Queer Science

Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality is a 1996 book by the neuroscientist Simon LeVay, in which the author discusses theories about sexual orientation and the social and political implications of scientific research on the topic. He critically evaluates the views of authors such as the physician Magnus Hirschfeld and Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis.

Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality
Cover of the first edition
AuthorsSimon LeVay
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
SubjectsSexual orientation
Homosexuality
PublisherMIT Press
Publication date
1996
Media typePrint (Hardcover and Paperback)
Pages364
ISBN0-262-12199-9

The book received positive reviews, crediting LeVay with providing a fair and well written assessment of scientific theories about the development of homosexuality and showing how scientific research influences public perceptions of gay people. However, critics argued that LeVay was biased in favor of biological explanations of homosexuality, questioned his view that they would benefit gay people and his suggestion that homosexuality is associated with "sex a-typical characteristics" and that gay men have some traits more typical of females than of males, and faulted him for ignoring scientific literature relevant to the "nature versus nurture" controversy.

Summary

LeVay discusses the development of sexual orientation, and the social and political implications of research on the topic. He critically evaluates theories about homosexuality put forward by authors such as Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, Magnus Hirschfeld, and Sigmund Freud, and discusses efforts to convert gay people to heterosexual, such as those described by the psychologist M. P. Feldman and the psychiatrist M. J. MacCulloch in Homosexual Behaviour: Therapy and Assessment (1971).[1]

Publication history

Queer Science was first published in 1996 by MIT Press.[2]

Reception

Mainstream media

Queer Science received positive reviews from Genevieve Stuttaford and Sybil S. Steinberg in Publishers Weekly,[3] William Beatty in Booklist,[4] Gregg Sapp in Library Journal,[5] and the neurologist Richard Cytowic in The Washington Post,[6] and a mixed review from the historian Roy Porter in The New York Times Book Review.[7] The book was also reviewed by Gail Vines in New Scientist and Jon Turney in the Times Higher Education Supplement and discussed by the philosopher Michael Ruse in The Times Literary Supplement and James Edward Van Buskirk in Library Journal.[8][9][10][11]

Stuttaford and Steinberg credited LeVay with deftly explaining "biological arcana for the layperson" and showing a "full grasp" of both non-medical and medical historical information. They found the most interesting aspect of the book to be LeVay's "survey of research in Berlin at the turn of the century."[3] Beatty credited LeVay with demonstrating "how research reports have been properly and improperly used to promote either scientific growth or biased attitudes." Though he noted that Queer Science sometimes made for difficult reading, he considered the text "well-thought-out and documented" as well as fair.[4] Sapp described the book as thoughtful and objective. He credited LeVay with showing how scientific research into homosexuality effects public perceptions of gay people.[5] Cytowic wrote that LeVay's discussion of the causes of homosexuality was thorough and fair and would be "widely regarded as authoritative". He credited LeVay with carefully assessing the scientific evidence and the assumptions behind theories, and with writing well, and endorsed his conclusion that "homosexuals are created differently from straights".[6]

Porter considered LeVay's book "lucid, approachable and candid" and credited him with providing "a fine historical sketch of homosexual advocacy and sex research", and offering "a witty and withering critique" of Freudian explanations of homosexuality. However, he considered LeVay naive to believe that proof that homosexuality is rooted in the brain would convince a hostile public to accept homosexuality, writing that evidence LeVay himself provides shows otherwise. He wrote that LeVay "looks forward to the day when the 'new eugenics' born of the human genome project will enable women to abort fetuses likely to be carrying any traits they don't much care for, including homosexuality." He found Queer Science to be a dispiriting comment about the state of science. He wrote that LeVay and other researchers were guilty of making "bigger and bigger claims based on minuscule amounts of research", and called the underlying assumptions of LeVay's work, such as that all people can be categorized as heterosexuals or homosexuals, simplistic.[7]

Van Buskirk wrote that the book was usefully complemented by the philosopher Timothy F. Murphy's Gay Science (1997).[11]

