If we’re really interested in curbing prostitution there are other ways to go about it. Decriminalizing the selling of sex, but criminalizing the buying of sex is one big part of that. With a smaller demand, [...]]]> A Canadian study published this month shows a correlation between violence against sex workers and anti-prostitution laws. Read about it here.

If we’re really interested in curbing prostitution there are other ways to go about it. Decriminalizing the selling of sex, but criminalizing the buying of sex is one big part of that. With a smaller demand, there will be a smaller supply. As long as men are willing to pay for prostitutes there will be prostitutes.

Also, having better health care, job training, and general opportunities for women living in poverty would mean women can find other forms of employment where they can actually make a living wage. The study also suggests better violence prevention efforts, policy reforms, and improved access to housing and drug treatment in order to decrease the rates of violence against sex workers.

====================
This post, Anti-Prostitution Laws and Violence Against Sex Workers, originally appeared on Ask Garnet on 08/16/2009. Click over to leave a comment or ask a question: Anti-Prostitution Laws and Violence Against Sex Workers. Thanks for visiting!
====================

- Different brain sizes- Sexually antagonistic selection- Birth order

I think it is very important to study sexuality [...]]]> The science world has been coming out with a lot of different studies about the biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals in an attempt to better understand how and why (biologically) homosexuality occurs in humans. Some of these studies include:

- Different brain sizes
- Sexually antagonistic selection
- Birth order

I think it is very important to study sexuality and not just homosexuality, but all types. However, there are also things one should keep in mind when reading or talking about these studies. Because while I think science can be a wonderful thing, it can also be subject to cultural and personal biases. Recently a strong intelligent feminist woman, Susan Skoog, put it very well in response to the article about different brain sizes (copied with her permission):

“There are some major problems with sexuality studies like this.

1. When neurologists try to determine once and for all the “innate” causes of sexuality, they don’t realize the culturally-dependent framework they’re using. That is, what do “gay” and “straight” mean to the researchers? How do they determine “gay” brains in the sample? By the self-reported preference of the subjects? By a survey of sexual behaviors over time? By their “deviance” from “straight” behavior? By their measured response to sexual stimuli?

All of these criteria are contingent upon subjective reflection and agreement upon terms (totally valid in the social sciences and in our personal sexual lives, but NOT in the realm of biological research.) For example, am I a lesbian if I have slept with women in the past year? The past 10 years? Or if I have never slept with one, but they turn me on? Or if (like the radicalesbians of the 1970s) I identify politically with women-loving-women? Who gets to say?

(referencing a point made earlier by someone else) I second the point about bisexuality. In every study I’ve read, bisexuality has been made invisible or given short shrift by being lumped into the study samples as “straight” or “gay” depending on the researcher. If bi means gay, we have a problem.

This philosophizing about “what is gay?” may at first seem like splitting hairs, but unless we can create objective operational definitions about sexual orientation, there’s no way to do science about it.

Sexual tastes are not static entities– everyone’s sexuality develops and becomes enriched throughout life, and may even contradict itself. One person may go through many labels. To some people, their orientation has always been rock-solid. Others wrestle to develop/discover themselves more slowly. Still others refuse to define themselves at all. Are scientists going to look for the biological underpinnings of each of these?

Sexuality is much more than gender-choice; it’s layered like an onion. Which is not to say that sexuality may be willfully changed either. I see no evidence to support anyone forcing themselves or others out of their sexuality.

2. Many of the brain studies (such as Simon LeVay’s hypothalamic region study, and others’ explorations of hormonal balances) sought to look for the ways in which male homosexuals’ brains were “feminized.” This confuses gender identity/expression with sexual preference and is dangerously unscientific.

3. Much of the sexuality research of the past 125 years has been focused on finding the biological quality separating gay people from everyone else. Straight brains are the controls in these studies–this is a big problem. When so little research has been performed on “straight” brains to find out how they tick sexually, how can we look at homosexuality without reducing it to an aberration from straightness? This reinforces the conception that all queerness is a flawed version of “normal” sexual response, as if there was such a thing.

I believe these sex researchers, for the most part, have good intentions, but their methods are inadequate, and their biases go unexamined. This is with the marked exception of the homophobic and transphobic Dr. Michael Bailey, who has stated publicly that if scientists could find the cause of homosexuality, he would strive to cure it.”

Whether or not you agree with all of her points, it is important to keep each of them in mind when you read studies like these. Critical thinking is a much needed skill that many people seem to no longer employ when scientists or journalists start talking.

