The fun of ambiguity

In the Scientific American blog recently there was a rather poor article about the science supporting different stances on homosexuality. In fairness, it starts with two quite popular questions: Is being gay a choice? and Is being gay determined by our genes? At this point the article turns poor because it suggests that the scientific answer to both of these questions is yes and that this is a quandary. The correct answer is "These questions are both too imprecise, especially as a pair, to answer scientifically."

If we rephrase them to remove that imprecise word "gay" we get some different answers. Gay, in this sort of context, has at least two meanings. One is "Are you predisposed to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex?" The other, rather more imprecise still is roughly "Are you actively interested in or involved in a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex?"

So lets try using those wordings. We get four questions:

1. Is being predisposed to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex a choice?


2. Is being predisposed to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex determined by our genes?


3. Is being actively interested in or involved in a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex a choice?


4. Is being actively interested in or involved in a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex determined by our genes?

And now some answers:

1. The answer to question 1 is no. There is no evidence, despite what you might like to believe, that the things you find sexually attractive, including the sex of your predilections, is a choice you can control. Trying to find an example of this that doesn't get too graphic is tricky but love bites (hickeys if you prefer) seem to be a possibility. Most people develop a predilection for being on one side or the other - they like biting or being bitten. This isn't on gender lines - I know, or knew, straight men and women, gay men, gay women on both sides of this. I've also met a few people who just don't like it and a few that like both sides of it. Although it's not something I've done a lot of research into, various discussions suggest biters can't choose to not like biting, nor to choose to like being bitten (although they can choose to accept it or experiment a bit to see and often do). OK, this is a somewhat trivial example - but whatever the implanting process it; to make us prefer biting, being bitten, both or neither; we can't control it, we can't choose to just change it. Why should anyone believe something rather more fundamental - do you fancy men or women - should be more susceptible to a simple choice?


2. The answer to question 2 is a yes. Our genes determine our sexual preferences. Indeed the so called 'gay gene' has been found. It is worth noting that, like all phenotypes (external presentations of behaviour or appearance), there is an environmental component. We do not understand what makes up that environmental component in the case of sexuality. We are sure there is no element of choice in it - what we experience at various critical moments sets our preferences is the best we currently understand it, but we don't know when those moments are, nor how what we experience triggers our sexuality. So qualified in the sense of "determined by only our genes in interaction with our environment" but still yes. Other aspects of our sexuality - fetishes and the like - make it clear there's a complex interaction here. Something environmental triggers the fetish, but the what and how is not yet clear.


3. The answer to question 3 is a yes. We do have a choice. We can honestly acknowledge and accept our interest and act on it. Alternatively, we can lie to ourselves and try to live with someone wrong for us at that fundamental a level. We can also choose to live a celibate life and use our fantasies, sex toys and whatever to relieve the needs of the body. I think option 1 is the healthiest of these for most needs, certainly for gay people, but the alternatives are a choice.


4. The answer to question 4 is unknown. I am unaware of any evidence that suggests the sex drive is genetically encoded despite concepts like the Selfish Gene suggesting it must be. If it is genetically encoded it seems to be one of the drives we have a lot of direct control over on top of whatever environmental factors affect the genetics. It might be hard for someone within a decade of puberty to believe but actually, for some years after puberty, despite their urges most of us live without the opportunity for a sexual relationship. Even when we have the opportunity in terms of no parental control and the like, we may not have the opportunity in terms of access to a willing partner. Despite that, most of us live, function and develop into adults. While there may be a genetic component it can be overridden by our social environment and our choice. Lifelong celibacy is an unusual choice though - and I rather suspect hard to actually live. I suspect there is a genetic element to this but our choices can override it in the short term: If I'm going to be celibate then I can say no today, but I will have to say no again tomorrow and the next day, every day I'm alive. Although I've no experience of being celibate, nor of recovering from addiction, I'm reminded of what I do know of the recovery from addiction. Every day it's a choice not to drink, smoke or whatever. And while we know people can manage that, we know a lot of people try and fail. I suspect the same is true of those who try to live a celibate life-style.

There is no quandary. There are badly worded, imprecise questions used to confuse people unwilling to actually think.

Another blog I read (tagged as NSFW although this article is SFW) recently complained about the confusion regarding love and fascination or rather their lack of precision. I found I disagreed with both of the examples given (although the conclusion regarding having a healthy, safe space for your fantasies is good). We very rarely use ambiguous words alone. Love! doesn't really make sense. Stop! does though. But we'd struggle to find a dozen shades of meaning for stop - or even three meanings. As soon as we have other words in the mix, in the sentence or in the paragraph we have a context. And that context gives us, if well written, at least some of the rest of the meaning. Having those ambiguous words lets us play word games, make puns and jokes - even bad ones like "Which do you love more, Daddy or chips?" - and use language in interesting ways. The story linked to in which the woman loves the Eiffel Tower - in a romantic, amorous sense - only works because love is ambiguous. If we saw "Woman has amorous, romantic interest in the Eiffel Tower" we might think she's a bit odd, but the story is suddenly less interesting to read than "Woman loves Eiffel Tower... and wants to marry it!" despite being the same story. The change is because the story about the amorous, romantic interest is plainly reporting an oddity. Leading with "Woman love Eiffel Tower" plays with our expectations and most of us like this sort of word game. Ambiguities like this can be fun, make communicating more interesting and engaging - which is surely good.

Sure, these ambiguities can be misused, as in the "Is being gay a choice? Is being gay determined by our genes?" example - but if we're daft enough not to be able to work out there's something wrong then, rather than a job blogging for Scientific American, I've got a bridge in London you might like to buy...