| heart orson: the "do I really put so much effort into this kind of thing without money?" edition |
[Sep. 4th, 2008|05:53 pm] |
I said I wouldn't write this, but I suppose it was as inevitable as taxes, death, and bad relationships: a rebuttal to Card's recent essay on the "science" of homosexuality. I'm a little more out of my depth here, since Card draws more on biological and sociological issues than historical here, but unlike Card I like to think I can be honest when I'm faced with something I know little or nothing about.
Before I start, I do want to share another rebuttal of Card's screed by a Mormon biologist with the hilarious title, "95% of Dolphins Agree: Card is Right About Homosexuality's Unnaturalness". Not only it is it a fantastic response, but it's a little reminder that essentially Card's views come from his membership in no other group than people who can't stand other people who don't live their lives and view their world the exact way they do.
The claims of those who support gay marriage rest entirely on the idea that science has proved several things:
Right off the bat, we have an assertion that is, at best, oversimplifying the reality. If tomorrow homosexuality is proven to be entirely the result of psychological factors, I do not believe that even a significant minority of gay activists would just put the cause in the attic and shrug their shoulders at the reintroduction of sodomy laws. In fact, I'd argue that pro-gay marriage arguments rest mainly on modern Western liberalism and its broadening concepts of civil and political equality. Arguments that homosexuality is an in-born characteristic did and do have a major role in maintaining that homosexuals are a group as deserving of rights as any ethnic or religious community, but recognizing same-sex marriage isn't an inevitable conclusion from that starting point without tapping into a number of other philosophical and legal ideas that are pivotal to political, cultural, and intellectual developments made in the past century or so.
1. Gays have no choice whatsoever. Genes or hormones make them gay, and it is unreasonable to expect them to control or limit their behavior in any way.
First, there's no consensus like Card strongly implies here. I admit that I haven't really kept up with the scientific literature, but from what I understand while there is an agreement that homosexuality is innate to some degree it is also often argued that influences from after birth should not entirely be ruled out. At any rate, suggesting that there is or can be such a firm consensus in the scientific community over a complex topic that demands attention from different disciplines like this is misleading.
Second, Card's word choice is interesting (and infuriating): "...it is unreasonable to expect them to control or limit their behavior in any way." Card is already making this sound like a discussion about pedophilia, rather than about people of the same sex forming sexual and romantic relationships. It's a good example for teachers to use in their class of "framing an argument to your advantage", except they'd probably want to show a more subtle, effective example, rather than Card's heavy-handed, clumsy approach.
2. Even if there is an element of choice (or preventable environmental influence), there is no reason to ask gays to control or limit their behavior, because homosexuality causes no harm to anyone.
Does Card give even one convincing example of homosexuality causing "harm" to him or anyone else? Let's find out! (Having gone through the essay again to write this rebuttal, the answer is pretty much a "no.")
3. Because the first two points have been "scientifically proved," it is unfair to give any kind of legal or social preference to the actions and relationships of heterosexuals. Any such preference is like telling gays to "sit in the back of the bus."
Card seems convinced that the entire gay rights movement is like a game of Jenga: he just has to pull out the exact block and the whole structure will come tumbling down.
After a lifetime spent in theater and the arts, of course, I am well-acquainted with many homosexuals; and because of who they are and who I am, I am close friends with several.
They have never directly harmed me, nor I them. Many have helped me in my life -- and I them. We get along just fine.
Wow. Card, that stereotype was already old when it was first set down in papyrus. And I think there probably was a Babylonian scribe who once wrote, "I don't hate Sumerians. Some of my best friends are from Sumer!"
So what's the big deal? If science says that homosexuality is natural, uncontrollable and harmless, why would any decent person -- especially one who knows and likes, or even loves, a number of homosexuals -- wish to deprive them of something they desire so much?
I think this is the closest I've seen Card come to having empathy with gay people (outside of his fiction), although I'm sure all that will be shot to hell before we're through.
