Saturday, September 8, 2012

Genetic Research on Sexual Orientation

I found the section in the text book about the "gay gene" very interesting. I think there are many sides to this debate. Confirming that being homosexual is genetic could open doors for scientific advancements and possibly gay rights, but could also further discrimination. It is also very dangerous to do in homophobic nations.

The few positive outcomes I could see from this type of research is that it could prove that people do not "choose" to be homosexual. Individuals may not face as much ridicule if it is known that they "couldn't help it." One would hope that they would no longer face discrimination. Deriving from this idea, perhaps there would be more advancement in the area of gay rights. Since genetic evidence is present, perhaps politics and religion would move in a more inclusive mindset.

However, I personally see more harm than good in this scenario. I do not think finding a "gay gene" would have as many positive outcomes as people think. I believe the bad would outweigh the good. People in other minority groups, rather related to race or ability, still face discrimination and prejudices even though they do not "choose" these things about themselves. I also do not think one's sexual orientation should fully define them as a person, and perhaps the discovery of such gene would do that, rather than looking at the individual as a whole. I also think that some parents may blame themselves for having an "abnormal child." I can see it now..."What did I do wrong? What could I have done to prevent this?" I'm sure some parents struggle with that now when their child comes out to them, but adding a biological/genetic factor would, in my opinion, make it much worse.

Then there's the idea that one could choose to remove or fix this gene, which I think is unethical and unnecessary. Or what if people choose to abort their children or give them up for adoption simply because they already know he or she is going to be gay? Don't get me wrong, I am all for choice, but that seems a bit extreme. Sound like modern day eugenics, anyone?

Further more, if people find that sexual orientation is biological, some may aim to fix it or change it later in life if it can not be done in the womb. This could possibly lead to the reintroduction of some "treatments" used to "cure" homosexuality in the past, such as hormonal therapy, electroshock treatments and brain surgery. I would hate to see this research have an adverse effect and in turn justify the discrimination against people of the LGBT community. And what about people who may "experiment" with the same sex out of curiosity, or those who are questioning their sexuality? Are they just crazy to have those thoughts or engage in that behavior because they don't possess "the gene"?

Although I am all for scientific research on the topic, I do think it needs to be done with careful consideration. It is interesting to consider what is "normal" and who determines that. I also strongly believe that if research is going to be done on this topic, it needs to be done as professionally as possible with limited amounts of bias getting in the way.

Bad Science and Sexism


Let’s get started with a quick warning:

Science is a tool, and it can be used to do wonderful (or terrible) things, but in itself isn’t “good” or “evil”. So when I say bad science I mean bad as in badly made, not bad as in malevolent or unethical.

Scientists have their own beliefs, because scientists are still humans. So while perfect objectivity is impossible, it doesn’t mean that science is just as biased as every other potential source of information. Science improves over time, and as new discoveries are made old knowledge is revised, and while we’ll never get a perfect understanding of everything  we’re getting closer to it every day.

Unless bad science happens.

Testing for a "gay" gene


In class on Wednesday we discussed Section 2 Reading E, "The Ethics of Genetic Research on Sexual Orientation" by Schuklenk, Stein, Kerin and Byne.  This was a very interesting discussion because it was centered on the possible existence of a gay gene that could be scientifically tested for.  I searched online for any articles pertaining to the topic and I found one from http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=87 , that featured a position paper they wrote on genetics determining ones sexuality. A quote written at the end really stood out to me because it pretty much summed up my view of this issue. It stated “The scientific argument for a biological basis for sexual orientation remains weak. The political argument that it will bolster gay pride or prevent homophobic bigotry runs counter to experience. The lesbian, gay, and bisexual community does not need to have its "deviance" tolerated because its members were born "that way" and "cannot help it." Rather, society must recognize the validity of lesbian and gay lifestyles. We need an end to discrimination, an acceptance of all human beings, and a celebration of diversity, whatever its origins.” I feel as though the point of even attempting to search for a gay gene is ridiculous. Even if one could be found what would it solve? Can two straight parents carry the gay gene that they were born with but were just never active, and then pass it on to their child? And if the “gay” gene is active in their child there gay and if its not their straight? It just seems too farfetched and unnecessary for me to believe or even agree with. I feel like ones preference when it comes to sexual orientation is too complex to pin on a gene. I think it definitely comes more from ones surrounding’s, personal feelings and experiences. Overall even the proposal of testing for a gay gene in my opinion is nothing but an inclination of society’s unwillingness to fully accept gay lifestyles.    

