Prenatal Testing as Immediate Health Concerns

Prenatal Genetic Testing

To what extent should parents have access to prenatal genetic testing?

 The debate about access for parents to prenatal genetic testing starts its roots in the debate about religion vs. state.  Should personal choices like this be controlled by the state?  What are they worried about, abortion rates?  Prenatal genetic testing does not automatically mean more abortions, but maybe more prepared families.  Another debate on the topic is who should this be available to?  Should it be for everyone or only those mothers who are deemed “at risk”?

There are many reasons why a woman would want pre-natal genetic testing. She, herself, may have a condition that could possibly make her unborn baby a more at risk. The most common prenatal genetic tests are actually blood tests done on the mother. An example of a disease that would push for the mother’s testing would be like diabetes. The effect of diabetes would not cause the child to have diabetes but if the diabetes is not monitored properly by the mother then there could be a risk of low blood sugar for the fetus. In this case the testing would initially be done on the mother for the presence of diabetes and then further tests would go from there.

There are a few other things that the mother can be tested for before doing any tests on the actual fetus. The point of these tests is to rule certain diagnoses out and give the doctors a more narrowed scope of what they might be looking for in the fetus. Other than testing the mother for conditions like diabetes the mother’s blood type would be tested. The doctors look for the presence of Rh-negative in the mother’s blood, and if it is present there could be a risk to the child or future children if the fetus is Rh-positive. The risk with this is that the mother can actually produce antibodies against the unborn child’s blood. It is not usually harmful to the first child but the antibodies can build up and may even lead to death of future fetuses.

Another thing that the doctors will look for in the mother is presence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). There are approximately 2 million pregnant mothers each year in America with STDs (Cornforth 2004). A few of the diseases can affect the fetus through the placenta such as HIV and syphilis, while others may infect the child during a vaginal birth, such as gonorrhea, Chlamydia, hepatitis B, and genital herpes. These STDs can cause many problems and complications to the child including but not limited to cancer and death. It is very important to be aware of the STDs because some are actually treatable while the fetus is within the mother.

Another form of testing is by the use of an ultrasound.  The good thing about using an ultrasound is that it is completely safe for both mother and baby.  Ultrasounds also come into good use in determining age, sex, and growth of the fetus and can be done at anytime during the pregnancy.  In its use to help determine the presense and extent of birth defects it can show proper connection of placenta and amount of amniotic fluid around the baby.  Something to know about ultrasounds is that they might not be covered by medical insurance unless it is requested by a doctor for medical reasons.  This shows how access to prenatal testing is not fully available for every woman.

Some tests can be done using amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling which are more invasive but can actually give a definitive answer about the child’s health. These tests are mostly done only on mothers that show a ‘high risk”. High risk mothers include older mothers because these mothers have an increased chance to pass on chromosomal disorders. Chromosomal disorders are disorders where the child has a random error in their chromosomes, an example is Down Syndrome.

Other disorders that can be tested are dominant gene disorders that give the baby a high risk if one of the parents carries the gene, a 50% chance that the baby will also carry the gene. Some of these disorders are Achondroplasia and Huntington Disease. Recessive gene disorders can also be determined and are more inclined to be present in babies with parents of certain ethnic groups. These disorders include Cyctic Fibrosis, Sickle Cell Disease, Tay-Sachs disease, and Beta-Thalassemia. X-linked disorders can be determined and are more likely to occur in boys, such as hemophilia.

Although there are many reasons why mothers should get some tests done the decision is up to the parents, none of these tests are mandatory. The main reason to perform the tests would be to prepare the parents. Knowing certain information about the baby before it is born would be very helpful to planning for its arrival. It would give the parents time to get ready for the baby’s arrival by setting up special needs that the baby might have to have because of its condition. Knowing beforehand could also give the parents time to deal with their own emotions before having to deal with the actual facts.

The part that causes the most controversy is the fact that at the point of the genetic testing it is not too late to abort the fetus. Religious groups are against this because they see it as killing a human being, but is it truly cruel? Some parents might not have the resources to provide for a disabled child and take care of them like they deserve so instead of making them suffer, both the child and the parents, they make a tough decision. This paper is not to promote abortion but instead to show that not all abortions are really cold blooded murder and that it actually might be the best answer for the situation.

The availability to these tests, like most things, is not universal for all women.  The access to these resources are limited to the lower classes and some racial/ethnic groups.  A big deciding factor, like stated above, is insurance.  Not only the lack of amount of testing insurance will pay for, but the amount of pregnant women who actually lack medical insurance all together.  Even women using Medicaid run into problems just trying to find an obstetrician that will accept their insurance. There are some government run programs to try to fix this problem but even then their access is limited.  In conclusion, until everyone can agree on the need of access to these tests by all women things will stay as they are.  The main focuses of the tests should be broadcasted to everyone.  There are people who think that the tests are just to determine if the fetus has a disorder and then to terminate the pregnancy, but as described above the bigger reason for the testing is to prepare the families and/or alleviate any questions the parents might have.  Like many things in society it is most important to get the correct information out there and inform the people.

