I've been wondering why I'm gay.
        Perhaps it's Pride month. Or maybe it's Mom. (The wondering part of me, not the gay part) Mother looms rather large in my life, She's been pretty good about the whole gay thing. She was more concerned that I move out and find a job before thirty than whether or not I was gay. But once she asked me "Is there a gay gene? Was it hormones? Was it something I did while I was pregnant?" I guess I owe it to her to answer this one. It can't have been easy being my mom; I was there. 
        Like a good student I went to the library. There, with the Journal of Homosexuality, the Archives of Sexual Behavior and Scientific American, to name a few, I surveyed the literature.
        The origin of queerness has been in the news of late. Twin studies, transsexual brain anatomy, and the lesbian "ear click" study, are just a few items you may have noticed. These subjects end up as short features on NPR, and send G. Gordon Liddy into the stratosphere. But is there a nuts-and-bolts biology to being gay?
        Well, the answer is:  We don't know. Sorry Mom. 
        But there are some interesting things we do know. First, from the psychologists, I learned we are no more or less aggressive than heterosexuals. We have equivalent motor skills and spatial abilities. We make decent parents; we are no more or less likely to have family problems than heterosexuals. This includes biological as well as foster families.
        When it comes to dating, an interesting social trend emerged via the personal ads. Gay men and lesbians were far more likely to mention some form of stereotype then straight folk. Heterosexuals are much less concerned with age, appearance, and behavior than we are. Gay men are even more discriminating than lesbians; we appear to be very precise about desire, and less willing to compromise.
        The most interesting psychological study I came across regarded homophobia in college students: According to those researchers, homophobia appears to be a function of background. Women, and those raised in liberal religious traditions, are likely to be accepting of gay people. Men, especially of those raised in more evangelical traditions, much less so.
As people, we seem pretty normal. Twenty five years ago, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from it's list of mental illnesses. There is still an alarmingly high rate of suicide among gay teens (over 50% report having contemplated suicide), but if we live through that, we tend to be normal people. Well, slightly more fabulous normal people anyway. This put most previous research (especially Freud) out to pasture. Then came the biologists.
        This is what I really wanted. Is there something physically inside me that makes me different? (Other than my obsession with Stephen Sondheim and my need to quote "All about Eve.") Some research that has begun to show that certain behaviors, and perhaps even one's sense of identity, may at least partially derive from biology. This research is countered by an almost equal amount of criticism.
        Some male animals, fruit flies and mice, behave "female" when they are either manipulated genetically or have tiny lesions introduced into their brains. Critics feel that this is a result of changes in reflex, rather than desire.
        Anatomically, transsexuals have a portion of their brain that resembles the sex they believe they should have been. A male to female transsexual has a portion of their brain that more closely resembles that of a woman. This study, and others like it, are hampered by valid criticism. Brain anatomy is a young science, and many researchers claim to find new differences between gay and straight people, but fail to reproduce the others’ findings.
        The greatest furor was caused in the early nineties by Dr. Simon LeVay. A noted neurobiologist, LeVay stunned the scientific community by simultaneously coming out, and publishing a neurological study of the brain anatomy of gay men. He found a portion of the brain, which was largest in hetero men, smaller in women, and smallest in gay men. This small, but well controlled study was the first to pin a physiological difference between gay and straight men.
        Many have found fault with Dr. LeVay's work. They believe that sexuality is too complex a behavior to be described by biology alone. Dr. LeVay responds to these criticisms by asserting that sexuality is more likely a tendency brought into attraction and identity by a variety of biological and social factors. 
In 1993, and again in 1995, Xq28 and the inheritability of homosexuality created a loud fuss. You may recall a T shirt which read "Xq28 - Thanks Mom!" Xq28 is a genetic designation, regarding a region of the X chromosome. A comparison of gay brothers showed some common traits in this region. This says that if there is a genetic component to being gay, it may very well lie on the X chromosome and be linked to this region. For men, the X chromosome comes from your mother.
        This study did not include lesbians, calling into question the study design. The issue of study design has been criticized in many of these genetic analyses. The researchers here wanted to be sure of two things: that their subjects were gay, and that they were related. Hence, gay brothers. (If someone says they are gay, it's a fair bet they are not mistaken). Since women have two X chromosomes, following traits is more complex. 
So, what does this mean? “Linked” is a geneticists' term for "these things often go together." It's like saying blonde hair and fair skin go together. But we can all think of blondes who tan, so it isn't always 100% true. In the case of Xq28, scientists know that many gay men (and not lesbians) have similar genetics regarding Xq28. What those genes are (and there are hundreds in this region), and what they do, and how they might influence sexuality is not at all clear.
        There are many, very vocal critics to these biological lines of research. Some argue that behavior cannot be derived from genes, especially not human behavior. We can no more predict a person's liking for asparagus than we can their sexuality based on their genes. Also, there is so little understood about heterosexual behavior, that research in to gay behavior will lag behind.
        Perhaps all this biology is just history repeating itself? In the 1880s, the search for gayness focused on body type. The result: gay men are no more feminine than heterosexuals, and lesbians no more masculine. In the 1960s and 70s, the search focused on hormones, and again, no real differences were found. Critics argue that these genetic and brain studies are just the same stuff repackaged.
        Do they have a point? Outside of the gay argument, there have been glimpses into how behavior relates to genetics. For example, researchers looking at neurons in mice created an animal missing a chemical receptor. Strangely, this mutation had no clear effect. Then they noticed that the mouse pups were dying. The mothers, it appeared, did not nurse their babies. Nursing is an instinctive behavior, caused by hormones, physiology and nagging by the pups. That this complex behavior was absent was profound. But no one knows why.
        Looking at all that has been written and argued, it appears science still doesn't know what to do with us. Perhaps the most powerful discussion I found was neither psychological or biological, but anthropological. David Greenberg, in his book "The Construction of Homosexuality," makes an argument against how our culture views sexuality. In this exhaustive work, he examines "gay" individuals in a number of societies and historical discussions. He finds that the idea of "homosexuality" (and its negative connotations) is a creation of modern society. Prior to the massive growth of western culture, there were gay people in most societies. They had defined roles and were accepted in their cultures.
        I guess that leaves it up to us. Ultimately, science offers no answers. It simply links observations together with ideas; conclusions really are up to you.
        So, what's the point of all this? Well, being gay is not something that is wrong, or bad, or sick. If you manage to come out safely, you are likely to live healthy life. You'll make a reasonable parent. Perhaps we are really just another part of society looking for a role. It's not yet predictable or quantifiable. But it appears you really are no different than a person who likes asparagus- for whatever reason.

Tod Companion is a Graduate Student in Biochemistry at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, out, proud and tired of school.

This column ran in slightly different form in the June 1998 edition of The Alabama Forum. Edited by the lovely and talented Mary Gabb.