NPR Letters on the Biological Basis of Homosexuality

This is an early draft of an article I recently published, with Richard Pillard, in the Har!ard "ental Health Letter entitled something li#e The Innateness of $exual %rientation& '(opyright be damned&) *nfortunately, I don+t discuss Hamer+s recent ,-lin#age finding in $cience& ................................................................ ................ Recently much media attention has focused on the /uestion of what causes some people to be homosexual and others to be heterosexual& There are at least two reasons for this attention& 0irst, gay rights issues ha!e been prominent on the national agenda, and some commentators ha!e argued that etiology is pertinent to their resolution& $econd, scientists ha!e recently reported se!eral studies supporting the possibility that sexual orientation is primarily innate, rather than psychosocially determined& The worth and implications of these studies ha!e been hotly debated& 1e belie!e that at least some of the studies are scientifically !aluable and that biological theories of sexual orientation are the most promising currently being in!estigated& Two lines of e!idence suggest that sexual orientation is influenced by innate processes2 neuroendocrine 'including neuroanatomical) and genetic studies& Neuroendocrine theories are more fully de!eloped and ha!e spurred far more research& 3t the same time, howe!er, cumulati!e empirical support for neuroendocrine influences is perhaps more tenuous than that for genetic influences& Neuroendocrine Studies Neuroendocrine !iews were originally moti!ated by the obser!ation that gay men are li#e most women in being attracted to men4 lesbians are li#e most men in their attraction patterns& The neuroendocrine !iew posits a process that is analogous to the differentiation of the external genitalia, about which much is #nown& 3t the ris# of o!ersimplifying, the basic neuroendocrine hypothesis is that sexual orientation is determined by the early 'probably prenatal) effects of androgens on rele!ant neural structures& If these structures are effecti!ely exposed to high le!els of androgens, then they are masculini5ed, and attraction to women will result in adulthood& If they are not exposed to high le!els of androgens 'either because there are low amounts of androgens or because the rele!ant tissues are insensiti!e to their effects), the structures do not masculini5e, and attraction to men will result& $e!eral lines of research support the li#elihood of neurohormonal influences on human sexual orientation, and we consider them from the least to the most direct& $tudies of rodents ha!e shown clearly that some sex-typical sexual beha!ior can be affected by altering early androgen le!els& 3dult female rats and mice that

recei!ed male-typical doses of androgens sufficiently early will, under certain circumstances, display some male mating beha!iors such as mounting and reduced lordosis& (on!ersely, males depri!ed of early androgens will show the opposite pattern of beha!ior& It has been widely ac#nowledged--by both sides of the biology debate--that neither mounting nor lordosis beha!ior is directly analogous to human sexual orientation, in which the sex of attraction is primary& Ne!ertheless, these studies ha!e been heuristically !aluable in suggesting how sex-typical beha!ior differentiates under the influence of early androgen exposure& 0urthermore, some recent studies of !arious nonhuman species ha!e supported the possibility of neuroendocrine influences on preference for male !ersus female partners& Perhaps the single most reliable finding in all of homosexology is that gay men and lesbians recall, on a!erage, substantially more gender atypical beha!ior in childhood than do heterosexuals of the same sex& 6ay men often report that they were considered 7sissies,8 and lesbians 7tomboys,8 though there are plenty of exceptions in both groups& This supports the idea that homosexual people ha!e been sub9ect to some influences more typical of the opposite sex and is thus consistent with a neuroendocrine hypothesis& 0urthermore, studies of primates including humans ha!e shown that some patterns of sex-typical childhood beha!ior can be altered if fetuses are exposed to unusual le!els of androgens& 0emale rhesus mon#eys exposed prenatally to high le!els of androgen show ele!ated rates of male-typical 'rough-and-tumble) play beha!ior& $imilar findings ha!e come from studies of girls and women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia '(3H)& (3H is a genetic disorder that causes a fetus to secrete large amounts of androgens from the adrenal glands, enough so that newborn girls with the condition often ha!e !irili5ed genitalia& $e!eral studies ha!e found high rates of masculine beha!ior in girls with (3H, including preference for masculine toys, increased rough-and-tumble play acti!ity, and other 7tomboyish8 beha!ior& :!en more importantly, some studies ha!e found ele!ated rates of homosexual feelings among adult women with (3H compared to control women& 1omen prenatally exposed to ;:$, a chemical that causes masculini5ation of sexual beha!ior in some animals, also ha!e an ele!ated rate of homosexual feelings& 3t the same time, it should be noted that only a minority of women with a history of ;:$ exposure or (3H admit to homosexual feelings& 0urthermore, there is no model of male homosexuality that maps as neatly onto the hypothesi5ed neuroendocrine route as does (3H for female homosexuality& The study most rele!ant to neuroendocrine theories of male homosexuality, and certainly the most widely-discussed biological finding, is that of $imon Le<ay& Le<ay examined the brains of gay men who had died of 3I;$, as well as those of presumably heterosexual men and women who had died of a !ariety of causes& He studied cell-groups 'nuclei) in an area of the hypothalamus that had been implicated by animal wor# as important to sexually-dimorphic sexual beha!ior& Two of the nuclei had pre!iously been shown to be larger in men than

in women, and Le<ay found the same sex difference for one of the nuclei 'IN3H=) when he compared heterosexual men and women& "ore important for sexual orientation, he found that IN3H-= was as small in gay as in heterosexual women& The differences were statistical rather than absolute, i&e&, there were some gay men and heterosexual women with IN3H-= as large as those of most heterosexual men& This shows that the si5e of IN3H-= cannot be the sole cause of sexual orientation4 indeed, it may not be a cause at all& But it does suggest that some aspects of the brain>s sexual differentiation are shared by gay men and heterosexual women, and it is noteworthy that these include a portion of the brain that animal wor# shows to be in!ol!ed in sexual beha!ior& Le<ay>s study has been intensi!ely scrutini5ed, and se!eral criticisms ha!e been made& These include the concern that the difference may ha!e been due to 3I;$, that the 7heterosexual8 sample could ha!e included some homosexual sub9ects 'because medical records did not include sexual histories), and that the obser!ed difference could ha!e been an effect, rather than a cause, of homosexuality& These criticisms are unimpressi!e& $ome of the heterosexual men died of 3I;$ as well, and their a!erage IN3H-= !olume was no smaller than that of heterosexual men who died of other causes& Recent sur!eys ha!e suggested that the incidence of homosexuality is rather low, and so it is unli#ely that the heterosexual control groups contained a significant proportion of homosexual people& '3nd if they had, Le<ay would ha!e been e!en less li#ely to find the results he did&) 0inally, although the possibility that the anatomical differences resulted from beha!ioral differences cannot be dismissed altogether, research on some other mammalian species suggests that sex differences in the hypothalamus de!elop early in response to innate hormonal influences and are not modified by later experiences& 3t least one other neuroanatomical study has found an association between male sexual orientation and brain structure that trac#s the heterosexual sex difference& Laura 3llen and Roger 6ors#i found the anterior commissure of the corpus callosum to be relati!ely larger in heterosexual women and homosexual men compared with heterosexual men& This portion of the brain is unli#ely to be directly in!ol!ed in sexual beha!ior& Rather, the study suggests that neuroendocrine influences may ha!e more general effects& Genetic Studies %ur own wor# has in!estigated the origins of sexual orientation using techni/ues from human beha!ioral genetics& 1e ha!e attempted to elucidate the degree to which people who differ in their sexual orientations do so for genetic !ersus en!ironmental reasons& Both male and female sexual orientation run in families, with gay men ha!ing more gay brothers and lesbians more lesbian sisters than do same-sex heterosexuals& 'It is less clear at this point if gay men ha!e more lesbian sisters, and !ice !ersa&) %f course, this is insufficient to show that genes matter, because a trait can run in families for en!ironmental reasons as well

