Sex In The Public Square - sexual orientation - Comments

60 minutes on Don't Ask Don't Tell

Elizabeth — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:23:44 -0700

Just Wednesday, June 25, 60 Minutes ran a segment on Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). You know I don't think much of most mainstream media coverage of complicated topics, but this was good for at least exposing some of the contradictions in enforcement, some of the irrationality of the arguments against gays serving openly, and some of the unbelievable costs of the policy:

Army Major Daniel Davis - hurts unit cohesion. Can't compare to blacks and integration because this is a moral issue and you can't form cohesion with someone you find morally reprehensible.

British Admiral Sir Alan West says nothing bad happened to them when they integrated but U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter's response is "well the EU folks don't fight in the really dangerous places." Presumably accordidng to Hunter gays aren't suited for heavy combat. Brit counters that the Spartans were pretty macho and also homosexuals. (Hunter later says that it is wrong to ask families to "experiment" with their sons and daughters lives by changing the policy and asking them to serve with gays who are out.)

Army Sergeant Daniel Manzella, medical liason for his unit in Kuwait, tells about getting a letter warning him about being too open, then about going to his commanding officer and outing himself, providing photos of his boyfriend and a very sweetly romantic video of a road trip they took together. Essentially he invited an investigation, and the outcome of the investigation? They told him there was "no evidence that he was gay" and that he should go back to work.

Charlene Espinosa left the airforce after 8 years, and after being trained to fly fighter jets (and is now working as a pilot for a commercial airline), talks about the cost of her training ($2 million), the increasing enlistment bonus costs and the reduction of standards and then asks "are we any safer or more secure because we'vethrown out an Arabic linguist, thrown out a medic?"

Indeed.

Language sure is powerful

Elizabeth — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:44:15 -0700

You know, Mojave66, "Compromised ability to compensate for perturbations of development" sounds pretty normative, to me, and not just descriptive at all.

I've been hoping to create a place on this site where we can give those with research backgrounds a place to comment on recently published sex research. That study sounds like a good one to add to the list!

That particular comment

Mojave66 — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:58:26 -0700

Actually, after reading your comments the sentence that pinged me didn't bother me nearly as much. The quote in question:

"Lalumière et al. discussed several alternative explanations for why non-right-handedness is associated with homosexuality in both men and women. One possibility they suggested was developmental instability: a compromised ability to compensate for perturbations of development." (Blanchard & Lippa, "Birth Order, Sibling Sex Ratio, Handedness, and Sexual Orientation of Male and Female Participants in a BBC Internet Research Project", Arch Sexual Behav, Volume 36, Number 2 / April, 2007, http://www.springerlink.com/content/0417v7308624l342/)

Still, I question the use of "developmental instability" instead of "developmental variation", for instance. Instability implies there is a "stable" development associated with a normative heterosexuality. A nitpick perhaps, but given that 50 years ago lesbians were "treated" with clitoridectomies, I'd rather err on the side of slightly paranoid rather than complacent.

"Norm" v. "normative"

Elizabeth — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:58:47 -0700

Its no wonder people get so confused. When we sociologists talk about "norms" we are usually talking about a culture's expectations for behavior, and we're using the term in a descriptive and not in a moral/judgemental way. We are sometimes also, as many scientists are, using the term to describe a kind of commonly occuring type, as Alex points out. Again, a descriptive and not a judgemental use of the term.

But as Mojave66 notes, that scientific language often gets read as normative, and often gets used to support moral judgements or to argue that one kind of behavior is healthy while other kinds of behavior is a sign of illness or disease.

I don't see an easy way to prevent those leaps from being made, but I do think it points to just how important it is that we're out there helping make sense of science reporting, and helping to reshape the discourses that come out of misinterpretations and misapplications of research findings!

"Disturbing because, in at

Alex — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 04:32:51 -0700

"Disturbing because, in at least one citation I read, the language is loaded toward "heterosexual=normative; homosexual=deviation."" This is due to the use of scientific language; normal is defined as the most commonly occurring type, and other characteristics/behaviour are abnormal or deviate from the norm. There is no moral connotation, it's just an expression of frequency of occurrence. It's interesting that there is a correlation between handedness and orientation. I would have thought that the motor control centres would develop separately. Your blog sounds interesting, I'm looking forward to reading it.

Welcome

Chris — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:58:53 -0700

Wow, Mojo. That's a lot of utterly fascinating stuff to turn over in my head, and all of it very clearly put. I can't wait to read more. Thanks for coming here and sharing with us. So often, the scientific and the personal aren't presented in ways that make them seem relevant to each other, but they really are, and we ignore that at our peril.

"In 1967 the Loving v.

Jane Know — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:13:58 -0700

"In 1967 the Loving v. Virginia case made it clear that it is unconstitutional for states to prevent interracial couples from marrying. Does anybody argue about whether the partners in interracial couples are "born that way" (i.e., somehow biologically inclined to sexual attraction and love of people from other racial groups) or whether they've "chosen" to partner with people outside their own races? No. In fact the biology of sexual attraction never entered the picture in the Loving decision. The question was one of whether or not it was legal for the state to regulate marriage by taking race into account."

I love the way you framed this argument. Thank you for the article. I just wrote a similar one on my blog without even knowing about yours, in regards to the recent Mother Jones' article "Gay By Choice?" (although i think you say it better than me)

Biology of Choice

Judycatch22 — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 09:01:19 -0700

I thought your column on The “Biology v. Choice debate” has no place in a discussion of sexual freedom and civil rights" was one of the most impressive and comprehensive pieces I've ever read on the issue. Thanks for cutting through all the rhetoric and false arguments and presenting a clear statement I can believe in.

Stayed

Elizabeth — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:06:06 -0700

So disappointing. Legally, I suppose, it is sensible, though morally it just seems so wrong. Very frustrating. But congrats to Fritz and McQuillan!

Amnesia

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:26:01 -0700

I forgot we had one of those....

D'oh.

I just added a link to that

Elizabeth — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:10:09 -0700

Thanks JanieBelle. I just added a link to that same page on our "Links" page under the category "Court cases"

Court Documents

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:26:43 -0700

For anyone interested,

Lambda Legal has all the relevant court documents here.

Read the decision!

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:59:12 -0700

Holy crow.

It's actually very readable and understandable, and he cites Lawrence and Loving among a pile of other cases and laws.

The best part is that he quotes Scalia a couple times.

Ouch.

And the NYT has a decent

Elizabeth — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:54:24 -0700

And the NYT has a decent story here .

Hurray for Hanson

Elizabeth — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:52:28 -0700

(The judge, not the band.)

Indeed! Way to support the rule of science :) (Wait, I mean the rule of law, supported by science.)

Now, of course we expect that this is going to be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, so it'll be interesting to see what they do. And any bets on whether this creates a new surge of energy fr state constitutional amendments?

(Wow, where did that pessimism come from?? I think I need to get out for a walk. I'll be back in a little bit.)