Printing Tips

Evergreen Update Newsletter

March 18, 2006

We recently sent you information about a CBS "60 Minutes" program that
aired on Sunday, March 12 titled "GAY OR STRAIGHT?"


We thought you'd be interested in a response to this program by Warren
Throckmorton, PhD, a professor at Grove City College:


Monday, March 13, 2006

Gay or Straight? 60 Minutes and Sexual Orientation

Just some of my reactions to the 60 Minutes segment on sexual orientation.
This is addressed to an assistant to the segment's producer who invited me
to respond.

Robin:

In the piece, this narration was near the end:

"Then there's the question of how something in the womb could affect one
twin but not the other. There are many more questions at this point than
answers, but the scientists 60 Minutes spoke to are increasingly convinced
that genes, hormones, or both — that something is happening to determine
sexual orientation before birth."

There are many problems with the segment but this narration reveals the
crux of the matter. You acknowledge there are many more questions than
answers, but you still reference your experts as having the conclusion
that sexual orientation is determined before birth. You documented
numerous exceptions to the theories you presented and then you make a
conclusion that is unwarranted by that information. Given those
exceptions, you could just as easily have concluded that the certainty
that many people used to feel about sexual orientation being inborn might
be misguided. In fact, we do not know why people experience the sexual
attractions they do.

In fact, in this body of research, there is a relationship between gender
non-conformity and later homosexuality but there are numerous exceptions
(some effeminate men are straight and some masculine men are gay).
However, while gender non-conformity is associated with genetic
similarity, sexual orientation is not strongly correlated with being
genetically alike. Bailey's own work shows this. There is a role for the
environment to play in the pathway from gender nonconformity to sexual
feelings. Your broadcast did not address how gender nonconformity might
lead to homosexuality. It was just assumed that gender nonconformity was a
precursor to homosexuality. In the process, you reinforced all of the
stereotypes about gay men being effeminate and helped to reinforce the
social environment that assumes effeminate boys will become gay. You could
just as easily presented effeminate straight males and asked why they are
straight if being gender nonconforming causes homosexuality.

The problem here is you assumed correlation means cause. A correlation
between gender nonconformity and homosexuality does not warrant a
conclusion that gender nonconformity directly causes homosexuality. A
plausible explanation, at least for some gay men, is that the environment
mediates in some way which effeminate men will become gay and which ones
will not. In fact, a theory exists that suggests just this kind of
mediation but it was not mentioned. Daryl Bem at Cornell has developed
such a theory and it was irresponsible for you to discuss gender
nonconformity without presenting Bem's work. In my opinion, you
incorrectly led your viewers to believe that no credible science supports
social environmental factors which might mediate the development of sexual
attractions.

Even the hormonal theory does not specify how gayness might arise from
gender nonconformity. This theory only relates to how people might express
gender nonconformity. A feminized brain might lead to gender nonconforming
behavior but this does not specify how such people might develop
attractions to the same sex.

In this context, you presented the older brother theory and allowed Dr.
Breedlove to suggest an intrauterine theory for this phenomenon. However,
you did not state that even the developers of that theory predict that
between 15 and 29% of gay men might owe their homosexuality to the older
brother effect. While interesting and important, this theory (which is not
at all proven) fails to account for a large majority of people. Instead
you provided no context and left the impression that hormones may account
for most homosexuality. You also ignored 2002 research by Yale
sociologists Bearman and Bruckner that demonstrated another familial
effect: opposite sex fraternal twins. They found that boys having an
opposite sex fraternal twin are twice as likely as other boys to
experience same sex attraction. In contrast to your report, they found
that the presence of an older brother diminished reports of same sex
attractions.

I think the only fair thing for you to do is to revisit the issue and
provide some kind of balance. While there are numerous ramifications of
presenting incomplete and therefore, misleading information, the primary
matter I am thinking about this morning is the impact of stereotyping on
young sensitive, effeminate kids. With your program, you have added to
this stereotyping that labels such boys as gay from an early age and
results in teasing, pigeon-holing and self-doubt.

I said at the top this is a beginning and I could go on (especially about
the lack of discernment of putting on air the young fraternal twin pair)
but I think I will stop now. Sexual orientation research is indeed a
difficult topic to present in a 15 minute segment. However, I believe
future investigations could be much more accurate and balanced if you
bring in a wider range of researchers, theorists and thinkers in the
field. Toward that end, I would be glad to provide documentation and
further nuance if desired.

Appreciate the opportunity to present these reactions,

Warren Throckmorton, PhD
Associate Professor, Psychology
Fellow, Psychology and Public Policy
Grove City College