By 1986 the born “gay” hoax had been born, and was growing fast. The resulting public relations campaign fooled millions of people around the world into accepting unnatural and inherently dangerous sexual behaviors as natural. In the wake of Ulrichs’s latter-day apostles, Kirk and Madsen and their influence on the culture, many came to believe that they themselves were born “gay.” Same-gender sex activists capitalized on multiple pseudo-scientific studies to mislead the public. The following analyses, will debunk every study of this sort, beginning with the three most cited.
The Hypothalamus Study
First we will examine the “Hypothalamus Study,” conducted in 1991 by Dr. Simon LeVay, who worked at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. The study analyzed size differences in the anterior hypothalamus of the brains of cadavers. LeVay publicized the study, in an attempt to convince the public that men that develop sexual desires for other men do so because of the size of the hypothalamus in the brain.
LeVay, it should be noted, had strong personal and political reasons to pursue research in this area. LeVay engaged in same-gender sex himself, and lost his partner to AIDS. Further, according to a Newsweek cover story in 1992, he stated: “. . . if I didn’t find anything, I would give up a scientific career altogether” (Gelman et al., 1992). LeVay also seemed to understand the impact that his study would have on society. “It’s important to educate society. I think this issue does affect religious and legal attitudes.” (WAS THIS QUOTE MADE IN REFERENCE TO HIS STUDY?) The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, asked LeVay if he thought “that grounding homosexuality in biology can help win political equality.” LeVay responded:
“All the civil rights legislation passed in the ’60s is based on the knowledge that there is a genetic and immutable difference between blacks and whites. Of course, blacks are still discriminated against, but the legal advances they’ve made are based on those genetic differences. And I think that is a major stumbling block for our gaining the same protection as other groups. There is a survey in the New York Times that broke down people on the basis of whether they thought gays and lesbians were born that way or whether it was a lifestyle choice. Across the board, those who thought gays and lesbians were born that way were more liberal and gay friendly.”
LeVay’s manufactured hypothalamus study received widespread media attention and as a result catapulted the idea that some men are born “gay” into prominence. Although the misinformed still quote the study today as proof that men who have sex with men are born “gay,” it was actually discredited shortly after its release. The following are some of the study’s problems.
First, LeVay compared the brains of 19 men who had sex with men and died of AIDS (which is known to ravage the brain) with the brains of 13 men whose sexual habits he did not know. It is therefore impossible to draw any conclusion from his study. Second, although LeVay argued that a small INAH3 (hypothalamus) “caused” men to be “gay,” some of the men that, according to his guess work, had sex with men, had an INAH3 (hypothalamus) that was larger than the average size of the INAH3 of the “supposed” men who had sex with women. Furthermore, some of the men who had sex with women had an INAH3 that was smaller than those of the “supposed” men who had sex with men. So, some of his “gay” subjects should have been straight, and vice-versa. Third, the results of the Hypothalamus study are not repeatable. Fourth, Simon LeVay himself, admitted that the study was inconclusive in 2001, “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.” (as quoted in Byrd, et al., 2001, emp. added).* Simon LeVay’s hypothalamus study confused the public. Hopefully the truth will finally set the record straight.
The “Gay” Gene Study
The next and probably most influential study reported a “gay” gene and was conducted in 1993, by another man that engaged in same gender sex, Dr. Dean Hamer and his team of geneticists at the National Cancer Institute. Hamer and his colleagues reported that a “gay” gene seemed to be maternally linked and could be found on the Xq28 stretch of the X chromosome.
Hamer, who has testified in opposition to Colorado’s Amendment 2, which sought to keep homosexual activists from winning minority class status, has played an enormous role in The “Gay” Agenda, the born “gay” hoax. Then Senator Robert C. Smith (R-New Hampshire) even accused the doctor of “actively pursu[ing] a gay agenda.” – Joyce Price, “Federal Cancer Lab Hunts for Gay Gene,” The Washington Times, 3 April 1994.