'e&g&, (atholicism)& In order to distinguish between genetic and familial en!ironmental influences, more sophisticated designs are necessary& Perhaps the most widely used design in human beha!ioral genetics is the classical twin study, in which mono5ygotic '"?) and di5ygotic ';?) twin pairs are examined for their similarity on the trait of interest& The rationale for this design is that because both "? and ;? twins are typically reared together, they are e/ually similar en!ironmentally& Howe!er, "? twins are identical to each other genetically, while ;? twins are only as genetically similar as ordinary brothers& Thus, if "? twins are more similar than ;? twins on a!erage in their sexual orientation, the importance of genetic factors is supported& 3n explicit assumption of this design is that the en!ironmental factors important for sexual orientation are no more similar for "? than for ;? twins& This e/ual en!ironments assumption has been critici5ed& Howe!er, in studies of other personality traits, those aspects of the en!ironment that are particularly similar for "? twins 'such as being dressed ali#e) ha!e not appeared to be !ery important in causing beha!ioral similarity& There ha!e been se!eral twin studies of sexual orientation& The earliest, by 0ran5 @allmann in ABCD, found an ama5ing AEEF concordance rate among =G male "? twin pairs, compared to a much lower rate of ADF for DH male ;? twin pairs& @allmann+s study had enough methodological problems that its specific results, particularly the AEEF "? concordance rate, cannot be ta#en !ery seriously& %n the other hand, no one has pro!ided a satisfying explanation of how the methodological problems could wholly discredit e!idence for genetic influences& Thus, it is somewhat surprising to us that nearly IE years passed before others attempted to follow up his promising results systematically& The largest genetic studies to date ha!e been our own, one with men and one with women& These studies included not only "? and ;? twins, but a third group, homosexual sub9ects with adopti!ely-related same-sex siblings, who are genetically least similar and thus should be least similar in their sexual orientations& %ur two studies obtained results that were /uite similar to each other& In the male study, "? twins of our gay index sub9ects had a CDF chance also of being gay, compared to a DDF rate for their ;? twins and an AAF chance for their adopti!e brothers& In the female study, "? twins had a IJF chance of also being lesbian, compared to a AHF rate for ;? twins and a HF rate for adopti!e sisters& Note that similarity in sexual orientation corresponded closely with genetic similarity in both studies& Kuantitati!e analyses pro!ide heritability estimates of the relati!e proportion of genetic causation, and our heritabilities were consistently abo!e CEF& Thus, both studies were consistent with moderate to strong genetic influences on sexual orientation& %f course, both studies yielded figures lower than the AEEF suggested by @allmann& Two newer twin studies more or less supported ours& %ne found concordance rates that were lower than ours, the other found higher rates, but both found "? higher than ;? rates&

3ll recent studies find that "? twins often differ in their sexual orientations, which shows that sexual orientation cannot be completely explained by genes& :n!ironment must play its part& %n the other hand, we emphasi5e that en!ironmental pathways can be biological as well as psychosocial& %ne of the most interesting /uestions to stem from the recent twin studies is what en!ironmental factor could affect "? twins differently enough to gi!e them opposite sexual orientations& %ne other twin study is worth mentioning because it contained what many consider to be the ideal 'if rare) sub9ects2 twins reared apart& In this study both of two male pairs were concordant for adult homosexual feelings and beha!ior, which would be highly unli#ely if genetic factors were unimortant& 3lthough none of four female pairs was concordant, this sample was too small to be conclusi!e4 of course it pro!ided no support for genetic factors affecting female sexual orientation& 3lthough we belie!e the a!ailable e!idence is strongly suggesti!e of genetic influence on sexual orientation for both men and women, one serious methodological limitation of a!ailable studies pre!ent them from being definiti!e& The studies ha!e recruited sub9ects !ia ad!ertising in gay- and lesbian-oriented publications& They may ha!e had an o!errepresentation of concordant pairs because such studies might be more appealing to gay men and women with gay twins& $uch bias is not !ery serious unless it was stronger for "? than for ;? twins, and we ha!e no reason to suspect that such differential bias occurred& But only a study using systematic ascertainment could exclude this possibility, and unfortunately none exists& Research that helps settle some /uestions raises new ones& By what pathway do genes lead to the expression of atypical childhood beha!ior and homosexual orientationL %ur studies ha!e usually been discussed as supporti!e of neuroendocrine theories, and genetic influences might indeed be neuroendocrine& %ne could imagine a gene that led a fetus to secrete unusually high or low le!els of prenatal androgens during brain differentiation, or alternati!ely, to be especially sensiti!e or insensiti!e to androgens& But genetic influences on sexual orientation would not ha!e to be neuroendocrine in nature& 0or example, genes could influence personality 'say, independent thin#ing or uncon!entionality) that could increase the chance of adopting a homosexual identity& 0or reasons we discuss later, we doubt that the indirect route through personality is typical, and instead belie!e that genetic influences operate !ia a neuroendocrine pathway& But our studies ha!e had nothing so far to say about this& The Biology Debate 3 thorough and thoughtful criti/ue of the biological e!idence has been pro!ided by Byne and Parsons, in a recent !ersion of 3rchi!es of 6eneral Psychiatry&

