Edited by John P. De Cecco and David Allen
Parker
Sex, Cells, and Same-Sex Desire: The Biology of Sexual Preference describes, reviews, and questions recent biological research on sexual preference. These essays by knowledgeable scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities place such research within the emerging field of queer studies, with mixed success.
The essays are divided into sections discussing historical and conceptual background; sexual preference and the roles of heredity, hormones, and the brain; and questions of mislabeling, social stigma, science, and medicine.
The issues involved are wide-ranging and remain the subject of much controversy. The contributors to this book demystify biological research on sexual preference and make it accessible to readers unfamiliar with it and its terminology -- albeit in a way which usually suggests the limits, rather than the possibilities, of biological models. It's too bad that no one thinks to write a book deconstructing environmentalistic theories of sexual orientation.
Also published as Journal of Homosexuality, v.28, nos.1/2/3/4, 1995.
My chapter is "Biological Research on Sexual Orientation: A Critique
of the Critics".
volutionary biologists are
tired of being accused of being too
biologically deterministic, by critics who have little understanding
of what biological or evolutionary theories actually imply.
Misunderstandings came about because social-science disciplines often
do not share evolutionary biology's tendency to build into their
models multiple "normal" paths of development. Sociobiologists first
explained homosexuality adaptively because they first try to explain
everything
adaptively. Most nonbiologists are unaware of this very strong
evolutionary tradition.
It is now fashionable to discount scientific objectivity, but there are many examples of where such an attack is unwarranted. Kinsey produced a nontypological theory of sexual orientation in spite of his history as a taxonomist. Sociobiologists produced a nonpathological explanation of nonreproductive homosexuality in spite of the centrality of reproductive success in their models.
In judging whether a discipline is particularly likely to be misused in social debates, one must perform the appropriate intellectual "controls." One must examine appropriate uses as well as misuses, and one must examine other disciplines to see whether there are differences in the relative likelihood of abuse. Indeed, many social-science theories have been even more clearly abused than biological ones.

To order this book from Amazon Books (the hardcover at a substantial discount), click
the bookstore link.
|
0. |
Preface |
11. |
|
|
1. |
| ||
|
12.
|
| ||
|
2. |
| ||
|
3.
|
|
13. |
|
|
4. |
|
14. |
|
|
5. |
|
15. |
|
|
6. |
|
16. |
|
|
7. |
|
17. |
|
|
8. |
|
18. |
|
|
9. |
|
19. |
|
|
10. |
|
20. |
|
|
|
|
21. |
Glossary and Index |
Looks best on Netscape viewers (version 3.0 or later), but should work OK with most browsers.