In looking at the current scientific claims, let me start by pointing you to two articles in Commentary: "Inventing the Homosexual," by Marjorie Rosenberg, and "Straight Talk about Gays," by E.L. Pattullo.
You might also check out "Homosexuality and Biology," by Chandler Burr, in The Atlantic Monthly.
The Commentary articles are highly critical of the existing science on homosexuality, while Burr's Atlantic article takes almost everything at face value. In my opinion, no one should attempt to speak on the subject without being familiar with the facts and reasoning presented in all three.
As much as I should applaud Card's rare attempt at pointing toward a dissenting viewpoint without simultaneously accusing them of participating in a conspiracy to silence him or destroy society (and his equally rare citation of actual sources), what Card doesn't mention is that "Commentary" is a far-right publication with an obvious ideological agenda and "The Atlantic Monthly", while right-leaning, is a considerably more respected source (I'd go into more detail, but you have to be a subscriber to read the "Commentary" essays).
The irony is that the first of the "Commentary" essays, judging from the abstract, basically utilizes Michel Foucault's arguments from Histoire de la sexualitie for an anti-gay rights agenda. I wonder how Card, a rabid anti-postmodernist, would feel if he knew (and I suspect he doesn't) that he's approving points that have been co-opted from one of the founders of postmodern scholarship.
(And, before anyone asks, as much as I loathe Foucault, his sloppy yet inexplicably respected work, and the sweeping- and explaining-away of all the historical evidence that demonstrates a tangible history of homosexuality and the existence of a homosexual identity in pre-modern societies that is carried on in his name, I can't bring myself to blame him for what reactionary ideologues do with his theories. Damn sense of fairness.)
Many people believe that because the American Psychiatric Association voted in 1973 to stop treating homosexuality as a disorder, this means that the science is settled -- homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality.
But science is not done by majority vote -- particularly not by majority vote that was intensely pressured and cajoled by homosexual activists.
So, yes, it looks like Card's assertions on why the American Psychatric Association and past Surgeon Generals are wrong will basically boil down to, "It's a conspiracy!" Believe me, I have a shocked expression on my face right this minute as I type this.
"Normal." The leading scientific studies in support of this change were highly questionable. Evelyn Hooker's study, for instance, which purported to show that homosexuals were perfectly normal, studied a group of homosexuals who were members of organizations "extremely anxious to provide their most admirable members," and "she removed from the sample anyone who struck her as obviously pathological" (Rosenberg, p. 37).
Given the way she stacked the deck, the surprise was that she didn't find that homosexuality was better than heterosexuality.
Note that Card is citing one of the essays from the blatantly biased publication above.
Anyway, here I have to admit the gaps in my knowledge and say that I really don't know enough about Evelyn Hooker's research to defend it or surrender the point to Card. I do know that Card and Rosenberg are correct that Hooker did use members of the Mattachine Society, the first enduring gay rights organization in the United States, although anyone who criticizes Hooker on these grounds should also admit that, in 1954 when Hooker started selecting her interviewees, getting a willing, uncloseted homosexual to participate in a study without relying on such an organization would have been more than a tad challenging.
Also I don't think it's unfair to say that even a layperson like Card needs to go further than just crying bias when discussing a scientific study carried out by a professional, especially one so influential and especially when its validity or lack thereof is at the core of his argument.
In another study, Laud Humphreys interviewed homosexuals taking part in the bathhouse culture. Using only questionnaires, and starting with his own strong bias in favor of finding even the most promiscuous and dangerous sexual activity to be normal, it is no surprise that he reached, as his conclusion, the opinion he had when he started -- that the only problem was the way society reacts to homosexuality.
I might be wrong, but I think Card might actually be writing about Laud Humphreys' 1970 dissertation, "Tearoom Trade", which is about sex in public restrooms, not bathhouses, and the thesis had little in common with Hooker's goals, but with men who have sex with other men in secret while leading married heterosexual lives at home. In other words, it's an essay on what we'd see more of if people like Card had their way.
