BIO-RHETORIC, BACKGROUND BELIEFS AND THE BIOLOGY OF HOMOSEXUALITY.

• Author: Brookey, Robert Alan

In the past few years the media have given great attention to scientific research which indicates that homosexuality may have some biological cause. Contrary to the current hype, the scientific study of homosexuality is hardly a new phenomenon. In fact, theories about a biological basis for sexuality can be traced back to the nineteenth century. What distinguishes this old research from the new is the untested belief that contemporary findings will somehow ease the social pressures put upon gays and lesbians. For example, Hamer's (Hamer, Hu, Magnuson, Hu, & Pattatucci, 1993) research on the "gay gene" has been hailed as a valuable tool in the on going battle for gay rights. Hamer reported that he had isolated a genetic market on the Xq28 chromosome that correlates with male homosexuality. Shortly after Hamer's study was published, the Human Rights Campaign Fund released a special press packet suggesting that the biological research on homosexuality will provide a powerful argument for gay rights (Watney, 199 5). Specifically, advocates of gay rights maintain that this research proves that sexual orientation is not chosen, and therefore gays should not suffer from discrimination because of their sexuality.

Gay 'rights advocates believe the biological research on homosexuality will establish homosexuality as an immutable characteristic, and thus extend to homosexuals the constitutional protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although this argument may seem compelling, it is based on a simplistic, and not wholly accurate reading of the Fourteenth Amendment (Stein, 1994). Furthermore, if this argument is taken at face value, some troubling problems emerge. For example, most of the biological research (Hamer's study in particular) does not include lesbians as subjects. In fact, Hamer has gone on record as saying that lesbianism is not genetic, but socially and culturally produced (Gallagher, 1998). In addition, most of this research (again, Hamer's study in particular) argues that bisexuality is not biologically based. Given that the biological argument assumes that rights should be extended to sexual minorities whose sexuality is biologically based, and given that the biological research excludes specific sexual minorities, it would seem that the biological research would only benefit a specific group: male homosexuals (Zita, 1994).

Of equal concern, however, is how the dependence on biological research places the gay rights movement in a precarious position. After all, if the argument for rights is based on specific research, what happens to the argument when the research is rendered obsolete? For example, a recent study published in Science casts doubt on Hamer's genetic research. The authors (Rice, Anderson, Risch & Ebers, 1999) concluded their report by observing:

It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Homer's original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation. (p. 667)

Although the authors of this study admit that their findings do not preclude the existence of a gene for sexual orientation, their conclusion erodes any argument for gay rights based on biological research (Brelis, 1999).

The argument that biological research will help secure gay rights provides a unique opportunity to observe the interface between scientific investigation and political practice. Specifically, I am interested in determining the political potential of the biological argument as a strategy for gay rights advocacy. I begin with a survey of theory that will develop my critical approach. I then proceed with an analysis of various biological studies on male homosexuality that make up the discursive formation I call the "gay gene discourse." I conclude that the "gay gene discourse" reinforces cultural assumptions about gender that may not serve the interests of gay rights advocates.

BIO-RHETORIC AND BACKGROUND BELIEFS

In his study of scientific discourse, Lyne has determined that the arguments generated within certain scientific projects can subsequently be introduced into the political sphere, but the success of these arguments may depend on how well they reflect the political climate. For example, in his analysis of Soviet scientist T. D. Lysenko's theory of "vernalization," Lyne (1987) argues that Lysenko's theories enjoyed wide acceptance in the Soviet Union, not because they were scientifically sound (in fact, they were later proven to be unsound), but because they offered a view of heritability that supported Soviet ideology. In this analysis Lyne first introduces the concept of "bio-rhetoric." He writes: "The discursive structure in question here is what I would call a bio-rhetoric, a systematic strategy for mediating between the life sciences and social life, and also for mediating between Lysenko the phenomenon and Lysenko the bearer of lessons" (1987, p. 512). In a later essay, Lyne expands his theory of bio-rhe toric and offers this explanation:

A special instance of this is what might be called a bio-rhetoric, a strategy for inventing and organizing discourses about biology in such a way that they mesh with the discourses of social, political, or moral life... A bio-rhetoric is thus talk "on its way" from an "is" to an "ought," making that connection only in the play of language. (1990, p. 38)

The introduction of the biological research into the gay rights debate is an exact illustration of how science can "mesh" with political debates. Indeed, the biological argument that is offered to advocate gay rights follows the grammar of a bio-rhetoric as it is defined by Lyne: homosexuality "is" biological, therefore homosexuals "ought" to have their rights protected.

In her book Science as Social Knowledge, Longino (1990) identifies the argumentative elements that facilitate the discursive move from an "is" of science to an "ought" of public policy. She argues that although all scientific practices are subject to social influence, the degree of this influence can be gauged by the presence of "background beliefs." Longino explains: "Background beliefs or assumptions, then, are expressed in statements that are required in order to demonstrate the evidential import of a set of data to a hypothesis. As such, they both facilitate and constrain reasoning from one category of phenomena to another" (1990, p. 59). She argues that by identifying these background beliefs, we can determine in what ways a scientific project has been subject to social influence.

Longino illustrates her point in an analysis of biological research on sex differences. She points out how evidentiary gaps in the research record often escape critical scrutiny because patriarchal values and attendant beliefs about sexual dimorphism and essentialism are so strong. In other words, our society is already invested in the beliefs that there are only two sexes, and that all of the differences between these two sexes can be biologically explained. Therefore, when biological evidence contradicts these beliefs, it is either dismissed or reinterpreted in order to bring it into line with accepted thought. Longino suggests that by tracing background beliefs in the manner of a Foucauldian genealogy, the critic can identify ideologies that are cloaked by scientific objectivity. As Longino maintains, however, the validity of a scientific claim is not based on the presence of ideology, but the degree to which ideology overrides alternative and logical interpretations of data.

Longino's theory is particularly useful for a rhetorical analysis, because it allows the critic to approach science as an argumentative construction. Although she does not draw these theoretical connections, Longino's background beliefs serve the same functions as warrants in Toulmin's (1958) model of argument. Warrants, according to Toulmin's model, serve to link evidence to claims, or in the context of scientific research, data to a hypothesis. However, this link is inferential and based on what is reasonable within a particular argumentative field. Therefore, warrants are often assumed or accepted as common knowledge. For example, when it is assumed that there are only two sexes, and that all of the differences between the two sexes are biological, then the interpretation of evidence from biological investigations of gender and sexuality is likely to accommodate these cultural assumptions. Longino's own analysis of sex differences proves this point.

While Lyne's theory of bio-rhetoric provides us an understanding of how scientific arguments enter into political discourse, Longino's theory of "background beliefs" provides a tool that allows the critic to identify the types of scientific arguments that might become "bio-rhetorics" and predict their possible political implications. The ability of a scientific discourse to "mesh" with the political and social discourses is, in some cases, contingent on the presence of background beliefs. In other words, the way scientific evidence may be used to dictate policy may be constrained by the cultural beliefs reproduced by the scientific studies in question. The "gay gene discourse" is a case in point; I will consider if this discourse, given the presence of ideological assumptions about gay men, can effectively operate as a "bio-rhetoric" for the advocacy of gay rights.

In my analysis I will examine how the background belief about male homosexuality effeminacy operates in the biological research on male homosexuality. By effeminacy, I mean the cultural belief that male homosexuals express feminine qualities and display a delicacy and weakness that is thought to be unmasculine. [1] When I analyze this biological research, I show how different scientific experiments draw on the belief about effeminacy in a variety...