They argue that the biological case is /uite wea#& Byne has asserted that re!iewing the biological e!idence is a#in to adding 5eroes because no one study is methodologically strong enough to establish the biological case definiti!ely& 1hile we agree that no one study has established the case for biological factors, we disagree that their sum is 5ero e!idence in fa!or of biological hypotheses& It is difficult if not impossible to do perfect studies using human sub9ects& But if different #inds of studies with different research strategies 'with different methodological inade/uacies) con!erge to similar conclusions, then the critic who re9ects the cumulati!e e!idence begins to sound strained& 0or example, disregarding other research one might reasonably worry 'as Byne and Parsons do) about the role of postnatal sociali5ation of girls with (3H, since some are born with !irili5ed genitalia and they and their parents #now about their condition, and for this reason may be treated more li#e boys& But what if one #nows that the only studies that ha!e in!estigated this possibility ha!e failed to confirm itL 0urthermore, it has been well-established that androgen administered at critical periods can masculini5e female rhesus mon#ey+s play and sexual beha!iors& How li#ely is it that the apparently analogous beha!ioral masculini5ation of some (3H females has a completely separate explanationL 3 second complaint we ha!e of Byne and Parsons+ otherwise useful criti/ue is its one-sided perfectionism& $cientific theories are not e!aluated in a !acuum& Rather, their e!identiary basis and plausibility are compared to those of the competition& There ha!e been two main psychosocial competitors to innate theories of sexual orientation2 psychoanalysis and sociali5ation theory& Psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality, which ha!e stressed the role of family psychodynamics, suffer from the same well-#nown problems as does the corpus of psychoanalysis, particularly the inade/uacy of impressionistic data collected during psychotherapy under uncontrolled conditions& 3lthough there has been some support for the psychoanalytic prediction that fathers are somewhat distant from their gay sons, this is a rather small effect that is easy to explain on other grounds, such as fathers+ intolerance of their sons+ gender-atypical beha!ior& In contrast to psychoanalytic theory, which has largely been abandoned by mainstream science, theories describing the sociali5ation of gender roles are /uite respectable& 1e are certain that some sex differences result from sociali5ation by parents, peers, and society& 1e are nearly as certain that differential sociali5ation by these agents cannot explain why some people become homosexual and others heterosexual& 0or example, there is no good e!idence suggesting that parents of homosexual people sociali5e their children differently than do parents of heterosexual people4 indeed, the a!ailable e!idence suggests they do not& $ociali5ation theory of sex differences emphasi5es processes such as positi!e reinforcement of con!entional gender norms and modeling& But in our society homosexual people are ob!iously not rewarded for their uncon!entional beha!ior, and the !ast ma9ority of their potential role models are heterosexual& If anything, sociali5ation mechanisms in our society ha!e been arranged to insure heterosexual outcomes&

Byne and Parsons recogni5e the necessity of pro!iding a plausible competitor to the theories they critici5e& Their attempt is an amalgam of psychoanalytic and sociali5ation theories, suggesting that boys with certain familial influences and 'genetically-influenced) personality traits might ha!e unusual nonerotic experiences in childhood that may contribute to the subse/uent emergence of homoerotic preferences& This theory has the unusual dual deficiencies of !agueness and implausibility& It is !ague because the personality traits, familial influences, and childhood experiences are mostly unspecified& It is implausible because, for example, there is no personality characteristic besides childhood gender typicality that has been shown to differ between homosexual and heterosexual people& Thus, Byne and Parsons ha!e failed to pro!ide a plausible alternati!e theory to explain the data that biological theories ha!e generated and more generally, to account for the de!elopment of sexual orientation& 1e do not argue that the biological e!idence is strong enough to settle the debate o!er origins of sexual orientation& 1e ac#nowledge the need for replication of the most promising studies, including Le<ay+s, 3llen and 6ors#i+s, and our own& Ne!ertheless, we are far more optimistic than some critics of the biological e!idence about the ultimate utility of biological approaches for explaining human sexual orientation& The biological theories are far more promising than any existing psychosocial theory, and they deser!e the attention of scientists and funding agencies so that the biology debate can be resol!ed in the laboratory, as it certainly cannot be in these pages& 0rom alGACMyfn&ysu&edu Tue Nun DG DD2EA2CJ ABBC ;ate2 1ed, DJ Nun ABBC EA2DE2AG -EIEE HOMOSEXUAL T!" T#S N !OU$ GENES %NOT &UST !OU$ &EANS'( )art Mitch *ing +harlottes,ille- .A 13$HIN6T%N, B= Nul AHO3 group of researchers from the National Institutes of Health ha!e disco!ered statistical e!idence that one form of male homosexuality is genetically transmitted from mothers to their sons through the , chromosome& The study in!ol!ed pedigree and ;N3 lin#age analyses on AAI families of homosexual men&

$ub9ects included GH self-ac#nowledged homosexual men and their relati!es o!er age AJ recruited through a 1ashington ;( HI< clinic and local homophile organi5ations, and =J pairs of homosexual brothers and their relati!es recruited through ad!ertisements in local and national homophile publications& Participants were white non-Hispanic 'BDF), 3frican 3merican 'IF), Hispanic '=F), and 3sian 'AF)& $exual orientation was assessed by the @insey scales, and sub9ects rated themsel!es on four aspects of their sexuality2 self-identification, attraction, fantasy, and beha!ior& "ost of the men 'a!erage age =H) reported experiencing their first same-sex attraction by age AE, which was prior to the a!erage age of puberty 'age AD)& 0or the first sample, 'the GH men from the 1ashington ;( area), ;& H& Hamer, $& Hu, <& L& "agnuson, N& Hu, and 3& "& L& Pattatucci found that A=&CF of the brothers, G&=F of the maternal uncles, and G&GF of the sons of maternal aunts of homosexual men were self-ac#nowledged homosexuals--compared to the bac#ground rate of DF which was an estimate obtained from GAG randomly selected males who were the sub9ects of pre!ious research& %ther significant findings were that C&IF of the sisters of homosexual men were selfac#nowledged lesbians '!ersus a AF bac#ground rate), and I&GF of the of the brothers of lesbians were self-ac#nowledged homosexuals '!ersus a DF bac#ground rate)& Homosexuality among fathers and all other types of paternally related relati!es of the homosexual sub9ects was not significantly greater than the bac#ground rate& 3lthough higher than the bac#ground rates, the obser!ed rates of homosexuality in the maternally deri!ed uncles and male cousins of gay men in the first sample were lower than would be expected for a simple "endelian trait, so the researchers hypothesi5ed that there might be at least two types of male homosexuality--one which was male-limited and maternally inherited !ersus one which was sporadic, not sex-limited, or not maternally transmitted& To test this hypothesis, Hamer et al& recruited the second sample--the =J families in which there were two homosexual brothers& If their hypothesis concerning the existence of two types of homosexuality was correct, one would expect to see higher rates of male homosexuality in the maternally deri!ed relati!es of the second sample than in the first, and indeed, this is what was obser!ed2 AE&=F of the maternal uncles and AD&BF of the sons of maternal aunts of the homosexual brothers were, themsel!es, selfac#nowledged homosexuals& Rates of homosexuality among the paternally deri!ed male relati!es were unchanged, or decreased compared to the first sample& 0or the lin#age analysis, ;N3 from IE pairs of homosexual brothers '=J from the sib- pair pedigree study, and D from the random sample) and from their a!ailable mothers and siblings was studied and typed for a series of DD mar#ers that span the , chromosome& 3 significant lin#age between homosexual orientation and