Being Informed

In the last formal class we had, on Wednesday, we talked about the ramifications of the gay gene. To be honest I never even heard about an idea such as that until I walked into class that day. The science of sexuality and gender is something I don’t feel people are as informed about as they should be. As the reading has been stating; science about the body and gender have been going on for quite some time. Scientist have been proving and disproving each other about topics, such as the comparisons between men and woman, for several years. Since we live in a world where information is so easily attainable I feel us as not only a country but as a nation should work on informing people about the topics around them. Many people only see sexuality and gender discussed on the TV, which usually means people are seeing a very one sided bias' that may or may not be true.  Perhaps we could offer more informative classes within not only the college atmosphere but also high school. I think people are looking for answers nowadays and I think we have to figure out a way to find good credible information for them.

"Genetic Research on Sexual Orientation"

When skimming the Science Daily, I came upon an article that stuck out to me and believe it could be related to Section Two, Reading E in our Introduction to Women's Studies text book. The article is titled "Facial symmetry may play a role in 'gaydar'", here is the link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120121120109.htm 

In a study done at Albright College in Pennsylvania,  it was believed that facial symmetry or the lack of it could be a genetic link to homosexuality. Consisting of photographs of 60 sexually self-identified people, 15 heterosexual men; 15 homosexual men, 15 heterosexual women and 15 homosexual women, they were judged on a scale which indicated what gender they most seemingly would be attracted to. The "judgement" was done by looking at facial features, but specifically symmetry. "We found differences in measures of facial symmetry between self-identified heterosexual and homosexual individuals," says Hughes. Personally this whole acquisition surprised me, because I don't believe that the features of one's face could actually influence one's perceptions of another's sexuality. I believe that  the experiment's sexual orientation and correlation to facial symmetry in the photograph is weak and could not be supported by anything scientific, more so by just judgments and maybe stereotypes. To me it does not say much in the name of science. Ultimately I feel it's just a study that is trying to label homosexuality as something that is perhaps not normal, and I don't find truth in it.

Another Possible Effect of Finding the Gay Gene

The essay "The Ethics of Genetic Research on Sexual Orientation" decribes the imprisonment and murder of homosexuals in Singapore. A similar situation is also present today in Uganda. In the artice "The World's Worst Place to be Gay?", it mentions the country's Anti-Homosexuality Act. This horrific piece of legislation convicts those who are considered gay to a sentence of life in prison or in some cases even death. The author also describes an interview with a young lesbian, who revealed that she was raped "in an attempt to cure her of her orientation".
I believe that the search for the gay gene, while it may be in the best intentions, will cause further discrimination rather than understanding. In places such as Singapore and Uganda, it will be used to "weed out" those who are different and may lead to genocide.

The Gay Gene

Courtney Loiaconohttp://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6803&Itemid=1926
PAHO Article Link

Our discussion in class about Section 2 Reading E, "The Ethics of Genetic Research on Sexual Orientation" by Schuklenk, Stein, Kerin and Byne was one I wish could've lasted about four class periods. There is so much to be said about it and so many different opinions to be heard! My main concern after reading this section was not how researchers would go about finding the so called "gay gene" or why in fact they were even searching for such a thing, but what would happen if some scientist did claim he/she had discovered such a gene? How would that affect our society? People are already trying to "treat" or "cure" sexuality without any real scientific fact behind their practices, and throwing any little bit of scientific research in the mix will only fuel the fire. The authors point out how "electroshock treatment, hormonal therapies, genital mutilation and brain surgery" have been used against homosexuals to try to "convert" them into heterosexuals.  

After skimming the New York Times archives I found an article about Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, a psychiatrist that "supported the use of so-called reparative therapy to “cure” homosexuality". Spitzer has recently apologized for his research in that field and what it did to the gay community, but that isn't the reason the article intrigued me. A link within the article brought you to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) page which was about how therapies and treatments meant to cure homosexuality threaten one's health. With the "discovery of the "gay gene" instances like this will only worsen. Though Spitzer realized his mistakes later in life, the impact of conversion therapies still exist. Searching for a gay gene is unnecessary and in homophobic societies, will only aid the fight against homosexuality.

