Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why

Summary

LeVay discussed scientific research on sexual orientation conducted since his 1991 study of the hypothalamus, writing that the research supports the conclusion that sexual orientation is a product of the interactions between sex hormones and the developing brain, which predispose people's minds toward masculinity or femininity. LeVay argued that sexual orientation should be understand as an aspect of gender, seen from a biological perspective. He defined "sexual orientation" as "the trait that predisposes us to experience sexual attraction to people of the same sex as ourselves (homosexual, gay, or lesbian), to persons of the other sex (heterosexual or straight), or to both sexes (bisexual). He criticized the work of Alfred Kinsey, writing that while Kinsey took sexual behavior into account in judging a person's sexual orientation, that approach suffers from the problem that "sexual behavior is influenced by many factors that have nothing to do with one's basic sexual feelings and that are changeable over time." LeVay argued that in general only people's sexual feelings should be taken into account in assessing their sexual orientation.

Criticizing conversion therapy, LeVay wrote that the majority view among mental health professionals is that it is unlikely to be effective and has the potential to cause harm. However, LeVay noted that a study by psychiatrist Robert Spitzer identified two hundred people who claimed that it helped them to make a significant shift from homosexuality to heterosexuality. LeVay interpreted Spitzer's study as showing that, "at least a few highly motivated gay people can be helped to engage in and derive some degree of pleasure from heterosexual relationships, and to pay less attention to their homosexual feelings." LeVay stated that statistical studies support Sigmund Freud's view that on average gay men are more likely than straight men to describe their relationships with their mothers as close and their relationships with their fathers as distant or hostile. However, LeVay was skeptical of Freud's claim that the behavior of parents influences the future sexual orientation of their children, writing that while psychoanalytic theories about homosexuality have not been proven wrong, they are no more plausible than the idea that unidentified flying objects are alien spacecraft. LeVay suggested that boys who become gay may be unmasculine, or otherwise differ from boys who become straight in ways that influence the behavior of parents, and that Freudian theories reverse the direction of causation.

LeVay rejected the view, based on behaviorism, that the sex of a person's first sex partner influences their sexual orientation, arguing that it is contradicted by cross-cultural evidence, including anthropologist Gilbert Herdt's work on the Sambia, and studies of British boarding schools. He criticized the sexologist John Money, who maintained that sexual orientation develops as part of a process of gender learning, by pointing to the case of David Reimer, a man who was unsuccessfully reared as a girl following the destruction of his penis in a botched circumcision when he was seven months old. LeVay wrote that, contrary to Money's expectations, Reimer, who ultimately decided to live as a man, was sexually attracted to women as an adult. According to LeVay, there are several similar cases conflicting with Money's learning theory of sexual orientation.

According to LeVay, there is evidence that levels of prenatal hormones, such as testosterone, influence the development of a person's sexual orientation. LeVay suggested that genes that cause a predisposition to homosexuality could persist despite the presumed lower reproductive success of gay people, through a mechanism similar to that involved in the disease sickle cell anemia, which persists because, while persons who carry two copies of the gene develop the disease, those with only one copy gain resistance to malaria. LeVay wrote that there are several possible mechanisms by which genes predisposing persons of one sex to homosexuality might increase the reproductive potential of persons of the opposite sex, for example, economist Edward M. Miller proposal that the inheritance of a limited number of "feminizing" genes might make males more attractive to females by giving them increased empathy and kindness, or rendering them less aggressive, in turn making them more successful in reproductive terms, while a larger number of feminizing genes might result in male homosexuality. LeVay wrote that a study by a group led by Brendan Zietsch has provided supporting evidence.

Reviewing his work on the hypothalamus, LeVay defended his 1991 study from the criticism that the differences in brain structure between gay and straight men which it found were simply a side-effect of AIDS, which all the gay men in the study had died from. LeVay wrote that there was no obvious pathology in the specimens he studied and that he was subsequently able to study a gay man who died of factors unrelated to AIDS and found that his INAH 3 was the same size as those of the gay men in his study. LeVay noted that one attempt has been made to replicate his study. Psychiatrist and neuroscientist William Byne found a difference in INAH 3 size between gay and straight men, but the difference was not quite statistically significant by the criteria Byne used. LeVay concluded that homosexuality is, "part of a package of gender-atypical traits."

Mainstream media

Robert Leleux reviewed Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why in The Texas Observer. Schuyler Velasco, writing for Salon.com, called Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why, "a comprehensive, engaging and occasionally quite funny look at the current state of the research." Journalist Deborah Blum gave Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why a positive review in New Scientist, calling the book "rational, smart and compassionate". However, she also observed that it showed that scientific understanding of sexual orientation had advanced less than might be hoped since LeVay's 1991 hypothalamus study, commenting that "many of the most influential studies cited here spring from previous decades ... when a chapter on the importance of biology in sexuality contains 32 citations and 23 of them date to the year 2000 or earlier, a book can feel a bit dated." She suggested that the fact that there were relatively few notable recent findings could in part be the result of a lack of political willingness to fund sex research.

