A new enormously large top statistical study now claims that our genetics determine only for a small part same-sex sexuality and not in one gene. There is so much nonsense in this study (and a little bit more how it’s wrongly reported) that it’s hard to decide where to begin.
The easiest is, first to know what reality is and then to contrast that with the hot air here sold as science. So, let’s do that. So that you can easily refute the nonsense that people will say based on this fake “news.”
● Almost all men and most women report a sexual preference.
● Sexual preference shows in that for deep sexual bonding, one needs someone of one gender or the other.
● Most people have a heterosexual (other-sex) orientation and a minority (3% in men and 8% in women) have a homosexual (same-sex) orientation. (Others may be asexual, demi-sexual or bisexual.)
● This orientation becomes forever hardwired in the human brain at a very early age, probably before birth. What exactly causes this is not known yet.
● One may choose behavior but not this orientation. Forgoing this need for sexual bonding leads by most people to unbearable loneliness which may show in sexual compulsion.
● Different from orientation, behavior and attraction can change, to a certain degree, with or without therapy. But one can’t change the need for sexual union with someone of one particular gender and not the other.
● Same-sex preference because of anti-homosexual sentiments in society, is not always noticed or expressed.
● Sex with someone not of one’s preference enlarges loneliness and one can get addicted to such behavior as it’s not the real thing for them. By far, most same-sex behavior is by heterosexuals because they’re 95% of the population and often compulsive about it (finding no deep bonding).
There are many details known about all of this but this is the big picture and if you keep this in mind, you won’t get confused.
● Homosexuals. The researchers themselves admit one of the greatest flaws in their study but that doesn’t make the flaw go away. And the problem is actually much larger than they assume. They did not by any means study sexual preference. They studied sexual behavior. That is not the same at all. There are so many more heterosexuals than homosexuals, so that most of the same-sex behavior that was studied says something about heterosexuals having same-sex sex, and very little about homosexuals having sex! Let me repeat: This study reports mainly about homosexual sex by heterosexuals. Not what everyone reports!
● Statistics. Statistics give a correlation, not a cause. A large statistical study can more easily distinguish between an accidental and a causal correlation but even the largest most likely correlation doesn’t show cause. Here, half a million subjects make it possible to reject many fake correlations but doesn’t show real ones with more certainty. The large size study does not mean more certainty in the findings. It only means, less false findings.
● Lying. Also in anonymous questionnaires, most people lie about their sexual life. My proof: The most progressive sex clinic in the Netherlands in the ’70s had an anonymous intake questionnaire for clients. The total of their self-reported behavior and problems did not at all correspond with a tally of what therapists in the subsequent therapies found. There is no basis to believe any of this self-reporting.
● Twin Studies. This study is a continuation of the assumption that sexual behavior is partly determined by our genetics because that’s what twin research teaches. Yet, medical research is utterly in the dark about behavior of twins. It assumes that more identical behavior of identical twins compared to non-identical twins must come from genetics. It also assumes that more identical behavior of twins that grew up together compared to twins that were separated at birth must come from non-genetic influences. They don’t seem to know that identical twins often have opposite characters (introvert/extrovert, etc.). Further, they often share everything, making the non-genetic influences more identical than between non-identical sibs. And twins who were separated at birth shared the first nine months together, which is completely overlooked. And most important in the formation of sexual orientation.
● Anti-Gay Bias. They blatantly and unashamedly tried to study homosexual preference and not heterosexual preference. It’s the old concept of this must be illness all over again.
● Sick. They studied “ever versus never had a same-sex partner.” But we know that people who never had same-sex sex are a tiny minority. You can’t understand general human sexuality by only studying a tiny ultra-frustrated or ultra-homophobic group. (Besides what I mentioned above that by far, most of the “ever” group will be heterosexual.) (After they ignore the known continuum, they “conclude ” “that there is no single continuum from opposite-sex to same-sex sexual behavior.” Duh.)
● Gender. The study finds no difference between men and women. But we all know that women are more flexible in their sexual gender choice. This shows that there cannot be much value in the whole study at all. One report says it so nicely in this euphemistic sentence: “It’s a reminder that, that [sic] like most human behaviors, sexual behavior is complex.”
● Oppression. The worst aspect of this shoddy work is that this “there is no Gay Gene” will again be used by cure-the-gays “therapists” claiming that science has shown again that our genetics don’t force us so we can freely choose — to become, be and stay heterosexual. And claiming that very many genes are very subtly involved in our sexual behavior feeds into chemo-psychiatry that claims that behavior comes from our genes, epi-genes, and biochemistry. If not happy with it, take our newest pills.
There’s probably much more wrong with this study but this is what I could write up quickly before Shabbat. What a bunch of shameful baloney anyway. Trying to properly communicate the claptrap doesn’t make it any better. Still, I think it’s not a good oversight that the Israeli media don’t report (but: properly) this prominent though faulty study.