Gay media

Queer Science received a negative review from the physician Lawrence D. Mass in Lambda Book Report.[12] The book was also reviewed by the gay writer Gabriel Rotello in The Advocate and discussed by the psychiatrist Vernon Rosario in The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide.[13][14] Karen Oslund interviewed LeVay about his work, including Queer Science, in The Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review.[15]

Mass characterized LeVay as a "gay-positive" essentialist. Though he noted that LeVay considered possible negative consequences of, and arguments against, the idea that homosexuality is biologically based, he still concluded that LeVay's belief that biological explanations of homosexuality would benefit gay people was "unsupported, if not naive". He found LeVay's "flirtations with social constructionist and other criticisms" unsatisfactory. He criticized LeVay for viewing The Twilight of the Golds, a play by Jonathan Tolins "about a near-future that offers genetic testing for homosexuality", as a personal criticism, and for dismissing the psychologist John Paul De Cecco, a critic of biological explanations of homosexuality.[12] Rosario described LeVay's Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why (2010) as a "rehashing" of Queer Science.[14]

Scientific and academic evaluations

Queer Science received positive reviews from the zoologist Mark Ridley in Natural History magazine,[16] the neuroscientist Dick Swaab in Nature,[17] R. W. Smith in Choice,[18] the philosopher Philip Kitcher in The Sciences,[19] Scott Herness in the Journal of Sex Research,[20] and James C. Woodson in the Archives of Sexual Behavior,[21] and mixed reviews from Christopher D. Horvath in Isis,[22] and Stephanie Kenen in the Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences.[23] The book was also reviewed by Domeena C. Renshaw and Harriet S. Meyer in JAMA,[24] Charles Weijer in BMJ,[25] David L. Hull in The Quarterly Review of Biology,[26] the anthropologist Tom Boellstorff and Lawrence Cohen in Scientific American,[27] Carol T. Tully in the Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare,[28] and the philosopher Edward Stein in the Journal of Homosexuality.[29]

Ridley praised the book as a fair discussion of scientific findings on homosexuality, and called it "intelligent and generous". However, he criticized LeVay for ignoring the literature on the "nature versus nurture" controversy. He also questioned LeVay's attempt to use genetic evidence to support the claim that homosexuality is immutable, arguing that the existence of genes that influence the development of homosexuality does not mean that homosexuality must be immutable. He noted that genes associated with particular behaviors "are probably often expressed in the way they influence individuals to respond to their environments" and that because a gene could influence the development of homosexuality in various different ways, for example by affecting how open a person is to "same-sex seduction", genetic evidence might or might not support LeVay's view of homosexuality. He agreed with LeVay that people who accept that homosexuality is genetically based and therefore inevitable tend to have a more positive view of homosexuality, but nevertheless argued that those who accept such a position are basing their views on a scientific misunderstanding, which could have counter-productive results in legal settings.[16]

Swaab considered the book a fine historical introduction to the issue of sexual orientation. However, he wrote that LeVay made selective use of research data.[17] Smith described the book as fair and well-written, and credited LeVay with covering a wide range of topics.[18] Kitcher wrote that LeVay "considers criticisms of the recent findings in a thoughtful and balanced manner" and "takes great pains to consider possible abuses of those findings." He agreed with LeVay's view that basing "homosexuality in biology" does not constrain freedom for gay people. However, he expressed skepticism about LeVay's view that genetic techniques would make it possible to prevent homosexuality.[19] Herness credited LeVay with exposing the biases of scientists, and praised him for his discussion of Hirschfeld. Although he criticized LeVay for failing to discuss some topics, such as religion and lesbianism, in greater detail, he concluded that Queer Science is "a wonderful book, lucidly written and educational."[20]