Immediately after the Hamer study was published a media explosion ensued, but like the Hypothalamus study before it, Hamer’s study was soon to be discredited as both biased and corrupt. In fact, the title of an article appearing in the same-gender sex magazine, New York Native, illustrates this fact well. The article is titled:
“‘Gay Gene’ Research Doesn’t Hold Under Scrutiny, Chicago Tribune’s John Crewdson Uncovers Possible Scientific Misconduct by NCI Researcher.” (New York Native, 7-10-95, p.25)
First, the article informs the reader of the following:
“In addition to the political and social firestorm Hamer’s research has ignited, he has also been criticized by numerous scientists for not performing what seems to be an obvious control experiment: examining the genes of heterosexual brothers. Those scientists, including two prominent geneticist/biologists at Harvard University [Richard Lewontin and Ruth Hubbard], were not government researchers.” (New York Native 7-10-95, p.28)
This omission is significant. If Hamer was refusing to use a control group in his experiment, he must have refused for reason. But, what could that reason have been? According to the New York Native article, another researcher that worked on the project had attacked Hamer’s honesty and integrity over this issue. The article states:
“Even worse for Hamer, the National Institute of Health’s Office of Research Integrity is now investigating his ‘gay gene’ research, according to Crewdson. The inquiry concerns allegations that Hamer was selective about which data he chose to report (i.e., that he ignored data that didn’t support his contention that homosexuality is genetically determined).
The data manipulation was reported to NIH’s integrity office by a junior researcher who performed research crucial to Hamer’s claimed discovery, according to Crewdson.” (New York Native 7-10-95, p.28, emphasis mine)
Aside from the fact that Hamer threw out cases which contradicted his pre-planned experimental outcome, if a study such as Hamer’s is scientifically valid, other researchers should get the same results with duplicate experiments. But this has not happened. The article continues:
“’It troubles some scientists that Hamer has not published his original data,’ according to Crewdson. Additionally, at least one lab that has tried hard to replicate his findings has been unsuccessful.”
“Only one independent laboratory has reported attempting such a replication, and it has found no evidence to support Hamer,” Crewdson reported. “We can’t reproduce Hamer’s data,” said George Ebers, a neurogeneticist from the University of Western Ontario, who has searched unsuccessfully for a Hamer-style genetic link to homosexuality in more than 50 pairs of gay Canadian brothers.
In fact, Ebers found the genetic markers cited by Hamer in “exactly half of his brother pairs,” according to Crewdson—precisely what the laws of chance would predict, if the ‘markers’ had no significance.” (New York Native, 7-10-95, p.25, 28)
Only four months after the New York Native article was printed, the November 1995 edition of Scientific American reported that Hamer actually was “being charged with research improprieties and was under investigation by the National Institute of Health’s Federal Office of Research Integrity.” According to allegations, Hamer deliberately and deceitfully excluded pairs of brothers whose genetic makeup contradicted his pre-planned experimental outcome. NIH never released the results of the inquiry, but Hamer was shortly thereafter transferred to another section. He had done the “gay” gene research under a grant to work on Kaposi’s Sarcoma, a skin cancer that inordinately afflicts homosexual men.
In April of 1999, George Rice, and George Ebers, who were both neurogeneticist’s from the University of Western Ontario discredited Hamer’s falsified “gay” gene results, when they finally published their review of Hamer’s study in Science magazine. The scientists stated that the results of Hamer’s study “did not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality” (Rice et al., 1999 and Wickelgren, 1999). They found that the gay brothers looked at by the Hamer group were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by chance. These results officially sounded the death-knell for Hamer’s outrageously effective, yet deliberately deceptive “gay” gene study. In addition, when another group of researchers (Sanders, et al.) tried to replicate Hamer’s study, they too failed to find a genetic connection to homosexuality. (Dean H. Hamer, George Rice, Neil Risch, and George Ebers,et al. “Genetics and Male Sexual Orientation” (Technical Comment), Science 285 (6 August 1999: 803a.)
