The Mismeasure of Desire

Summary

Discussing the debate over sexual orientation between "essentialists" and "constructionists", Stein observed that essentialists generally see heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual orientations as "natural human kinds" that can be found in other cultures and throughout history, whereas constructionists maintain that sexual orientations are "social human kinds", linguistic constructs that capture certain culturally derived meanings about sexual behavior.

In his discussion of sexual orientation research, Stein criticized several other authors for their views on the subject. He finds research that claims to have identified genes that cause homosexuality in drosophilia (fruit flies), including a 1995 study by Jean-François Ferveur et al. that was published in Science magazine, to be guilty of anthropomorphism. He argued that such research is irrelevant to understanding sexual orientation in humans. Stein called journalist Chandler Burr's A Separate Creation (1996) "unsophisticated" and criticizes Burr for failing to discuss social constructionist views and uncritically accepting "courtship" behavior between male fruit flies as an example of animal homosexuality. Stein criticized Michael Ruse's views on social constructionism as expressed in Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry (1988). Stein criticized neuroscientist Simon LeVay, writing that in The Sexual Brain (1993), LeVay fails to discuss social constructionism even though it is relevant to the subject of his book. Stein argued that in Virtually Normal (1995), Andrew Sullivan failed to show that social constructionism is false. Stein argued that it has not been shown that sexual orientations are non-arbitrary groups ("natural kinds") and that the ethics of sexual orientation research are open to question.

Discussing Halperin's social constructionist views, Stein wrote that Halperin's claims about the development of contemporary categories of sexual orientation in One Hundred Years of Homosexuality (1990) are not universally shared: while Halperin maintains that the word "homosexual" was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1869 and attaches significance to this event, others such as John Boswell argue that the concept the word refers to has existed for centuries.

Stein called Sexual Preference (1981) one of the most detailed retrospective studies relating to sexual orientation. Stein wrote that while the study has been criticized on various grounds, including that all of its subjects were living in San Francisco, arguably an atypical place with respect to the sexual orientation of its inhabitants, Bell et al.′s conclusions about theories attributing sexual orientation to the effects of experience have been accepted and confirmed. Stein added that the study "suggests that early sexual experience does not play an important role in the development of sexual orientation", and that it also fails to support theories relating homosexuality to family dynamics. Stein summarized its data as showing no difference between gay men and straight men in the strength of their attachment to their mothers, and only a weak connection between unfavorable relationships with the father and male homosexuality and gender non-conformity, with similar findings for women. Stein wrote that the study does not support the "parental manipulation theory" according to which "children with no siblings would almost never be lesbian or gay and...children with a large number of siblings would be likely to be so." Stein observed that many other retrospective studies have been conducted on childhood gender non-conformity partly because of Bell et al.′s findings relating it to homosexuality.

Mainstream media

The Mismeasure of Desire received a positive review from Jeffrey Ingram in Library Journal. Ingram called the book "intelligent, well-researched, and well-written", and wrote that it "should be the first title on any queer studies reading list" and was "more interesting and more accessible than its rather daunting title would suggest". However, Ingram wrote that, "As with most gems of philosophical debate, Stein's book poses a lot more questions that it answers".

The Mismeasure of Desire received a mixed review from Paul Gediman and Charlotte Abbott in Publishers Weekly, who called it "refreshingly daring", but criticized Stein for his style of writing and for separating his review of scientific and psychological research on sexual orientation from his discussion of the philosophical and ethical issues surrounding it. They also suggested that some readers would find his book tedious. They complimented Stein for questioning the desirability of undertaking scientific research on sexual orientation, but concluded that, "he so frequently refrains from taking sides that his analysis raises more questions than it answers." J. L. Croissant gave Stein's book a positive review in Choice, writing that it was very important and that Stein "meticulously articulates the assumptions of the current paradigms" governing scientific research on sexual orientation. However, he found Stein's critique of "constructivist theories" to be weak, attributing this to the fact that "Stein's argument converges with constructivist insights".

Gay media

The Mismeasure of Desire received a positive review from historian Michael Bronski in The Advocate, and a negative review from Michael Hemmes in Lambda Book Report. Bronski called The Mismeasure of Desire "a smart book that raises skepticism to a fine art", "groundbreaking", and "meticulously researched and argued". Hemmes found the book informative, but also poorly written. Hemmes accused Stein of writing in "too much detail" and of presenting "tortuous examples".

Radical feminist John Stoltenberg reviewed The Mismeasure of Desire positively in The Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review, writing that, despite Stein's "careful method and measured tone", the book was "radically discombobulating". Stoltenberg considered The Mismeasure of Desire a "landmark book". Stoltenberg maintained that, despite his philosophical approach, Stein wrote "simply and straightforwardly". Stoltenberg credited Stein with refuting "biological arguments for lesbian and gay rights" and "taking apart conventional wisdom" about the nature of sexual orientation, including the question of whether it makes sense to classify people on the basis of sexual orientation. He was convinced by Stein's argument that, even if a sound scientific case for a biological basis to sexual orientation were presented, this would not help the cause of gay rights.

Scientific and academic journals

The Mismeasure of Desire received a positive review from psychologist Bertram Cohler in the Journal of Sex Research, a negative review from Scott Hershberger in The Quarterly Review of Biology, positive reviews from philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah in the Journal of Homosexuality and philosopher John Corvino in The Philosophical Quarterly, and mixed reviews from Gilbert Zicklin in Signs and Heidi E. Grasswick in Hypatia. The Mismeasure of Desire also received two positive reviews in Law and Philosophy, one from philosopher Martha Nussbaum, and the other from philosopher Ian Hacking, as well as a review from Timothy F. Murphy in Sexualities.

