavior", and like Allen and Swaab, agreed that this difference in anatomy was no product of upbringing or environment, but rather prenatal cerebral development and structural differentiation [2]. (See Note #2)
  • Stanford, Neuroendicrine study of exposure to androgens during fetal stage of development: Another line of testing done to support the biological perspective are neuroendocrine studies. The neuroendocrine viewpoint's basic hypothesis is that sexual orientation is determined by the early levels (probably prenatal) of androgen on relevant neural structures [7]. If highly exposed to these androgens, the fetus will become masculinized, or attracted to females. This research was conducted on rats at Stanford. The adult female rats that received male-typical levels of androgens sufficiently early in development exhibited male symptoms of attraction. The same was true in the reverse when applied to the male subjects. The female exposed to high levels of the hormone exhibited high levels of aggression and sexual drive toward other females, eventually trying to mount the other females in an act of reproduction. In the males, the subject who received deficient levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rat [7]. (See Note #3)
  • Kallman, first twin study: Ernest Kallman conducted the earliest twin study. He found a 100% concordance between monozygotic (or identical) twins (MZ), and only a 12% concordance for dizygotic (or fraternal) twins (DZ). Although discredited with methodological problems, the early experiment paved the way for a much-publicized team to conduct their twin studies. (See Note #4)
  • Bailey, genetic findings from identical twins: J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard also studied the gayness between MZ twins, DZ twins, and non-related adopted brothers. They examined how many of the sample population examined were gay and how many were straight. They found that 52% of MZ twins were both self-identified homosexuals, 22% of DZ twins were so, and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so. This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time, showed to the biological camp that the more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies. (See Note #5)
  • Hamer, found ‘remarkable concordance’ for 5 genetic markers on a section of Xq28: Later experimenters found similar evidence in females. One such scientist is Dean Hamer. Hamer examined the possibility of homosexuality being an X-linked trait. He examined the family trees of openly gay men, and thought he saw a maternal link, leading him to investigate his theory of X-linkage. He took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men, and genetically examined them. He found that there was a 'remarkable concordance' for 5 genetic markers on section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28 [2]. Hamer hypothesized upon examining the family trees of the same men that on each subject's mother's side, there were markedly larger numbers of homosexual men, all stemming through the maternal lineages. This observation, along with his startling discovery on Xq28, led his findings to be dubbed the "gay gene study". The statistical probability of the 5 genetic markers on Xq28 to have matched randomly was calculated to be 1/100,000 [2], lending even more support to his findings. (See Note #6)
  • Bailey (1991): The study of homosexual identical twins by J M Bailey and J C Pillard (A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 48(1991), 1089-1096) is one example. Since identical twins have identical genes, we can expect that when one of them is homosexual, the other will necessarily be one too if homosexuality is truly genetically controlled; the correlation should be or near 100%. However, what the researchers found was that when one identical twin was gay, the other twin was gay in only 52% of cases, which is far from the expected 100%. This study shows that genes alone do not determine homosexual attractions. (See Note #1)
  • Bailey (2000): In a larger and more recent study by J M Bailey et al (Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. J: Pers. Social Psychology 78 (2000), 524-536), of the more than 14,000 twins studied, it was found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. This study reveals that environmental factors have a much bigger role in the determination of sexual attraction.
  • LeVay (1991): The other scientific study often quoted by gay activists is that of Simon LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science 253 (1991), pp. 1034-37. Neuroanatomist LeVay reported his findings that a localized cluster of cells in the brains of some heterosexual men was larger by volume (upon autopsy) than in some homosexual men. Therefore, he postulated homosexuality to be inborn. This argument is exaggerated and misleading for many reasons: Firstly, his small sample of 19 "homosexual" subjects were all male cadavers who had died of AIDS. There are scientific findings about behaviour leading to changes in brain structure. Therefore, it is possible that the diminished size of the homosexual's brain structure is caused by his behaviour, rather than his behaviour being caused by his brain structure. Additionally, the AIDS disease may have caused the difference. This was never explored. Secondly, not all of the heterosexuals' brain structure was larger. Three of them were smaller when compared to the homosexual subjects'. Additionally, three of the homosexual subjects had larger brain segments than the average heterosexual subject. Thirdly, Dr LeVay was not certain which of his subjects were truly homosexual and which were not. He admits that this represents a "distinct , shortcoming" in his study.
