The “Trojan Couch”

Page 16

of the brief: “[T]he measurement of same-gender practices and attitudes is crude at best, with unknown levels of underreporting for each . . . .” truncating the citation as shown. However, the full sentence in context is as follows: “While the measurement of same-gender practices and attitudes is crude at best, with unknown levels of underreporting for each, this preliminary analysis provides unambiguous evidence that no single number can be used to provide an accurate and valid characterization of the incidence and pre valence of homosexuality in the population at large. In sum, homosexuality is fundamentally a multidimensional phenomenon that has manifold meanings and interpretations, depending on context and purpose.” This kind of ambiguity undermines the goal of usin g “sexual orientation” as a condition to define membership in a well-characterized “suspect class.” Hence, this definition is suppressed by the authors of a brief designed to define homosexuality as a class endowed with rights. In fact, on the pages referenced, the Laumann study only incidentally addresses the fact that “sexual orientation” is at best a multi-dimensional construct. And where Laumann does address this fact, it is to make the central point of the study: that homosexuality is so imprecisely mu ltidimensional as to be essentially meaningless when understood as a defining “trait.” This, of course, is not at all what the authors want the Court to conclude and so they are careful never to mention it. The un-cited, confounding findings of Laumann an d colleagues in these pages are that the great majority of people (both men and women) are exclusively heterosexual throughout their lives. Only a small minority of people will ever consider themselves homosexual or have same-sex experiences, and of these most will eventually change and stop having such experiences. But of those people who do consider themselves homosexual or have same -sex experiences, the reciprocal is not true. There is no symmetry. In fact, just the opposite is true. For them, the vast majority also have heterosexual experience—less than 1% do not—and the majority undergo a complete transformation. 25 The point is subtle and powerful, and addresses a confusing false symmetry that activists attempt to create between heterosexuality and homos exuality, as though they were somehow two equivalent poles or ends of a spectrum, the numerically minority status of one being an incidental and trivial fact. In other words, the data illustrates “just how normative heterosexuality is,” even for homosexuals. The converse—“just how normative homosexuality is, even for heterosexuals”—is false. Heterosexuality exerts a constant, normative pull throughout the life cycle upon everyone. (There is no parallel with race: One cannot say, “Findings indicate just how normative whiteness is, but not blackness,” nor its converse.) Laumann attributes this reality with regard to “sexual orientation” to “our society,” but it’s not just our society—it’s every society in which it’s been studied. A much simpler explanation lie s closer at hand: Human physiology, including the physiology of the nervous system, is overwhelmingly sexually dimorphic, that is, heterosexual. It should come as no surprise that the brain self – organizes behavior in large measure in harmony with its own p hysiological ecology, even if not in wholly deterministic fashion. Part IV. The Changeability of Homosexuality in Romer and Lawrence The authors of both briefs take care to argue that homosexuality is a stable trait, completely ignoring the major finding of Laumann. And so the authors of the Lawrence brief argued that “once established, sexual orientation is resistant to change” and specifically, that “there is little evidence that treatment actually changes sexual attractions, as opposed to reducing or eliminating same-sex sexual behavior.” But the only references amici provide are to two

Footnotes: 25 Laumann et al., p. 311