Canadian Psychiatrist Joseph Berger, M.D., is a Distinguished Fellow with the
American Psychiatric Association, a member of NARTH's Scientific Advisory
Committee and author of The Independent Medical Examination in Psychiatry. In a
preliminary response to the study, based upon media accounts, Dr. Berger
observed:
This study is yet another claim based upon superficial research that may be
purely coincidental to or entirely unrelated to the conclusion that the
researchers are proposing.
There is a conceptual leap based upon nothing other than an obvious personal
wish/bias, from what may be an interesting chance finding based upon a small
population sample to a generalization about the etiology of homosexuality.
There is no substantive basis for any such link. It is far too early to do
anything other than speculate about the possible causes of such a finding, if
indeed repeated surveys with larger populations confirmed its accuracy.
There are obvious possible "environmental" explanations for such a finding, such
as the tendency in many families to "baby" the younger or youngest, often thus
"delaying" their maturity into an adult masculine identity. The tendency of many
such younger/youngest children to play up the "cute" "wishing-to-please"
baby-aspect, which can take on an almost feminine charming/seductive demeanor.
There are many alternative explanations to the findings. It is totally
inappropriate for anyone to claim certainty in a study like this because such a
claim is obviously political, not scientific in nature.
After reading the Bogaert study, Dr. Berger's reaction was even more strongly
negative. He wrote:
It [Bogert's study] is rubbish. It should never have been published. I suspect
it was not peer-reviewed properly or was reviewed by someone so biased and
ignorant that they were unable to see the huge flaws and [are] essentially
ignorant of the literature.
The first major glaring flaw is that the author starts by presuming "evidence"
for some sort of biological causation of homosexuality, and what is the author's
evidence? All the first references are to people such as Hamer, LeVay, Bailey,
etc., whose work has been assessed and critiqued, and there have been no
follow-up studies confirming the claims of any of these people.
They remind me of Bailey's quote some years ago following the paper in the
British Journal of Psychiatry (Eckler, et al, 1986) on the adopted-away
Minnesota twins, which found zero correlation for women and one pair for men,
and that pair was twins with recognized developmental disturbances who found
each other in their twenties and whose relationship was with each other. On the
basis of that one bizarre exception [the report] concluded that there was strong
evidence for a biological genetic component!
The next -- and absolutely fatal flaw is the author's assertion that siblings in
the same family are exposed to identical environments in growing up.
Absolute utter rubbish.
Even identical children are treated differently from birth. [In families,] this
one is said to be more assertive, or calmer, or louder, or more anxious, etc,
etc.
When we come to children born at different times there are an ENORMOUS number of
possible factors that might make for significant differences in upbringing that
might effect how a child develops a sense of his identity and sexuality.
Sometimes parents' financial situation has improved between child 1 and 2 or 3,
etc., and sometimes it has deteriorated. Sometimes the relationship between
parents is wonderful, sometimes it is tense, or disastrous and pregnancy was an
attempt by one or both to 'save' a deteriorating marriage.
Sometimes a woman becomes pregnant and during pregnancy or soon after birth a
parent of her or her partner becomes ill or dies.
A very close friend in Israel just lost a son in his early 20's, a previously
very healthy sturdy young man, to a nasty cancer. During this time a daughter
had her fourth child, and a brother married two weeks after his brother died.
What do people suppose might be the effects on the mother regarding this latest
child or on the brother and his wife in terms of any child they might have in
the next year or two, and even more so on a younger sister about to become
engaged?
I could go on and on, but psycho-dynamically-oriented clinicians have learnt
these things from long experience, while activist-propagandists produce ignorant
papers with quite bizarre speculations based upon nothing more substantial than
fantasy -- such as this absurd notion of some maternal 'immune response.'
Absolute drivel.