Woodson, writing in 2003, commented that the book "remains thought-provoking, controversial, and relevant to the ongoing debate" over sexual orientation, and wrote that like LeVay's previous hypothalamus study, it influenced popular views about the biological basis of homosexuality. He considered the book well organized and scholarly, and credited LeVay with thoroughly addressing the social implications of research on homosexuality and fairly discussing the various theories about homosexuality, despite his bias in favor of biological explanations. However, he found LeVay less balanced when discussing conversion therapy. He wrote that LeVay largely avoided "the issues of learning and reinforcement relevant to sexual motivation". He also questioned LeVay's assumption that masculinity and femininity are "functional opposites" rather than "independent constructs", and that "brain sexual differentiation is a global phenomenon in which the whole brain is either masculinized and defeminized or remains feminine". He wrote that LeVay's view that feminine traits are associated with male homosexuality created a basis for stereotyping, and failed to explain the behavior of non-effeminate gay men. He suggested that some of LeVay's ideas had anti-feminist implications, and that LeVay underestimated "the dangers inherent in interpreting correlational relationships between brain structures and ill-defined sample groups". He also concluded that LeVay's view that demonstrating that homosexuality has a biological basis would help overcome prejudice against gay people was unlikely to be correct.[21]

Horvath described the book as one of the best works on the history of scientific research on homosexuality, writing that it was "well-researched and compellingly told", and that LeVay provided a "detailed and extremely moving" account of the "horrific consequences" of some theories of homosexuality for gay people, including unsuccessful attempts to alter homosexuality through various forms of treatment. However, he also disputed many of LeVay's conclusions "about the nature of homosexuality and about the usefulness of biological explanations in the struggle for gay rights". He considered it regrettable that LeVay's view of homosexuality was little different from the "third sex" model proposed by Hirschfeld in 1896, argued that LeVay's view that gay men have certain traits more typical of females than of males is based on an "uncritical view of gender" that fails to distinguish between sex and gender, and wrote that his claim that he was the first person to report on anatomical differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men was incorrect.[22]

Kenen considered the book well written and accessible to lay readers, but uneven in quality. She maintained that while LeVay's chapter on the brain and his chapter on genetics were useful, LeVay’s bias in favor of biological explanations distorted his presentation of older psychological theories, and his "ahistorical sensibility" distorted his discussion of science in its social context. She faulted LeVay's discussions of psychoanalysis and social learning theories, writing that they "show a remarkably unsophisticated understanding" of the relevant scientific, social, and methodological issues, and that "LeVay’s ridicule of psychological theories of human sexuality add nothing to our understanding of the historical or intellectual contexts of such approaches." She suggested that LeVay was biased by his position as a "white gay male scientist", and that his "assumptions about what constitutes homosexuality" were "historically contingent." She argued that while LeVay considered homosexuality part of a "package" of "sex a-typical characteristics", his assumptions about what constituted "sex-typical" characteristics were unexamined and unconvincing. She found LeVay to be naive to believe "in the power of so-called objective modern science to overcome moral and religious intolerance", and wrote that he "contributes little to the pressing theoretical, historical, and social debates" surrounding "scientific research on human sexual behavior."[23]

Murphy described LeVay's suggestion that modifications in a person's INAH 3 might affect their sexual orientation as speculation. He noted that while LeVay argues that aborting a pregnancy likely to result in a gay child should not be made illegal, other commentators were less willing to accept such a position. He also argued that while LeVay believes that the study of animal sexual behavior will help make society more tolerant of homosexuality, it was uncertain that it would and if it did, this "should not be because descriptions of the behavior of animals have normative force in regard to the behavior of human beings."[30] The biologist Paul R. Ehrlich credited LeVay with providing an "excellent summary" of the views of Ulrichs and Freud.[31]

gollark: No it's not.
gollark: ABR can also bridge to DMs, and has been able to for months.
gollark: Wrong.
gollark: Like when ABR undergoes testing, except I do it properly with separate prefixes.
gollark: Oh, there must be two operating esobots.