Philosopher Michael Ruse reviewed Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why positively in The Globe and Mail, writing that it was, "clear and comprehensive, looking at the widest range of research, and very balanced." W. P. Anderson reviewed Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why in Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries.

Gay media

Terri Schlichenmeyer reviewed Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why positively in Dallas Voice, writing that it was "intriguing" and made "sense on several levels". However, she also found the book overcomplicated and technical. David Woolwine gave Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why a mixed review in GLBTRT Newsletter, published by the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Round Table. He wrote that those who considered gender primarily a social construct would dislike the book, and that LeVay relied on studies that were open to many objections, such as the small size of their samples. However, he considered the book necessary to bring together the information from such studies.

Scientific and academic journals

Richard Lippa reviewed Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why positively in Sex Roles, calling it "an excellent review of scientific research on the causes and correlates of sexual orientation" and "fair-minded, and easy-to-read".

Psychologist Stanton L. Jones gave Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why a mixed review in Christian Scholar's Review, calling it "the latest and most effective among the growing corpus of books and articles arguing for an exclusively biological explanation of sexual orientation", and writing that it showed LeVay's "brilliance", "scientific acumen", and "exceptional capacity for the integration of an enormous array of scientific findings." Jones credited LeVay with "sophistication in outlining the nature of sexual orientation". However, he argued that LeVay's book had subtle problems readers not familiar with the primary literature might not notice. He described LeVay's claim that if one of a pair of monozygotic twins is gay, the other is roughly fifty per cent likely to be gay as well as incorrect, writing that the actual odds were much smaller, and that research that LeVay himself cites shows as much. Jones noted that discovering such mistakes undermined his confidence in LeVay's work in general. He accused LeVay of having a tendency to employ "creative" arguments to explain away findings inconsistent with his theory, consistently criticizing the methodology only of studies that disagreed with him, and of wrongly implying that sexual orientation must be caused either only by biological factors or only by environmental factors, failing to suggest ways in which the two factors could interact. Jones rejected LeVay's claim that there is no evidence of environmental factors influencing sexual orientation, writing that "examples abound" of significant sociocultural influence. He also argued that LeVay was guilty of sometimes employing studies with dubiously representative samples despite his awareness of the problems involved in doing so.

Drew Payne reviewed Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why positively in Nursing Standard, crediting LeVay with critically examining all theories of sexual orientation.

Other reviews

Colin Wilson reviewed the book negatively in Socialist Review, arguing that LeVay fails to deal convincingly with evidence showing that people cannot be easily divided into categories such as homosexual and heterosexual, that in his evaluation of the biological evidence LeVay sometimes relies on studies with inadequate sample sizes, that the studies do not consistently support LeVay's hypothesis, and that LeVay is "too obsessed with his hypothesis to accept that it doesn't work" and was following a misguided strategy to advance the cause of gay rights by showing that homosexuality has a biological basis, in the process accepting sexist stereotypes.

Views of scientists and scholars

Psychologist J. Michael Bailey called Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why "the best available summary of the science of sexual orientation." Neuroscientist Marc Breedlove writes that, "LeVay offers a lucid, authoritative account of the exploding literature on the biology of human sexual orientation." Neuroscientist Bradley Cooke called Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why "lively, engaging, and balanced", and "a must for anyone interested in the biological bases of sexual orientation." Gay scholar John Lauritsen dismissed Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why, writing that LeVay is obsessed with a "faulty hypothesis". Lauritsen charged LeVay with ignorance of relevant historical and anthropological evidence and poor scholarship, noting that LeVay's bibliography excluded important works by sex researcher Kinsey and psychologist Clarence Arthur Tripp. In 2012, Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why received the Bullough Book Award for the most distinguished book written for the professional sexological community published in a given year.

Louis Hoffman and Justin Lincoln, discussing Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why on PsycCRITIQUES, accepted that LeVay provides a strong argument "for biological influences on sexual orientation", but found his case that homosexuality stems partially from the "influence of prenatal hormones that feminize development" to be "convoluted". They also argued that LeVay implicitly endorses conversion therapy, criticizing his view that some highly motivated gay people can be helped to engage in heterosexual relationships, and to "pay less attention to their homosexual feelings." LeVay commented in 2016, when the second edition of Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why was published, that since the publication of the first edition there has been further progress in supporting a biological basis to sexual orientation.

Evaluations in books

Sex advice columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage praised Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why.