To respond to claims by some African governments that science supports criminalisation of homosexuality, the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAF), in collaboration with the Uganda National Academy of Sciences (UNAS), assembled a thirteen-member panel of scholars across multiple disciplines such as paediatrics, epidemiology, HIV medicine, behavioural science, psychology, anthropology, ethics and gender studies to review the current literature in their respective fields of expertise.

The resulting report “Diversity in Sexuality: Implications for Policy in Africa”, published in May 2015, answers most of the arguments used to stall decriminalisation of homosexuality and to pathologise LGBT people as mentally ill or deviant.

It needs to be read by all law-makers and parliamentarians responsible for keeping Section 377 on the books in India. The report is also essential reading for policy makers associated with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Indian Council of Medical Research and Medical Council of India. It consolidates all the evidence needed for these bodies to work together and stop ‘conversion therapy’ by medical professionals, still a rampant practice in the country.

We reproduce below the Executive Summary of the report. The full report may be downloaded from the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAF)  website.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Although two-thirds of countries in the world no longer outlaw lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) relationships, same-sex relationships are still illegal in 76 countries. In the recent past, new laws have been passed in Russia, India, Nigeria, Bu-rundi, Cameroon and Uganda and are being contemplated in other countries to further prohibit same-sex relationships or the so-called ‘promotion of homosexuality’. There is evidence that such new laws precipitate negative consequences not just for LGBTI persons and communities, but also for societies as a whole, including the rapid reversal of key public health gains, particularly in terms of HIV and AIDS and other sexual health programmes, increases in levels of social violence, some evidence of reduced economic growth, and the diversion of attention from sexual and other violence against women and children.

Partly because those arguing in favour of criminalising sexual and gender diversity have made explicit appeals to science, this report examines the extent to which science sup- ports any of the arguments that proponents of these new laws make. Drawing on recent scientific evidence and, where possible, on systematic reviews, the report seeks to pro- vide an up-to-date overview of the state of the current biological, socio-psychological, and public health evidence and assess how this supports, or contests, the key arguments made in favour of new laws. This report considers the following questions:

1. What is the evidence that biological factors contribute to sexual and gender diversity? To what degree is the wide diversity of human sexualities explained by biological factors?
2. Do environmental factors such as upbringing and socialisation explain the diversity of human sexuality?
3. Is there any evidence for same-sex orientation being ‘acquired’ through contact with others, i.e. through ‘social contagion’?
4. What evidence is there that any form of therapy or ‘treatment’ can change sexual orientation?
5. What evidence is there that same-sex orientations pose a threat of harm to individuals, communities, or vulnerable populations such as children?
6. What are the public health consequences of criminalising same-sex sexual orientations and attempting to regulate the behaviour/relationships related to some sexualities?
7. What are the most critical unanswered scientific research questions regarding the diversity of human sexualities and sexual orientations in Africa?

Global bodies, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) declassified homosexuality as an illness or disorder in 1990 and there is now a wide global consensus among scientists that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation of human sexuality without any inherently detrimental health consequences. In this context governments have a duty to consider scientific perspectives and draw on the most current scientific knowledge when creating policy and enacting laws. In terms of sexual orientation, significant and even path-breaking research in a variety of fields has taken place in the recent past. Much of this research is not widely known to policymakers yet, nor is it in the public domain. This report aims to bring the most recent replicated and respected global research to the attention of policymakers.

Examining the biological factors, including genetic, neurohormonal and other factors, the report concludes that contemporary science does not support thinking about sexu- ality in a simple binary opposition of hetero/homosexual and normal/abnormal. Rather, it favours thinking in terms of a range of human variation, very little of which can justifi- ably be termed abnormal. As variation in sexual identities and orientations has always been part of a normal society, there can be no justification for attempts to ‘eliminate’ LGBTI from society. Efforts should rather be focused on countering the belief systems that create hostile and even violent environments for those who are made to feel alienated within societies that privilege male power across political, social and family domains.

The panel concludes that there is substantial biological evidence for the diversity of hu- man sexualities and for sexual orientations in particular. Studies have found significant linkage between male sexual orientation and regions of the X chromosome, though the exact manner in which gene expression impacts on sexual orientation remain to be determined. Familial patterns with regard to same-sex orientation, particularly in men suggest a strong likelihood of biological elements. In addition, although limited in number, some pedigree studies, tracing thousands of female relatives of heterosexual and homo- sexual men, found convincing evidence that female relatives of homosexual men have increased fecundity, i.e., on average, they bear more children compared to female rela- tives of heterosexual men. This may provide a key to the major evolutionary paradox of presumed reduced fecundity because of the relatively high prevalence of same-sex- attracted men in every society.