mar#ers in a region of the , chromosome #nown as ,/DJ was detected--== sibpairs 'JD&CF) had inherited the same genetic information at all fi!e mar#ers within this region, whereas G pairs 'AG&CF) showed differences at one or more mar#ers& The probability that such coinheritance could occur by chance alone is much less than A&EF& 3s the research report states, it appears that ,/DJ contains a gene that contributes to homosexual orientation in males & The G pairs 'AG&CF) of homosexual brothers who did not coinherit all of the ,/DJ mar#ers suggest that other factors, including nongenetic ones, play a role in determining sexual orientation& There was no significant e!idence for lin#age between sexual orientation and mar#ers lying outside of ,/DJ, howe!er, the researchers ac#nowledge that a much larger sample would be re/uired to stringently eliminate all other regions from playing a role in sexual de!elopment in a small proportion of families& Reference2 Hamer, ;& H&, Hu, $&, "agnuson, <& L&, Hu, N&, and Pattatucci, 3& "& L& 3 Lin#age Between ;N3 "ar#ers on the , (hromosome and "ale $exual %rientation , $cience, <ol DHA, =DA-=DG, AH Nul B=& $cience is published wee#ly by the 3merican 3ssociation for the 3d!ancement of $cience, 1ashington, ;(& *nrestricted reproduction or electronic transmission is authori5ed when due credit is gi!en to the author& HOMOSEXUAL T!" T#S N !OU$ GENES %NOT &UST !OU$ &EANS'( )art Mitch *ing +harlottes,ille- .A 13$HIN6T%N, BI ;ec--Two (anadian researchers ha!e disco!ered a statistical relationship between the number of ridges on men+s fingertips and homosexuality, contributing additional e!idence to the theory that sexual orientation can be influenced by biological e!ents that occur at conception or early in fetal life& $pecifically, N& 3& P& Hall and ;& @imura of the *ni!ersity of 1estern %ntario examined the fingerprints of HH homosexual and AJD heterosexual men, comparing the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the left hand with the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the right hand& If the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the left hand exceeds the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the right hand, one+s

fingerprints are said to exhibit leftward directional asymmetry& Hall and @imura found such leftward directional asymmetry in the fingerprints of =EF of their homosexual sub9ects !ersus AIF of their heterosexuals& $exual orientation was measured by ha!ing all sub9ects ran# themsel!es, in terms of fantasy and experience, !ia the @insey scale& The number of ridges on the fingertips is largely determined at the moment of conception by genetics, sub9ect to modification by local en!ironmental factors 'local hormone le!els, etc&) up to the AHth wee# of fetal life& %nly extensi!e mechanical damage alters the number of ridges after this time& 3ccording to Hall and @imura, a significant statistical correlation between a prenatally determined characteristic such as one+s fingerprints and an adult beha!ioral trait such as one+s sexual orientation is consistent with pre!ious research suggesting an early biological contribution to adult sexual orientation& Reference2 Hall, N& 3& P& and @imura, ;& ;ermatoglyphic 3symmetry and $exual %rientation in "en , Beha!ioral Neuroscience, <ol& AEJ, No& H, ADE=-ADEH, ;ec BI& Beha!ioral Neuroscience is published bimonthly by the 3merican Psychological 3ssociation, 1ashington, ;(& *nrestricted reproduction or electronic transmission is authori5ed when due credit is gi!en to the author& -------------------------- :nd of 3ttachment ---------------------------------------------- soc&support&youth&gay-lesbian-bi info --------------Q3rticles should be posted normally or mailed to glb-youthMucsd&edu Q"oderator contact address2 glb-youth-re/uestMucsd&edu Q111 home page and 03K2 http2 RRwww&youth&orgRssyglb ,-3dded2 1ith 0lames 'acs SRe!ision2 A&=H S) Return-path2 TmtDDUMandrew&cmu&edu ,-3ndrew-3uthenticated-as2 ADJH=4andrew&cmu&edu4"ar# Thomas Recei!ed2 from mcdi!itt&res&andrew&cmu&edu !ia trymail for bbUassocs&outMandrew&cmu&edu

I; TRafsRandrew&cmu&eduRusrERbbR"ailboxRsfHHc66EEawPI2t*IC4 Thu, G Nan ABB= AD2=H2AJ -ECEE ':$T) Recei!ed2 from mcdi!itt&res&andrew&cmu&edu !ia /mail I; TRafsRandrew&cmu&eduRusrARmtDDR&%utgoingRK0&gfHHcH%EEawP32s:dy4 Thu, G Nan ABB= AD2=H2EJ -ECEE ':$T) Recei!ed2 from "essages&G&AC&N&(*ILIB&=&IC&$N3P&N%T&LIN@:;&mcdi!itt&res&andrew&cmu&edu &pmax&ulI !ia "$&C&H&mcdi!itt&res&andrew&cmu&edu&pmax.ulI4 Thu, G Nan ABB= AD2=H2EH -ECEE ':$T) "essage-I;2 TsfHHcH(EEawPE.s:*EMandrew&cmu&edu ;ate2 Thu, G Nan ABB= AD2=H2EH -ECEE ':$T) 0rom2 "ar# Thomas TmthomasUM("*&:;* ,-3ndrew-"essage-$i5e2 DDEJUE (ontent-Type2 ,-B:D4 AD If-Type-*nsupported2 alter To2 Bulletin Board 3dministration TbbUassocs&outMandrew&cmu&edu $ub9ect2 0wd2 Homosexuality in the animal #ingdom References2 T0#insey*RHda.=N=Mclarinet&com VbegindataWtext,ABADCDCHX Vtextds!ersionWADX VtemplateWmessagesX 0rom clari&feature&#insey2 ---------- 0orwarded message begins here ----------