====================
This post, Studies of Homosexuality, originally appeared on Ask Garnet on 06/24/2008. Click over to leave a comment or ask a question: Studies of Homosexuality. Thanks for visiting!
====================

Mate selection is a complex process in humans, as well as in Drosophila melanogaster, the fruit fly. In order [...]]]> Here is our first submission by a PhD candidate studying genetics. She has chosen to remain anonymous for professional reasons. Anyone who wants to submit an article to me is more than welcome to do this. Enjoy!

Mate selection is a complex process in humans, as well as in Drosophila melanogaster, the fruit fly. In order to successfully reproduce, it is vital that one sex be able to identify a receptive member of the other. For flies, courtship rituals allow males to make this determination. This courtship involves physical contact that enables the courting male to assess his intended for repellant pheromone signals (those carried by other males and females that have already been mated), as well as a species-specific song created by wing vibrations, and additional pheromone sampling by oral-genital contact. In other words: a few rounds of fly foreplay. If the fly receiving these advances is successfully seduced, copulation may be attempted.

The Featherstone lab recently published a paper describing an increase in homosexual behavior by male flies. These flies had mutations in a gene they named genderblind. These mutant flies aren’t strictly homosexual. Whereas wild-type flies would always chose to mate with a female fly instead of a male fly when given equal choice between the two, the genderblind flies chose the male fly with the same frequency and intensity as the female fly. These results do not show that the flies preferred to mate with males flies – rather, it shows that the flies were unable to differentiate between male and female flies.

The genderblind mutation led to lower amounts of the genderblind protein being present in regions of the brain that are involved in pheromone sensing and response. They found that the amount of genderblind present inversely correlated with male-male mating attempts.

After a series of experiments, they concluded that the genderblind phenotype (the increase in homosexual behavior) was caused by an altered response to chemosensory stimuli. In particular, the mutant flies seemed unable to detect the normally inhibitory pheromones that male flies carry. They further showed that a drug which mimicked the effects of the genderblind mutation caused wild-type flies to exhibit a similar increase in male-male mating attempts. Restoring wild-type levels of genderblind in mutant flies returned their sexual behavior to that of wild-type. Both of these effects could be seen hours after the treatments, showing that it was the current brain chemistry that was causing the behavior, not a result of their developmental process.

It turned out that the increase in homosexual courtship was ultimately due to a reduction in the brain’s levels of extracellular glutamate. The normal excess of glutamate in the brain acts to desensitize the glutamate receptors, which in then reduces the glutamergic synapse strength. However, in genderblind flies, their reduction in extracellular glutamate led to an overall increase of the synapse strength of the glutamate receptors. This led to flies that overreacted to the chemical signaling in their brains.

Perhaps as a result to their overreaction to chemical stimuli, the flies attempted heterosexual as well as homosexual courtship at a higher frequency than wild-type flies. The genderblind flies also showed an increase in ectopic courtship – attempted copulation with nonsexual body parts, like heads. It may be that genderblind mutants are less sexually inhibited in general, not only in terms of homosexual behavior.

For flies as well as all forms of life, the reproductive drive is among the strongest impulses in nature. It could be that there are entire systems of suppression that have evolved to attempt to narrow the list of possible sexual partners to those which are most likely to produce offspring.

When I first heard about the paper the Featherstone lab had published, I was worried. I had feared that their results could lead to homosexuality being once again thought of as a disease or a lifestyle choice. After all, didn’t the paper show that drug treatment could curb it and return the flies to heterosexual behaviors? And clearly, the effects of the genderblind mutations were defects – they represented a behavior that is only found when something is wrong with the animal. I was waiting to begin hearing the religious right or similar groups start holding this research up as proof that no one is hardwired in their sexual orientation, that homosexuality is unnatural. That instead of being recognized as just another form of variety among the human species, it would be thought of as a treatable condition. With visions of an uncomfortable (if not worse) future, I felt more than just a little fear when I began to read the article.

Thankfully, after reading it, I felt relieved. The experiments they used were very straight-forward, and the results were stated as they were observed. They made no claims that their findings would apply to humans. One of the major reasons that flies are chosen as experimental models is their relative simplicity. Humans have significantly more complex genetics. We also have the undeniable influence of a very well-developed culture. Because of this, I do not believe that any sexual orientation issues will be able to be reduced to a single gene, or even a handful of genes. Our genes represent a starting point for what makes each one of us unique. They can give us predispositions and their own set of influences, but even those do not necessarily dictate the path of our lives.

====================
This post, Genderblind Flies, originally appeared on Ask Garnet on 12/25/2007. Click over to leave a comment or ask a question: Genderblind Flies. Thanks for visiting!
====================