HOMOSEXUALS and their sympathisers tend to assume that an explanation of biological destiny - that gays are hard-wired to be gays - will lead to greater sympathy since this would mean they 'can't help' being gay.
To my mind however, that approach is surely off-tangent. Not only has the so-called 'gay gene' proven elusive, but sexuality is also a much more complex business.
Sure, it is easier to frame the issue in biological terms, that is, in terms of a gene. After all, people tend to think of a gene as a spot on a chromosome that can be clipped off to take care of this, that or the other problem.
The dream of tracing human traits to specific single genes is an old one. Popular science speaks loosely about an obesity gene, a criminality gene, and so on. But there are no such things.
Molecular biologists will tell you that it is the whole cell, rather than specific genes, that controls human life processes.
These scientists talk to each other in terms of DNA sequences rather than genes. These sequences are involved in metabolic processes that form complex networks which result in certain proteins being made.
The sequences form genes but they are usually not even continuous. Yet it is not known how the cell knows - but it does know - that it is this sequence that really needs to be translated into parts of a protein, while another sequence should be skipped, yet another sequence is to be used, while the next one ought to be ignored, and so on.
And although the human genome has been fully mapped, we are nowhere nearer any useable knowledge about which sequences do what, something that would remain true even if we map out all the proteins which the genome makes.
This is because these processes interact with one another and with the proteins they produce, in very complex ways to form networks.
And it is all these networks taken together that control everything, that is, the whole cell rather than genes alone.
This is why research hyped as proving the existence of a gay gene has not been replicated to any extent.
Of course, there is a biological element to heterosexuality or homosexuality, as there is in the generic desire for sex, or hunger, for that matter.
Indeed, sexuality may be like hunger in the sense that what people eat when they get hungry depends on available cuisines, which can vary with cultures.
Moreover, our tastes can change over time. Some foreigners here learn to like durian. You might love kopi-o now but live in Boston for a decade, where you have only Starbucks, and kopi-o might taste like drain water when you come home.
So even if hunger is biological, the fact is, people satisfy it out of a panoply of choices that are not infinite but limited by their cultures and the market: burger or briyani, cheese sandwich or chicken rice.
The point is this: talking about a gay gene or biology is much easier than looking at the totality of an individual's life, including his or her social surroundings and cultural contexts - but it is untrue.
It is easier for gays to say they are born that way and have always been attracted to people of their own gender.
Many would protest if you said that they chose to be that way.
Yet some progressive gays argue that this is really a homophobic approach: It is defensive and implies that you would change if you could, which in turn means implicitly that homosexuality is wrong. This is something many gays vehemently deny.
Moreover, not only does this approach embrace the victim's psychology of helplessness, but it is also fixated on the 'sexual' at the expense of the non-sexual aspects of relationships.
A person's sexuality is a psychosocial complex of behaviours that can be defined in various ways by different societies at different junctures in history.
In this nuanced understanding, choice is not like picking one thing from column A but not another from column B, as in boysenberry not pistachio ice cream, or French fries not rice.
Even if a gay person cannot remember when he decided on men, not women, it does not mean he did not choose.
Rather, people choose from within their life experiences taken together as a continuous journey.
There are decision points all along the way and they decide at certain times depending on what options are available.
These decisions then mould their futures.
This choosing is a constrained one but it is still choice.
After all, we choose where to live and what to eat or wear. So why is it so hard to believe that we also choose whom we like or love?
Choosing whom to like and love, whom to feel close to - surely something emotional and psychological - seems less likely to arise from the biological traits of one's object of affections, and more likely her emotional and psychological characteristics.
In short, gays choose to be gays given their individual life histories within their cultures because they prefer it to heterosexuality.
- Andy Ho, TheStraightTimes