Sources:

Cornforth, Tracee. Sexually Transmitted Diseases During Pregnancy Consequences and Complications. 2004. http://womenshealth.about.com/od/pregnancyrelatedissues/a/stdspregnancy.htm

Jongsma, Jennifer. Prenatal Genetic Testing: Do you really want to know your baby’s future? New and Noteworthy. 2007. http://www.dnafiles.org/programs/prenatal-genetic-testing

Nsiah-Jefferson, Laurie. Reproductive Genetic Services for Low-Income Women and Women of Color: Access and Sociocultural Issues. https://ohiostatepress.org/Books/Complete%20PDFs/Rothenberg%20Women/17.pdf

http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/medical/prenatal_tests.html#

http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/students/friesen.htm

http://www.epigee.org/risks-to-baby-from-diabetic-mom.html

http://rhnegativeregistry.com/Rh_Negative_Mother_Pregnancy_RhoGAM_Anti_D_HDN.html

https://www.labcorp.com/genetics/prenatal_genetic_testing/index.html

http://familydoctor.org/familydoctor/en/pregnancy-newborns/fetal-health/prenatal-diagnosis-amniocentesis-and-cvs.html
http://www.marchofdimes.com/pregnancy/prenatalcare_ultrasound.html
http://www.webmd.com/baby/ultrasound

Posted by Madeline Miller

Biological Determinism v. Social Constructivism

Social Constructionism Dominates Biological Determinism

There are real and measurable differences between women and men as groups in things like emotion, empathy, spatial ability (or speed in processing spatial problems), physical activity level, violence, and interests. These differences begin when children are young, and sociobiologists have documented many differences across species, which is to say, up and down the evolutionary ladder. Are these differences determined by biology, or are they socially constructed?

Gender labeling begins the second an infant exits the womb and enters into this world of gender stereotypes. The first thing that is determined for a baby is whether it has a penis or vagina (and this is ignoring what happens when it is an intersex baby, which is a whole complicated issue by itself). The labeling does not simply end at penis or vagina and male or female. What the sex of the baby is determined to be is usually automatically related to what its gender should be, and what kind of things it should be doing in association to the stereotypes of this gender.

In December of 2011 The New York Times published an article titled Should the World of Toys Be Gender-Free? written by Peggy Orenstein. The article says that Hamleys, London’s version of F.A.O. Schwartz, got rid of its pink ‘girl’ and blue ‘boy’ sections in favor of a gender-neutral store with red and white signage. The store, which had previously been organized by floors dedicated to Barbies and action figures, is now organized by the type of toy and interests. In addition to this, Lego has also come out with a collection called the Friends collection which features pastel colored blocks aimed at girls. After months of anthropological research, Lego has discovered that the sexes play differently. Orenstein writes, “In order to be gender-fair, today’s executives insist, they have to be gender-specific.” Though studies have revealed the importance in the difference in toy choice in young children, according to Lise Eliot the pre-school age is the age when the brain is the most malleable and most open to influence on the abilities and roles that traditionally go with sex. Research tells us that there is a reason why girls will choose dolls (because they favor role play) and boys will choose blocks (because they favor building). Where, then, did we get the idea of colors and styles of clothing belonging to one gender or the other? Perhaps the dressing of infant girls in pink and boys in blue is not what we should be doing after all. Even when we try to avoid the gender stereotype, others still move it along strongly. For example, when my sister was a baby my parents went the route of dressing her in yellow, which is supposed to be a gender neutral color. Many people assumed she was a boy, and when told otherwise reprimanded my parents and told them that they should be dressing her in pink and in dresses. What are we telling our children when their views oppose the views of normative society? I myself identify as female and have always hated the color pink. For most of my childhood I also despised dresses and things that were considered to be stereotypically female. By my dislike of things that society tells me should go along with being female, what does that mean for me? The message I and others in this position receive is that we are not considered normal. This is not something I believe should be enforced when a child is young and impressionable. Maybe we should take a hint from Riley, the star of a viral Youtube video in which she is seen in front of many boxes of pink dolls wondering why girls and boys cannot play with each other’s toys.

            

