From simply looking at the images of our model in the page title is it possible to tell if he is left or right handed? Is it possible to tell if he has a homosexual or heterosexual orientation? Should people be concerned about either trait?
	Q. Which of these traits carried a social stigma 100 years ago? Q. Which of these traits carries a social stigma today? Q. How does one determine either of these traits today? Q. Will it possible to test for either trait through genetic testing? Q. How does handedness and sexual orientation compare?	A. Both did. A. Being gay does. A. By observing behaviour. A. It appears so. A. Read on!....

	How does right or left handedness and sexual orientation compare?	Handedness Orientation	Sexual Orientation
	Distribution in society [1]	Trait is bipolar with a majority and a minority group.	Trait is bipolar with a majority and a minority group.
	Does an intermediate group exist?	Yes ("ambidextrous")	Yes ("bisexual")
	Distribution form [2]	"J curve"	"J curve"
	Proportion in population	Majority  92% Minority  8%	Majority  95% Minority  5% [3]
	Proportion of minority distribution by sex	Male      9% Female  7%	Male      5% Female  3%
	MZ concordance for minority trait [4]	12%	50%
	MZ rate [5] (higher equates to stronger genetic influence)	1.5x	10x
	Is minority group correlated with Race? Culture? [6] Geography? Pathology?	No No No No	No No No No
	Age of trait appearance [7]	approx. age 2	approx. age 2
	Is the trait chosen?	No	No
	Is the minority trait a sign of mental illness? [8]	No	No
	Can the external expression be altered? [9]	Yes	Yes
	Can internal orientation be altered?	No	No
	Does the minority trait run in families?	Yes	Yes
	Adoptive parent to adopted child influence [10]	None	None
	Are brothers and sisters likely to share the minority trait?	Yes	Yes
	This table has been created using data contained in the book A Separate Creation: the search for the biological origins of sexual orientation by Chandler Burr (Hyperon, 1996) We are yet to be totally convinced about some of the arguments presented but anyone further interested in the topic - from a strictly biological sciences viewpoint - should find this book an excellent read. Our questions are mainly to do with the issue of bipolarity and how sexuality is socially constructed; though Burr would be completely correct to respond that he is not really interested in such social questions if he's examining the issue from a biological perspective. Update: after having gone to the trouble of pulling this page together we have discovered Burr actually moderates a website ... and it provides this information (together with various other useful stuff that has floated across the web from time to time and some very interesting correspondence). Don't you just hate that?! In the words of Homer Simpson...DOH! So that no-one feels we have "ripped off" Burr's own work we have provided this link to that site - the similarities are hardly surprising given we were both working from the same information (his!) and because we have now adjusted some of the format and wording of this page to better match what we think Burr is trying to say (Ok, OK, that part is ripped off!). We shall also be contacting him to let him know this page exists. How frustrating... (Never mind, we think our page looks better - and that's some consolation!)