References
  1. LeVay 1996, pp. 1–2, 11–40, 67–85, 94.
  2. LeVay 1996, p. iv.
  3. Stuttaford & Steinberg 1996, p. 249.
  4. Beatty 1996, p. 1642.
  5. Sapp 1996, p. 150.
  6. Cytowic 1996, p. 9.
  7. Porter 1996.
  8. Vines 1996, p. 41.
  9. Turney 1997, p. 22.
  10. Ruse 1996, p. 14.
  11. Van Buskirk 1997, p. 116.
  12. Mass 1996, p. 14.
  13. Rotello 1996, pp. 80–82.
  14. Rosario 2011, pp. 9-13.
  15. Oslund 1997, pp. 21–24.
  16. Ridley 1996, p. 10.
  17. Swaab 1996, p. 682.
  18. Smith 1996, p. 321.
  19. Kitcher 1996, pp. 34–38.
  20. Herness 1998, pp. 117–120.
  21. Woodson 2003, pp. 187-189.
  22. Horvath 1997, pp. 376–377.
  23. Kenen 1999, pp. 73–74.
  24. Renshaw & Meyer 1996, p. 836.
  25. Weijer 1996, p. 1017.
  26. Hull 1997, p. 233.
  27. Boellstorff & Cohen 1997, p. 146.
  28. Tully 1997, pp. 148–150.
  29. Stein 1998, p. 107.
  30. Murphy 1997, pp. 86, 104, 168, 243, 245, 251.
  31. Ehrlich 2000, p. 393.

Bibliography
Books
Journals
  • Beatty, William (1996). "A pride of gay books: Nonfiction". Booklist. 92 (19/20).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Boellstorff, Tom; Cohen, Lawrence (1997). "Queer science indeed". Scientific American. 277 (4).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Cytowic, Richard E. (1996). "All in the genes". The Washington Post. 119 (271).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Herness, Scott (1998). "Less than Objective: The Corrupted Science of Being Different". Journal of Sex Research. 35 (1).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Horvath, Christopher D. (1997). "Book reviews: Twentieth century". Isis. 88 (2).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Hull, David L. (1997). "New biological books: Human Biology & Health". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 72 (2).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Kenen, Stephanie (1999). "Queer science. The use and abuse of research into homosexuality". Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. 35 (1).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Kitcher, Philip (1996). "Perverse logic". The Sciences. 36 (6).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Mass, Lawrence (1996). "Born gay?". Lambda Book Report. 5 (1).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Oslund, Karen (1997). "Of brain structures and sexual politics". Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review. 4 (1).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Renshaw, Domeena C.; Meyer, Harriet S. (1996). "Homosexuality". JAMA. 276 (10).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Ridley, Mark (1996). "The gay brain". Natural History. 105 (8).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Rosario, Vernon (2011). "Of Genes, Genitals, and Gender". The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide. 18 (4).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Rotello, Gabriel (1996). "The naked truth". The Advocate (710).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Ruse, Michael (1996). "Glad to be gay?". The Times Literary Supplement (4883).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Sapp, Gregg (1996). "Book reviews: Science & Technology". Library Journal. 121 (12).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Smith, R. W. (1996). "Queer science (Book Review)". Choice. 34 (October 1996).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Stein, Edward (1998). "Book reviews". Journal of Homosexuality. 35 (2).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Stuttaford, Genevieve; Steinberg, Sybil S. (1996). "Forecasts: Nonfiction". Publishers Weekly. 243 (21).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Swaab, Dick (1996). "Desirable biology". Nature. 382 (6593). doi:10.1038/382682a0.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Tully, Carol T. (1997). "The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality (Book)". Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare. 24 (4).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Turney, Jon (1997). "Biology to sway the Vatican?". The Times Higher Education Supplement (1280).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Van Buskirk, James Edward (1997). "Book reviews: Science & technology". Library Journal. 122 (16).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Vines, Gail (1996). "Pride and prejudice". New Scientist. 151 (2038).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Weijer, Charles (1996). "Medicine and books". BMJ. 313 (7063).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Woodson, James C. (2003). "Queer Science (Book)". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 32 (2).CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
Online articles
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.