(Again, though, I should stress that I'm not familiar with Humphreys' body of work, so Card might actually be talking about another essay. However, looking through Google Scholar, JSTOR, and Project Muse I couldn't find any citation or mention of an essay by Humphreys that matched Card's description better than "Tearoom Trade").
At any rate, it would help his case if Card could cite a professional scientific study that effectively disputes the conclusions reached by Hooker and the generations of sociologists and psychologists that have followed in her footsteps, but instead we only get two vague accusations of bias from someone who has obviously only read about these studies through secondary sources.
Twin studies. Then there are the studies of twins who were adopted and raised apart, comparing identical twins, who share all the same genes; fraternal twins, who are no more alike than ordinary siblings; and non-twin siblings raised apart. The numbers deal with how often a gay adoptee has a gay sibling.
Fraternal twins were twice as likely as ordinary siblings to both be gay, and identical twins were five times as likely. But even identical twins were both homosexual only about half the time. Thus the study suggests that while there is probably a genetic component, genes are certainly not the sole cause of homosexual desires. In fact, the fraternal twin result suggests that sharing the same womb is a strong contributing factor, too, so that hormones, nutrition, deficiencies or even acidity during gestation might be strong contributors.
I'm still on terra obscura here, but I did find this dissertation that, at least, shows that twin studies are far more controversial than Card seems to suggest here.
The study does not allow for the possibility that the physical appearance of the subjects might have played a role. If seduction, molestation or other sexual trauma contributes to homosexuality, and if those are influenced by the perceived attractiveness of the subject to a molester, seducer or rapist, then the greater physical resemblance between identical twins may account for some of the results.
That's a neat sleight of hand, tacking an assertion that's extremely controversial, outrageously offensive, and has been widely debunked for decades onto a discussion of real scientific studies in order to make it appear more plausible and sensible.
(If I was a more petty, vindictive person than I am, I'd hope that one of Card's children turns out to be gay and declares it publicly, so the people who share Card's views on sexuality will all wonder just when and how Card molested this child).
Most scientists agree that twin studies suggest that social influences play a significant role, alongside physical ones, in determining which people become identified as homosexuals in adulthood. Which means that homosexuality, while influenced by prebirth events, is not necessarily inevitable, but varies from case to case in its cause or in the strength of the impulse.
I've written it before when discussing Card's political essays, but...citation, please!
Anatomy. Much was made of a very flawed study that reported differences in the hypothalamus of persons identified post mortem as homosexual. Other, better studies also point to visible anatomical differences in the brains of homosexuals.
The suggestion in each case has been that these abnormalities must be the cause of homosexuality. But unrelated research has been discovering that, contrary to longheld belief, the brain's physical structures can change in response to human behavior.
At this point, it is impossible to tell how cause and effect are related in these cases, and the studies are so ambiguous that it cannot yet be said for certain that there are structural differences consistently tied to homosexual behavior.
From what admittedly little I know, I think Card is right in his summary. Still, in the end the best he can claim is that "it cannot yet be said for certain."
Old science. What no one seems to want to mention is that back in the days when mother-blaming Freudian theory was still dominant, the scientific research all pointed to overdominant or sexually inappropriate behavior by mothers, and hostile or distant behavior by fathers, as markers or causes of homosexuality.
It was this view of homosexuality that lost the political battle in the APA back in 1973, but the vote that was taken then did not erase all the old research. No one can say now to what degree, if any, the treatment of young children -- or pubescent ones -- by their parents or peers might influence their self-perception and their adoption of a particular sexual identity.
Because, of course, scientists are never, ever influenced by their social and cultural surroundings, and what psyschologists and other doctors wrote about homosexuality could not at all have been influenced by such a tiny, piddling circumstance like at the time homosexuality was all but universally reviled in the Western world.