The Fable of the Sperm and the Egg

The Fable of The Tortise and the Hare can be compared to the reproductie proccess. The speedy, yet overactive Hare challenges the slow, steady Tortise to a race. In the end, the hastiness of the Hare causes him to fail. The Tortise is illustrated as patient and reliable, which are traits it shares with the egg. The sperm, however, is impatient and overly confindent, much like the Hare.
Bravo! I love everyone's egg and sperm narratives. I am curious, has anyone ever heard of the story "Night-Sea Journey" by John Barth? It is a gripping tale of a dangerous voyage, divulged in first-person from a type of traveler whose exact identity is difficult to discern. He confesses the fear of death, the heartbreaking competition, and the loss of his brothers on this journey, which is also, apparently, a type of race. The character's position in the race confounds him, and he relates feelings of dread and existential discomfort, witnessing mysterious apparitions such as birds and mystical sea-waters on his way to some ultimate goal that not even he can articulate. In the end the reader usually realizes that the story is about a sperm. “You who I am about to become, whatever You are”, he says.
Stories such as these, immersed in mythology, fascinates me, and I have an ambivalent opinion of how women have been represented in most religions and mythologies. However one thing is for certain: there is little difference, at times, between how much clarification on the comparative values of the sexes arises from literature and science.
Kate, thank you for that article, I think it was important to read. However it was horrible. This type of thing depresses me, it is the kind of thing that makes me so angry all I can do is pace around my house really hard.
The horror of the article I would blame on the writer, who is talentless, impatient, and graceless. He or she was obviously employed in the wake of the biologist's failed Nazi agenda, and served as the soapbox on which the scientist could stand and spit his propaganda.
I think it would be of more use to look for a gene for homophobia rather than a gene for homosexuality. Or maybe a gene for good writers? Hmm..
That bit in the middle, about how gays are over-represented in sitcoms. I would laugh if it weren't so absurd. Of course there are more gay people in television shows-- sitcoms are filmed in cities, cultural hubs, places with dynamic energy and creative folk, places where gays and lesbians have traditionally flocked to following their dreams of leaving prejudice behind and living in free expression. What do they expect? Sorry, bro, small-town homophobes that live their whole lives in front of a TV watching local news and religious zealots, living in fear of every single other type of lifestyle besides his own and eating Cheetos are tragically under-represented in sitcoms. Because they are boring. We've seen enough of them in real life. Why would we give them a TV show.
(Disclaimer-- that's not always true. In my opinion, Roseanne is a really good show about... 'boring', average people, I guess you could say. But even they had gay characters, and they were hilarious).
I think the reason gay people often have such marvelous senses of humor is because they are forced to, because they live with so much against them, the only way to make their struggle tolerable is to learn to laugh.
 I feel worse for homophobes than for their victims because homophobes live in sad, small, laughless worlds. What doesn't kill us makes us who we are, right?

Friday, September 7, 2012

Fall Semester


 

As the fall semester begins every student is discussing aspects of their favorite and least favorite classes. Well talking to my roommate, she declared her interest in her Human Biology class. She discussed how she just learned about the basic forms of life such as the sperm and egg. Finding this completely relevant to our recent discussion in our Women’s Studies course I decided to investigate further.

I asked my roommate to tell me about the things she learned from her class. She told me how she learned about all of the names for different parts of the sperm from the tail to head, to how they are produced, and even their life span. I then proceed to ask her if she learned anything interesting about the egg. She had a confused look on her face and replied with the simple reproductive biology that we all know, such as the ovaries producing an egg. I took this time to reflect on the reading from class about how the sperm can be described as active with characteristics such as strong, while the egg is the complete opposite. This was a ground breaking moment for me and also a time for me to educate others.

The Incredible Egg


After a month of preparation the ovaries produce a powerful and strong egg of life. This egg does not just resemble life but it also symbolizes a new beginning. The egg is placed in the uterus. The uterus helps us to understand how important the egg is, because of the uterus’s protective walls. After ejaculation of the male, millions of sperms are released with no sense of direction. The egg is the one that ultimately makes the choice of which sperm is the best fit. Once the egg chooses the perfect gene donor, the egg cuts off all types of communication between the other sperms and leaves the blind, useless sperms to die. The egg then (with little help from the one sperm) blossoms into a life that will soon help to create a bond that is unlike any other, family. This is why the egg is so vital.
 
Bridget McKnight

The Miracle Woman

I would like to discuss the story "The Miracle Women" By Rebecca Skloot, after reading this story I was left feeling horrified and disgusted. First that not one of those doctors even told her they would be taking samples from her to try and grow cells from. She should have had to sign consent forms or at least verbally agreed to this process but this never happened. Did this happen to her because she was a colored woman? Would this have happened to a white male at this time? After the cells began to grow rapidly someone then should have contacted her to let her know that they would be duplicating and sending out  millions of these cells to other doctors for research. From sending these cells everywhere a multibillion-dollar business was born, and yet Henriettas family couldn't even afford health insurance. Considering that so many medical developments were made from HeLas cells don't you think the family should have reaped some of this benefits?

