March 30, 2013
The New York Times has been one of the earliest and most steadfast advocates of gay rights. Phase one was the elimination of the legal and moral stigma against homosexuality, which I applaud; and second and seamlessly the extension (phase two) that in all areas of life, gender differences should not, and by any objective criteria, do not, have any meaningful reality.
It is from this second phase, not the first, that is derived the argument that laws that do as little as impose a semantic difference based on the common gender of both parties are to be opposed with the same vigor as the original crusade for the elimination of oppression against homosexuals.
This issue has reached a crescendo with the two cases that are now before the Supreme Court, where one aspect of this argument is addressed in an OpEd entitled, Nature’s Case for Same-Sex Marriage, by David G. Haskell. His article starts with a survey of the most remote living things, where sexuality has little meaning as it includes non sexual fungi, that "can't be called male or female" He concludes with the rare human condition that we now call intersex, where external genitalia is either undifferentiated, or not congruent with chromosomal sex, pointing out the upper estimates of 2%- or 1 in 50 births.
The prevalence of this condition, if this high would justify a greater influence on public policy, and lend support to the second aspect of the N.Y. Times position of the meaningless of gender. Having studied this particular condition and how difficult this is for the family and child, Haskell's prevalence figure seemed misleading. The term "intersex" was adopted as part of the trend to replace previous specific denotations, in this case "hermaphroditism" for the more ambiguous external genetalia, as described here. The first result of a google search of the epidemiology of this condition was a link to this popular 2008 medical text book that goes into extensive detail on this condition, cited its occurrence in 1 out of 1500 births. Confirmed by this article explaining how the higher incidence quoted by Haskell was not justified.
He does eventually get to what is more relevent, the behavior of other primates, which allows us some insight into his, and the Times, particular position, that an analogue of same sex marriage is, in fact, part of the lives of our phylogenically kindred species, rather than as the opposition claims, "unnatural." He writes:
"Before these apes were sequestered in museum cabinets, homosexual bonds were a natural part of their lives. This is especially true for our closest living cousins, the bonobos and chimpanzees."
Dr. Haskell did not say homosexual activity, or play, was a part of these primate's repertoire of activities , but he used the term "homosexual bonds" as in marriage bonds which imply affiliation and life long dedication. Since he is making this case, the first task is to see whether he is accurate in his reporting, or being tendentious as he was in presenting the frequency of intersex condition. Animal behavior is the purview of ethology, which being part of biology, psychology and cultural anthropology rightly should inform our understanding of human sexual behavior, and the cultural-legal norms surrounding it.
Just by coincidence this months National Geographic Magazine has an article on bonobos and chimpanzees, that includes several long term studies of their behavior, Mysteries of Kinship. It does describe what Freud termed, "polymorphic perversity" of sexual activity, but nowhere as frequently, or meaningful, as Haskell's phrase implies.
We all have been graced with documentaries of Jane Goodall's lifetime work allowing us to understand what we now acknowledge is the culture of
chimpanzees. Here is her statement from this Youtube interview:
GOODALL: We’ve never seen anything remotely like homosexuality in chimpanzees. However – in the wild. In captivity, where their lives are disrupted, where they can’t express themselves the way they would in the wild, then we sometimes see it.
As an aside, perhaps much more important than the question of same sex behavior in great apes, is how this issue has been treated by the N.Y. Times, who chose to print Haskells depiction of such behavior without his having any expertise in the field. Yet, the group, National Organization on Marriage, that quoted Jane Goodall, the single most recognized expert on Chimpanzee behavior, was tared with the label of "hate speech" by this same newspaper only last week.
Certainly homosexual activity is seen among the great apes, but so is cannibalism, killing of infants and lethal battles among males for dominance. One observation that is not challenged by any scholar is that gender had a profound effect on behavior in areas of aggression, nurturing and same sex affiliation. This article written by Dr. Haskell and endorsed by the New York Times is a reflection of what this issue has become. Those who quote a genuine expert on primate behavior, because it is opposed to the goals of the Times, are purveyors of hate speech, while a "poet-biologist" is published using his talent of metaphor and context to paint a Walden-esque picture of Nature complete with loving same sex relationships- almost as if it were God himself who was on the side of marriage equality as in his design of his creatures.
There were no comments allowed after Dr. Haskell's article, but based on other similar articles, comments supporting his position would have gotten approvals, while any that expressed criticisms would have been condemned and ridiculed. Echoing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg view of Roe v. Wade that over enthusiasm in remediating a social ill can breed a counter reaction, the very human desire to end oppression of a despised group is being taken to the a point where such a response is not only possible, but to be expected. Unfortunately, this N.Y. Times OpEd will be evaluated by partisans only on its effectiveness in advancing their cause, ignoring the travesty of scholarship of primate behavior that actually could be useful in evaluating this issue.
"War is Hell"- and this front of the Kulturkampf between liberals and conservatives has turned the self proclaimed "party of reality" into one that can taste victory. The collateral damage to civil comity and reverence for honest exploration of life's complexity seems to be of little concern if it advances their goals.
------------
------------
I sent a link of this criticism to Dr. Haskell, whose response is below. I also sent it to the Public Editor's department of the New York Times, pointing out the lack of fact checking that is the normal procedure of OpEds, as the Times is a collaborator of the writer. I received a respectful letter telling me they would forward it to the appropriate parties.
Link to criticism of NOM for Goodall Quotation
------------
------------
Dear Al,
Thanks for your email and for your thoughts about this question. Regrettably the volume of email that I receive means that I don't have time to engage to email debates, but the following citations are relevant to the intersex question:
Blackless, M. et al. How Sexually Dimorphic Are We? Review and Synthesis. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 12:151–166 (2000).
Fausto-Sterling, A. The Five Sexes, Revisited. Sciences 40 (Jul/Aug 2000): 18-23.
L. Sax (2002) How common is intersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. Journal of Sex Research, Vol 39 (3), pages 174-178.
On the presence of a variety of sexual bonds and behaviors in non-human primates, many behavioral studies of bonobos indicates that these behaviors are present.
Best wishes, David Haskell
----------------
And this response:
David,
Thanks for your response. The Times should have put your essay on a more interactive setting, so others could have presented their views. Let me just leave you with this plea, in your interactions with students at all levels, try to help them understand that subtle biases do creep in from their mentors, and from the culture at large.
While you skillfully used generalities and allusions in your essay, which is how we affect cultural values, to be educated is to be able to recognize the very complex reality from the subtle pressures of the zeitgeist. As the article in Smithsonian Magazine pointed out, both Bonobos and Chimpanzees are our phylogenic first cousins, but they have had enough environmental demands to be different in all ways, including sexuality.
So, I congratulate you on an effective argument for your position, and I know you realize that you only scratched the surface. If we look at marriage as an institutionalized extension of culturally imposed sexual restraint, it would be different between Bonobos and Chimps, and between Humans and either.
I hope and trust that you transcend your personal views in that most sacred of professions, extending the insights of those dedicated to the open dissemination of knowledge.
Regards
AR
-------------
And D. H.'s response, which I appreciate
Dear Al,
Thanks for these thoughts. I do indeed encourage my students to question and examine the context/assumptions/limits of any way of thinking. Especially their teachers' thinking.
Best wishes, David
-------------------------
Oral Interview covering homosexuality with keeper of a troop of Bonobos on a zoo setting. The distinction between sexual play and sexual bonding is explored toward the end of the video. The keeper acknowledges it is the clearly the former.