Corvino considered The Mismeasure of Desire a "useful corrective" to oversimplified views of sexual orientation, and "lucid, engaging and ambitious". He credited Stein with eliminating some of the confusions regarding the "essentialist/contructionist debate." However, Corvino nevertheless suggested that Stein might have misconstrued the debate, given that it often appeared to be more about how much significance sexual orientation should be given rather than whether it is a "natural human kind". Cohler considered Stein's book "important for any scholar interested in a detailed review of the assumptions, methods, and findings emerging from the biological study of homosexuality". He also wrote that it may be "the most careful and detailed exploration to date of the claims of those maintaining biological factors as essential in the origin of a same-gender sexual desire fixed from earliest prenatal life", and that it cogently countering such claims. However, Cohler was unconvinced by Stein's argument that his views should not be labelled social constructionist, and found Stein's discussion of the ethics of the research less impressive than his review of the scientific findings.

Hershberger wrote that while Stein argued that there is no conclusive evidence that sexual orientation is biologically determined, the evidence was in fact "overwhelming". He faulted Stein for criticizing only a limited number of scientific studies, ignoring "others that could only rationally have a biological interpretation", adding that LeVay had already answered the criticisms that had been directed against his study. He was unconvinced by Stein's criticisms of the concept of sexual orientation, and wrote that Stein wrongly elevated philosophical reasoning above empirical fact. He found Stein's book well-written, and agreed that arguments for gay rights should not be based on scientific findings.

Appiah credited Stein with helping to clarify the issues surrounding social constructionism, but argued that, because of his avoidance of some technical philosophical issues, Stein failed to make the strongest possible case against some forms of "essentialism". He complimented Stein for his discussion of early scientific research on sexual orientation, as well as his criticism of more recent work by scientists such as LeVay, Dean Hamer, and Daryl Bem. He wrote that Stein clarified the debate over the relevance of choice to sexual orientation, and considered Stein's "notion of nondeterminism" to be one of his most original contributions. He endorsed Stein's view that the science of sexual orientation is not relevant to debates on gay rights, but was less convinced by Stein's arguments that future technologies that might make it possible to determine a child's sexual orientation would encouraged prejudice and thus be unethical. He welcomed Stein's contribution to the debate over the morality of conducting scientific research on sexual orientation, and concluded that his was "a rich and rewarding work that should be read by anyone who wants to think about what is at stake in the scientific exploration of sexual orientation."

Zicklin maintained that Stein succeeded in "demonstrating the problematic epistemological and scientific status" of the concept of sexual orientation, but in the process tested "the reader's ability to follow an all-too-closely reasoned argument". While he found Stein's goal of diminishing "the cultural and psychological significance of the gender of one's sexual partner" to be laudable, he wrote that it "cannot be accomplished by simply analyzing the concept of sexual orientation." He criticized Stein for claiming to have eliminated cultural presumptions associated with the concept of sexual orientation, arguing that this was impossible "given how densely this concept is woven into our culture." He concluded that a better approach would be to abandon the concept of sexual orientation entirely and "publicize the moral bankruptcy of research into the etiology of homosexuality."

Grasswick called The Mismeasure of Desire an ambitious attempt "to delve into the difficulties of executing and assessing scientific research on sex and sexuality." However, she wrote that while Stein endorsed a "multiple-origins" model of sexual orientation in which biological factors played only an indirect role, he does little to develop the framework of such a theory. Grasswick commented that "in the course of strategically accepting and working with" a framework that involves "dualisms of nature/nurture, essentialism/constructivism, and science/ethics ... Stein leaves himself little room to explore the interactive complexities that his own analysis seems to point toward."

Nussbaum wrote that The Mismeasure of Desire "will advance the public debate about homosexuality and the law" and praised its "rigor and clarity, its wide-ranging and ingenious arguments, and its accessible style." However, she also found Stein's account of natural kinds, and hence also the debate over social constructionism, unclear. Nussbaum maintained that the "issue of natural human kinds" is less important to the legal and ethical questions surrounding sexual orientation than Stein suggests. Hacking called Stein's book an "encyclopedic study", "an authoritative history of twentieth century scientific approaches to sexual orientations", and "a rich body of analysis, distinctions and arguments." Hacking credited Stein with being the first philosopher to expose the confusions involved in asking whether homosexuality is a natural kind. However, he criticized Stein for defining natural kinds through reference to the work of the philosopher Hilary Putnam, while adopting only a single theme from Putnam's theory that does properly convey Putnam's view. Hacking also found some of Stein's claims about natural kinds confusing, and questioned the idea of the natural kind was useful for Stein’s purposes, Stein's use of his ideas, as well as his uses of the terms "essentialism" and "constructionism". Stein replied to Nussbaum and Hacking, writing that while they both claimed that he believes that the question of whether sexual orientations are natural human kinds is relevant to ethical and legal issues, he sees no such connection.

Evaluations in books

Anthropologist Roger Lancaster described The Mismeasure of Desire as a "methodical, meticulous, and highly readable critique of scientific research on sexual orientation". Lancaster added that while Stein covers many of the problems of the research of LeVay, Hamer, J. Michael Bailey, and Richard Pillard, his "important and cautionary text was given less attention than it deserved in the gay press, and it was hardly noticed at all in the mainstream media". Corvino writing in 2013, called The Mismeasure of Desire a "dated but still excellent" book on the limitations and relevance of sexual orientation research.