And I suppose you could describe Card moving from alleging that modern psychological views of homosexuality are built on biases to appealing without qualification to late nineteenth and early twentieth century psychiatry as "ironic", but I prefer another word that also ends in "-ic" but has a "m" and two "o"s.
Countless homosexuals record their "awakening" to homosexuality in the form of rape, molestation or seduction; homosexuality seems to be one of the possible responses to profound trauma or sexual misdirection at a susceptible age.
Gimme a C-I-T-A-T-I-O-N - CITATION! (Seriously, what the hell would Card do and think if one of his children came out of the closet? Turn himself in to the cops as a child abuser?)
Yet even the suggestion that this may be an important cause of or influence on homosexuality is shouted -- no, screamed -- down.
As well it should be, because it's a downright destructive claim. Does it even occur to Card that by making this argument he's tarring the parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins of thousands of gay people as possible child molestors? Or is all that just incidental?
It should also be pointed out that here the burden of proof is on Card, since he's presenting himself as debunking a commonly held assertion and presenting a point of view that he claims has typically been oppressed in the media and academic and scientific circles. Yet he still can't be bothered to present just one objective scientific study from a credible soruce.
Why? Because within the homosexual community people know perfectly well that not everybody's introduction to homosexuality was the beautiful fulfilment of an idyllic dream. But that fact does not fit the public story that supports their political agenda. It must not be admitted.
Part of that just might be that there are still people like Card out there acting to make sure that in our culture having a sexual awakening as a gay person is still an event marked by guilt, confusion, anxiety, fear, and self-loathing. Again I'm reminded of Nelson Muntz setting on Milhouse's chest, hitting him with his own hands and saying, "Why do you keep hitting yourself? Why do you keep hitting yourself?"
The bisexual problem. Ever since 1973, the homosexuality normalizers have done their best to avoid pointing out the prevalence of what is called "bisexuality," but which might just as easily be called "indeterminacy." A large number of men and women marry and conceive children before (at the age of a normal midlife crisis) they discover or reveal that they "were always" homosexual.
Obviously, whether or not they were fantasizing a different partner, they successfully mated and reproduced. This makes hash of the doctrines of inevitability.
What can I say but, "No, it doesn't!" As I type this half of my mind is asking, "Did he really just imply that it's completely unthinkable and illogical for someone who has had desires for the same sex their entire life to have sex with someone from the opposite sex, even though he just admitted that he can imagine a scenario where one partner imagines that the other is someone else of the same sex?" while the other half is going, "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Plus, while I still don't believe that Card is a "closet-case", this does work quite well as proof for that camp. One can almost imagine Card proudly saying, "I had sex with my wife a number of times! Logically that means I can't possibly be a homosexual!"
What is clear is that the culture of homosexuality strongly pressures persons identified as homosexuals [I'm assuming Card meant "bisexuals"] to "come out of the closet," "stop fooling themselves" or otherwise surrender to the doctrine that if you ever have a homosexual desire or are aroused by a homosexual partner, that means that you "are" a homosexual and any attempt to repress or sublimate or simply refuse to act on those desires is useless and doomed to failure no matter what you do.
I never thought I'd see the day when Card speaks out in defense of bisexuals.
And when many individuals report that they have successfully lived heterosexual lives despite or after homosexual experiences or desires, they are dismissed by the normalizers as "victims of a repressive society" or "never really homosexual in the first place" or, of course, as liars.
I could probably, with an afternoon spent on Google and going through my own print sources, debunk this with 10 or so pages. Instead I'll try to be brief. Michael Bussee, one of Exodus International's founders, later left the group to live with a boyfriend and issued a public apology to those who had joined EI, an experience shared by enough people that there are actually groups and conferences of self-described Ex-Gay Survivors. Even "conversion therapists" admit that after "treatment" same-sex desires do not go away and the patient's overall sex drive will be diminished. Even Evergreen International admits that basically the gay actually won't go away.
