I love you with all my brain: laying aside the intellectually dull sword of biological determinism

Abstract

BackgroundBy organizing and activating our passions with both hormones and experiences, the heart and mind of sexual behavior, sexual motivation, and sexual preference is the brain, the organ of learning. Despite decades of progress, this incontrovertible truth is somehow lost in the far-too-often biologically deterministic interpretation of genetic, hormonal, and anatomical scientific research into the biological origins of sexual motivation. Simplistic and polarized arguments are used in the media by both sides of the seemingly endless debate over sexual orientation, equality, and human rights with such catch phrases as ‘born gay’ contrasted against attempts of “reparative therapy” or “pray the gay away”. Though long abandoned in practically every other area of psychology, this remnant of the nature-nurture controversy remains despite its generally acknowledged insufficiency in explaining any adult aspect of the human condition within the scientific community.MethodsThis theoretical review article identifies three factors: 1) good intentions with regard to the argument from immutability; 2) false dichotomies limiting intellectual progress by oversimplification of theory and thus hypothesis, and most dangerously, interpretation and; 3) Tradition: a historical separation of the disciplines of biology and psychology, which, to this day, interferes with the effective translation of well-conducted science into good public understanding and policy.ResultsStudies clearly demonstrate that progress toward sexual-orientation equality is being made, if slowly, despite the apparent irrelevance of the “born gay” argument from immutability. Evidence is further provided supporting the inadequacy of polarized, dichotic theories of sexual development, particularly those pitting “blank slate learning” against a fated, deterministic biological perspective. Results of this review suggest that an emerging interactionist perspective will promote both better scientific progress and better public understanding, hopefully contributing to progress toward nondiscriminatory public policy.ConclusionAccepting that the brain is a highly plastic, modularly dimorphic, developmentally biased organ of learning, one which is organized and activated by both hormones and experiences across the lifespan, is essential for doing “good science” well. Interactionist theories of psychosexual development provide an empirically sound, strong, yet modifiable foundation for testable hypotheses exploring biologically biased sexual learning.

Brave New Love: The Threat of High-Tech “Conversion” Therapy and the Bio-Oppression of Sexual Minorities

“…One consequence of this perspective is that the claim that “being gay is not a choice”—often repeated by those who (commendably) wish to counteract anti-gay prejudice and harmful discrimination—may rest upon both a muddy conceptual foundation (see Woodson 2012 ) and a lack of adequate consideration of the temporary nature of biotechnological limitations. Specifically, the “being gay is not a choice” claim confuses one's basic attractions, which—given only the crude state of present-day technology—are indeed largely outside of one's control, with one's identity, which is not.…”

“…Moreover, as our understanding of the genetic, epigenetic, hormonal, and experiential factors that conspire to shape an individual's sexual orientation increases (e.g., Rice, Friberg, and Gavrilets 2012; Woodson 2012), so may our ability to modify such variables directly, conceivably yielding an array of high-tech “conversion” therapies or other suspect interventions. These vexing scenarios evoke a number of urgent moral questions about the potential uses, and misuses, of such potent prospective technologies (Earp et al 2013, 3).…”

“…Recent work in human neuroscience, biotechnology, psychopharmacology, and other related disciplines raises the imminent prospect of “anti-love biotechnology”—neurotechnological interventions that could block or diminish feelings of love, lust, attraction, and even basic social attachment ( Earp, Wudarczyk, Sandberg, and Savulescu 2013 ; see also Gupta 2012 ). Moreover, as our understanding of the genetic, epigenetic, hormonal, and experiential factors that conspire to shape an individual's sexual orientation increases (e.g., Rice, Friberg, and Gavrilets 2012 ; Woodson 2012 ), so may our ability to modify such variables directly, conceivably yielding an array of high-tech “conversion” therapies or other suspect interventions. These vexing scenarios evoke a number of urgent moral questions about the potential uses, and misuses, of such potent prospective technologies ( Earp et al 2013 , 3).…”

“… 4. Given that sexual orientation is evidently influenced (though not “determined”—see Woodson 2012 ) by genetic, epigenetic, and early-developmental factors—i.e., factors that are largely at play before the advent of meaningful personhood—an alternative form of intervention might be to screen human embryos for partially predictive biological markers of sexual orientation, or to influence their early development in such a way as to alter the likelihood of the individual's (future) sexual preferences being weighted one way versus the other (see Schüklenk et al 1997 ; Schwartz 2008 ). At the same time, twin concordance studies show that adult sexual preferences/behavior are only moderately influenced by shared genetic and intrauterine factors, with the nonshared environment playing a significant role ( Långström et al 2010 ).…”

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model

“…Initial attempts failed to link the common features of genetically predisposed pheromone-driven invertebrate behavior and hormone-organized and hormone-activated vertebrate behavior. The innate vs. learned dichotomy has prevailed for at least 118 years despite the fact that it was addressed 25 years ago in the context of epigenetics (Johnston, 1987;Weismann, 1894;Woodson, 2012).…”