0rom2 clarinewsMclarinet&com ';r& Nune "& Reinisch, Ph&;&) Newsgroups2 clari&feature&#insey $ub9ect2 Homosexuality in the animal #ingdom "essage-I;2 T0#insey*RHda.=N=Mclarinet&com ;ate2 G Nan B= EC2EJ2E= 6"T

Nan& =, ABB=

;ear ;r& Reinisch2 Ha!e you e!er heard of homosexual practices among wild animalsL I ne!er ha!e& If it doesn+t occur, I thin# that could be real e!idence that people, too, are not YYborn that way++ but that it is a learned trait& I thin# it is also /uite li#ely that homosexual and other sexual practices are addicti!e& 3n addicted person would no doubt feel li#e he was born that way& ;ear Reader2 Than# you for your letter& I first want to say that homosexuality, li#e heterosexuality and bisexuality, is a sexual orientation, not a sexual practice& $exual orientation has more to do with whom you YYfall in lo!e++ with and feel passion towards than sexual acti!ity -- the sex of the partner you are attracted to directs whether the beha!ior is homo 'same sex) or hetero 'other sex) sexual& 3s far as we #now, non-human animals do not fall in lo!e or experience passion& Their sexual beha!ior, which is almost entirely hormonally induced and occurs during !ery brief periods in most species, is lin#ed to their fertility cycles& $exual beha!ior between animals of the same sex has been found in in!ertebrates 'fruit flies)4 birds 'certain gulls, geese, duc#s, tur#eys)4 'domestic or held capti!e) mammals 'bulls, cows, horses, antelopes, boars, rams, sheep, dogs, cats)4 and primates 'stumptail maca/ue, pigtail maca/ue, rhesus mon#eys, (atarrhine mon#eys, Napanese maca/ues, Hanuman langurs, !er!ets, s/uirrel mon#eys, chimpan5ees, pygmy chimpan5ees and mountain gorillas)& @eep in mind that this is 9ust a partial list& 3nd that, in certain cases, scientists ha!e only obser!ed same-sex beha!ior under certain circumstances 'in the wild or in capti!ity) andRor among only females or males of a particular species& ';r& Reinisch is director of the @insey Institute for Research in $ex, 6ender and Reproduction, Indiana *ni!ersity-Bloomington&) (opyright ABB=, *nited 0eature $yndicate, Inc& VenddataWtext,ABADCDCHX

Here is the 333$ press release regarding the Hamer study which will appear in this wee#+s $cience& 0ollowing, is N%6L$TP+s press release regarding the matter& - - - - - PR:$$ R:L:3$:- - - - - - :mbargoed 3d!ance Information from $cience Release Hpm :$T Thursday, AC Nuly ABB= $ummary of 3 Lin#age Between ;N3 "ar#ers on the , (hromosome and "ale $exual %rientation, by ;ean Hamer, $tella Hu, <ictoria "agnuson, Nan Hu, and 3ngela Pattatucci at the National (ancer Institute, NIH, in Bethesda ";& ;N3 mar#ers lin# male homosexuality to , chromosome2 Re- searchers at the National Institute of Health ha!e used pedigree analysis and family ;N3 lin#age studies to identify a region on the , chromosome that may be lin#ed to sexual orientation in a selected group of homosexual males& This analysis constitutes the first step toward mapping and isolating a genetic locus which may influence sexual orientation within a certain subset of male homosexuals& To examine the inheritance pattern of homosexuality, the authors /ueried AAI homosexual male !olunteers about the sexual orientation of their fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, and male cousins& 3fter assessing the reliability of this information, the authors assembled pedigree charts indicating that the men+s brothers, maternal uncles, and maternal cousins had a signifi- cantly higher probability of being gay than would be expected, gi!en the incidence of homosexuality in the general population 'estimated as DF& 3t the same time, fathers and paternally related relati!es had rates lower than or e/ual to the general incidence rate& %ne explanation for maternal transmission of a trait ex- pressed in males would be lin#age to the , chromosome, which e!ery male inherits form his mother& To loo# for a region that might contain a gene se/uence that increases an indi!idual+s probability of being a homosexual, the authors used DD ;N3 mar#ers to scan the , chromosomes of IE pairs of homosexual brothers& They found that HIF of the sibling pairs tested had a cluster of fi!e identical mar#ers within a discrete region on the tip of the long arm of the , chromosome& This region, called ,/DJ, is ap- proximately I million base pairs long, and is large enough to contain se!eral hundred genes& Identification of an indi!idual gene that might predispose certain males toward homosexuality will re/uire further lin#age analysis to narrow the target chro- mosomal region or complete se/uencing of the region& %nce a specific gene has been identified, say the authors, we can find out where and when it is expressed, and how it ultimately con- tributes to de!elopment and function in homosexuals and hetero- sexuals&

- - - - -N%6L$TP PR:$$ R:L:3$:- - - - - - 0%R I"":;I3T: R:L:3$: (%NT3(T2 Rochelle ;iamond ;3T:2 Nuly AC, ABB= N%6L$TP (hair $cientific 0reedom and the :thics of a ;isco!ered 6enetic Lin# to Homosexuality There ha!e been scientific studies in the past that ha!e suggested a possible biological origin for sexual orientation& Now, a new study published in the Nuly ACth edition of the 9ournal $cience, ;r& ;ean Hamer has suggested that at least one genetic component, and possibly more, are in!ol!ed, and that the putati!e gene's) is lin#ed to the , chromosome in humans& %ur reaction as gay and lesbian scientists is mixed& %n the one hand, we are pleased that there is now scientific support that sexual orientation has an immutable component& %n the other hand, this wor# raises the specter of the !arious possibilities of screening for such components& 1e, as scientists, feel that now is the time to address the ethical /uestions surrounding the use of such information in ad!ance, so that the ethics may e!ol!e with the science instead of lagging behind, as often happens& In popular terms, ;r& Hamer and his colleagues ha!e loo#ed at the genetic fingerprints of the , chromosomes passed maternally from a mother to her gay sons& :ach , chromosome has a uni/ue pattern of mar#ers and can be distinguished from one another& ;r& Hamer has found in the ma9ority of cases with a mother and her two gay sons that the same patterned chromosome has been passed to both gay sons& This implies that the trait for homosex- uality is not random between the two chromosomes, but is in fact lin#ed to a particular mar#er of one of the , chromosomes& ;r& Hamer+s data in no way implies that homosexuality is lin#ed to a single gene, on the contrary, his research has 9ust begun to explore the li#elihood that multiple genes may go!ern a beha!ioral characteristic such as sexual orientation& In such a case, genetic manipulation of the trait would be nearly impossible& In the best of all possible worlds, di!ersity would be !alued and this study would be strictly of scientific interest& In our present social en!ironment, howe!er, there are a number of pressing concerns that need to be addressed& %ne ad!antage of finding a genetic lin# to sexual orientation lies mostly in the legislati!e and legal agenda of obtaining ci!il rights under current law& 0or example, the $upreme (ourt of Hawaii is currently ruling on the legality of gay marriage, not so much on the basis of sex discrimi- nation or the right to pri!acy, but based on the biological imperati!e that a genetically immutable trait would ha!e on ci!il rights protection for a minority group& ;r& Hamer+s data would