So it does sound like even the people who think ex-gays can lead heterosexual lives believe that they can't do so truly successfully.
Variety. The picture that emerges from a dispassionate view of the existing science, as well as the biographies of hundreds and thousands of actual homosexuals, is that homosexuality is not just one thing. It does not manifest itself the same way in all persons identified as homosexuals. It does not follow one unalterable course.
Many people have homosexual experiences or desires and fantasies in adolescence, yet grow up to be fully functional, at least for a time, in heterosexual relationships.
Every homosexual reading this essay, no matter how enraged they might be at my deviance from the party line, will recognize that I am speaking nothing but the truth that is obvious to all participants in the homosexual community: Homosexuals are not exactly alike, and neither is their degree of homosexual exclusivity.
Yes, I'll admit it, but 1) how does this prove anything, and 2) does Card mean to assert that sexual development for heterosexuals is universal?
In my opinion, all homosexuals should be enraged at the notion that of all human beings, only homosexuals cannot control their sexual behavior by conscious choices. This dogma implies that they are less than human. Yet this is precisely what the normalizers claim: "They can't help it."
I wonder if I can get what he's trying to say here straight (pun gladly intended). I shouldn't be enraged that Card would say that one of my parents, one of my brothers, or a relative must have raped me as a child, but I must be enraged by...what exactly? A strawman who's constantly over my shoulder and challenging my ability to be abstinent?
Let me tell you, Card, for the past year and counting I have been abstinent, so I guess I can help it, especially when I can't hunt down that elusive, mythical beast, the "second date."
We can all agree that no one can help desiring what they desire. Desires come unasked for and often from sources we do not understand.
But every other human impulse, natural or dysfunctional, can be recognized and controlled, at least to a degree. We expect alcoholics to be able to refrain from driving when drunk. We expect pedophiles to keep their hands to themselves. We expect aggressive males to curb their need to fight with perceived rivals. We expect people whose mental illnesses are only contained by drugs to take those drugs.
We expect heterosexual males -- males who are expressing the very drive that leads to reproduction of the genes, and which in other primate species is often expressed as rape -- to be able to recognize that "no means no" at every stage of wooing and coition.
In other words, our society right now says that everybody but homosexuals must curb whatever innate desires are perceived, by our society, as harmful or undesirable, regardless of how natural or evolutionarily productive they might be, or how strongly they are felt.
Homosexuals alone are treated, by our politically correct society, as being somehow perpetual children, incapable of controlling their desires or limiting their expression in any way. They are regarded, by those who presume to speak for them, as less volitional than other citizens of the same age.
I refuse to believe that. The homosexuals that I know well are every bit as volitional as any other people. They are fully human -- and are fully accountable for all their choices and actions. They are as able as I am to contain and channel their sexual desires, if they believe there is a reason to.
To steal a page from Roy Edroso...Shorter Card: Refraining from activities and behaviors that are obviously dangerous to and inflict definite physical and emotional harm on others is possible, so why shouldn't I expect all you homos out there to shut yourselves off from even the hope of true romantic and sexual fulfillment?!
By the way, now I am completely enraged, since Card feels the need to equate my love and desires with alcoholism, rape, schizophrenia, and pedophilia. How on earth can Card not see the vile, hurtful, cruel things he's saying about these gay friends of his (assuming they're not out riding unicorns in the suburbs of El Dorado)?
Science of prevention. I agree with the normalizers that homosexuality should not be treated as a mental illness. It is not like bipolarity or schizophrenia, which make it impossible for untreated sufferers to lead normal lives.
But Card just spent most of the essay arguing that homosexuality is an illness. For him it 1) has a detrimental effect on the individual and others (although, and I can't write this enough, he can't bring himself to explain exactly how), and 2) is caused by factors that intervene and disrupt the course of normal functioning. That's a good textbook definition for mental illness. And by whose standards is not being able to lead a "normal life" a defining characteristic of mental illness?