Although less well studied, there is also considerable evidence for a biological component for same-sex orientation in women and for bisexuality.

Socio-behavioural research demonstrates unequivocally that both heterosexual and ho- mosexual men feel that they have/had no choice in terms of their sexual attraction. The majority of women who experience same-sex attraction also express a lack of a sense of choice in their sexual orientation, although there is evidence for much greater fluidity in sexual orientation among women of all sexual orientations.

The study explores – and finds lacking – evidence to support the contention that the way parents bring up their children, or the relationships formed between children and parents, impact on sexual orientation. While family environment may shape other elements of sexuality and the way sexuality is expressed, and while construction of gender and sexual identities have strong social and cultural components, there is little evidence that orientation is directly correlated to family upbringing.

This report explores but could find no evidence that sexual orientation can be acquired through contact with LGBTI persons. Instead, the panel found substantial evidence that tolerance of same-sex orientation not only benefited LGBTI persons but impacted positively on public health, civil society and long-term economic growth in societies across the spectrum of economic development. ‘Peer pressure’, although a powerful influencer of young people’s behaviour, has not been shown to influence same-sex activity or the development of same-sex sexual or bisexual orientations.

The panel explores a wide variety of sources and studies and could find no evidence link- ing LGB sexual orientation or transgender people with the ‘recruitment’ of young people through childhood sexual abuse. Given the high prevalence of childhood sexual abuse in Africa, the protection of all children should be paramount. As there is no evidence that adult sexual orientation is correlated with abuse in childhood, this false connection should no longer be used to justify the marginalisation of LGBTI persons.

This study finds abundant and robust evidence that more repressive environments in- crease minority stress and impact negatively on LGBTI health. There is overwhelming evidence that this has a direct impact on the general population’s health, particularly in terms of HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and other sexually transmitted infections (STI) reduction efforts. There are no known positive impacts on public health because criminalisation cannot stop people from feeling same-sex attractions and expressing same-sex orientations. Such legislation also cannot stop same-sex or bisexually-orientated people from having relationships, sexual and otherwise, with the wider population in any society.

The study explores and could find no evidence that same-sex orientation can be changed through ‘conversion’ or ‘reparative’ therapy. It highlights that 50 years of research have not found same-sex attraction to be inherently pathological or a malady of any kind. Studies have also not been able to show any particular social harm of consensual relationships between adults, nor any negative impact on broader communities. Given the documented dangers of such therapy and its direct conflict with medical ethics, these interventions are contra-indicated. Further, recognising the ineffectiveness of conversion therapy, we recommend the wide dissemination of this information especially to health professionals across Africa and beyond.

The study suggests that African health professionals and their associations should adopt affirmative stances towards LGBTI individuals. Psychosocial interventions and support particularly for adolescents are recommended to facilitate the adjustment of same-sex- orientated persons to the stress, stigma, shame and discrimination they may face and to affirm their choices and orientations.

This report concludes that almost all of the recent scientific research regarding human sexualities needs to be much more widely disseminated and discussed in public, and should indeed be drawn upon by policymakers when contemplating new legislation.

I entered the hall just when Vikram Sundarraman was introducing the panel and the discussion began. Dr.Kalpana Karunakaran led the talk with her insights on how it all began with man’s need to brand and establish his ownership not only over property but also on his kin and how it acted as a root cause for the advent of casteism and the numerous rotten rules imposed based on gender. This brief on patriarchy was an eye- opener, because it had never occurred to me that the reasons for some of the issues we face now are buried deeply in our society’s past. With that came the realization that it was not going to be easy for one to usher in a positive change. Difficult but not impossible.

Then it was the turn of our very own Ramki, who effortlessly transported us from the ancient India to a modern and hi-fi genetics lab where he discussed the commonly used arguments against homosexuality. Yes, you guessed it right, the “unnatural” word. He not only brought up a lot of examples to demonstrate how natural and widely prevalent homosexuality is among non-human vertebrate species. He also summarized the various arguments used in the past and present to disparage homosexuality. Some of these arguments are based on religious proscriptions, and others on limited or false understanding of the science. He conclude by pointing out that arguments rooted in biology/genetics are neither necessary nor sufficient to make the case for equal rights for all, regardless of sexuality or gender identity.

Then there was Mr.Ravi  with arguments that could silence anyone who opposes LGBT equality in the name of religion. He cited various archaic religious texts which are not only clearly out dated and ludicrous in the present day context but also how they contain contradicting statements in themselves. Right from Manusmriti, the Vedas to the Christian scriptures, this man hardly left any stone unturned. He presented two approaches one could take to address homophobia grounded in religion: a confrontational attitude pointing out the ridiculousness of other religious strictures, or a conciliatory approach that draws on scriptural statements about love, compassion and respect for humanity.

