Why Do We Keep Studying Sexual Orientation?
What makes people queer? Scientists have searched for the answer since Richard von Krafft-Ebing popularized the sickness model of homosexuality in the late 19th century. By pathologizing queerness, he made it medically necessary to determine its cause and, ultimately, its cure.
Procedures to “correct” queer behavior, such as lobotomy, electroshock treatment, hormone treatment, and genital mutilation, have historically been violent. During the Nazi occupation of Germany, doctors searched for a cure by detaining and experimenting on LGBTQ+ people. Cruelty and control make up the foundation upon which sexual orientation research was built.
Today, the World Health Organization no longer views homosexuality as an illness, and it rejects conversion therapy, which has no medical justification. But the desire to study sexual orientation, albeit in a more positive context, has persisted. Researchers have sought to destigmatize queerness by establishing how healthy and normal they are—but we shouldn’t need to essentialize something to award it respect.
Besides, can sexual orientation research ever be isolated from its violent beginnings?
In 1991, neuroscientist Simon Levay began studying the biology of sexual orientation in hopes of destigmatizing LGBTQ+ identity. He was the first to show that sexual orientation could have a biological basis. Since then, a number of studies have shown that when people believe sexual orientation is something one is born with, something immutable, they are more likely to believe in equal rights for sexual minorities.
Immutability also has legal importance in the U.S. It’s one criteria for groups to receive legal recognition as a protected (or suspect) class. Levay’s work has been used in legal and political advocacy to argue that LGBTQ+ folks deserve suspect classification. Claiming sexuality is immutable can be politically advantageous, but it’s also incorrect. Sexual orientation is fluid. Levay’s work merely found that sexuality could have a biologic component, not that it absolutely never changes for anyone. Even Levay cautioned people against misinterpreting his work, saying in a 1994 interview with Discover, “I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay.”
Two years later geneticist Dean Hamer and a group of researchers published a study that linked DNA markers on the X chromosome to same-sex attraction in men. This became popularly publicized in the media as the “gay gene.” The Daily Mail famously reported Hamer’s findings with the 1993 headline: “Abortion hope after ‘gay genes’ finding.” The article likened same-sex attraction to a genetic disease, suggesting that people could one day screen fetuses for a “gay gene” and terminate the pregnancy. Biological and genetic research into same-sex attraction was quickly appropriated to serve anti-LGBTQ biases and agendas and to legitimize the pathologization of queer sexual orientation. In 1997, German scholars requested a moratorium on sexual orientation research, due to its potential for abuse.
“In a homophobic world, where medical science searches for cures to genetic diseases and genetic material is being used to target vulnerable communities, can sexual orientation research be separated from its violence past?”
As the field of modern genetics has become intricately tied to the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, many scientists and bioethicists worry that identifying genetic markers associated with vulnerable populations will lead to genetic discrimination. In fact, it already has. In 2016, a young boy named Colman Chadam was kicked out of a California middle school for having genetic markers for cystic fibrosis. Those markers didn’t automatically mean that Chadam had the disease, but they were enough for the parents of other students with CF to demand his removal from school (people with CF shouldn’t be near each other for heightened risk of spreading contagious diseases to each other).
The collection of genetic material has been put to even more oppressive uses. China is currently using U.S. genetic surveillance technology and DNA databases for the cultural genocide of Uighurs, an Muslim ethnic minority. The Chinese government has detained over one million Uighurs. The U.S. criminal justice system uses the same technology. Even though genetic science and technology has helped solve cold cases, it has also implicated innocent people. The criminal justice system in the U.S. has historically functioned as a tool of racial terror, and even after the decriminalization of sexual minorities, it still disproportionately targets LGBTQ+ folks.
It seems we are willing to ignore what this technology enables—genocide and the biased targeting of vulnerable populations—because it has a modicum of forensic value. But is that worth it? Why would we continue to examine sexual orientation and genetics in this dangerous context?
In 2017, U.K. Biobank released the largest genetic database in the world to the public. Geneticist Andrea Ganna proposed using it to study same-sex sexual behavior. They found five genetic markers, not one “gay gene,” associated with same-sex behavior, which confirmed that genetics can influence sexual orientation. But still, genetic markers for complex traits aren’t necessarily predictive of later behavior. Other cultural, social, and environmental factors interact with genetics to inform behavior. Ganna’s team worked with LGBTQ+ advocacy groups to present these findings with nuance and clarity.
Ignoring this nuance completely, a company called Insolent AI exploited the results of the study to develop a ‘How Gay Are You?’ app. The app—now called 122 Shades Of Gray—was supposed to analyze a person’s genetic data and provide a same-sex attraction score. It’s not hard to imagine the app being used for discriminatory purposes.
Joel Bellenson, the app’s developer, lives in Uganda, where same-sex sexual behavior is illegal and forced anal examinations are performed by the state. In October 2019, Uganda introduced legislation that would make same-sex sexual behavior punishable by death. It seems unlikely that Bellenson didn’t consider these factors, and the potential for abuse, when he created the app; in an essay he published alongside the app, he stated that discrimination against LGBTQ+ communities is “crucial for their fullest intellectual and social development.” When heterosexual people create technology for non-heterosexual people, they lack the community awareness to make a positive impact and avoid causing harm.
A petition was launched to pressure GenePlaza, the online store selling the app, to remove the app. Ganna’s team reached out as well. Insolent AI and Bellenson added a disclaimer to the app’s website emphasizing that it’s non-predictive, and it is no longer available for purchase. Regardless, Ganna’s research and the Insolent AI’s app have undoubtedly made LGBTQ+ communities more vulnerable.
Governments have used more paltry, but no less dangerous, methods for identifying and punishing LGBTQ+ individuals. In at least nine countries, including modern Tunisia, police have used forced anal examinations on gay men to “prove” homosexuality. These examinations cause physical and emotional pain, and many people experience them as a form of rape. It should go without saying that this does not meaningfully identify sexual behavior or identity. The UN has denounced the practice but it persists, despite its inefficacy, because homophobia does.
And that’s important for researchers to consider. In a homophobic world, where medical science searches for cures to genetic diseases and genetic material is being used to target vulnerable communities, can sexual orientation research be separated from its violence past? The answer is, unfortunately, no.
Image credit: Computer-rendered view of a random DNA double helix by Geoff Hutchison, 2006 (Flickr | CC BY-ND 2.0)
