The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation

by Edward R. Stein

In recent years scientific research and popular opinion have favored the idea that sexual orientations are determined at birth. In this book, philosopher and legal theorist Edward Stein investigates scientific research on sexual orientation and shows that it is deeply flawed. He argues that this research assumes a picture of sexual desire that reflects unquestioned cultural stereotypes rather than cross-cultural scientific facts, and that it suffers from serious methodological problems. He then asks whether sexual orientation is amenable to empirical study and if it is useful for our understanding of human nature to categorize people based on their sexual desires. Perhaps most importantly, Stein examines some of the ethical issues surrounding such research, including gay and lesbian civil rights and the implications of parents trying to select or change the sexual orientation of their children.

Genres: Social Science

400 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1999

Reviews

[David Walters · Rating 2 out of 5]

In The Mismeasure of Desire, Edward Stein, a philosopher, criticizes scientific research on sexual orientation and argues against the idea that sexual orientation has a biological basis, finding it at best premature. Stein also defends the philosopher Michel Foucault, and social constructionism, a school of thought influenced by Foucault and other writers. Though the views expressed in the book are controversial, it received mainly positive reviews when it was first published in 1999. Reviewers described it as an important and well-researched work, and credited Stein with carefully examining the assumptions underlying scientific research on sexual orientation and refuting the idea that such research should be used to support arguments for gay rights.

However, I find The Mismeasure of Desire a disappointing and unsatisfactory book. I agree, up to a point, with what Stein is trying to accomplish. I share his skepticism about the idea that sexual orientation is biologically innate. I even agree with him that the concept of "sexual orientation" is open to interpretation, and that its scientific value is potentially open to dispute. Unfortunately several factors limit the extent to which Stein's conclusions are convincing. I do not believe that Stein has great insight either into human psychology and behavior in general, or specifically into human sexuality. Stein also argues from a standpoint of extreme political correctness. In my view, he is dishonest in the way he goes about criticizing theories of sexual orientation that see it as biologically based. Given his interest in criticizing such theories, one might suppose that he would discuss them in an extremely thorough way and relentlessly expose their flaws and disturbing implications.

Although the The Mismeasure of Desire is full of complicated discussions, which may give the impression of rigor, Stein fails to do this. He seems to be unaware of, or willing to turn a blind eye to, some of the most important problems with the theories. Stein can be forgiven for not exposing all of their problems, and those of the studies claimed to support them. In some cases, the flaws may be subtle, requiring considerable effort to expose. It is extremely plausible that a significant proportion of the relevant studies are methodologically flawed in ways that are not immediately apparent; in many cases, their problems may never be exposed, since there are so many studies and no one has the time or the inclination to systematically review them all.

However, there is at least one major case in which Stein fails to expose the blatantly obvious failings of an extremely influential study. Sexual Preference, a 1981 book by Alan P. Bell, Martin S. Weinberg, and Sue Kiefer Hammersmith, has been held to be highly important: many people have asserted that it discredited psychoanalytic ideas about the development of homosexuality and strengthened the case that sexual orientation is due to nature rather than nurture.

Though Stein acknowledges a few criticisms of Sexual Preference, he endorses the claim that it discredits psychoanalytic views. This is a drastic mistake on Stein's part. Though he presents himself as someone willing to challenge established thinking about sexual orientation, by endorsing the claim that Sexual Preference discredits psychoanalytic ideas about the development of homosexuality, he is supporting the fashionable, flawed, conventional wisdom. Sexual Preference is one of the worst books ever written on the topic of human sexuality. Its authors misrepresent psychoanalytic ideas about homosexuality in such an extreme fashion that one has to conclude that this is part of a deliberate effort to mislead their readers, rather than the result of innocent error.

Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith argued that they had tested and thereby discredited psychoanalytic ideas about the development of homosexuality, when in truth the only case they could have made against those ideas that stood any chance of being genuinely convincing was that they are so flawed that they are not even worth testing. Had they understood the issue properly, they would have realized that if the methods and conclusions of Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues are valid, then their validity renders psychoanalytic thinking about homosexuality obsolete, showing that the ideas that psychoanalysts have put forward about the development of homosexuality are untenable.

Rather than make the honest argument that they could have made, Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith distorted psychoanalysis, reducing its ideas about homosexuality to a parody, one that perhaps corresponds to what many uninformed people believe, but which is not even remotely accurate. It is only because of their distortions that they could make the case that it was worthwhile for them to attempt to test psychoanalytic ideas, as opposed to arguing that they are untenable. Stein had the chance to expose their incredible propaganda and false claims, and he wasted it.

