The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation.

The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation. By Edward Stein. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, 388 pages. Cloth, $35.00.

With the emergence of modernity as a mode of thought at the end of the nineteenth century, understanding of the experience of same-gender sexual desire was transformed from the realm of moral discourse to that of medicine. Work such as that of Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Havelock Ellis provided the basis for later claims, such as that of Freud, that same-gender desire could be understood objectively within a systematic psychology. This shift in discourse regarding same-gender desire was presumed to be more humane than trial and possible imprisonment for those persons (generally men) given the new designation of "homosexual." As Nungesser (1983) has observed, there must be something threatening to society about men loving and having sex with other men which is particularly intriguing and also threatening which underlies continuing preoccupation with finding presumed determinants for this same-gender sexual desire.

Earlier focus on a medical rather than a moral and legal basis for understanding same-gender desire fostered study of presumed biological-developmental factors which could be experimentally demonstrated and which would explain homosexuality. Claims that same-gender sexual desire may be founded on biologic substratum have also been popular within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) community. In the first place, if such same gender desire is founded in biology, it "can't be helped" and it should be regarded in same manner as handedness or eye colon Viewed from this perspective, same-gender sexual desire is an intrinsic or essential characteristic which has been manifest across cultures and over long periods of time. Second, biological explanations provide an answer to the question of "how I got to be that way" and become part of what Plummer (1995), following Simon and Gagnon (1984), has portrayed as a "dominant narrative" or sexual story. At the same time, those ready to endorse a biological view of the determinations of sexual desire overlook the possibility that improvements in human genetics could lead to the prenatal elimination of those believed to show the relevant biological predisposition which would presage a nonnormative sexual orientation. Third, understanding same-gender sexual desire as founded in biology is empowering and provides a sense of community among those who believe that they share this common attribute.

This emphasis on a biological basis for same-gender sexual orientation has been enhanced by strong claims from biological scientists, who maintain that they have evidence supporting such a biological foundation for same-gender desire. Recent popular accounts such as those by Dean Hamer and Simon LeVay (Hamer & Copeland, 1994, 1998; LeVay, 1993; LeVay & Hamer, 1994) report findings believed to support this perspective regarding sexual orientation. All too often, scientific speculation is taken as fact by a community seeking to find scientific support for the presumption that such dispositions as personality or sexual orientation must have a biological foundation.

However, over the past 3 decades there has been increased critical discussion regarding the effort to demonstrate a biological foundation for sexual orientation. This reconsideration has been inspired by critiques such as that of Foucault (1975), emphasizing the relationship between social power and determination of scientific knowledge, together with the realization that heterosexuality, itself, is a sexual orientation which must be "explained" (Chodorow, 1994). Increased awareness both of bisexuality as a sexual identity, and also that the experience of same-gender desire may first be realized across the course of life, shows the complex ways in which social factors may contribute to present self-identification within the LGBT community. This more recent study suggests the importance of moving away from conceptions of same gender desire as necessarily binary (Chodorow, 1994; Katz, 1995; Stein, 1992).

In what may be the most careful and detailed exploration to date of the claims of those maintaining biological factors as essential in the origin of a same-gender sexual desire fixed from earliest prenatal life, the philosopher of science Edward Stein has countered these biological claims in his cogent review of findings regarding the biology of same-gender sexual desire. With a doctorate in philosophy from M.I.T., Stein is particularly well qualified to undertake this reconsideration of the scientific evidence. Designed to counter such claims as those of LeVay and Hamer (1994) and, like them and also the present reviewer, self-identifying as gay, Stein is careful to present findings from biological study in impartial terms before presenting his critique.

Claims regarding a biological substrate determining nonnormative (alternative) sexual orientation are most often founded either on presumptions of social evolution or on findings from behavior genetics and genetic linkage studies, animal models of prenatal development presumed relevant for human development, and comparative study of gender and neuroanatomy. In a previous volume, Stein (1992) had systematically examined the assumptions underlying claims that sexual orientation is founded either on some essential (biological) attributes or that it is founded in particular meanings of self and sexuality present in particular times and places. Critical both of those positions emphasizing an essentialist-biological claim, and also of the social constructionist claim that sexual desire takes many forms determined entirely by the meanings provided by a particular culture at a particular time, Stein observes that a so-called social constructionist view does not necessarily negate the essentialist view.

