The "Born This Way" argument has created a politically-charged atmosphere in the search for causes of homosexual behavior.  The gay rights activists have, unfortunately, based their strategy on the claim that "homosexuality" (the exclusive sexual attraction to the same sex) is a genetically-determined trait.  This is a desperate cry for rights, basically seeking "disabled" status for "gays."  Contrast this "We Can't Help It" argument with the fight for racial rights, "We're The Same As You."  Because of this atmosphere, sympathetic researchers very optimistically search for models to explain the confusingly "paradoxical" presence of such "gay genes."  Sympathetic journalists jump at every opportunity to report on new evidence and bold conclusions, no matter how weak they may actually be.  This is the reality of the dialogue between science and the public.  In the public sphere, you must support the biological argument if you support gay rights, and naysayers are anti-gay bigots, but this is not how science works.

One benefit to this politically-charged environment is that religious conservative anti-gay bigots do the work for us and harshly criticize the studies that researchers and journalists are so optimistic about.  Since, as we know, all naysayers are anti-gay bigots, gay rights activists probably would blindly dismiss these criticisms.  But what makes arguments so great is that they are unaffected by political environments.  If anyone is curious about what makes the evidence for biological origins of sexual orientation so flawed, religious conservative anti-gay bigots can be very useful tools.  Decide for yourself if their criticisms are valid.  Do keep in mind that they are religious conservative anti-gay bigots, so don't expect every criticism to seem valid.

Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay? The Biological Bas...

"Born that way" theory

Some examples of criticisms:

• uncertainty of sexual orientation of the subjects
• lowered testosterone levels found in AIDS patients
• [the conclusions were] fatally flawed due to the AIDS complication
• the study involved no genetic data at all
• not only chemical and hormonal factors, but also social factors, might have influenced this process
• later studies using larger sample sizes found no such differences
• sexual experiences themselves can affect brain structure
• lack of any real evidence that hormones actually play any role in sexual orientation
• sampled subjects from correctional and psychiatric institutions
• investigators advertised in openly gay publications, resulting in skewed populations
• lost statistical significance when twins were broken down into male and female pairs
• suggests the influence of birth order on homosexual feelings was not due to a biological, but a social process in the subjects studied
• he thought [his results] explained 5% of male homosexuality

The good news is that religious conservative anti-gay bigots are wasting their time.  It doesn't matter whether sexual orientation is a valid construct or whether it has biological origins.  Everyone deserves the freedom to love, pursuing any sex and gender of their desire (or choosing).  In fact, by arguing against its biological origins, they are arguing for their own potential to be attracted to the same sex.  They are unintentionally liberating themselves from the artificial limits of social-constructionist sexual orientation (shorter and simpler explanation) just by arguing for its existence.  After all, it can only be restrictive if one is convinced one actually possesses a "real," essentialist sexual orientation.

I plan to post relevant criticisms and my own critiques of articles over time.