Two Specific Examples of how “Scientists” Misinterpret Evidence to Further Political Objectives
(Scientific Misinformation Regarding the “Cause” of Homosexuality
By
David Gottfried
“Progressive” people are intent on making us all believe that homosexuality is caused by genes and nothing but genes. To accomplish this end, they have made their minions in academia interpret studies and arrive at conclusions in a manner consistent with their ideological objectives.
STUDY 1:
In “Homosexual orientation in twins: a report on 61 pairs and three triplet sets,” (This appears in Arch Sex Behav. 1993 Jun;22(3):187-206. You can find this on the web at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8494487), researchers looked at, among other things, monozygotic twins.
Monozygotic twins are identical twins. Their DNA, their genetic structure, the way they have been programmed to be, is one and the same. They look alike. In a recent study of identical male triplets in New York, who had been reared apart, it was shown that they liked the same cars, the same kind of women and the same kind of cigarettes.
In this study of 61 pairs of twins (Presumably reared by the same parents), it was found that when one monozygotic twin was homosexual, there was a 65.8 percent chance that the other twin was homosexual.
Obviously, since homosexuals are far less than 65 percent of the population, genetics seems to play some role in sexual orientation.
However, if one’s genes are identical, and homosexuality is solely a function of genes, then we would expect a concordance rate approaching 100 percent, i.e., if genes and nothing but genes caused sexual orientation, then if one’s identical twin were gay, there would be a 100 percent chance that one would also be gay.
Of course, since most or all of these monozygotic twins were raised by the same parents (The abstract of the study did not state if the twins were raised together or apart. Ergo, all of them were probably reared together since it is rare that one will discover an identical twin raised by another guardian), much of the concordance rate of 65.8 percent is probably explained by having experienced the same child-rearing practices.
Nevertheless, the last sentence in the abstract concludes that the study supports the notion that homosexuality is inborn. However, the only honest conclusion would have been one which asserted that it appears that biology plays a role in sexual orientation. The author’s suggestion, that homosexuality was inborn, no ifs, ands or buts about it, was dishonest.
Also, I have read other reports that indicate that in other studies of monozygotic twins the concordance rate varied between 44 and 50 percent. If genes were the alpha and omega of homosexuality, the numbers would be much, much higher.
STUDY 2:
The New York Times reported, in August or September of 1991, that a study, regarding the size of the hypothalamus in straight men, gay men and women, showed that male homosexuality was inborn. This study was a piece of bull, unrivaled in idiocy by anything I have read since I suffered to see an article, written by an American psychiatrist in the 1920’s, which said that epilepsy was higher among blacks than whites because of the end of slavery, which, the psychiatrist opined, gave blacks a sense of security and order which made them less apt to suffer from epilepsy.
The article said that the hypothalamus was larger in heterosexual men than in women. The article also said that gay men had a hypothalamus that was smaller than the hypothalamus in straight men and more like the hypothalamus seen in women. According to the dim-witted author, this proved that male homosexuals were like women and that homosexuality was inborn.
So many errors in his reasoning and so little time to explain them (It is Labor Day weekend) !!
A) He assumes that a tiny hypothalamus caused male homosexuality. However, homosexuality may have shrunk the hypothalamus. How does he know what came first? Often, BEHAVIOR WILL CHANGE THE STRUCTURE AND SIZE OF ORGANS.
i) If one does lots of bench presses, one’s pectoral muscles will get larger (provided one isn’t too old and doesn’t suffer from various physical illnesses)
ii) Cigarette smoking can change the shape, size and structure of the alveoli of the lungs.
iii) Rat sexual behavior can change the structures in a rat’s brain See: “Study of Rats Finds Sex Can Change Brain” Los Angeles Times, October 23, 1997, by Robert Lee Hotz. Formerly, it was available at this web address:http://articles.latimes.com/1997/oct/23/news/mn-45881. However, this address now states that the article is in an archive.
B) The study suggested that male homosexuals were just like women. What a fucking dope. Yes, many male homosexuals have some feminine attributes, but male homosexuals often have so many other attributes that make the feminine, or the make-believe and contrived feminine, pale into insignificance. Male homosexuals are often dramatic, theatrical, fastidious, egocentric and narcissistic. Also, have you looked at allegedly effeminate homosexuals. Do you really think a drag queen is like a woman? Do you really think that most women behave like Bette Midler or Cher or Sophie Tucker? Can’t you see the artifice and the anger in what you stupidly think is an approximation of the female.
Two final notes:
1) The preceding assertions do not mean that I contend that homosexuality is pathological. Although I contend that homosexuality is often the product of environmental phenomena, the same can be said of heterosexuality. Indeed, Freud said that we were all born bisexual. (And that goes to show you how little most Americans, both the feminists and the Freudians, know about modern theories of sexuality). Indeed, the preceding contentions can be elaborated and enriched with dozens of additional notions, culled from my own experiences and my heavy and diverse readings, but in our brain-dead civilization, in which everything must be reduced to a sound bite, it is best to keep one’s essays and thoughts short, stunted and hopefully liberally sprinkled with smiley faces.
2) My notion, that what purports to be science is often sculpted and molded by political passions, is also discussed in other articles of mine on substack. I refer you to
and