The panic that comes with a person not adhering to his or her gender stereotype is still something that shocks and amazes me. While reading an article on intersex babies by Katrina Karkazis, I noted how she mentions the panic of parents and doctors alike when they see that a child is intersex and the rush to put them into surgery and have them ‘fixed.’ There are situations like this all over the place every single day. I have experienced this in my own life, as well. Back in high school I cut my hair pretty short. Short hair is something society views as unfeminine, and if a girl wishes to have short hair then she must be more masculine and therefore a lesbian. I got called a lesbian more times than I can remember. Because I did not fit the stereotype of a female, it had to mean that I was something else (not to mention the fact that they were using lesbian as an insult, which is something that enraged me). This all reminds me of an episode I watched of the television show What Would You Do, in which John Quinones sets up situations in real life to gage how people react. This particular episode took place in a toy store. It featured a father and son shopping and the son either wanting a dress or a doll. The reaction of the surrounding people astounded me. Other parents would go up to the father and ask him why he would allow that and tell him that it was not right for a boy to be acting in such way. My jaw dropped as I saw other parents point this little boy in the direction of the ‘masculine’ toys behind his father’s back, their faces proud like they were doing their civic duty by pointing this boy in the ‘right’ gender stereotyped direction. There was what was referred to as a ‘pink scare’ when a J. Crew advertisement surfaced featuring a little boy with pink painted toe nails. In an article about the situation Melanie Klein writes, “There’s nothing ‘natural’ about gender. Gender is a social construct reflecting cultural dictates within a specific historical context and those gendered prescriptions change as the culture changes.” She posts a photo of what looks like a little girl: long hair, white dress, Mary Janes. But there’s a catch: the photo is actually a young Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1884, before colors were assigned to gender. In fact, when colors were first assigned to gender, it was the opposite of what we know now. Pink, a color close to red, was equated with strength and masculinity. Light blue was a ‘natural’ sign of femininity, and according to Orenstein equated with imitations of the Virgin Mary, constancy, and faithfulness. As Klein writes on the subject, “Given that history, it becomes clear that color codes are arbitrary, socially constructed and have no bearing or impact on one’s ‘natural’ gender or sexual identity.” Since the colors are now reversed, there is no scientific evidence to say why a certain color would belong to one gender. There exists a whole blog called Pink is for Boys that is devoted to people going against these color and gender stereotypes.

            “In analyzing male/female differences, these scientists peer through the prism of everyday culture, using the colors so separated to highlight their questions, design their experiments, and interpret their results. More often than not their hidden agendas, non-conscious and thus unarticulated, bear strong resemblances to broader social agendas.”

            -Anne Fausto-Sterling, “Gender, Race, and Nation”

Bonnie Spanier and Jessica Horowitz have an entire chapter in the book Gender and the Science of Difference dedicated to the argument of biological determinism vs. social constructionism. They write that many theories of biological determinism help to further gay rights, by arguing that being homosexual is ‘natural.’ They reference Anne Fausto-Sterling and her work in her book Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men, in which she looks into research claims about difference in brain lateralization and math ability. She found that many of these claims were proved to be wrong or inadequate scientifically because of either contradictory evidence, insufficient evidence, or abandonment of theories (45). In looking at the work of researcher Dennis McFadden, Spanier and Horowitz discover that research is flawed because it focuses too closely on differences between men and women and not on variance in individual human behaviors across a population. They reach the conclusion that McFadden’s research is not accountable and that there is no just argument for biological determinism yet. Lise Eliot, author of Pink Brain Blue Brain provides more information to support social constructionism. She writes,“Sure enough, when scientists look closely and study large numbers of newborns, they have been able to document a few significant differences between infant boys and girls. But generally speaking, the differences are few and far between, nothing like what we see later in childhood” (55).

In the chapter entitled Under the Pink or Blue Blankie, Eliot explains what is known about similarities and differences in boys’ and girls’ bodies, brains, skills, and maturation in the first year of life. She explains how some of the differences are present at birth, while others turn up later on in life. Eliot writes about how infants are influenced by how parents do not treat boy and girl babies the same way. The only difference at birth between boys and girls is that boys tend to be larger. They are heavier and longer and typically have a larger head circumference. It has been proven true that girls develop and mature faster than boys due to their skeletal system being a few weeks farther along than a boy’s at birth. Much of the research done in an attempt to differentiate the sexes is weak, according to Eliot. Things like sensory difference, motor skills, language, and social and emotional difference and the research performed within each category have presented feeble arguments about differences between boys and girls.

What would happen if a child was raised without gender? Research on this subject is still underway as we look at Storm, a genderless baby from Toronto. Parents Kathy Witterick and David Stocker made the decision to not tell anyone the sex of their baby and it has since made headline news. Of course there is resistance and outcry by other parents. Kathy and David believe that a person should have the freedom to choose his or her gender, and that Storm’s story may help to make the world a more progressive place. One of the couple’s other children, a six year old named Jazz, is not quite a conformer of gender stereotypes himself. As a boy he loves pink and wearing dresses, and has been teased for it. This helped influence the decision to keep Storm’s sex a secret. This is a family that ‘chooses to challenge gender norms that they feel society imposes.’

In the end, many of the differences between boys and girls that we believed to be biologically determined are in fact socially constructed. Within the research and experiments, scientists bring their own socially constructed views and opinions with them, whether they mean to use them or not. The truth is that there is simply not enough evidence to document scientifically measurable differences between the sexes. Until we discover more, we will keep reinforcing our gendered stereotypes and hope our children turn out to be what society considers ‘normal.’

Works Cited

Eliot, Lise. Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow into Troublesome Gaps—and

What We Can Do about It. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009. Print.

Fisher, Jill A. Gender and the Science of Difference: Cultural Politics of Contemporary Science
and Medicine. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2011. Print.

Klein, Melanie. "J. Crew’s Toenail-Painting Ad Causes Pink Scare." Ms. Blog. 13 Apr. 2011.
Web. <http://msmagazine.com>.

Orenstein, Peggy. "Should the World of Toys Be Gender-Free?" The New York Times. 29 Dec.
2011. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com>.