Some once believed that a “gay” gene would be found hiding amidst other chromosomes that would be analyzed in the Human Genome Project. However, according to the National Center for Bio-Technology Information neither the map for the X, nor the Y chromosomes, contains any “gay” gene.
Hamer eventually admitted that his study did not support a genetic cause for homosexuality and that female homosexuality was, “culturally transmitted, not inherited” (The Washington Blade, 1-30-98, p.114) and that “There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. …I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.” (From speech in Salt Lake City in Lili Wright, “Science of Desire Is Topic for ‘Gay Gene’ Finder,” Salt Lake Tribune, 28 April 1995) However, he continued to publicly claim that male homosexuality was about 50 percent genetic, 50 percent environmental. Where did Hamer get this 50 percent statistic from? Hamer’s claim that male homosexuality is about 50% genetic is based on the “gay” twin study, another discredited study. (The Washington Blade, 1-30-98, p.14)
The “Gay” Twins Study
This discredited study was conducted by Michael Bailey, a heterosexual, and Richard Pillard, a same-gender sex activist. In December of 1991, these two researchers published a study of twins, and they claimed to have demonstrated a genetic cause for being “gay.” One same-gender sex magazine, The Advocate, wrote, “They found that 52% of identical twin brothers of gay men were gay, as were 22% of fraternal twin brothers, and 11% of genetically unrelated brothers.” (The Advocate, 3-24-92, p.61) HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY?
There are several problems with this study. First, (assuming that the study was legitimate) in order to show that homosexuality is genetic (in identical twins) if one twin is “gay” the other should also be “gay” 100% of the time. This study, however, did not produce results that demonstrate this. Despite this fact, same-gender sex activists continue to report that this study is proof that people are born “gay.”
Second, genetics tells us that if one fraternal (non-identical) twin is “gay,” then other non-twin brothers should also be “gay” exactly as often as are the non-identical twin brothers, since non-identical twins and regular brothers are equally genetically different. In this study 22% of fraternal twins both claimed to be “gay.” Therefore, their non-twin brothers should also have claimed to be “gay” 22% of the time. If the non-twin percentage were lower, some environmental cause must have been at fault, not a hidden “gay” gene. But, this was not the case. Yet readers could not have known that this was not the case because Bailey and Pillard left the numbers for the genetically related non-twin brothers out of their original report. Why? If this data had supported their agenda would they not have included it as well?
According to The Advocate, the researcher’s withheld important information about the non-twin brothers in their study, the article states: “According to Bailey, the released data did not include another group in the study: 142 genetically related non-twin brothers of gay men, of whom only 13—or about 9% were also gay.” (The Advocate 3-24-92, p.61; Michael Bailey is not a homosexual)
Obviously, if this data had been released with the original study, it would have been immediately clear that there is no gay gene. The percentage of homosexuality in non-twin brothers is so low (9%) that had the study been properly conducted and reported, it would actually have demonstrated that homosexuality is NOT caused by a gay gene. If the study showed that 11% of non-related, step-brothers were both “gay,” then, if genetics were a factor, then more than 9% of genetically related brothers should be gay, but this study does not show this. This study shows the opposite, that unrelated step-brothers are both “gay” more often than genetically related brothers, thus, the study actually demonstrates that environment is the cause for same-gender sexual desires. But the researches left this out.