Following him was Ms. Poongkhulali, who presented the most realistic picture of the legal battle surrounding Section 377 of the IPC. She compared the judgements of the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court on the subject matter in 2009 and 2013,  respectively, summarized the review petitions and potential legal steps ahead. She candidly pointed out the flaws in the legal reasoning, the callous way in which the Supreme Court overlooked the genuine reasons behind the review petititions and ignored the pleas of the LGBT supporters. It appeared, she said, that the Supreme Court had  made up its mind to uphold 377, and later made up flimsy reasons to back up its decision. ‘

Then Ms. Shambhavi shifted the focus of the discusion from battling with the legal system to battles we fight within our families. Everytime I try to answer my friends’ questions about how am I going deal with my family when I have to come out to them, I am simply branded selfish and inconsiderate of others’ feelings. The way Shambhavi sensitively dealt with that topic put forward her justifications was very mature. She also spoke about alternative systems in place of patriarchal families.

The five course meal was not all: there were many amuse-bouches too. By this, I refer to the insightful questions by the audience. Several questions were raised on hetero-normative roles, sex education, LGBT in politics, the possible implications of decriminalizing consensual sexual acts.  Each question brought in a different perspective on the topic. And the occasional funny comment to ease the mood was like a sip of a lemon chiller.

This event was the first time I had come across a large group of people who were not necessarily members of the LGBT community, but were refreshingly open to the views, justifications and opinions of the community. Usually when this topic is raised among my friends and colleagues, I tend to use personal arguments to make my case for equality. Following this panel, I now have tons of arguments – be they science or religion,  social or legal.

I am determined to not stay silent ever again in a place where I feel the need to voice out for the cause. The next time I do so it would be not only for me but for my entire community. I strongly believe if these numbers of supporters can be amplified, then the courts have no alternative but to listen to our plea. Thanks to Chennai Freethinkers, its amicable volunteers, their wonderful hospitality and for jointly organizing this event with the Orinam group.

And about the Orinam group, this was the first time I had closely interacted with a group of LGBT activists and am glad it was with Orinam that I started. Every member was a delight to talk to, and the spirit and knowledge each member brought to the group was remarkable. The informative interactions, not to forget the sense of humour, are truly the hallmark of the group, and I am looking forward to be a part of many more events.  Bon appetit!

Video below, courtesy Chennai Freethinkers [see errata**]:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xLsZ6u0SMU

** Errata:

About: Thinkfest is the annual programme organized by Chennai Freethinkers, a regional group of Nirmukta, during which science popularizers, humanists and freethought activists are invited to share their ideas with the general public. The panel was enabled by Vikram Sundarraman, who describes himself as “someone who has questioned both gender and is religion for a long time and now passionately involved in promoting LGBT rights and freethinking.” The speakers were members and friends of Orinam, an organization working for the cause of LGBT rights.

The panel included:
• Dr. Kalpana Karunakaran, who has worked in the areas of gender, health and microcredit, and teaches in the Dept. of Humanities and Social Sciences at IIT Madras
• Poongkhulali B., an advocate practicing in the various courts in Madras
• Shambhavi, a volunteer with Orinam, based in Chennai
• Ravichander R. who works in an NGO providing education to under-privileged children
• Dr. L Ramakrishnan, a public health professional, biologist, and LGBT rights advocate from Chennai

This report was originally posted on movenpick, the mailing list of the Orinam collective, and has also been cross-posted on the Nirmukta site.

The article is not an objective evaluation of the arguments. The author’s agenda is transparent: to subtly depict LGBT people as a threat to humanity. It is a clarion call to actively repress, through criminalization, the emotional and physical reality of a sexual minority. Why else would she liken being gay to “terrorism and suicidal tendencies”? Perhaps she realized her advocacy so closely mirrors the Nazis who liquidated homosexuals in death camps to “eliminate undesirable traits [from] the most evolved species on earth” (her words), that she felt the need to distance herself from eugenics in her extended preamble.

Any morally honest reader would have numerous objections to this article. These are mine:

1. Sexuality is not “environmental”: some evidence suggests genetic factors are associated with male same-sex attraction, which the author admits. Other studies point to the role of epigenetic and developmental factors in determining sexuality. To single out one (absolutely baseless) aspect of the law in a country as a strong determinant of sexuality, is beyond absurd. Even if it is mildly environmental, that doesn’t make it more malleable than other hardwired traits! By analogy, “height” is only partly hereditary; “environment” also plays a role, like childhood nutrition, emotional security, exercise etc. But it would be bizarre to suggest that height can be changed during adulthood, or that criminalizing shortness (and the consequent societal attitudes) can mould society to change people’s heights. This author claims no better.