Poisson, Jayme. "The 'genderless Baby' Who Caused a Storm of Controversy in 2011."Toronto News:. 26 Dec. 2011. Web. <http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1105515--the-genderless-baby-who-caused-a-storm-of-controversy-in-2011?bn=1>.

Posted byAriel Schloesser

Prenatal Genetic Testing

Non-essential Prenatal Genetic Testing

A Step Back for Women, Minorities and the Poor

What kind of access should pregnant women have to pre-natal genetic testing that is unrelated to diseases that are a likely indicator of an immediate health concern for the mother or the child upon birth?

                                                                                                                        

                                          

Only a short while ago, prenatal testing was usually only performed on women who were over the age of 35 and thus “at risk.” (Jongsma, 2007). Increasingly it is becoming commonplace to undergo an amniocentesis in order to detect diseases such as Tay Sachs or Down’s Syndrome in any pregnancy no matter the age of the mother. Yet this seemingly positive breakthough in medical science meant to prevent heartache and alleviate unnecessary suffering could be the root of a far more destructive set of procedures. In the future using the same and enhanced technology, it might be possible to detect not only indicators of immediate health concerns but superficial traits. Even further discovery could even allow for genetic modification. Access to this type of prenatal genetic testing and modification would reverse and undermine much of the progress that advocates for social equality or minority and marginalized groups have made. This kind of prenatal genetic testing would commodify and industrialize pregnancy, possibly have unknown harmful side effects for women and babies, further increase the gap between the privileged and the non-privileged and serve as a venue for a eugenics movement.

Prenatal genetic testing for traits that are not health concerns, such as intelligence, height or sex would turn child-bearing and pregnancy into a process where the outcome is a product (Rothman, 1987). Even with the limited prenatal testing that is done today, pregnancy has become a condition that medical doctors diagnose a woman with rather than the experience of feeling of life growing within that it once was (Samerski, 2009). Selecting for specific traits or purposely manipulating the genome to achieve a certain child would be like putting parts together in a factory. Women would no longer be integral to the experience of pregnancy but mere vehicles within which the product matures (Rothman, 1987). This is to say that to power afforded to pregnant women over their bodies, their womb and their fetuses would be reallocated to the medical community. Moreover, this specific prenatal testing seems to insinuate that if the amniocentesis shows a baby that does not meet the desired specifications, such as sex, it would be within reason to terminate it. The industrialization of pregnancy as outlined in genetic modification and prenatal testing for non-life threatening traits would turn both women and children into commodities and pregnancy into a means to an end rather than an experience.

The unknown harmful side effects of genetic modification or prenatal testing for specific traits on women and children outweigh any possible gain that these practices might have (Levine, 2002). Therefore, research and experimentation trying to produce these practices cannot be ethically be undertaken. Experimental medicine has historically had some grave effects on women and their children. When DES, was first introduced it was marketed as a drug that would help enhance the pregnancy. However, years later daughters of women of had taken DES showed high rates of cancer. The cloning of sheep provides another example of the destructive side effects that experimenting with the genome might bring to women and children. Dolly was one clone that managed to survive while countless others failed and yet she was subjected to advanced aging and other health difficulties early in life. Even taking a less drastic view and only looking at prenatal screening for specific traits that have not been genetically modified poses risks. As of today amniocenteses have a 1% chance of causing miscarriage (WebMD, 2002). It is unknown if this chance would increase with more extensive testing for traits that are much more complicated than Downs Syndrome or Tay Sachs. If that were the case, is there any reason that justifies carrying out such procedures if the traits that are being scanned for have no effect on the baby’s health? The degree of risk that accompanies experimental procedures involved in testing cannot outweigh the possible humanitarian positive outcomes, if there were any.

Genetic modification and prenatal testing for specific traits would not only be harmful to women, but it would increase the inequality between those of high socioeconomic status(SES) and those of low SES (Lippman, 1991). It has already been established that a predictor of whether prenatal care is received is SES. Women of low SES are much less likely to receive or seek out prenatal care even in Canada where prenatal care is covered by the government. This means that diseases, such as Down’s Syndrome which was previously not attached to any one specific class may become a condition linked with poverty due to the non-selection of Down’s in higher classes. Likewise, other traits may begin to become classed if they are beginning to be selected for through prenatal screening or built by genetic modification. As it is unlikely that insurance companies would pay for prenatal genetic testing that is only testing for traits that are not predictive of disease or medical problem, these services would only be available to the well-off. Depending upon the role that biological determinism actually plays in the outcome of an individual, genetic modification and prenatal testing could give anywhere from a small step up to an inherent superiority to those who can pay. As class, race and gender are not singular categories, but are continually intersecting prenatal genetic testing will further marginalize the poor, minorities and women.

Prenatal genetic screening for traits that are not indicative of a medical problem is essentially a more socially acceptable form of eugenics (Hubbard, 2002). Though it is more widely accepted for a fetus with Tay-Sachs to be aborted, aborting fetuses for other diseases and troubles is highly controversial. What sort of maladies or traits might be justifiable cause for an abortion if shown through prenatal testing? Whose idea of perfection should guide what fetuses get to live and what genetic modifications should be done? Many people living with disabilities feel as though their life is whole and worth living. Yet some supporters of extensive and selective prenatal testing would certainly describe these sorts of disabilities as preventable failures (Hubbard, 2002). There is no concrete list of desirable traits that would be applicable globally. What types of traits are valued are socially constructed and are often region or culture specific. Still, it is a dangerous idea to start actively trying to nurture some traits while stifling others. Groups of people who do not hold the highest social capital would not be selected for or would be aborted. Again this is frightening news for people with disabilities, minorities and maybe even women.

