Understanding the Complexities of Sexuality and Genetics
Written on
Chapter 1: The Skepticism Surrounding Genetic Studies
In recent discussions, particularly during the 2020 Decolonize DNA Day Twitter conference, the skepticism expressed by LGBTQ biologists regarding the latest genomic research on same-sex attraction raises important questions. The complexities of this relationship with genetic research are worth exploring in depth.
It's essential to recognize that the skepticism does not stem from a rejection of genetic research itself, but rather from a concern over how findings may be misused or misinterpreted.
Section 1.1: Context of LGBTQ Rights and Genetics
My name is Jeremy Yoder, and I identify as a gay man (he/him pronouns) and an evolutionary biologist. My work often involves genomic data, particularly in understanding species interactions like pollination. Historically, the notion of being "born this way" has served as a powerful argument for LGBTQ rights. Landmark rulings, such as the US Supreme Court's decisions in cases like US v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges, have emphasized that sexual orientation is an inherent aspect of human identity.
Subsection 1.1.1: The Risks of Genetic Research
However, many within the LGBTQ community, including myself, have reservations about the implications of genetic studies on sexuality. Research suggesting a genetic basis for sexual orientation could potentially lead to attempts to "cure" same-sex attraction, echoing long-standing fears that such studies might be used to justify discrimination.
Section 1.2: Historical Perspectives on Genetics
The concerns about genetic research are not new. In 1984, evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma, alongside Stephen Risch, cautioned against the biological argument for homosexuality, asserting that it could be exploited to justify both oppression and acceptance. Their critique highlights the dangers of assuming that what is biologically natural is inherently good.
Chapter 2: Recent Developments in Genetic Research
Fast forward to the recent study published in Science, which analyzed data from the UK Biobank. This research aimed to identify genetic variants associated with same-sex sexual behavior but ultimately found only a handful of weak associations. This aligns with the hypothesis that sexuality is influenced by numerous genes, each contributing a small effect.
The authors of the study, led by Andrea Ganna, were aware of the potential risks their findings posed. They took steps to clarify the limitations of their work, emphasizing the distinction between same-sex behavior and sexual orientation. However, once published, the results can be misinterpreted, as evidenced by the creation of an app that claimed to predict sexual orientation based on genetic data—a move that raised significant ethical concerns.
The broader implications of such research underscore the need for careful consideration of how genetic findings are presented and applied. The historical context of similar studies, like Dean Hamer's 1993 research linking male sexual orientation to specific genes, shows that while genetic evidence can support arguments for equality, it can also lead to dangerous misuses.
In conclusion, while genetic research on human sexuality is intriguing and can provide valuable insights into our evolutionary history, the associated risks must not be overlooked. Until we ensure a safer environment for LGBTQ individuals, exploring the genetics of sexuality remains fraught with ethical challenges.