Fuck Anything That Flies: Bisexuality, Fruit Flies, and the Causes of Sexual Orientation
I love science.
From the vaunted Pharyngula science blog comes this hilarious and enlightening news of mutant bisexual fruit flies.
(As they say on Mythbusters: “Warning: Science Content.” Lots of it, if you read the whole linked story.)
The gist, in case you don’t feel like reading all the darned neuroscience: In a particular species of fly, there is an occasional genetic variation — I’m trying not to call it a mutation, that’s such a judgmental word — that causes them to behave bisexually. It causes some females to try to initiate sex with other females; it causes some males to wait for other males to initiate courtship; and it causes some males to attempt, equally, to initiate courtship with both females and males. They will, to be blunt, fuck anything that flies.
And researchers haven’t just identified the existence of the mutation — excuse me, the variation. They haven’t just identified the gene that causes it, even. They’ve identified the specific neurological mechanism.
(Hence the science content.)
Now, PZ Myers, Pharyngula blogger of song and story, warns that we shouldn’t jump to conclusions about what this might mean for human sexuality. And I think he’s right to do so. Human beings are rather more complex than fruit flies. And our sexuality is, to put it mildly, a lot more complex. Fruit flies don’t, for instance, get hot for spanking, for latex, for women in seamed stockings, for men in seamed stockings, for bits and saddles, for stuffed animals, for cartoon characters, for curly-haired brunettes who look like Bette Davis.
So the fact that sexual orientation is genetically determined in fruit flies doesn’t prove, even a little bit, that it’s genetically determined in humans.
But it does tell us something about humans, and human sexuality.
It doesn’t tell us that our sexual orientation is genetically determined, or even genetically influenced.
But it tells us that it might be.
It tells us that it’s not ridiculous to consider the possibility.
It tells us that, at least in some animals, a tendency towards heterosexuality or bisexuality — and arguably homosexuality, if you think about those male flies waiting coyly for the other male flies to make the first move — is genetically determined. Entirely, as far as anyone can tell. And therefore, it tells us that it’s not out of the question to think that it might be genetically determined — at least partially — in other animals as well.
Including humans.
And this is an important message: not just for the homophobic right wing, but for the queer-theory crowd as well.
There are queer theorists and activists who would be delighted to learn that sexual orientation is genetically determined at birth. For no other reason, they think it makes the civil rights battle easier to fight if they can play the “We were born this way” card. There are queer theorists and activists who think, not only that we might be born queer, but that we definitely are, and that the case is closed.
And there are queer theorists and activists who would be appalled to learn that orientation is determined by genetics. Even partially determined by genetics. Even a little bit determined by genetics. There are queer theorists and activists who actively resist this idea, who see it as dangerous and oppressive. There are queer theorists and activists who not only disagree with this theory, but who think that we should not even be considering it.
But here’s the thing.
We shouldn’t be thinking about this question on the basis of which answer we would like to be true.
We should be thinking about this question on the basis of which answer is true. We should be thinking about this question on the basis of which answer is supported by the evidence.
The question, “Is (X) behavior learned, genetically determined, or a combination of both — and if a combination, how much of each, and how do they work together?” . . . this is, at least in theory, a question that can be answered. When it comes to human sexuality, it’s probably beyond our current grasp . . . but that doesn’t mean it always will be. It’s probably going to wind up having an unbelievably complicated answer, but it’s not the kind of question that inherently can’t be answered with evidence and the scientific method. It’s actually exactly the kind of question that the scientific method was designed to answer.
In fact, we’re already beginning to gather some non-trivial data on this subject And while the science is still in its infancy, or at least in its childhood, the current evidence seems to be leaning in the direction of “some combination of both.” When it comes to human sexual orientation, genetics, at the very least, probably plays a significant role.
My inner twenty-something queer-theory constructionist is cringing at this. When I came out and started becoming active in the queer community, constructionism (”it’s learned”) was all the rage, and essentialism (”it’s inborn”) was seen as rigid and confining. It’s been hard for me to accept the idea that sexual orientation may not, in fact, be entirely a product of a patriarchal society.
But my inner twenty-something queer-theory constructionist needs to get over it. The question of whether sexual orientation is born, learned, or both — and if both, how and how much — is not a question of opinion. It is not a question of politics or philosophy. And while there will almost certainly be ethical implications in the answer, it’s not a question that should be answered based on which answer we think is morally right or wrong.
It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of reality. And I think that’s how we should be looking at it.
Because no good — politically, ethically, philosophically, or any other way — has ever come from the denial of reality.
This entry was posted on Friday, 1 February 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
on Friday, 1 February 2008 at 11:30 am steppen wolf wrote:
I am glad you posted this. It is true, this does not prove anything…apart from the very essential fact that sexual behavior can actually be affected in a determinant way by genetic mutations. Which is, in itself, quite a revealing concept.