• Misconstrued results of pro-gay studies vs. their true findings
  • Gay-activist researcher Simon LeVay (author of the much-publicized "gay brain" research that made international headlines) has stated: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.” [8]
  • Studies with 28 pairs of male twins show that if one identical twin is gay, the other twin is three times more likely to be gay than if the twins are non-identical. This suggests a genetic component. Scientists believe the next step will be the identification of the specific genes that influence homosexual behaviour ¬ one has apparently already been traced in the Drosophila (fruit fly). (See Note #1)
  • In a separate study looking at response to body odors, researchers in Philadelphia found sharp differences between gay and straight men and women. "Our findings support the contention that gender preference has a biological component that is reflected in both the production of different body odors and in the perception of and response to body odors," said neuroscientist Charles Wysocki, who led the study. (See Flaw A) It's hard to see how a simple choice to be gay or lesbian would influence the production of body odor, he said. (See Flaw B) Wysocki's team at the Monell Chemical Senses Center studied the response of 82 heterosexual and homosexual men and heterosexual and homosexual women to the odors of underarm sweat collected from 24 donors of varied gender and sexual orientation. (See Note A) They found that gay men differed from heterosexual men and women and from lesbian women, both in terms of which body odors gay men preferred and how their own body odors were regarded by the other groups. (See Note B) Gay men preferred odors from gay men, while odors from gay men were the least preferred by heterosexual men and women and by lesbian women in the study. Their findings, released Monday, are to be published in the journal Psychological Science in September.
  • A study done at the University of Texas in March 1998 found that the inner ears of gay women work more like those of men. The discovery adds new support to the theory that sexual orientation may be predisposed before birth. (See Flaw #1) Previous research has found that two parts of the male brain are different in gay and heterosexual men. Other studies have found that some genes differ between gay and straight men. In the study to be published Tuesday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers at the University of Texas, Austin, said they found the inner ears of female homosexuals have undergone "masculinization,'' probably from hormone exposure before birth. (See Flaw #2) "Their auditory centers have been masculinized and the presumption is that so have the sites in the brain that direct sexual preference,'' said Dennis McFadden, the lead author of the study. It has yet to be proven, however, that there is a specific site in the brain that directs women to be lesbians, he said. (See Flaw #3) Dr. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, said the research is "compelling'' and may be ``consistent with the biological origin of lesbianism.'' (See Note #2) Bailey cautioned, however, that the research will not be accepted as valid until others replicate the experiment. (See Note #3) Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, said the study supports the theory that lesbianism may be "related to early factors in brain development.'' (See Flaw #4) The inner ear difference between homosexual and heterosexual women was detected using a test that measures the function of the cochlea, a key sound amplifier in the inner ear, said McFadden, a professor of experimental psychology. The cochlea amplifier in women is more sensitive than that of men, giving women an increased ability to detect very soft sounds in a very quiet room. The test measures a very slight sound that the cochlea makes when responding to a soft clicking sound. Females, with their more sensitive cochlea, respond more powerfully to this test than do men, said McFadden. This is true even among infants. To test for differences between the sexes, the researchers recruited more than 200 adults divided into four groups: homosexual women and men, and heterosexual women and men. Some from each of the four groups were later identified as bisexual. The sexual orientation of the subjects was determined by questionnaire. The results, McFadden said, indicated that lesbians had click-responses that were significantly weaker than those of heterosexual women. The signal was weaker still for all males, both gay and straight. Bisexual men and women were in the middle, although McFadden said there were not enough of these to draw firm conclusions. (See Flaw #5, 6, and 7) It also is known that development of the inner ear is affected before birth by androgens, a male hormone. Androgens, said McFadden, may also "alter the brain centers that produce sexual orientation." But he said researchers have yet to find a brain structure that determines sexual orientation in women. (See Note #4) The Texas scientists said they found the inner ears of lesbians have undergone "masculinization," probably from excess exposure to male hormones before birth. (Flaw #8) "Their auditory centers have been masculinized and the presumption is that so have the sites in the brain that direct sexual preference," said Dennis McFadden, the lead author of the study. (See Flaw #9) Researchers stress that while science can measure trends among groups, it cannot predict sexual orientation for individuals, a caution that lesbian Laura Brown of Atlanta agrees with. The prospect that women might be tested and given hormones to control their sexuality is "frightening," says Brown.
