Open mind (as well as facts) needed in sexuality debate

I am writing my column this week as a response to John Ritchie's letter to the editor in last week's Greyhound entitled "Homosexuality is not genetic." Ironically, this article was brought to my attention in a class called "Sociology of Sexuality."

Mr. Ritchie believes that anyone who identifies as homosexual has chosen that identity. According to the social constructionist view of sexuality, of which Sociology of Sexuality professor and highly trained researcher Barbara Vann is a proponent, this is incorrect.

This does not mean that those educated in this field believe that homosexuality is only genetic. Rather, we believe that a variety of factors combine in a person's sexuality.

A root of the term 'social constructionist' is 'society.' This means, in a nutshell, that homosexuality (or heterosexuality - in other words, a person's sexuality) is in fact inborn. However, the societal environment in which a person lives can affect the genuineness with which he or she expresses his or her sexuality.

Put another way, an individual who is born homosexual but is living in an environment that is unfriendly to those who identify as such may (I stress may, because everyone is different) not feel completely confident in expressing his or her homosexuality.

One of the many false claims that Mr. Ritchie made was that there has been no research concluding a genetic component of homosexuality. This is, to put it plainly, false.

Two extremely helpful articles can be found at the following websites: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/health/10gene.html and http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/.

To quote Mr. Ritchie, "[N]obody has been able to prove in any conclusive study that homosexuality is genetic." He refers to "shoddy pop science" as the only research in this area. I hope that the experts that I am about to discuss are non-shoddy enough for Mr. Ritchie.

"If you can't make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis, how strong could any psychosocial effect be?"

That's a direct quote by J. Michael Bailey, a sexual orientation expert at Northwestern University who was discussed in the above-referenced New York Times article. Certainly food for thought, I'd say.

Let's move beyond food for thought into actual (not shoddy) scientific research. Ray Blanchard and Anthony F. Bogeart are two researchers from Canada that have studied the correlation between birth order and prevalence of homosexuality. (This applies to males.)

They have found "that having older brothers substantially increases the chances that a man will be gay."

Dr. Bogaert proposes that something such as "a maternal immune response to succeeding male pregnancies" is an explanation for this.

Other relevant research has come from Boston University's Richard Pillard, a psychiatrist, and Northwestern University's J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist. Their subjects were identical twins. For sets of twins where one was homosexual, the other twin "had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay.

For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent. Because identical twins share their entire genetic makeup while fraternal twins share about half, genes were believed to explain the difference."

These researchers don't have all the answers just as I don't have all the answers. One thing that I can say for sure is this: sexuality is not as simple as 'genetic' versus 'non-genetic.' There are a variety of complex factors that enmesh. As author Neil Swidley said in the above-mentioned Boston Globe article, "While post-birth development may well play a supporting role, the roots of homosexuality, at least in men, appear to be in place by the time a child is born."

I am working to educate myself on these matters. I am extremely glad to be enrolled in The Sociology of Sexuality this semester.

Mr. Ritchie, I do not know if you are a student or a non-student (because the only accompaniment to your contribution was your name), but if it is at all possible, I strongly suggest that you sign up for SC 220 with Dr. Barbara Vann the next time that it is offered. It would do you, and all of us, a great deal of good to better educate yourself.

As Caitlyn Slivinski referenced in her column last week, that course is truly eye-opening, especially if you think that you have the answers - which Mr. Ritchie certainly seems to.If you are reading this and know Mr. John Ritchie, please make sure that he sees my article.

And please, Mr. Ritchie, at the very least read the articles for which I provided links above.

Again, the last sentence of your letter to the editor was "You should report the facts not shoddy pop science."

I've given you some facts. Enlighten yourself.