On the contrary, some homosexuals have been and are among the most creative people in our civilization (though not disproportionately so).
Well, yes, but how is that contrary to what Card just wrote?
But there can be no serious question that homosexuality, to the degree that it cannot be overcome or outlasted, is a reproductive dysfunction. A human body that has evolved with functional organs of sexual reproduction is redirected to sexual activities that are reproductive dead ends.
The cultures that last longest are the ones that maximize the reproductive opportunities and security of the largest number of their members.
As proven when all of Western Europe was assimilated into Islamic culture after monasteries and convents became widespread.
They must believe that they have a fair chance to reproduce, must be reasonably sure that the children they raise are their own, and must trust that society will provide mating opportunities for their adult children and not act to interfere with their reproductive success.
Card has mentioned this point before, and I still don't grasp it. Is a life of heterosexual marriage and children such a misery that people will almost inevitably embrace the first culturally-sanctioned alternative available?
Therefore, our scientific efforts in regard to homosexuality should be to identify genetic and uterine causes, as well as environmental and social influences that put their children at greater risk of this reproductive dysfunction so that the incidence of this dysfunction can be minimized, and where it occurs anyway its negative effects on the individual and the rest of society can be minimized.
Yet this very suggestion is invariably seized upon by normalizers as an attack on homosexuals, a desire to "commit genocide" against the homosexual community.
Since there is such a thing as gay cultures and I'd argue, along with a large number of respected scholars, that there is such a thing as gay history then, yes, it would be genocide.
Of all the things troubling about Card's yearning for a Final Solution, what I imagine he means by "where it occurs anyway its negative effects on the individual and the rest of society can be minimized" is by far the most disturbing. He might as well use a phrase like "containment camps."
It's perfectly all right for parents to grieve for any other loss or dysfunction a child suffers, but the reproductive dysfunction called homosexuality they must pretend to receive without a qualm -- or risk severe condemnation by one of the most vocal and intolerant groups in our society.
That Card can accuse his opponents of being "intolerant" right after he suggests that homosexuals, by merely living their lives and loving their partners, are a threat to society and should be "minimized" is...well, profound.
There is no "cure" for homosexuality because it is not a disease. There are, however, different ways of living with homosexual desires. And if acceptable ways can be found to protect children from developing this reproductive dysfunction before it even manifests itself, or to shape society so as to encourage the least affected to achieve reproductive success -- i.e., evolutionary normality -- why would we not want to assure that the children we bear would be free of this dysfunction?
Wouldn't we prevent dyslexia, if we could? Why, we would even prevent tone-deafness! We put braces on perfectly healthy children with buck teeth. But homosexuality? No -- we must treat this as the dysfunction that we pretend is functional.
I think it's around here that my ability to respond to Card in a logical and quasi-restrained fashion starts to collapse. I guess the main point I'd make before I start running around and bellowing, "Chad smash puny sci-fi novelist", is how does one logically reconcile A (Homosexuality is not a disease) and B (Homosexuality cannot be cured) with C (It is possible for people who had homosexual desires to lead "successful" heterosexual lives) and D (Homosexuality should be identified as early as possible and eliminated or "minimized"), without playing out the nightmare of someone who has to teach Logic And Rhetoric 100.
It makes no sense.
I'll say! Or does he not mean this essay?
And if the normalizers have their way, and it becomes criminal to give any social or legal preference to reproductively productive patterns of marriage and family, why would any rational person give their allegiance to such a community, such a legal system, such a state or nation?
By all means, leave my country, Card. Find some place where the law is more aligned with your point of view - Iran, perhaps, or Saudi Arabia.
And, as Card predicted, reading this again to write this rebuttal has indeed enraged me. However, it has also enlightened me, as I think I now fully understand what it means to be despised by a truly self-deluded bigot. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}