  • UCLA Study, October 2003: Some argue that this study proves that sexual orientation is genetic. Psychologist Warren Throckmorton disagreed. "All this study really suggests," he noted in an opinion piece published by the web site of Grove City College, "is that genes may play a role in creating the differences in male and female brains. This is not news; researchers have known this for a long time." But the study, Throckmorton said, has nothing to do with the formation of sexual orientation. Throckmorton, Director of College Counseling and an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grove City College, expressed his frustration at the misleading and inacccurate news reports. "No wonder the public is confused about this issue. The reporting has made inferences that are not at all warranted by the study itself." (See Note #1) Lead researcher Dr. Eric Valain maintained that "This is not about finding the gay gene." The Vilain team was actually studying the factors that cause the masculinization and feminization of the brain, and did not look for factors that influence sexual orientation. In fact, the published results of his study do not even include the word "homosexuality." But then, discussing the social-political policies he supports should such a gene someday be found, Dr. Vilain added, "If you can't do anything about [homosexuality]...you should have all the rights to be integrated into society and have the same rights as heterosexuals in terms of marriage and the rights to inheritance." (hm… maybe… but the thing is that you can do something about it, even if it is genetic – see research cited in the NARTH letter) “NARTH does not disagree that biological factors lead some people to feel a sense of masculine or feminine deficit. But when gender identity is influenced by a set of unusual biological factors that make a man feel like a woman, wouldn't that in fact be something abnormal--a biological developmental error?" – Linda Nicolosi, NARTH. Most of the news-service articles omitted mention of the fact that this study was conducted upon mice, not human beings. NARTH Vice-President, Dr. A Dean Byrd, commented on the irony of that omission. "There is no animal model that accurately reflects human sexuality," Dr. Byrd noted. "Pigs don't date, ducks don't go to church and mice don't fall in love." (HUGE PROBLEM)
• The current study’s flaws and manipulation of its results
  1. The study, published in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was done by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.
  2. They exposed heterosexual men and women and homosexual men to chemicals derived from male and female sex hormones. These chemicals are thought to be pheromones — molecules known to trigger responses such as defense and sex in many animals. (See Flaw #1)
  3. The brains of different groups responded similarly to ordinary odors such as lavender, but differed in their response to the chemicals thought to be pheromones, lead researcher Ivanka Savic said.
  4. The Swedish researchers divided 36 subjects into three groups — heterosexual men, heterosexual women and homosexual men. They studied the brain response to sniffing the chemicals, using PET scans. All the subjects were healthy, unmedicated, right-handed and HIV-negative.
  5. When they sniffed scents like cedar or lavender, all of the subjects' brains reacted only in the olfactory region that handles smells.
  6. But when confronted by a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains active in sexual activity were activated in straight women and in gay men, but not in straight men, the researchers found.
  7. The response in gay men and straight women was concentrated in the hypothalamus with a maximum in the preoptic area that is active in hormonal and sensory responses necessary for sexual behavior, the researchers said. (See Flaw #2)
  8. When the female hormone estrogen was used, there was only a response in the olfactory portion of the brains of straight women. Homosexual men had their primary response also in the olfactory area, with a very small reaction in the hypothalamus, while heterosexual men responded strongly in the reproductive region of the brain. (See Note #1)
  9. Sandra Witelson said that the findings clearly show a biological involvement in sexual orientation. (See Flaw #3)
  10. Savic said the group is also doing a study involving homosexual women, but those results are not yet complete. (See Note #2)
  11. The Swedish research was funded by the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Karolinska Institute and the Magnus Bergvall Foundation. Wysocki's research was supported by the Monell Center. (See Note *)
  12. Gay men’s brains respond differently from those of heterosexual males when exposed to a sexual stimulus, researchers have found. The homosexual men’s brains responded more like those of women when the men sniffed a chemical from the male hormone testosterone. (See Flaw #1)
  13. Purpose of the study: The Swedish study was one of a series looking at whether parts of the brain involved in reproduction differ in response to odors and pheromones, lead researcher Ivanka Savic said.
• Studies that ended up with anti-Gay results
• Dr. Spitzer’s findings & the homosexual community’s reaction
  • Spitzer silenced for dissenting view: Dr Robert L Spitzer is an American professor of psychiatry who is now paying the price for publicly suggesting that any change in homosexual orientation is possible. He was initially hailed as a hero by gay activists for spearheading the removal of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder in 1973. However, when he found that a group of homosexuals could change their sexual orientation and announced his findings at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in 2001, he immediately became the public enemy of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in America. Prominent psychologists, psychiatrists and gay activists promptly lobbied for his removal from the Columbia University where he works. (See Note #2)
  • A 16-month study done by Robert Spitzer, M.D., consisting of 247 individuals who had responded successfully to reorientation therapy, was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October, 2003, pages 403-417. Eleven percent of the males and 37% of the females indicated a complete change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Dr. Spitzer-- who has long been (and still is) a strong ally of the gay community--is now convinced that change is possible and can be beneficial. Tolerance, Acceptance, Legitimacy, and Rights
• Freedom to dissent: Tolerance must encompass the freedom to discuss whether homosexuality is good and right. This freedom must be available to all. (See Note #3)

  Home