Another major misstep comes in Stein's discussion of proposed genetic explanations of homosexuality. One involves a comparison of homosexuality to a disease, sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia persists because heterozygous individuals (those who carry only one copy of the gene) do not suffer from the disease, but develop differences in their red blood cells that confer a resistance to malaria. Homosexuality could persist for similar reasons: a hypothetical "gay gene" might be preserved because heterozygous individuals not only do not become gay, but develop advantages that improve their reproductive success.

One might hope for a thorough and dispassionate analysis of everything that could be said both for and against such a proposed explanation of homosexuality. Stein notably fails to provide one. He mentions that homosexuality has been compared to sickle cell anemia, but only in passing, and fails to adequately explore the issues this raises. Sadly he lets his political correctness get in the way of frankly admitting that the comparison represents a continuation of the idea that homosexuality is a disease. Though as usual almost no one wants to admit the truth about such issues, the comparison makes no sense unless homosexuality is either a disease or a condition closely similar to a disease.

Had Stein been honest, he would have done more than admit this obvious point. He would gone a step further by considering that there might be something about the idea that homosexuality is inborn that, even if it does not logically force one to adopt it, tends to support the conclusion that homosexuality is pathological. This is something I think many people suspect, even if few people are willing to voice that suspicion openly. Whatever else can be said of the comparison of homosexuality to sickle cell anemia, it does at least have the merit of showing that the suspicion is plausible. Though the idea that homosexuality is pathological is of course in principle compatible with both sides of the nature/nurture controversy, the position that homosexuality is due to nature probably suggests much more strongly and more clearly that homosexuality is pathological than does the position that it is due to nurture.

If this is the case, then the ultimate social and political implications of the idea that homosexuality is due to nature rather than nurture would be close to being the exact opposite of what they have often naively been taken to be. If it did help to promote gay rights, it would do so only under circumstances that would not last forever, and only, in large part, as the result of misunderstanding. Over the long term, as its true consequences gradually became apparent, it could undermine or even destroy the cause of gay rights.

The Mismeasure of Desire represents a wasted opportunity to make this, among other important issues, clear. Stein could and should have written a much more sharply argued, and much more honest, critique of the idea that sexual orientation is biologically innate than the one he actually wrote. Though there may have been nothing he could have done, no matter what he wrote, to convince the dogmatic true believers on the other side of the issue, had he written a better book, he could have brought their disastrous mistakes to the attention of a large audience.

Stein failed to accomplish this, leaving a flawed set of ideas to become ever more widely accepted. Despite this process of spreading conformism, I would expect that the flawed and disturbing aspects of theories that view sexual orientation as biologically innate will eventually lead to their rejection. However, if this does happen, it will have little to do with The Mismeasure of Desire. The sort of controversies likely to lead to that result would almost certainly focus on crucial issues Stein fails to properly address and take a form of which he would not approve.

[Simon Cozzens · Rating 3 out of 5]

The focal question of this book is interesting and important: What is sexual orientation? To discuss this question the author reviews our historical and contemporary categories of sexual identity, and analyzes much of the research that has been carried out about the nature, origins, and mutability of our sexual orientations. One ultimate claim of the book is that the research has not (and probably cannot) define sexual orientations as natural human categories, and that research about sexual orientation will likely have problematic ethical consequences for many queer people.

While this is all fascinating and relevant to today (the book is nearly 20 years old), the style is not a fluid one. The author is very clearly thinking and writing in the tradition of philosophical literature, which means that every point is fleshed out agonizingly with logical analysis. I normally like this theoretical and detailed style of discussion, but it doesn't lend itself well to nebulous conversations in social science. Every bit of social or biological science, even if it's somewhat convincing or plausible, is seemingly dismissed on the grounds that it doesn't quite prove a fact beyond any logical doubt, and much of the discussion seems tangential to those who are just looking for an intro to the topics discussed. This book could be edited to about half the words and still get nearly the information across.

I would recommend this to anyone interested in the origins of sexual identity and causes of sexuality, but I wouldn't recommend reading it from beginning to end unless you are in love with the analytic-philosophical format of discussion.

[Nicole · Rating 5 out of 5]

if you only read one queer theory text (although i don't know why you'd stop at one...) this should be it. accessible enough to bring to the beach (i think) but will reshape your way of thinking. definitely one of my top five most influential books.