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Homosexuality, choice or biological?

People's opinions about homosexuality are so very all over the place, in my opinion. In the article "The Ethics of Genetic Research on Sexual Orientation" by Schuklenk, Stein, Kerin, and Byne, they talk about U.S. specific arguments. An example of one of these arguments is whether or not homosexuality is a choice or a biological factor. In my opinion, I do not think that homosexuality is a choice or affected by the environment in which someone lives in. There are a few reasons that I believe this to be. My best friend just came out as being gay last semester at the age of 20. He realized that he was, in fact, gay in the 6th grade. I do not find it plausible that the environment that my best friend was living in 'influenced' or affected him in such a way to decide that he is, in fact, gay, especially at such a young age. Another reason that I believe this true is because of what I have learned in Art History. In the period time of Ancient Greece, men were known for having a relationship with their teachers or mentors. In many cases, these men would fall in love with each other and have a sexual relationship. These relationships were not looked down on during this time period. Even in a time where homosexuality wasn't really known, there were same-sex relationships. I personally don't believe that this is something that these people could choose, to fall in love with another man. Another reason that I believe that being homosexual is not a choice is because if homosexuals do receive so much hate, discrimination, arrest, or physical violence, in a lot of cases, then why would they choose to be in such circumstances? Don't you think that people would ultimately strive to not have those things happen to them?  I just find that people who believe that being homosexual is a choice are somewhat ignorant to this issue, and I wish they would open their minds to some of the observations that do show that homosexuality could ultimately not be a choice.


- Hanna Neumann

why search for a gay gene?

The discussion of the gay gene the other day in class really brought up a lot of opinions and feelings in the classroom for everyone as well as myself. I feel that the idea is almost a catch-22 and as it was said in class, not finding a gay gene may give people a reason to devalue others that are gay but finding one may do the exact same thing. Genetics are complicated and when I think of the idea of a "gay gene" it almost seems too simplified. There are so many factors that influence the way a person expresses themselves, this includes sexuality, and this can be due to so much more than genes.

The idea of a gene that signifies homosexuality is narrowing down that one sexual preference and causing people to continue the discrimination and prejudice of this group of people. I feel that it is unfair to constantly be looking for a reason or explanation for why someone feels sexually attracted to another person. There are some things I feel do not need a rhyme or reason, they just are the way they are and this is one of them.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

In this weeks post I wanted to further our class discussion on "the gay gene." When I left today's class I was left feeling skeptical about the situation if there is one. As I was reading for today's discussion I knew that finding if there was a gay gene that it would be put in the wrong hands and all hell would break lose. And I'm still trying to search for any benefits that would come to finding out if there was a gay gene. So with all my questions I wanted to find an article that could share some enlightenment on my thoughts. This article goes on to discuss the Human Genome Project and Simon LeVay's research on differences in the brain between straight & gay men and women. The findings of LeVay's were that his assumptions about homosexual urges can be biologically based—so long as cluster size is accepted as being genetically determined. But his research isn't creditable in my opinion. And LeVay himself say's this about his research: "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find.  I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay.  I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.  Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain." So what does that mean now? Many other people have done more studies about this subject and nothing has been found credible- but if there is a gay gene wouldn't that ultimately eliminate all gay people? At the end of this article they brought up this fact that gay couples can't produce a child- therefore no more of the "gay gene" would be passed on people. So I think that's the answer to this- I don't believe that there is a "gay gene." 

Works Cited:  http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

The Track & Field Reproductive Process

If you have ever run on a Track & Field in  high school or in college you would know that the sprinters usually run events in which they run as fast as they can for less than a minute or so and then they are done. Long distance runners on the other hand run events in which they run as fast as they can for as long as they can. The sperm are the sprinters of the reproduction process. Though their job is important for the big picture, it ends just as fast as it begins. Whereas eggs can last in the woman's body for long periods of time. They are the long distance runners of the track team. The long distance runners are truly there because of their dedication and motivation to win for the team.