strengthen such a case& This information also may abolish society+s tendency to see# and establish blame for a person+s di!ergent sexuality& There are disad!antages to lin#ing a trait to the genome& 1e are concerned that in the future, it may be possible to screen fetuses for genetic traits, including homosexuality allowing for termination of a pregnancy on such a basis& 3dults and children could potentially be screened for military recruitment or insurance purposes& 1e ta#e issue with the possibility that marriage or childbearing might be restricted to genetically desirable people& *nregulated, this genetic information has a potential for great abuse& In a larger context, the ethics of biodi!ersity has not been ade/uately explored& The possibility of screening for diseases li#e Huntington+s chorea, diabetes, or any other genetically transmitted disorders has only recently been discussed& 1hat has not been discussed, but for which the potential exists, is future screening for medically irrele!ant traits li#e gender, hair color, handedness, or homosexuality& N%6L$TP supports the formation of a commission to ta#e up these ethical issues and their implications for public policy, in the areas of national healthcare reform, ci!il rights legislation, and the right to pri!acy& The commission should include scientists, particularly biolo- gists, medical doctors, policy ma#ers, and ethicists& It could be support- ed by the National Institute of Health under its Human 6enome Initiati!e or it could be commissioned by the President or (ongress, in a manner similar to the 3I;$ (ommission& "ost gays and lesbians feel that ci!il rights belong to all humans and that one+s genetic heritage should be irrele!ant& N%6L$TP belie!es that ci!il rights for all should not be predicated on biology but rather on our humanity& "any feel that studies addressing the biology of homosexuality are irrele!ant to their li!es& N%6L$TP supports scientific freedom and the social responsibilities that go along with its disco!eries& 1e belie!e that basic research, such as Hamer+s wor#, should be pursued in order to further our understanding of how the uni!erse wor#s& Howe!er, in the real world we all must be concerned about the ethical and unethical use of genetic information& 3bout National %rgani5ation of 6ay and Lesbian $cientists and Technical Professionals, Inc&2 N%6L$TP is a non-profit national organi5ation of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people employed or interested in scientific or high technology fields& N%6L$TP+s goals include dialog with professional organi5ations, disseminating information, impro!ing its members+ employment and professional en!ironment, opposing anti-gay and anti-lesbian discrimination and stereotypes, educating the gay, scientific, and general communities, and fostering inter-city contacts among its members& 0or more information about N%6L$TP, write to P% Box BAJE=, Pasadena (3 BAAEB, or call JAJ GBA- GHJB& "aga5ine2 The Nournal of NIH Research

Issue2 $eptember ABB= Title2 0ear 3nd Loathing In The *&$& "ilitary2 Psychological :xplanations 0or Homophobia 3uthor2 Rachel Nowa# 1hen President Bill (linton promised to ban the ban on gays in the *&$& military, the military became superdefensi!e& (laiming that the presence of homosexuals in the force would be detrimental to good order and discipline, (olin Powell, chairman of the *&$& Noint (hiefs of $taff, opposed lifting the ban& (olonel 0rederic# Pec# of the "arine (orps added pathos to the debate when, in "ay, he told a congressional hearing that his son $cott, whom he lo!es, should not be allowed to 9oin the ran#s of the military& $cott is gay, and he simply would not be safe in the armed forces, said the officer& Pec#+s opinion gained instant credibility from two recent, highly publici5ed slayings& 3n AJ-year-old *&$& "arine stands accused of fatally beating a Napanese carpenter who allegedly put an arm around him outside a bar in Napan& 3nd a DA-year-old *&$& Na!y airman apprentice is sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering a gay shipmate in an attac# so ferocious that the dead man+s in9uries were said to resemble those suffered by airplane-crash !ictims& In a Nuly policy statement, (linton bac#ed down& He proposed that homosexual men and women be allowed to ser!e in the military only if they hide their sexual orientation& To aid them in this subterfuge, (linton proposed that the military cease in!estigating acti!e-duty personnel and /uestioning new recruits to determine if they are gay& The long-standing battle o!er gays in the *&$& military--it dates at least to the end of 1orld 1ar II, when thousands of gay ser!ice men and women were summarily discharged--has not passed unnoticed by the research establishment& Rather, a small band of psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists ha!e examined with increasing !igor--and rigor--the per!asi!eness of anti-gay sentiment in 3merica and the psychological factors that underlie it& 0irst, the researchers sur!eyed the territory and found--not unexpectedly--that the !ast ma9ority of 3mericans condemn homosexuality& "en tend to be more homophobic than women, and more homophobic about male homosexuality than lesbianism& (onse/uently, psychologists and psychiatrists tend to direct their attention to male homophobia toward gay men& 3mong their hypotheses2 %utwardly heterosexual men who harbor intense homosexual yearnings may hold the most !ehemently anti-gay attitudes of all& Psychologists dub this a defensi!e reaction& 3nd, some speculate, men who