Stein (1992) had earlier concluded that the dilemma inherent in understanding sexual orientation from either an essentialist or a social constructivist position is founded in the very presumption of categories of "natural kinds" of human sexuality which we construct, either binary or bipolar, such as those of homosexual/heterosexual, man and woman, or sexual identity and gender identity, rather than recognizing the many ways in which persons understand or make meaning of their sexuality. The politics of gender and sexuality in contemporary society have contributed to the publication of studies believed to show that sexual categories are a natural kind. The question is not whether biology is involved, for biology is involved in all aspects of human development, but how biology is involved in particular kinds of sexual desires, according to a permissive model in which genetic factors influence aspects of neuroanatomy which then influence particular preferences, a direct model which constrains or shapes a particular preference, or an indirect model in which genetic factors influence personality which then interacts with life-circumstances in order to shape sexual orientation (Byne & Parsons, 1993).

Stein considers the assumptions of those within biology who identify with an essentialist position. He questions the assumption that persons who have sex with others of the same gender either uniquely possess attributes which need to be explained, or that sexual orientation may be regarded either as binary (gay or straight) or as bipolar (a continuum marked at one end by gay and at the other by straight). Stein questions the appeal of essentialist explanations as more parsimonious than explanations founded in the vagaries of life-circumstances. Essentialist explanations are founded on predetermined concepts rather than on the meanings which we make of our lived experience, including our sexuality (Schutz & Luckmann, 1973).

Stein extends this critical perspective in the present volume, critically examining concepts of sexuality and focusing on the ways in which sexual science has depended on categories rather than on the complexity of life which does not fit into categories so neatly. Sexual orientation does not map neatly into desires and dispositions. Stein's book is divided in three sections: an introductory discussion of sexual orientation and its measurement in contemporary sexual science, a review of the science underlying the strong claim of biological factors as predominant in understanding variation in sexual orientation leading some persons to seek as sexual and life partners others of their own gender, and a section focusing on ethical implications arising from the claim of a biological foundation for sexual orientation.

Reviewing natural science perspectives on the determination of sexual orientation, which he rejects as binary or bipolar, Stein finds little support for any assumption that sexual orientation is a "natural kind" of category. Rather, behind the appearance of a sophisticated and coherent research program, there is little of substance in biological findings reported to date. Reviewing evidence from animal models, evolutionary perspectives, behavior genetics, and findings based on the interplay of presumed predisposition and childhood experiences, Stein concludes that:

   ... conclusions [from experimental evidence] [show] serious methodological
   and interpretive problems ... Studies in the emerging scientific program
   embrace--explicitly or implicitly--a problematic account of what a sexual
   orientation is; have problems finding an appropriate subject pool study;
   accept unjustified assumptions about the base rate of homosexuality; and
   make a variety of implicit, widely varied, and unjustified assumptions
   about homosexuality. (p. 226)

Stein notes that many of these studies have multiple problems; indeed, there have been few studies even attempting to replicate findings. However, underlying his more detailed critique is Stein's fundamental assertion that findings from scientific studies to date are not plausible precisely because sexual orientation does not constitute a "natural kind" and cannot play any explanatory role in scientific explanations.

Discussion of the detailed critique which Stein provides of the several versions of this biological research program is beyond the scope of this review. Since the strongest claims have been made regarding genetic determinants of same gender sexual orientation, Stein's critique of this literature provides an example of the care and detail which he provides of the biological literature. Since genetic factors are presumed in contemporary culture to play a major role in determining individual differences, it is not surprising that genetic factors have been highlighted as particularly salient in determining same-gender sexual orientation (LeVay & Hamer, 1994). For example, in reviewing findings of Northwestern University psychologist Richard Bailey and his colleagues (see, for example, Bailey, 1995), Stein shows that such study is beset by problems of ascertainment bias, attributing same-gender sexual orientation to identical twins on the basis of casual report by one twin. Recruiting twins in a nonsystematic manner, relying on two-dimensional binary or bipolar categories in portraying sexual orientation, using mistaken presumptions regarding the supposed base rate of homosexuality, and relying on self-report and self-definition of sexual orientation are among the problems of method confounding these findings from reports such as those of Bailey and his colleagues.