Prenatal genetic testing for non-life threatening traits and genetic modification are problematic for a host of reasons. Not only would pregnancy become industrialized and commodified, but these procedures would require experimental testing on women and children with potentially injurious or even fatal side effects. Genetic modification and prenatal screening could serve as another way that the inequality between the privileged and the non-privileged could be heightened. Finally, these practices could serve as a modern eugenics movement that would be strongly biased towards certain groups more than others. The need for and the drive for processes such as genetic modification and testing for traits not related to medical emergencies shows the way that Western society is obsessed with reaching some sort of subjective ideal (Lippman, 1991). It seeks to take the traits that are perceived to be valuable while discarding those that are perceived to be a detriment to society. Instead of trying to change humans to fit the perfectionist societal view of superficial traits, society should work to become more inclusive and accepting of diversity. In the interim all efforts should be made to stop access to and possibly even the development of prenatal screening that test for superficial traits and genetic modification procedures.
                                                         

Works Cited

"Amniocentesis Test: Risks, Benefits, Accuracy, and More." WebMD. WebMD. Web. 02 May 2012. <http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/amniocentesis>.

Hubbard, Ruth, and Stuart Newman. "Yuppie Eugenics: Creating A World of Genetic Have and Have-Nots." Z Magazine. Mar. 2002. Web. 2 May 2012. <http://www.zcommunications.org/yuppie-eugenics-by-ruth-hubbard-and-stuart-newman>.

Jongsma, Jennifer. "The DNA Files." Prenatal Genetic Testing. 2007. Web. 02 May 2012. <http://www.dnafiles.org/programs/prenatal-genetic-testing>.

Levine, Judith. "What Human Genetic Modification Means For WOmen." World Watch July/August (2002). Print.

Lippman, Abby. "Prenatal Genetic Testing and Screening:Constructing Needs and Reinforcing Inequalities." American Journal of Law & Medicine 17 (1991). Print.

Rothman, B. K. "COMMENT ON HARRISON:: The Commodification of Motherhood." Gender & Society 1.3 (1987): 312-16. Print.

Samerski, Silja. "Genetic Counseling and the Fiction of Choice: Taught Self‐Determination as a New Technique of Social Engineering." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 34.4 (2009): 735-61. Print.

Posted by Quincy Lacwasan

What’s better for a political movement that values equity, a model of sexuality-by-choice or sexuality-by-genetics?

Author’s note: I say LGBQ, and not LGBTQ, purposefully, as this article is about sexual preference and not gender identity. I feel it would be inaccurate to use “LGBT” or “LGBTQ” when I am not specifically talking about trans people (although some of my arguments are probably applicable to trans rights, too). Additionally, I use "homosexual" and "homosexuality" in the established medical/scientific sense, not as a pejorative. Finally, it will probably aid your reading comprehension to know that I myself identify as queer/bisexual.

The problem with arguing "well, we're born this way" is that we don't actually know if that's true. Since Simon LeVay's famous 1991 study dissecting gay and straight male brains, there have been a multitude of studies searching for a biological cause for homosexual attraction and behavior in humans. Biological theories abound: could it be a particular gene, or a combination of genes? Could it be the number of older brothers a man has? Childhood gender variance? Prenatal or early childhood hormone levels? (these arguments are summarized by Rahman and Wilson in this article). Research and criticism goes back and forth; a study will support a given theory, and then another will be unable to replicate the same findings, and someone will always write a critique. At present, at any rate, it seems safe to say that it is uncertain what the biological cause of homosexual behavior could be, and that it will be quite some time before science shakes the answer out, if there even is one. Why are gay-rights groups arguing for something that might not even be true? Why build a house of cards when there are better arguments out there?

Additionally, one of the most compelling blanket criticisms I've read of research into the biological roots of homosexuality has been an article by Anne Fausto-Sterling, titled "Frameworks of Desire." A biologist herself, she points out that science has treated homosexuality as a typology, as a box to put people in, instead of as a developmental process. "Academics – be they biologists, social scientists, or cultural theorists – have become locked into an oppositional framework. As a result, they are asking the wrong questions and offering intellectually impoverished accounts of the emergence and development of human desire." She argues that scientists study plenty of other processes from a developmental standpoint -- whole fields of biology are dedicated to it, even-- so why not attraction and orientation? It's more realistic to look at same-sex attraction as fluid or emerging over time, because that's how it is for many people. Using a binary of gay/straight ignores many people who identify as bisexual or queer, and people whose sexual preference or orientation has changed during their lives.