	NOTES FOR THE TABLE
	[1]	In the early years in which the trait is expressed behaviourally there may be considerable fluidity and experimentation. However, a clear preference eventually emerges and strengthens the bipolar distribution. Some would argue (evidenced by other societies) that most people would be bisexual without the anti-gay social forces seen in many societies. While this may be the case, same-sex or opposite-sex activity every so often does not go against a view that most people would show a clear preference for one sex or the other. True bisexuality - that is, a preference equally strong for both sexes - is actually quite rare (as is true ambidexterity). [Return to table]
	[2]	The commonly occuring "J" curve takes this form         It differs (obviously) from a "Normal distribution" curve   The observation of a "J" curve generally indicates the influence of a small number of variables influencing the trait - it gives a bipolar observation with lesser amounts of intermediate positioning. A "normal distribution" (often called a "bell curve", from the shape) generally indicates a large number of unrelated variables and gives a smooth distribution of observations around a mean (eg: height). [Return to table]
	[3]	It is often difficult to obtain a true and representative response and survey results typically under-report gay sexuality for the following reasons People are reluctant to claim a stigmatized trait People with the trait often concentrate in particular urban areas and are missed in wide-area sampling (for example, in the GSS). There is considerable confusion over the labels applied ie. a man may have sex only with other men but not label himself "gay" - particularly to a stranger doing a survey. Researchers often apply their own categories ie. they may deem a gay man who has experimented with the opposite sex as "bisexual", or even "heterosexual" depending on the number of previous experimental contacts. Should a man who has had 10 one-off heterosexual experiments in his youth and 1 long-term gay relationship as an adult be deemed as "gay" or "straight"?. (The "proper" answer would obvious to most observers if the ratios were in the other direction). The most accurate survey results indicate a split of 95%/5% for sexual orientation. Wide-area surveys can be expected to return 1-2% as the minority, for the above reasons. Kinsey [1948] returned a figure of 4%, and not 10% as commonly claimed by his detractors (who, obviously, have either not read his work or are deliberately setting out to misinform). This 10% figure is a rounded guide to the number of people who are non-heterosexual for all or a large part of their adult life - to label them all "gay" (something even some gay support groups do) is inaccurate. [Return to table]
	[4]	MZ concordance is a figure that indicates the occurrence of a particular trait in identical twins (monozygous twins). People with little knowledge of genetics often question why identical twins (who have the same genes) do not have a MZ concordance of 100% - for example, why figures of 50% are estimated for the "gay gene". Simplistically they then jump to the conclusion that there must be something else at play ("environment" being a typical response, especially if the person has a psychology background). This overlooks penetrance - the "power" of particular genetic material. A gene may appear frequently but have little penetrance - giving a low overall observation of the trait. Or, it may appear infrequently but have 100% penetrance. In such a case anyone with the genetic material will definitely show the trait (eg. Huntington's disease). As example, the penetrance of the gene which causes Type 1 diabetes is about 30%. Identical twins will both have the allele (gene variation) that causes diabetes if one is found to have it. However, both twins also have only a 30% chance of developing diabetes - it is quite possible for the condition to develop in one person and not in their identical twin. Apparently, the penetrance of the "gay gene" results in half of the males with the gene to be gay. It is therefore quite possible to be both heterosexual and have the "gay gene" - what would not be possible is to be both gay and not have the gene/s. Understanding both appearance frequency and penetrance are vital to understanding the influence of the "genetic code". It is why two identical twins may show different traits, why a trait may skip a generation or why a family may be blessed with a "throw back" (eg red hair). Genes may be thought of a switch, but it is important to remember the switch must be connected to the electrical wiring before it has any effect! (It's a little more complicated than that but forgive us the simple analogy). Joking about the possible activity of the milkman aside; families are rarely alarmed if a "throw-back" child suddenly crops up - generally an older relative will be able to note that "great Uncle George" also had red hair, for example. In families that communicate well it is often also known that "great Uncle John" was a "confirmed bachelor" too. [Return to table]
	[5]	The MZ rate is calculated by dividing the MZ concordance by the proportion of the trait in the population (ie 12%/8% = 1.5). The MZ rate is required to estimate the relative genetic influence - the higher it is the more influential are the genes. [Return to table]
	[6]	Open expression of the trait is influenced by cultural forces. In some cultures cross-trait experimentation is accepted, in others it is severely repressed - none of this is related to the underlying trait orientation (let alone behaviour in private!). [Return to table]
	[7]	Obviously the age at which the trait is first expressed behaviourally differs and it is often difficult to separate experimentation from the underlying trait in the earliest years. However, researchers are finding correlating indicators for both traits at about age 2. [Return to table]
	[8]	In previous years both minority traits were often deemed a pathological adaptation and therefore a form of mental illness. The very word "sinister" (meaning evil or malignant) is derived from the Latin for "left" and many who attended Roman Catholic schools only 30 or 40 years ago will recall nuns beating children over the "wrong" hand in writing classes. (Other religions did this all well, however many of the anecdotes - for whatever reason - seem to involve an overbearing Irish nun!). One needs be careful separating "cause" and "effect". Left-handedness, for example, shows some correlation with industrial accidents, schizophrenia and childhood learning difficulties (there is strong debate over these correlations however). This correlation may simply be a result of a left-handed person having to adapt their behaviour to use facilities designed for a "right handed" society; such as using a pair of scissors or taking lecture notes using desks with the table on the right hand side. So to, homosexuality is correlated with elevated levels of depression and suicide - outcomes directly attributable to social condemnation rather than the trait itself. One should also note that greatest learning difficulties in left-handed children are observed when they are forced to use their right hand, a common practice in previous times. Best results are achieved if the child is permitted to find their own best method of using facilities designed for right-handed people; they may struggle at times but will successfully cope. Importantly - as far as the debate about homosexuality goes - very few parents these days would even attempt to alter their child's left handedness. [Return to table]
	[9]	One may, of course, force a left-handed child to learn to write with their right hand. A right-handed person can learn to write with their left hand. But neither behaviour is the most comfortable for the person involved, nor is it related to their underlying orientation. Training a right-handed person to write with their left hand does not make them left-handed (or even ambidextrous)! Given free choice they will always return to their most favoured hand and today very few people - in their right mind - would consider such behavioural training a good idea. One should always remember this difference between enforced behaviour and actual orientation when reviewing the results of those therapists who still claim to be able to change a person's sexual orientation - in all cases the author has reviewed it has again been behavioural training rather than changing of orientation. Anti-gay people (including therapists) often view this enforced behaviour as a satisfactory outcome - without regard for how much distress (often suicide) this may cause or how much homosexuality the individual may engage in out of observation. Apparently they think it better to be paying for treatment and severely depressed, or running a double life, or dead than it is to be contentedly living as part of a gay couple. This author disagrees. [Return to table]
	[10]	Adopted children (ie. containing no genetic material from the adoptive parents) do not pick up the trait from their adoptive parents. One cannot influence the trait - either as parent, teacher, scout master or next-door neighbour! [Return to table]

	Find your way around our site.
	Home Page	Who Are We?	D&G Update	As it is...	Welcome to Prahran
	Rebecca & Shannon	Our Families	Our Friends	Indonesian holidays	Local holidays
	Grant's resume	Work from Grant's MBA	Dale's resume	Resource list	Email us!

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page

Copyright © 1997, 1998 to Grant & Dale at grantdale@geocities.com All Rights Reserved. URL: http://geocities.datacellar.net/WestHollywood/7378/ New format posted January 13, 1998 This page revised 18 August 1998