Gender selection,
whether through embryo screening, sperm selection, or, more radically, conscious
pregnancy termination, has been a hot topic of debate over the past few years.
But recent research is suggesting that designing babies may go beyond selecting
gender, physical traits, or even mental capacities and talents: it may be
possible to select a child’s gender orientation.
More
specifically, dexamethasone, or dex, is a risky, class C steroid that is
nevertheless given to some pregnant women who are carrying fetuses with potential
congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a disorder that gives the fetus ambiguous
genitalia development. In girls, CAH means an excess of prenatal androgens that
can give her male physical characteristics, but some researchers suggest that
these characteristics may go beyond physical ones. Maria New, pediatric
endocrinologist at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, published in a paper in 2008
on the “dose-response
relationship of androgens with sexual orientation” by studying women with
different types of CAH. New
found that “the rates of bisexual
and homosexual orientation were increased above controls . . . and correlated
with the degree of prenatal androgenization.” In addition, she found that “CAH women as a group have a lower interest than
controls in getting married and performing the traditional child-care/housewife
role.” Thus, dex may have the potential to
decrease not only the possibility of developing physical traits of the opposite
gender, but also that of being homosexual.
Aside from the
argument that the drug dex is dangerous and that its effects on preventing
homosexuality are not yet fully understood, should a “treatment” be made widely
available if further research showed reducing prenatal androgens did indeed
reduce possibilities of homosexuality?
While the
continuation of research to develop dex for the purpose of attempting to eliminate
homosexuality is controversial, researching the link between prenatal androgen
and homosexuality should be allowed to continue because it could provide more
specific detail for the fact that homosexuality is natural/ biological, as
opposed to a conscious life-style choice.
On the other
hand, using dex as a “treatment” for homosexuality should not be widely
accepted because of the coercion that it could represent for pregnant women.
Unlike certain kinds of enhancement, such as minor operations that improve one’s
appearance, or drugs like Adderall, which allows someone to focus but not
necessarily produce better work, the dex “treatment” could be viewed by those
who are strongly opposed to homosexuality as not a luxury but a way to “cure”
the society of homosexuals. Giving a pregnant woman with a potential CAH fetus
the freedom of choice on whether to use dex is not really giving her a freedom
of choice at all. Women who choose not to use dex would face stigma from
society accusing them of not preventing their children of being homosexual when
they could have. Homosexuality is an identity, one that is no less valid than other
identities. But unfortunately, not all of society shares that
view. So unless opposing views change, we should not strive to make dex a widely
available “treatment” for homosexuality, even if the drug’s risks are reduced.
1 comment:
Reading this post reminds me of a Star Trek episode. In the 117th episode of Next Generation, “the Outcast,” Riker falls in love with a feminine-leaning member of an androgynous species, Soren (1). The only problem is that Soren’s people do not tolerate any expressions of heterosexuality, and when they discover Soren’s feelings for Riker, Soren is forced to undergo electroshock therapy to “correct” her “disease.” The episode ends when Riker and Worf try to rescue Soren and arrive too late; Soren comes out of the building and tells Riker that she realizes she was wrong to behave heterosexually and that he should leave before he is caught. She walks away, and it’s clear that she has been brainwashed.
I think what happened to Soren in “the Outcast” is exactly what the drug discussed in this post effects. There are two issues at stake: autonomy and plurality. First, autonomy is in jeopardy in the sense that using dex to prevent a child from being homosexual makes a decision that will affect the child’s entire life. Making that decision can only be justified in the case that not administering the drug will result in physical or emotional harm to the child – otherwise there is no need to make any decision at all. It’s just like the trolley problem: if there is no difference between which track the trolley goes down, why throw the switch? Likewise, because homosexuality is no better or worse, objectively, than heterosexuality, there can be no justification for using dex to prevent it.
Second, plurality is at stake for exactly the reasons described in this post. If dex were available for the purpose of preventing homosexuality in fetuses, it could easily lead to the popular characterization of homosexuality as a disease, which would in turn complete a vicious cycle and stimulate use of dex to prevent homosexuality. If this were to happen, it would severely jeopardize the trend of society toward pluralization and diversity.
Thus, I agree with the assessment of dex made in this post: although it certainly represents a significant medical achievement, we should not use dex to affect the homosexuality of a fetus.
(1) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708815/
Post a Comment