Third, this study did not have a proper sample. According to a leading gay publication, “Bailey and Pillard’s study has come under attack in scientific circles on similar grounds. Gay scholars have called their sample, culled though advertisements in gay and lesbian newspapers, unrepresentative and their data inconclusive.” (The Advocate, 3-24-92, p.61)
These “scientists” also used a curious, self-serving definition of “gay” for their sample. Bailey admits that he and “Pillard ‘lumped the bisexuals in with the gay men.’” (The Advocate, 3-24-92, p.62)
Therefore, many of the supposed “gays,” in this study, had significant attractions to women. As we will see later, this ironic fact is a norm for men that have sex with men. Calling those that claim to have developed “bisexual” desires “gay” in order to produce results favorable to “gay” propagandists may work well to deceive the public, but it does not prove that anyone is born with any psycho-spiritual Ulrichsian sexual mix-up. Further, it does not serve the interest of science or truth.
In conclusion, all studies that have claimed to have found an immutable cause for same-gender sexual desires and behaviors have crumbled under the scrutiny of peer review. Same-gender sexual desires are not genetic. There is no scientific evidence which shows that they are. None. Not a single person has been found with any innate “gay” gene, organ, hormone, chemical, or combination thereof.
In the light of Truth we can see why Kirk, Madsen, and the rest failed to overturn Bowers by way of minority status. Because they could not prove that anyone was born “gay.” They made it up. The “Gay” Agenda, which is referred to here as The Born “Gay” Hoax failed in that sense. However, individual emotions and opinions are not as solid, or girded for work, or complete and accurate as science. As years went by, the success of the faulty studies in the public relations arena would overpower Truth. The influence of the studies cast the spell of belief over many. Why shouldn’t they have? They have largely gone unchallenged publicly. These fraudulent studies eventually convinced millions, including one Texan judge, to topple Bowers.
In 2003 Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned by one judge in Lawrence v. Texas. Under the full faith and credit clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution, Lawrence v. Texas took the power to criminalize sodomy away from every state in the union. Now, sodomy is legal in every state. The same-gender sex lobby knows they will never prove scientifically that anyone is born “gay” (they made it up) so today, they have largely abandoned their direct quest for traditional minority status. Ironically, after the legalization of sodomy, many same-gender sex activists slammed the brakes on the born “gay” hoax –The “Gay” Agenda. Today, the once unimpeachable propaganda has been set aside by its own creators. Elite activists are now turning their attention toward a new goal: recruitment and retention. As a result, a far more brutal force lurks just over the horizon of mainstream American consciousness: “Queer Theory.” “Queer Theory” holds that there is no such thing as gender or a fixed sexual inclination. The contemporary “Queer” holds that his or her identity is a fluid social construct. In other words, the “Queer” identity is actually the rejection of an intrinsic identity altogether. In order to understand that recruitment is possible by way of “Queer Theory,” we must identify some of the causes of same-gender sexual behaviors and desires. Further, we must become aware of how the late modern “gay” identity and its diametric opposite, the post-modern “Queer” anti-identity are socially constructed. Further, we must acknowledge that reversals are possible and how political activists might use public ignorance about the fluidity of sexuality to their advantage, to recruit unsuspecting youth.
The Rest of the Studies Other erroneous born “gay” studies have been conducted. These however, are less known. The results of these studies fail to show that homosexuality is somehow natural. The following refutations were written by Robert Knight, while working for the prestigious Concerned Women for America’s, Culture and Family Institute. I should thank him for allowing me to use his work here. It should be noted, however, that this section is intended to be a catalogue of refutations. Therefore, before beginning, I will take the time to refer readers that are not interested in reading about “every study ever conducted” to the next chapter. If however, you are curious, by all means, continue.
