"They're not baaaaad, just different."

[Sorry, can't help revelling in word play sometimes.]

Gay Sheep May Help Explain Biology of Homosexuals

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Gay sheep that mate only with other rams have different brain structures from "straight" sheep, a finding that may shed light on human sexuality, U.S. researchers said on Monday.

I'm sure it's just my narrow mind, but I can't help but wonder whether the choice of the word "gay" to describe a sheep is really especially useful, except for political reasons. And how come Reuters, the news service that won't call al Qaeda "terrorists" without the scare quotes, can describe a sheep as being "gay" with a (ahem) straight face?

I also wonder (and you have to read the whole article to understand this) whether, if someone comes up with a pill to increase aromatase in human brains, this will be viewed as good news by large segments of the news media. But I'm pretty sure a heavy investment in the stock of a pharmaceutical company that did so would pay off fairly significantly.

These findings, no doubt, will be held up as "proof" that "being gay" is "natural." But I wonder if it doesn't instead indicate that the statement "intrinsically disordered" becomes more literally true. For myself, I'm actually somewhat ambivalent about that statement--I can't quite square it with many of the gay friends I have had over the years. But finding a malfunction in the brain--and possibly seeing a medical treatment for it--would probably lead me out of ambivalence. (Though there's much too much subjunctive mood in the last couple of sentences for anyone to need to bother about them as yet.)

But consider: accept for a moment the 10% number asserted by some gay advocates as accurate. (There are all kinds of reasons to doubt it, and to think the actual number is between 1 and 4%, but forget that for now.) That would mean that 90% of the population is not gay. An incidence of a medical condition in only 10% of the population (never mind in only 1 to 4%) would have to be considered an "abnormality" (and was until the DSM changed its mind a few years ago).

Now, in March the Mayo clinic estimated the incidence of ADHD in children at 7.5%. Other studies have put the number at as little as 1% and as high as 20%. (In other words, statistically the same as or higher than the reported incidence of homosexuality.) As it happens, Ritalin is one of the most widely consumed pharmaceuticals in the country. There is wide disagreement about the actual meaning of a diagnosis of ADHD, and the appropriate course of treament. But no one who has studied the issue (or who has taught in a classroom) doubts that there is in fact a group of students who have different brain chemistry, that this is an abnormality, and that they need treatment ranging from behavior modification training to medication.

Call me crazy, but I'm guessing that the debate won't be quite so settled around homosexuality.