hold such defensi!e attitudes are li#ely to 9oin the military in disproportionately large numbers, drawn to the bastion of traditional masculine !irtues--strength, aggression, and heterosexuality--and to authoritarian outlawing of homosexuality as a means of /uelling their homoerotic impulses& %pinions !ary on whether the anti-gay sentiment that permeates the military can easily be transformed& $ome psychologists argue that the military, based as it is on un/uestioning submission to authority, offers the ideal en!ironment in which to change homophobic attitudes& %thers point out that defensi!e attitudes can be the most difficult of all to alter& In ABJJ, a national telephone sur!ey sponsored by the National Institute of "ental Health, intended primarily to gauge attitudes toward 3I;$, also probed attitudes toward gay men& The sur!ey, which used random-digit dialing to select a representati!e sample of 3merican men and women, confirmed that the !ast ma9ority of the B=G participants who agreed to be inter!iewed 'IG percent of those who were as#ed) find homosexuality offensi!e& $ixty-four percent considered homosexuality 9ust plain wrong& 0ifty percent belie!ed that male homosexuals are disgusting& (onfusingly, IC percent felt that homosexuality should not be condemned& 3 demographic brea#down of sur!ey participants, due to be reported by 6regory Here# and :ric 6lunt of the *ni!ersity of (alifornia at ;a!is in the 3ugust issue of the Nournal of $ex Research, re!eals that politically liberal, young, highly educated, or female 3mericans are less li#ely to hold negati!e attitudes about homosexuals than are conser!ati!e, older, less well-educated, or male 3mericans& But the strongest predictor of positi!e attitudes toward homosexuals was that the inter!iewee #new a gay man or lesbian& The correlation held across each demographic subset represented in the sur!ey--sex, education le!el, age--bar one2 political persuasion& (onser!ati!e men and women 'but not liberals) who had had contact with gays did not differ significantly in their attitudes about homosexuals from those who ne!er #new a gay man or lesbian& No such in-depth studies of attitudes toward homosexuals among military personnel exist& But a widely cited 0eb& DJ Los 3ngeles Times sur!ey of D=IH enlisted ser!icemen and women concluded that GI percent of the current members of the armed forces oppose lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military& $ixty-three percent of the GI percent who opposed lifting the ban did so because they ob9ected to sharing /uarters with homosexual men and women& 0orty percent, because they belie!ed that homosexuality is immoral& Homophobia, both in and out the military, bears many of the hallmar#s of phobias against other minorities& 0or example, gays, li#e blac#s and News before them, are often accused of ha!ing a predilection for child molestation--a reflection,

explains Here#, of a general cultural tendency to portray disli#ed minority groups as threats to the dominant society+s most !ulnerable members& ,enophobia has been characteristic of human societies, as well as lions, wol!es, hyenas, and other social animals, says e!olutionary biologist Nared ;iamond of the *ni!ersity of (alifornia at Los 3ngeles& Basically, it+s competition for space and resources& "ost psychiatrists, psychologists, and e!olutionary biologists agree, howe!er, that the e!olutionary competition-for-resources argument does not ade/uately explain homophobia& There is something added, ;iamond says& %ne could speculate Zthat[ people become outraged that someone should transgress what we ha!e been taught, from childhood on, not to do& "aybe we are outraged that someone is doing something that all of us ha!e felt some inclination to do at some time& The explanation is to be sought not in sociobiology, but in psychology, he says& $igmund 0reud hypothesi5ed that e!ery child starts out as bisexual, then during the %edipal stage of de!elopment 'I or C years old) learns to suppress sexual feelings toward the same sex& "ale homosexuality occurs when this sexual de!elopment is arrested by an o!erly domineering mother or an absent father& 0ew people still subscribe to 0reud+s theories about homosexuality, in part because recent e!idence indicates that homosexuality can ha!e a biological basis 'see %ctober ABBD issue, page C=, and box, page T@)& But, the psychodynamic theories deri!ed from 0reud+s teachings are fre/uently used to explain homophobia& 0or example, some 0reudians reason that excessi!e hostility toward homosexuality occurs when a person with strong homosexual leanings finds his or her desires unacceptable and pro9ects that self-contempt onto people who are openly or apparently gay& 3lternati!ely, homophobia may be a pro9ection of indi!iduals+ insecurities about their gender identity, says Patric# $uraci, a "anhattan clinical psychologist and author of "ale $exual 3rmor2 :rotic 0antasies and $exual Realities of the (op on the Beat and the "an in the $treet& 6ender identity denotes not biological sex, but male or female physical and psychological characteristics--in other words, how masculine or feminine a person appears& 3s#ed to define masculinity, the A=I New Por# policemen and A,=BD ci!ilians inter!iewed for "ale $exual 3rmor commonly responded, not being homosexual, says $uraci& The tendency of men to define gender in terms of sexual orientation may explain why more men than women are homophobic& That men tend to be more phobic about gay men than gay women could be explained by the cultural taboo against anal sex& 0inally, some psychologists speculate that the disgust some men feel toward male homosexuals is rooted in fear and hatred of women& 6ay men are often percei!ed as feminine Zby heterosexual men[, says Richard Isay, clinical

professor of psychiatry at (ornell "edical (ollege in New Por#, and author of Being Homosexual2 6ay "en and Their ;e!elopment& But not e!eryone is happy simply to in!o#e 0reud in order to explain homophobia& %ne of the problems with psychodynamic theories is that because it is not possible to obser!e unconscious processes directly, it becomes !ery difficult to test them empirically, says Here#& Nor is that the only problem facing the study of homophobia& To characteri5e the attitudes towards a particular group as being a scientific problem for study implies it is not perfectly acceptable or understandable to ha!e these attitudes, says Here#& That is not a scientific 9udgment4 that+s a !alue 9udgment& ;espite those misgi!ings, Here# has attempted to in9ect some ob9ecti!e reasoning into the study of homophobia by loo#ing not at subconscious processes, but at the attitudes those processes create& To do this, he refashioned a IE-year-old psychological theory postulating that attitudes enable people to meet psychological needs& In a ABJG paper in the $ocial Psychology Kuarterly, Here# contends that a homophobic attitude may meet at least three different emotional needs or, put another way, ha!e three different functions& The first, Here# dubs the self-expressi!e function& In this case, the attitude helps meet the psychological need that people ha!e to conform, or to define themsel!es according to a set of !alues--(hristian ethics or libertarian philosophies, for example& Thus, an anti-gay attitude may be primarily a bid for peer appro!al, rather than an expression of deep-felt hostility toward gay men and lesbians& 3lternati!ely, Zfor some people[ being a good (hristian means condemning gays& 0or others, being a good (hristian means they must lo!e e!eryone, including gays, says Here#& 3 person+s sense of self-esteem may be !ery tied up with how well they li!e up to those !alues& The second function is termed the experiential-schematic function& In this case, the attitude is forged by a person+s tendency to organi5e the world on the basis of past experiences& 3ccording to Here#, This is often considered the most rational reason for holding a particular attitude& 0inally, an attitude may ser!e a defensi!e function, that is, gi!e the person the means to deal with psychological conflicts that he or she cannot address directly& Thus, intense homophobic attitudes may indicate people+s anxieties about their own repressed homosexual tendencies, or concerns about how masculine or feminine they consider themsel!es& The defensi!e function--which Here# calls the methin#s-thou-doth-protest-too-much function --is firmly rooted in the traditional 0reudian concept of pro9ection&