Another problem with the "born this way" argument is that it's not necessarily helpful: logically speaking, just because something is genetic or biologically-based doesn't automatically mean it's good; and historically speaking, LGBQ folks have been oppressed precisely because of such beliefs on the part of society. Indeed, there have already been medical "cures" for homosexuality: This psychology blogger outlines some of the medical literature from the 1940s, including hormone research on homosexuals, that was eventually used to chemically castrate Alan Turing. Turing, a British mathematician who helped the government immensely during World War Two, was convicted of "gross indecency" in 1952, and was put on estrogen supplements for a year instead of going to prison. He committed suicide in 1954. Activists might hope that a biological understanding of same-sex attraction will foster greater acceptance, but in the past, that hasn't been the case. 

Homosexuality was pathologized upon the advent of psychology and psychiatry as legitimate health sciences, too. The first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual for mental disorders, put out by the American Psychological Association, included homosexuality, which was described as a mental disorder for decades before being officially removed from the DSM in 1986 (source). Again, when homosexuality is thought to be biologically-based (even in terms of mental health), it has been designated as a disease, and cures are sought.

I think it speaks greatly to a profound lack of knowledge about our own history that the "born this way" argument is still so widespread, and so common in the wider discourse about gay rights. "LGBQ people are born that way," is a widely-heard counterargument to homophobic assertions. Even President Obama agrees: in 2010 at a town hall meeting, he said: “I don’t think it’s a choice. I think that people are born with, you know, a certain makeup, and that we’re all children of God. We don’t make determinations about who we love. And that’s why I think that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong." However well-intentioned words like this are, history has richly shown that a biological cause will not protect us. If we argue that "we can't help it," medicine will fix it so that we "can," with hormones, with surgery, or with therapy.

I think, too, that the biological argument leaves out a very important fact: we can help it. While it's true that very few people have any sort of conscious choice in who they're attracted to and who they fall in love with, every human being has a choice in their behavior. Pretty much all the time. I think that very few people are arguing that LGBQ people aren't in control of their behavior, but one of the logical extensions of "we're born this way; it's genetic" is that biology is destiny and that our genes or our hormones literally control our behavior. Any feminist who's ever criticized rape culture narratives about men are familiar with that line of thinking-- and they know that it's crap. Even if men have a higher libido due to their genetic makeup or their hormone levels, they are still expected to be responsible for their behavior at all times; they are expected to control their behavior as adult human beings and, you know, not rape people. Much as I hate to side with the Catholic Church, I think they and other religious groups have a point on this one: it is possible to be orientationally queer and not act on it.

Of course, there are problems when homosexuality is constructed as a choice, too. The religious right in the United States makes much out of the notion that people choose to be gay. Specifically, they claim that homosexuality is a morally wrong/sinful choice that disrupts society and has deleterious health effects. So, the line of thinking goes, if we can choose to be queer, we can choose to be straight, too (or at minimum, we can choose to not be queer, we can choose to abstain). However, again, relatively few LGBQ people experience any sense of choice in who they're attracted to, which is definitely part of the appeal of the "we can't help it; it's hardwired" counter-argument.

However, just because we can not act on it doesn't mean we should not act on it. Constructing same-sex attraction as a choice allows us to use the best argument at our disposal: these behaviors don't hurt anyone. Despite conservative assertions that LGBQ people make bad parents and ruin heterosexual marriages, we don't. The American Academy of Pediatrics declares: "The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual." The APA agrees.

And even though plenty of conservative groups will say that any form of homosexuality results in suicide or getting many STIs-- therefore, don't do it, don't hurt yourself-- that's really a quite terrible argument. If same-sex behavior is linked to STIs, it's clear that safer sex practices can eliminate those risks, and protection from them--eg barrier methods-- are more easily come by today than ever. And if same-sex identity or behavior is linked with suicide, well, it does make me wonder if that's because there's something wrong with us, or if there's something wrong with society. It's hard to feel good about ourselves when we are continually told that we're dirty/ bad/ disgusting. A 2010 paper published in the American Journal of Public Health found that "Living in states with discriminatory policies may have pernicious consequences for the mental health of LGB populations," including depression, anxiety, and alcohol abuse. One imagines that in affirming, supportive environments, LGBQ people don't have those kinds of mental health issues because our self-esteem isn't being stomped all over every time we leave the house. Indeed, that has been my experience as a queer person living in a LGBQ-friendly part of the world.

To summarize: I find that arguing for LGBQ rights from genetics or biology doesn't work so well, partly because of the history associated with biological determinist beliefs. I think that a choice-based model is preferable because, as an argument for LGBQ rights, it has a stronger foundation: being queer doesn't hurt anybody, therefore, it should be accepted. All of that, of course, is within the dichotomy of genetics vs. choice. Ultimately, I believe that the cause of same-sex attraction shouldn't matter to any group or movement advocating for LGBQ rights. We're here, we're queer, and we aren't hurting anyone, so get over it.

Posted by Theresa Copeland

After this Commercial Break: Ancestry Informative Markers

“All human beings should try to learn before they die what they are running from, and to, and why.” — James Thurber

In 2006, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) released a television special entitled African American Lives. The piece featured African American celebrities who had submitted DNA testing in order to find their respective ancestral and geographical links to the world. The show, and its subsequent revival in 2008, allowed those like Whoopi Goldberg, Don Cheadle, Oprah Winfrey, Chris Rock, Maya Angelou, Morgan Freeman, and Tina Turner to discover from whom and from where they came.