Stein is particularly concerned with the setting in which information is obtained from respondents. Echoing concerns such as those expressed by Mishler (1986), Stein questions whether the setting in which questions are asked permits a candid report of sexual intimacy. Stein observes that evidence that a trait is found among family members, a presumption both in the work of Bailey and his colleagues and that of Hamer, does not itself permit the conclusion that it is the result of direct genetic effects. Further, neither this genetic work nor reports of neuroanatomic differences presumed to be associated with sexual orientation have been replicated by research groups independent of the original investigator. Similar problems are reflected in the effort to identity a sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area of the hypothalamus in studies such as those of LeVay (1993); Gorski, Gordon, Shrune, and Southern (1978); and others.

Stein saves some of his most detailed critique for the research tradition using animal models and for the emerging field of evolutionary sociology and psychology. Stein observes that the finding that castration in male rats (leading to androgen deprivation), resulting in changes in rodent sexual behavior, should not be understood as reflecting on human sexual dispositions or on meanings which humans attach to sexual activity. Studies of the evolution of sexual behavior typically look only at the evolution of male homosexual behavior (McKnight, 1997) and fail to consider issues in the evolution of heterosexuality. Stein does not find much of the research in this area plausible. Further, although some biologists have claimed an adaptative advantage for homosexuality as the basis for the continuation of the "homosexual gene" in the gene pool (McKnight, 1977), Stein notes that there is little evidence supporting this view; gay men and women do not necessarily contribute to family and community in ways different or more altruistic than straight counterparts. We presently lack necessary information regarding the development of homosexuality necessary for the evolutionary stories which these social evolution theorists tell.

Experiential-developmental perspectives fare little better in Stein's review than more biologically founded models. For example, founded on the presumption that "exotic becomes erotic," Bem (1996) has suggested that boyhood gender nonconformity may be accompanied by the desire to be like gender-stereotyped others, who are then viewed as unattainable and exotic. Later, in adulthood, these exotic others then become the subject of sexual desire as childhood exotic becomes adult erotic. Stein takes apart the logic of Bem's theory, noting that it does not explain either bisexuality or why gay men would not be attracted to masculine women. A masculine-oriented theory, Bem's construction can not deal with such other presumed childhood exotic characteristics as those regarding other ethnicities or other life-styles. Stein shows that Bem's theory leads to erroneous predictions regarding the expression of sexual desire, appeals to unsubstantiated biological explanations, and presumes a direct causal link between childhood gender nonconformity and adult sexual desire. However, there is little evidence that sexual orientation is as fixed as is presumed by Bem and other theorists seeking childhood gender nonconformity as the foundation for adult same-gender desire.

Experiential-developmental theories are generally post-dictive, presuming particular patterns of adult sexual desire on the basis of retrospective accounts of childhood. Particularly among gay men, these accounts are a part of the presently-told dominant narratives of becoming gay (Plummer, 1995), in which theories such as that of Bieber et al. (1962) regarding a presumed passive father and overbinding mother during childhood have become the foundation for stories of lived experience among gay men. These accounts show little more than that gay men volunteering for study are concerned with questions of origin and meaning, are likely to be well read, and are able to integrate what they pick up from reading and the media in telling their own life stories.

Stein sagely notes that sexual desire has complex biological and psychological foundations, may change across the course of life, and cannot be captured by focus only on present sexual activity. At the same time, while maintaining that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, Stein argues that this position does not require retreat to either an essentialist or constructionist perspective; Stein believes that some combination of nature, not yet understood, and nurture or life circumstances (multiple-origins theory) contribute together to sexual orientation. The reality that persons may change the gender of their sexual partners does not mean that sexual orientation is a simple matter of choice. What is of greater interest for Stein is the attention paid across the past century to preoccupation with the question of the origin of sexual orientation.

A concluding section of the book considers ethical issues posed by Stein's critique of the evidence regarding either direct or indirect biological models for understanding sexual orientation. Stein cautions that appeal to scientific evidence as the basis for gay rights poses serious problems and marginalizes gay and lesbian people. No other minority group has made such an appeal to biology as the basis for equal rights. The underlying issue is realizing respect for gay and lesbian lives rather than concern with the basis of this sexual orientation. The issue of gay rights is ultimately political and not scientific. Stein is concerned that procedures designed to select or change a child's sexual orientation are morally problematic and pose significant danger for the gay community. Ethical and moral concerns together clearly show that there is no justification for the conduct of such study. Countering the argument that the lives of gay men and women are so difficult that every possible measure should be undertaken to protect children from being subject to this lifestyle, Stein notes that historical circumstances determine the extent of stigma which people will experience; while it is difficult to foretell the future, it is likely that full civil rights will ultimately be extended to lesbians and gay men, just as has happened with other organized minority groups.