“UCLA’s Study on Genes and Mice Brains
In October 2003, the journal Molecular Brain Research published a study by UCLA researchers indicating that sexual identity is genetic.18 Reuters reported it this way: “Sexual identity is wired into the genes, which discounts the concept that homosexuality and transgender sexuality are a choice, California researchers reported.”19 A number of other media outlets picked up on this theme, creating the impression that this study was yet one more piece of evidence for a genetic theory of homosexuality. The trouble is, the study doesn’t say anything about homosexuality. All it does is support a widely accepted theory about hormones and gender. Here is Princeton Professor Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s assessment: The research is a decent piece of basic science and confirms what geneticists have long known must be the case: That the hormonal milieu that causes sexual differentiation between males and females is itself determined by genes, in mice as in men. This comes as no surprise. But this research says absolutely nothing about homosexuality or transsexualism and any who claim it does are either ill-informed about genetics, or if not, are deliberately abusing their scientific knowledge and or credentials in the service of politics – in precisely the same way that Soviet-era geneticists such as Lysenko did – either in the naïve hope that distortion of the truth can produce a better society or out of fear for their career prospects. In either case they should be roundly rebuked for doing so.20
In 1998, Dennis McFadden and Edward G. Pasanen published a study that evaluated auditory systems. Specifically, the study considered differences in echo-like waveforms emitted from an inner ear structure of people with normal hearing. These waves are higher in women than in men, a factor often attributed to the level of a person’s exposure to androgen (a male hormone) in his or her early development as a fetus.42 In self-acknowledged lesbians, the waveforms ranged between those of men and those of heterosexual women. The researchers concluded that this suggests that female homosexuality could result from larger exposure to the male hormone androgen in the womb (homosexual men did not show the same variation).43 The media eagerly jumped on this bandwagon. But even the researchers themselves did not draw definitive conclusions. In the published study, they pointed out that exposure to “intense sounds, certain drugs, and other manipulations” can lower the level of these auditory waveforms. “Thus, it may be that something in the lifestyles of homosexual and bisexual females leads them to be exposed to one or more agents that have reduced the [waveforms], either temporarily or permanently.”44 Moreover, even if the hearing differences were caused by an increased exposure to androgen in the womb, scientists would still be far from proving that this exposure is a cause of homosexuality-especially since the difference was not apparent in the male homosexual sample.
In March 2000, the media publicized a finger length study that indicated that lesbians had longer fingers than other women, perhaps because of greater exposure in the womb to androgen. Typically, both sexes’ index finger is slightly shorter than the ring finger-a difference that is seen more clearly on the right hand. In females, the ring finger and index finger are almost the same size, but in men the index finger is more noticeably shorter. In this study, Berkeley’s Dr. Breedlove, who had in 1997 shown how sexual activity can change brain structure, found that homosexual women’s finger length had a tendency to follow the male pattern. But Breedlove cautioned about reading too much into the finding:
“There is no gene that forces a person to be straight or gay,” he told CNN. “… I believe there are many social and psychological, as well as biological, factors that make up sexual preference.”45
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover commented as follows on the study:
A girl who develops before and into puberty with a “masculinized habitus” (the result of excess maternal intrauterine androgen stimulated by a genetic condition in the fetus)-a stocky physique, facial hair, powerful muscles, a square jaw and long fingers-may suffer so much teasing and rejection by family and peers that she comes to think of herself as “not feminine” and so will seek solace in the arms of women. Indeed, this an all-too-common pattern in the lives of “lesbians” and illustrates exactly how a strong genetic ” association”‘ can imply literally zero genetic causation whatsoever. It’s rather remarkable that the authors failed to remark on the support their study provided not for any genetic association with lesbianism, but rather for the genetic association to secondary sexual expression in homo sapiens that Vilain et al were only able to demonstrate in mus musculus. The attention paid to homosexuality in both cases, while ignoring straighforward sex, reflects the distinctly Orwellian effect that political correctness has on science: We now treat the differences between male and female as socially constructed and those between heterosexuality and homosexuality as innate and genetic.46