To test his hypothesis, Here# as#ed DEC male and female college students who identified themsel!es as heterosexual to write a short essay beginning, I ha!e generally positi!e Zor negati!e[ attitudes toward lesbians and male homosexuals because &&&& 3fter scrutini5ing the essays for the occurrence of DJ predetermined themes--ranging from statements about emotional reactions to homosexuality to expressions of stereotypical beliefs about homosexuals--Here# di!ided the students on the basis of their attitudes toward gays into the three categories& 0orty percent of the respondents+ answers fell exclusi!ely into the self-expressi!e category, AD percent fell exclusi!ely into the experiential-schematic category, and AA percent, exclusi!ely into the defensi!e category& 3 battery of psychological tests--ranging from the ;efense "echanisms In!entory 'to test defensi!eness) to the Religious Ideology $cale 'to test adherence to religious principles)--confirmed that the cause of the students+ attitudes had been correctly categori5ed& Based on his results, Here# constructed the 3ttitude 0unction In!entory '30I), a relati!ely rapid measure of the types of attitudes a person holds& The test !olunteers were all college students, so the findings do not necessarily reflect attitudes in society in general, says Here#& "y guess is that, in society, relati!ely few people would fit into the experiential-schematic category, he says& "ost Zpeople+s[ attitudes Ztoward homosexuality[ would fit the self-expressi!e function because that is how the society+s debate on homosexism is defined& "any psychologists belie!e that the pattern of attitudes in the military also differs from society+s, in general& Homophobia aimed at gay men will be most pre!alent in predominantly male groups such as the military, or certain sports organi5ations that, in the interests of the group image, re/uire adherents to repress the feminine /ualities that are traditionally associated with male homosexuality, says Isay& Isiaah (rawford, a clinical psychologist at Loyola *ni!ersity of (hicago, suggests that men with strong homosexual desires who belie!e that homosexuality is a transgression of accepted moral standards will be attracted to the military for another reason& The structure pro!ides them with boundaries in which they can limit their urges, he says& In the military, homosexuality !iolates not only a moral standard, but a rule, too& Here# disagrees2 In reality, people are attracted to the military for a !ariety of reasons--economic concerns, a desire to ser!e one+s country, and a need to train for a career& These will be much stronger moti!ations Zcompared with the desire to suppress homosexual tendencies[ for most people& There is e!en less agreement on whether military homophobia can be eradicated& Here# says it can be done and refers bac# to the telephone-sur!ey findings& :!en in groups that were more representati!e of the military--men, lower education le!els, younger rather than older--the experience of contact with a openly gay person seems to result in a more positi!e attitude, he says&

(rawford is less optimistic& He belie!es that the homophobic attitudes of many military personnel are rooted in defensi!eness& ;efensi!e reactions are generally the most difficult to change because people are not operating at a conscious le!el, he says& (rawford has empirical data to support that belief& He and Theresa Luhrs of ;e Paul *ni!ersity in (hicago, he tored the attitudes toward gay men and lesbians of ADJ male and female heterosexual students after half of the students !iewed excerpts from The Times of Har!ey "il#, a documentary that challenges popular stereotypes about homosexuality& 3ccording to the results of (rawford and Luhrs+ study, due to be presented at the 3merican Psychological 3ssociation annual meeting in Toronto 3ug& DE-DI, on a!erage, the students who saw the documentary expressed more positi!e attitudes toward homosexuals compared to students in the control group& Howe!er, the attitudes of the subset of students that fell into the defensi!efunction category according to Here#+s 30I were similar between the two groups& Nonetheless, concedes (rawford, the military is based on a hierarchal command structure, so if someone tells you to do something, you do it, regardless of how much you don+t want to& That won+t initially change attitudes& But o!er time, as people ha!e positi!e experiences with Zgay men and lesbians[, some of those attitudes will change& This is the angle ta#en by the (anadian military& 1hen, AE months ago, it canceled its ban on the promotion of gay men and lesbians, the (anadian forces high command made it clear that transgressions of the new policy would not be tolerated& The way we approach it is to ha!e e!eryone from the top down pass on the message and li!e the message that indi!iduals are to be assessed on their performance, not on their sexual orientation, says "a9or Ron ;ic#enson, a policy analyst at the (anadian forces National ;efense Head/uarters in %ttawa& No reports of !iolence or harassment ha!e been made so far, ;ic#enson says& 3ccording to modern fol#lore, the *&$& military was instrumental in shaping the gay community into the political force it now has to rec#on with& "any of the B,EEE gay military men and women who recei!ed dishonorable discharges at the end of 1orld 1ar II could not face returning to their home towns& Instead, they settled where they had disembar#ed--in the great port cities of New Por# and $an 0rancisco, spawning two of largest gay communities in the world& $ome of the gay !eterans were crushed& "any were angry& That anger helped politici5e the gay communities& If the military ban on homosexuality is e!er completely lifted, the *&$& armed forces may once again ha!e a far-reaching impact on the gay community& Not only will openly gay men and lesbians be able to fight for their country--seen by many as a high honor--but lifting the ban would also sound the retreat on anti-gay discrimination in other arenas& The *&$& military is the largest, and one of the most influential, employers in the country& 3s $an 0rancisco historian 3llan

Berube puts it, If they let gays into the military, they can hardly rationali5e #eeping them out of the Boy $couts, can theyL 3dditional Reading

Berube, (oming %ut *nder 0ire2 The History %f 6ay "en 3nd 1omen In 1orld 1ar Two 'PlumeRNew 3merican Library, New Por#, ABBE)& 6&"& Here# and :&@& 6lunt, Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals+ attitudes toward gay men2 results from a national sur!ey, N& $ex Res& =E, 'in press)& 6&"& Here#, (an functions be measuredL 3 new perspecti!e on the functional approach to attitudes, $oc& Psychol& K& CE, DJC 'ABJG)& 6&"& Here#, "yths about sexual orientation2 a lawyer+s guide to social science research, Law and $exuality A, A== 'ABBA)& R&3& Isay, Being Homosexual2 6ay "en and Their ;e!elopment '0arrar, $traus, and 6iroux, New Por#, ABJB)& P& $uraci, "ale $exual 3rmor2 :rotic 0antasies and $exual Realities of the (op on the Beat and the "an in the $treet 'Ir!ington Publishers Inc&, New Por#, ABBD)&