The question, Stein argues, is why people find sexual orientation to be so particularly fascinating, when in fact we know little about others simply on the basis of knowing their sexual orientation. There is little about sexual orientation which makes it a natural human kind, revealing important details about human nature. While it may be accurate to say that accounts of the nature and origins of human sexual desire vary across cultures and time, Stein believes that the focus of study at the present time must be to uncover and make explicit the heterosexist assumptions underlying presumed scientific study of sexual orientation.

Stein's book is important for any scholar interested in a detailed review of the assumptions, methods, and findings emerging from the biological study of homosexuality. Stein's presentation of findings is particularly lucid. While this reviewer is not convinced by Stein's effort to avoid the label of social constructionist, Stein would likely counter that we should suspend judgment regarding this issue until some time in the future when findings from well conducted, replicated, scientific study become available. The section on the ethics of research on sexual orientation is less impressive than Stein's review of scientific findings. Others, such as Murphy (1997) and Suppe (1997), have discussed the ethical issues in greater detail and with greater sophistication. As Stein notes, much of this ethical concern is more properly understood as a public policy debate. What is clear is that appeal to the study of sexual orientation as a "natural kind" is not likely to lead to more informed discussion, and may be founded both on incorrect assumptions and on findings which are not sturdy when understood from the perspective of rigorous scientific scrutiny.

REFERENCES

Bailey, M. (1995). Biological perspectives on sexual orientation. In. A. R. D' Augelli & C. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the life span (pp. 102-135). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bieber, I., Dain, H., Dince, P., Drellich, M., Grand, H., Gundlach, R., Kremer, M., Rifkin, A., Wilbur, C., & Bieber, T. (1962). Homosexuality: A psychodynamic study of male homosexuals. New York: Basic Books.

Bem, D. (1996). Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 103, 320-335.

Byne, W., & Parsons, B. (1993). Human sexual orientation: The biological theories reappraised. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 228-239.

Chodorow, N. (1994). Femininities, masculinities, sexualities; Freud and beyond. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.

Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punishment. New York: Pantheon.

Gorski, R., Gordon, J., Shrune, J., & Southern, A. (1978). Evidence for a morphological sex difference within the medial preoptic area of the rat brain. Brain Research, 148 333-346.

Hamer, D. H., & Copeland, P. (1994). The science of desire: The search for the gay gene and the biology of behavior. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Hamer, D. H., & Copeland. P. (1998). Living with our genes: Why they matter more than you think. New York: Doubleday.

Katz, J. N. (1995). The invention of heterosexuality. New York: Dutton/Plume Books.

LeVay, S. (1993). The sexual brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

LeVay, S., & Hamer, D. (1994). Evidence for a biological influence in male homosexuality, Scientific American, 270, 44-49.

McKnight, J. (1997). Straight science? Homosexuality, evolution and adaptation. London: Routledge.

Mishler, E. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Murphy, T. F. (1997). Gay science: The ethics of sexual orientation research. New York: Columbia University Press.

Nungesser, L. (1983). Homosexual acts, actors, and identities. New York: Praeger.

Plummer, K. (1995). Telling sexual stories: Power, change, and social worlds. New York: Routledge.

Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The structures of the life-world. (Vol. 1). (T. Luckmann, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. (1984). Sexual scripts. Transaction, 22, 53-60.

Stein. E. (1992). Conclusion: The essentials of constructionism and essentialism. In. E. Stein (Ed.), Forms of desire: Sexual orientation and the social constructionist controversy (pp. 325-354). New York: Routledge.

Suppe, F. (1994). Explaining homosexuality: Philosophical issues and who cares anyway. Journal of Homosexuality, 27, 223-308.

Bertram J. Cohler, Ph.D., The University of Chicago, The Committee on Human Development, Chicago, II 60637-1603.