![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe recent tumult over California's proposition 8 has got me thinking about the biology of sexual orientation and some of this biology's more worrisome potential consequences. The evidence so far seems to be fairly clear that, although there is a significantly environmental component to the development of sexual orientation, inherited factors play a major, even determinative role. Whether these factors relate to the fetal environment, to genes coding directly for sexual orientation, or to some combination of these or other factors is uncertain at this point.
What is certain is that, one day in the not-too-distant future, we will know exactly what causes sexual orientation, hence we will be able to "correct" sexual orientation. I'm reminded of a 1996 survey in The New Yorker that revealed that parents would tend to prefer that their children be unhappy, childless, and either single or in an unhappy opposite-sex relationship than happy, a parent, and in a happy same-sex relationship. Times have changed, but I wouldn't dare to hope that they've changed that much.
Future generations of Canadian non-heterosexuals are likely safe. Sex selection of fetuses is illegal in Canada under the Asissted Human Reproduction Act, save when it comes to avoiding sex-linked genetic diseases. I've little doubt that, when non-heterosexuals come into the picture, the lack of legal stigma against my lot and the precedent in regards to sex selection (disproportionately aimed against female fetuses, it should be noted) will make it illegal to abort or genetically alter non-heterosexual fetuses. Similar trends seem to prevail in the European Union. The genetic alteration of children and young adults for no medically acceptable reason will almost certainly be illegal, too. Elsewhere in the world, well, in--for instance--countries which offer the death penalty to non-heterosexuals, it's probably best not to have too much hope.
This infuriates me. My sexual orientation is just one part of my biology that influences my personality, no more and no less controversial than my left-handedness (yes, I'm aware of the biology of handedness and sexual orientation). After all, there's nothing sinister about being left-handed, certainly no historical stigma against the left-handed. Will future generations of fetal geneticists in less permissive environments try to code for right-handedness, too?
Actually, now that I mention it ...
The question that I'd like to pose to my readers is the following: As our knowledge of the biological determinants of human behaviour progresses by leaps and bounds, what will future generations feel comfortable in doing? Do you think that there will be effective restrictions, ineffective restrictions, no restrictions? Will there be geographical differences, one region more friendly with the idea than others? I leave the forum to you all.
What is certain is that, one day in the not-too-distant future, we will know exactly what causes sexual orientation, hence we will be able to "correct" sexual orientation. I'm reminded of a 1996 survey in The New Yorker that revealed that parents would tend to prefer that their children be unhappy, childless, and either single or in an unhappy opposite-sex relationship than happy, a parent, and in a happy same-sex relationship. Times have changed, but I wouldn't dare to hope that they've changed that much.
Future generations of Canadian non-heterosexuals are likely safe. Sex selection of fetuses is illegal in Canada under the Asissted Human Reproduction Act, save when it comes to avoiding sex-linked genetic diseases. I've little doubt that, when non-heterosexuals come into the picture, the lack of legal stigma against my lot and the precedent in regards to sex selection (disproportionately aimed against female fetuses, it should be noted) will make it illegal to abort or genetically alter non-heterosexual fetuses. Similar trends seem to prevail in the European Union. The genetic alteration of children and young adults for no medically acceptable reason will almost certainly be illegal, too. Elsewhere in the world, well, in--for instance--countries which offer the death penalty to non-heterosexuals, it's probably best not to have too much hope.
This infuriates me. My sexual orientation is just one part of my biology that influences my personality, no more and no less controversial than my left-handedness (yes, I'm aware of the biology of handedness and sexual orientation). After all, there's nothing sinister about being left-handed, certainly no historical stigma against the left-handed. Will future generations of fetal geneticists in less permissive environments try to code for right-handedness, too?
Actually, now that I mention it ...
The question that I'd like to pose to my readers is the following: As our knowledge of the biological determinants of human behaviour progresses by leaps and bounds, what will future generations feel comfortable in doing? Do you think that there will be effective restrictions, ineffective restrictions, no restrictions? Will there be geographical differences, one region more friendly with the idea than others? I leave the forum to you all.