Eye Blinking In October 2003, a team of English researchers announced that they had found “powerful new evidence that sexual orientation is ‘hard-wired’ in the human brain before birth.”47 Dr. Qazi Rahman of the University of East London and Dr. Veena Kumari and Dr. Glenn Wilson of the Institute of Psychiatry said they found sex differences in the startle response – the eye blink in response to loud noises.48 The authors found that women had a lesser “prepulse inhibition of the human startle response (PPI),”49 that is, they blinked more readily than men, and that lesbians blinked less readily than other women. They used small samples, and, more significantly, found no difference between homosexual men and heterosexual men. Yet they gave the impression that their findings indicated that homosexuality is a pre-born condition. “Because the startle response is known to be involuntary rather than learned, this strongly indicates that sexual orientation is largely determined before birth,” said a press release from the University of East London.50 Dr. Rahman said in the release, “These findings may well affect the way we as a society deal with sexuality and the issues surrounding sexual orientation.” But the researchers themselves introduce some cautionary notes in the study: Although prenatal factors may be possible precursors to the neurobehavioral profiles observed in lesbians and gay men, whether neural differences underlie sexual orientation per se, or are a consequence of homosexual or heterosexual behavior, is yet to be determined.51 They also write: “Neuroanatomical and neurophysiological variations between heterosexuals and homosexuals may be due either to biological factors or to the influence of learning.”52 The team concluded that: “Our results show, for the first time, that PPI relates to sexual orientation and that homosexual women show a robust cross-sex shift. Homosexual women showed a masculinized PPI that was no different from that of heterosexual men. … Homosexual men did not differ from heterosexual men.”53 Dr. Halstead Harrison, an associate professor emeritus in the Atmospheric Science Department of the University of Washington, reviewed the study, noted the small sizes of the test groups (14 lesbians and 15 heterosexual women, and 15 each of homosexual and heterosexual men) and the statistical methods, and concluded: “Data presented by Rahman et al. do not confidently support their finding that homosexual women exhibit a male-type startled-blink reflex.”54 Harrison further stated that “no significant differences were detected.” As far as the blink reflex being utterly innate or somewhat trainable, he responded to an interviewer, “Now, that’s an open question.”55 Dr. Harrison also said he would have liked to have seen the complete data on the series of tests to see whether the subjects’ responses would change with repetition. This would indicate whether the PPI is entirely innate. In his conclusion, he said: “This Comment should not be construed as falsifying the hypothesis that homosexual and heterosexual women display different prepulse startle-inhibition reflexes. That conjecture may turn out to be so, but the present data do not confidently support it.”
In 1999, Dr. Qazi Rahman compiled a brief review of several studies purporting to show a link between neuroanatomy and sexual orientation.56 He wrote: “The emerging neuroanatomical account suggests that, in some key neural substrates, homosexual men show a trend toward female-typical neuroanatomy as compared to heterosexual men.”57 Rahman also said, “Lesbians excel at some tasks which favor heterosexual males.” As in the eye-blinking study, Rahman struck a cautionary note: “But is neuroendocrine differentiation a cause or a consequence of behavior? … In addition, the differential development posited may not be causal but correlational.” Rahman noted that, “Differential reinforcements from inputs in the psychosocial milieu to these sex-atypical behaviors makes the ‘pre-homosexual child’ view the same sex as ‘exotic’ (i.e., different from one’s self), which later in puberty becomes the object of eroticization.”58 As some developmental psychologists have observed, some children may be less inclined to exhibit classic gender role differences, and this may set them up for the type of reactions from peers (or even parents), such as rejection or teasing, that make them vulnerable to developing same-sex attraction.59 One glaring problem with Rahman’s article is that he uncritically cites many of the studies that were thoroughly debunked by researchers such as Columbia’s Byne and Parsons. These include studies by LeVay, Hamer, Allen, Gorski, Bailey and others. Rahman wraps up his piece this way: To conclude, it is important to illustrate that neurobiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals are by no means decisive. Nonetheless, the several independent findings of neuroanatomical differences in sex-atypical directions are not easily refutable. [Editor’s note: Yes, they are. Byne and Parsons, among others, saw to that.] Unfortunately, evidence currently available is limited and largely correlational in nature. Owing to this, it is not possible for alternative developmental processes associated with sexual orientation to be excluded.60”