Gretchen

The Egg and The Sperm

Amanda Ongley

While medical textbooks view the egg as simply sitting on a shelf and degrading until their chance at fertilization, but this is not wholly a bad thing. with this process of degradation the most genetically superior eggs are the ones that survive to be fertilized to make the best babies, while thousands of sperm are produced essentially on the spot The fastest one wins, but that one may not always be the best, as is the case with some nerds and jocks.
Even though both the sperm and egg die without each other, the sperm life period is much shorter. The egg survives inside the family body for decades, where the sperm only survives only a day.
No one reproductive cell is better than the other, but they are equal.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

The Egg

The egg is ready to be fertilized. It waits patiently for the sperm to deliver its supply of DNA to combine with the egg's.  When, finally, one of the millions of sperm reaches the egg, it is the original egg that continues to grow and develop.  It only needed to search for the little bit of help that the sperm was offering.  Once fertilized, the egg is ready to become something greater than neither it or the sperm could have ever become alone.

my eggs a shark

The egg may be passive but since when does passive mean weak or inferior.  The Egg is like an Angel Shark it lays in wait.  Until some exhausted sperm, like a fish, finally thinks its found a good place to snack or rest (or ok it's found the egg, but that ruins the metaphor) And then the egg like the angle shark eats its pray( or absorbs it if you want to be scientific).  Once its finished, it goes back to resting quietly on the ocean floor. (for about nine months or so)

Egg and Sperm


As the egg patiently awaits the arrival of the sperm it is a common misconception that the egg is “lazy” or not as valuable in the reproduction process. However the millions of sperm that swim there way in hope of producing a child would not be able to do so without the presence of the egg. Because one stays rather still during the reproduction process as opposed to traveling doesn’t diminish the importance of either party. Both come together as one for the common goal of creating a child and are equally important.  

The Powerful Egg

The egg is not an inferior part of biology, it is an amazing reproductive tool. While the males reproductive system makes and wastes over 100 million sperm a day, the females reproductive system is born with what it needs and just dispenses over time what it doesn't use. Also the women's reproductive system doesn't "waste" away over time it ages and matures. The female reproductive system produces one mature ova every month as needed and to counter this the male reproductive system creates thousands if not millions of sperm to reach this.

passive-aggressive reproduction

Although the egg passively awaits the arrival of the sperm, it thrives their unification and needs it in order to survive. The egg is not active in the way the sperm is, in that it does not move and search for the other, however, without the egg the two could not work to become one. The egg and the sperm are two entities that work together to create one product. The creation of this product needs both the passive and aggressive qualities of the gametes and therefore reproduction would not be possible without the individual characteristics of each.

-Meghan Ras

Sunday, September 2, 2012

The Egg.



The egg is a very important component in the reproductive system. Although the egg seems almost "lazy" and passive does not mean it doesn't matter in the reproductive process. In order to reproduce, you need the sperm and the egg. The egg is always standing strong and ready, but if that sperm doesn't get there then there is no reproduction.

Hanna Neumann

Equal cells

Though the egg stays in one place, and doesn't have a little wavy tail that enables it to travel, you can say the main function of the egg is to "receive" the sperm cell in an almost seemingly passive way , the egg realistically is a very powerful, sacred cell, equally as important and constructive as the sperm. The way I look at it is that they are simply a puzzle, one wouldn't be able to fulfill the ultimate destiny properly without the other, it is a two way road.

Additional Questions To Consider:

Dear Students,

Don't forget to post your revised sperm and egg stories as "practice" for your weekly entries that will be due beginning next week.

Below are some additional questions you may wish to consider in response to last Friday's reading that we did not have time to address in class.

1. Why do Grewal and Kaplan begin the book with a discussion of the ways in which gender has been constructed by modern Western scientific and medical discourse? 

2. In class, some of you seemed to argue that the concept of "sex" does not change over time, whereas others thought that it did.  Explain further, using the information presented by Oudshoorn to shape your response.  How would Oudshoorn respond to this debate?  What evidence does she provide?

3. According to Martin, what is the cybernetic model and how might it be useful in rewriting gender stereotypical scientific and medical descriptions?

4. According to Martin why is it potentially dangerous to endow cellular entities (such as egg and sperm) with the characteristics of personhood?

5. What does Vance mean when she argues that gender and sexuality are "socially constructed"?

6. What is essentialism and how does it relate to gender and sexuality?

7. Vance argues that sexuality is socially constructed.  Does this mean that individuals can change their sexual orientations at will?  Explain.

8. Does the concept of social construction imply that biology plays no role in determining human behavior?

9. What are some problems of social construction theory as identified by Vance?

10.  What is deconstruction and how does it relate to gender and sexuality?

You need not answer all of these questions, but may choose one or several to respond to if any strike your interest.  Remember that your entries can be about anything you wish as long as you make connections between the course readings and the social world.

Best,
Jeff