The Revival of Phrenology

I read an article in New York Magazine called "The Science of Gaydar". It's long, but I'd recommend you at least glance at it.

We all know what "gaydar" is. Right? The ability to discern whether or not a person is homosexual. The author of the article, who is gay, wonders whether or not there's a scientific basis for "gaydar". That is to say: if homosexuality is innate, then might the genes that cause homosexuality also cause other traits? And, if there are other traits, would it be possible for a person to detect them?

Now, I'm not going to attempt to argue whether or not homosexuality is biological or cultural. I'm also not going to argue about the scientific basis of gaydar, except to say that telling someone's sexual orientation by the length or their index finger or the whorl of their hair sounds a bit like phrenology.

All that aside. The thing that most struck me about the article was this: When special interest groups drive science, it's bound to lead to disaster. What if geneticists say they can prove homosexuality in gays but not in lesbians? Or in gays/lesbians, but not in bi-sexuals or transgendered invididuals? You could imagine what would happen.

David France (the author) says it himself: "Politically, there is something very powerful about the notion that sexual orientation is a matter of biology, not choice." Another man quoted in the article says, "If I could tell my mother it’s a gene, she would be so happy"...

It makes me sad, the plaintive tone of their statements. But it also illustrates a prevalent current in homosexual research: find me an answer to what I already feel to be true. And if you bring me an answer that I am unprepared to believe in...I will reject it.