There was another such study - actually, couple of studies - who were published some time ago. These were about a gene called fruitless. Anyway, here are some mixed sources, for those who are interested:
Born to be gay? - New Scientist
There’s a gay fly in my soup! - The Peak
fornicating female fruitless flies - Panda’s Thumb
Sure the naming was nasty…”fruitless”…
on Friday, 1 February 2008 at 8:43 pm Carl Baker wrote:
……………… wow …………………….
Such an amazingly rational post! I think I’m in love with Greta….
I just love seeing one of my favorite science blogs referenced on my favorite (ok, only) sex blogs. And I am absolutely stunned and impressed with Greta’s determination to confront reality and live in the real world.
Absolutely wonderful!
I’d gush some more, but I fear Greta’s articulateness has left me speechless (so to speak!).
on Saturday, 2 February 2008 at 4:45 am Edward wrote:
I know “heterosexual” men with children, a loving wifes of 20 years, who go to churches, vote republican, etc. — who go down to the local sex toy / movie peep store and get their dicks sucked by other men in dark corners or through glory holes. All levels of society, all ethnic groups, all religions. They are not self-identified as gay, nor does anyone call them gay.
I know men who are married and have children who nontheless are conjectured to be “gay” by their friends and family, primarily because of their seemingly instant and intimate connection with every male they meet, because all their “good” friends are males, and because they seek out the company and compansionship of males over females at all points — that they are married and have children is almost a comma in their lives. I know a guy like this who won’t cheat on his wife, but believes that he himself is gay, but “marriage is forever”.
I’d dislike seeing “proof” that “gay” “heterosexual” or “lesbian” are either a) genetic or b) totally learned. If it is genetic then what, people have no choice about what they “are”? How far does this go into other behaviors?
If it is totally learned, then I’m annoyed because of all the people who were caused pain by their “choice”. And because the rabid right will descend like flies on gays who are teachers to say “look, they really *are* conditioning our youth.
I have seemingly always believed that people are limiting themselves by being monosexual (that my friends, is gay, les, or hetero). My life experiences tell me that sexual behavior is pleasurable, and that people like doing it — everything else about sexual behavior is taught, imprinted, conditioned — by our families and society and by what we read and by the priests, by what gets you wet the fastest and off the hardest.
I love talking at parties about how incest as a taboo in this society is constructed out of thin air. “If you don’t mind culling any birth defects (yes, there were societies who practiced infantilism), and if you have birth control or abortions, and if it is with someone who can give informed consent, then who cares?” generally has people frothing at the mouth in about 30 seconds. Gee, I can feel readers here tensing up even at the theoretical devil’s advocate kidding around (or is it?).
But to step away from sexual behavior for a moment, lifestyle choices are about so much more than just pure-D sexual behavior. You can be hetero or gay and never have sex in your Life, in my opinion. It is about who you give your heart to, about who you live with, and connect to, and share your time with. If I am a man and my partner in life is a man, then gosh I’m gay.
on Sunday, 3 February 2008 at 4:19 am Greta Christina wrote:
“My life experiences tell me that sexual behavior is pleasurable, and that people like doing it — everything else about sexual behavior is taught, imprinted, conditioned”
The problem with this argument is the number of people who say that they knew, from a very early age, what their sexual orientation was. (That’s not the only problem — there’s other evidence that human sexual orientation is at least partly inborn, in at least some people — but it’s one of the big ones.) Some of us have had our place on the Kinsey scale fluctuate over our lives… but some people really, really haven’t.
It could well be that, without social pressure, more of us would behave more bisexually. I actually think this is very likely. And certainly many aspects of our sexual identity, if not our desires and behavior, are socially constructed. But I no longer think, as I used to, that “everyone is born basically bisexual.” I just don’t think the evidence supports it.
on Sunday, 3 February 2008 at 6:35 am konrad_arflane wrote:
“If it is genetic then what, people have no choice about what they “are”?”
Without saying it is or isn’t genetic, why do you feel people *ought* to have a choice? I don’t really see the problem. I’ve never felt that I had a choice myself - I happen to be heterosexual, just as I happen to be caucasian/male/any other feature of my person that I didn’t get asked about. Maybe I’d feel differently about it if I’d ever had to really soul-search about my sexuality like a lot of gay/bi people seem to, but I haven’t, and I don’t.
“How far does this go into other behaviors?”
Well, that’s the million-dollar question, isn’t it? I definitely think that our behaviors are more genetically influenced than most of us would like to think - but that’s mainly because nearly everyone wants to believe in (their own) free will, so anything that interferes with that is necessarily going to be uncomfortable. But Greta Christina’s excellent post applies to this as well - whatever turns out to be the case, we’re better off knowing than not knowing, and if we want to know, we need to approach the subject with an open mind (unless genetically incapable of doing so…).
on Sunday, 3 February 2008 at 10:09 am Geoff wrote:
While I agree that we should, absolutely, seek the truth in such matters, I think it should be irrelevant in matters of policy. All people should be free to seek and form consensual relationships with whomever they please.