In its two parts, African American Lives garnered rather significant ratings and created an extensive fan base ("African American Lives 2 DVD”). In its two years, the special’s subjects and fans alike suddenly became infatuated with the idea of rediscovering the past. Especially important to this fervor was the socio-political context of actual African American lives. Discovering the genetic roots of an African American individual is especially complex not only because of the diasporic descent of African Americans, but also because finding the past can often times offer a solidification of an identity that was forcefully taken away from an entire family (Tawiah-Benjamin). In that sense, it is a political and empowering act of sorts.

Though searching the past is especially interesting and inherently political for African Americans, the quest to find one’s self genetically or historically is not restricted to race, nor is it restricted to just one television show. African American Lives, though arguably the most famous, is not the only one of its kind. Daytime televisions shows, special news reports, and even Hollywood blockbusters all seem to stem from the question of who are we, really? As American author James Thurber suggests, the need to learn about one’s own past is a natural human desire.

What Do We Really Learn?

With millions of people spending time and money to discover their personal and family histories, it would seem that the commonality of genetic testing would indicate the testing as being both advanced and reliable. This may not necessarily be the case. In a 2007 New York Times article, Henry Louis Gates Jr., the host of the famed African American Lives admitted that even he had begun to question the genetic tests used in ancestry explorations. After receiving different test results from two separate companies, in which one company confirmed genetics roots in Egypt while the other traced his primary ancestry to Europe, Gates explained, “ They told me what they thought I wanted to hear” (Nixon).

In historical, geographical, and political terms, Egyptian and European descents have very different implications for an African American man like Gates. However, it is important to look at the possible source of this error. The tests used by companies in African American Lives, or the more commonly available company, 23andMe, often employ the use of Ancestry Informative Markers (AIMs). In order to use AIMs, a geneticist will study the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of human genomes. Individuals, in this section of their respective DNA, have different types of nucleotides. By comparing the areas in which an individual may have different nucleotides, a scientist can create an ancestral profile of that person. The profiles will show the correlation of DNA sampling between parents and offspring as well as the tested individual to individuals of entire geographical regions (Dupré, 49). For Gates to be considered as Egyptian, for example, means that he has specific nucleotides that have an origin in Egypt. This implies that he, too, has an origin in Egypt.

Even if one is not scientifically gifted enough to fully understand this process, it is still apparent that these studies prove only correlation, not necessarily causation. The ancestral results offered by AIMs seem to imply that, because Gates has DNA similar to individuals who may live in or may be related to someone who lived in Egypt, he must be Egyptian. This thought is especially flawed when one considered the concept of race. For genetic studies of AIMs, the concept of race is primarily identified through geographical ancestry. Sociologically and scientifically, it is apparent race is a much more complex construction.

With genetic testing, individuals can find their
ancestral composition down the percentage.

The Limitations of AIMs

AIMs, in a most simplistic view, can be seen as a correlation of DNA sets in comparison to geographical regions of the world. While this, on its own, can be seen as insignificant, some may argue that it provides only a starting point from which ancestry can be detected. True,  African American Lives, compiled both historical data and family stories before providing their analyses. However, even using AIMs as a base from which to further research histories can prove to be difficult. As will be further discussed, there are still many limitations to AIMs.

Race as a Gene:

From a sociological standpoint, discussing race as a gene is very problematic. Genes for race cannot exist because race is a social construct, not a biological identity (Dupré, 40). Even if the argument is removed from the confines of sociological analysis, the only way race could as a trait would be through the combination of incredibly complex genes. As suggested above, race is tied not only to skin color or geographical location, but also to hair texture, body type, facial figures, and a number of other factors. Whereas scientist Gregor Mendel could use the crossbreeding of pea plants to determine offspring, the study is not replicable on humans. Scientists could not, for example, pair two differently raced individuals in order to create a punnett square that could accurately predict the race of their offspring (Dupré, 41). In this way race, as it is currently understood, could not exist as a simple gene.

Even past the complexity of the overlapping tendency of immeasurable race “genes,” there also exists further complications to crediting race to genes. SNPs, the primary testing material in AIMs, are non-functional DNA, meaning they do not compose particular genes nor do they an affect on physical traits or differences in behavior (Dupré, 43; Aldeman).  Essentially, working with SNPs proves that there is a commonality of alleles within a very large human population; these SNPs are not genes (Aldeman).

What is more interesting is that these studies produce somewhat insignificant results. As documentary director Larry Aldemen explains, 95% of DNA variation between different DNA strands account for the differences between any two individuals on the same continent. The remaining 5% of the variation could differentiate individuals in order to indicate the continent from which the DNA strand's ancestors came (Aldeman). Even if the 5% could identify an individual’s ancestral continent, the study still found that, “No matter which clustering scheme [scientists] used, individuals could be placed in more than one group” (Aldeman). This inability to strictly classify humans into separate race and geographical groups is due to humans’ modern lifestyles, mainly, ones of migrations and interracial relationships.

USA Ancestry in 2000.
Data Provided by US Census Bureau

Interracial Relationships and Migration:

In looking at the effectiveness of AIMs predicting biological and ancestral markers, philosopher of science John Dupré cautions, “It should be stressed, though, that all of these SNPs will be found in many people who don’t identify as black since racial interbreeding will ensure that they are gradually spreading through the wider population” (Dupré 49). This is a warning expressed by many scientists in the field (Fausto-Sterling; Aldeman). As interracial relationships are becoming more common and more acceptable, the separate SNPs coding become intermixed, creating overlapping AIMs. This means a child born of an interracial couple will have SNPs codings from all over the world and the ancestry, therefore, will be harder to pinpoint.

Much like the concept of interracial coupling, migration has also proved to obscure the value of AIMs. As worldwide travel becomes more readily available, humans are displaced from the geographic regions in which their SNPs originate. As Aldeman succinctly explains, “Human populations just haven't been isolated from each other long enough to evolve into separate sub-species, or races” (Aldeman).

"Non-Traditional" Relationships and Environment:

Another complication to anticipate in genetic testing concerns the increased occurrence of “non-traditional” relationships. Non-traditional, in this way, is defined as a pejorative term regarding any relationship outside of the realm of one cis-gendered female and one cis-gendered male creating a child of their own. These “non-traditional” families consist of lesbian, gay, transgendered, or queer relationships, as well as relationships including adoptions, surrogacy, infidelity resulting in a child, or in vitro fertilization. When the confines of a biological family are altered, the importance of genetic testing is also challenged. How much influence, for example, does a mother have on her child versus that child’s biological mother? Genetic testing, at this point, does not allow for questions like this to be explored. Instead, genetic testing limits ancestral exploration solely to the roots of the egg and sperm of which an individual was born.
         

"Non-traditional" families and the importance of non-biological families leads directly into the power of one's environment. Famed feminist scientist Anne Fausto-Sterling consistently suggests that genes alone do not drive human’s actions, but, more accurately, genes in combination with an individual’s development, environment, and chance produce these actions (71). In the context of genetic testing, it is interesting to note that even if a racial gene did exist, there would still be the unexplored realm of environmental affects. As much as AIMs may tell a person about her/hir/his past, there does not currently exist a method to test the ways in which the environment may have had an influence on that individual.

Conclusion

For years, ancestry explorations have been the cause of much fascination. The premise that humans can uncover their entire history, and possibly predict events of the future, with just one cotton swab is overwhelmingly exciting. This construction is the type of real life situations television producers dream of, because it provides drama and excitement to which everyone with a mother can relate.

While genetic testing is a surefire way to get high television ratings, there is also the possibility that the demand-spawned industry may create a market before the science is necessarily ready (Nixon). Improper associations of race with genetic coding, migration, interracial relationships, non-traditional relationships, and environmental factors provide only a small glimpse of the limitations current genetic testing of AIMs face. Even with these limitations, genetic testing and ancestral exploration will likely continue to be a desire of both everyday people and movie producers.

In all the above analysis, there has been much discussion regarding the sociological view of race being a purely social construct, however, everyday perceptions are not as forgiving. As Aldeman accurately states, “Race may be a biological myth, a social construction, but it nonetheless remains very real” (Aldeman). These racial differences, as Aldeman argues, do not come from significant biological differences, but from racist institutions and practices. Social institutions blending into science often accounts for the confusion of race with genetics. The two seemingly separate categories conflate into a confusing construct- one that is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate. So complex that it can no longer be properly dictated by science or society. As poet Lori Tsang astutely ascertains, “After all who really does [understand race]? The complex web of relationships among race, culture, and kin color remains just as elusive a reality as the relationships among sex, power, and love. Like water, it takes the shape of whatever contains it—whatever culture, social structure, political system. But like water, it slips through your fingers when you try to hold it” (210).

Works Cited

"African American Lives 2 DVD." ShopPBS.org. PBS. Web. 02 May 2012. <http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=2966804>.

Aldeman, Larry. "Race and Gene Studies: What Differences Make a Difference?" PBS. PBS, 2003. Web. 02 April 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-02.htm>

Dupré, Jonathan, “What Genes Are and Why There Are No Genes for Race,” In Revisiting Race in a Genomic Era,” Barbara Koenig, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee and SarahRichardson eds., Rutgers Univ. Press 2008: 39-58.

Fausto Sterling, Anne. "Genes and Gender," in Myths of Gender. pp 61-89
Nixon, Ron. "DNA Tests Find Branches but Few Roots." New York Times. 25 Nov. 2007. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/business/25dna.html?pagewanted=all>.

Tawiah-benjamin, Kwesi. "Black Americans Are Using DNA To Trace Their African Roots." Modernghana.com. Modern Ghana, 18 Sept. 2009. Web. 02 May 2012. <http://www.modernghana.com/news/239440/1/black-americans-are-using-dna-to-trace-their-afric.html>.

Tsang, Lori. "Postcards from "Home"" Half and Half: Writers on Growing Up Biracial and Bicultural. By Claudine C. O'Hearn. New York: Pantheon, 1998. 197-215. Print.

Posted by Tracy Gebhart