2. Sexual orientation CANNOT presently be altered: Every single study claiming to “cure gayness” has been debunked. “Corrective therapy” is banned in several countries because of the clearly established trauma of trying to forcibly suppress or alter sexuality. Exodus International, one of the largest proponents of ex-gay therapy was forced to close and apologize “for being part of the system of ignorance that perpetuated that hurt.” Same with former leading psychiatrists. Decriminalizing gay sex cannot convert straight people into gay. And if 377 is upheld, gay people will remain gay! It is simply impossible to “encourage people” to be gay/straight. Show me a credible scientific study (not pilot studies, not self-reported anecdotal evidence) demonstrating otherwise, and I’ll eat my shoe.

3. Homosexuality is not “unnatural”: What on earth does “natural” even mean? Found in nature? Homosexual bonds are a natural part of life in virtually every other species, and found in every culture and society in human history. Does “unnatural” mean it doesn’t serve reproduction? Neither do male nipples, should we hack them off? Nature is simply too diverse and heterogenous, and it is the author’s antediluvian notions of strict male/female binarity that is unnatural to this planet. A single blade of grass can have up to 12 different genders. And even if the author wants to restrict morality to only what serves reproduction, then rape, adultery, infanticide, child abuse and cannibalism are quite “natural”. Does she endorse them?

4. Even if it is “unnatural”, so what?! Should the author give up vaccines, her clothes and her spectacles because they are “unnatural”? Perhaps she concurs with the exact same dialectic of “natural order” used to persecute women in the workplace, female reproductive rights, racial desegregation, stem-cell research, contraception, the abolition of slavery, and organ transplants? Genetic mutation is perfectly normal, and many people are born different, e.g. tall, left-handed, extreme flexibility, with photographic memory, or “with six fingers”. If the author is uncomfortable with deviations from the societal norm, she needs counseling. Or a history book.

5. Homosexuality causes no harm: To label something undesirable, one needs to demonstrate objective, secular harm. Terrorism, suicidal tendencies etc. cause concrete harms, and are hence problematic. What exactly are the secular harms of being gay? Throwing vague moralistic labels like “unethical”, “unnatural” and “improper” does not make it so. Masturbation (heck, even being left-handed) was once considered “improper conduct”. Today’s homophobes are simply the modern equivalent of the sex-obsessed puritans of old.

6. Traditional marriage is not endangered: We have case studies of over 20 countries that recognize marriage equality. On Friday, a Federal judge in Utah struck down a ban on marriage equality because Utah “failed to show how gay marriage would affect opposite-sex unions”. Does the author have any actual evidence for her fears, beyond doomsday insinuations?

7. “People exhibiting homosexual behaviour” are NOT “prone to AIDS”: That statement is so misleading, the author’s medical license needs to be revoked! HIV/AIDS spreads due to unprotected sex. Societies like South Africa conclusively demonstrate that if you don’t take precautions like wearing a condom, you are at high risk of contracting HIV regardless of whether you’re having gay or straight sex. Yes, the odds of contraction are lower in the case of vaginal sex, but the vast majority of HIV positive people in the world are in poor countries, and are heterosexual. In India alone, of all HIV/AIDS contractions 80% are through heterosexual contact. In developed countries, there are sociological reasons why it is more prevalent in certain groups, viz. the complete lack of sex education and awareness about condoms and disease, the risk of jail sentence or deportation for those who seek medical counsel etc. In the US, African and Hispanic Americans have much higher rates of HIV/AIDS. Does that make being black inherently wrong?

It is a sign of progress the bogus claims of “homosexuality is against Indian culture” or “humanity will eventually go extinct” weren’t made. Ultimately, all of this boils down to one fundamental question: Do we live in a society where the fundamental inalienable rights of all citizens are respected? Just as the author has a democratic right to propagate misinformed homophobic views, I have a right to share my life and love with someone, whatever my gender.

The story of my nation has been the long march to redeem that tryst we once proudly declared with destiny. At every stage, when Sati was abolished; when so-called untouchables entered temples, we faced the forces of fear, blind tradition and ignorance, breaking the world into fragments with their narrow domestic walls. And we overcame them.

And so we shall, again.

From my heart to yours,
Arvind Raghavan
An Indian citizen

Orinam’s notes: An earlier version of this piece was published on Nirmukta, in response to Dr. Mohana Krishnaswamy’s homophobic article in The Hindu, published in Dec 2013.  Dr. Krishnaswamy’s article was eventually taken down from thehindu.com with an accompanying note by the Reader’s Editor. Other responses include:

The Violence of Irrationality: response to Mohana Krishnaswamy, by Pronoy Rai and Barath Ezhilan, published on Orinam, Dec 29, 2013.

It is ‘nonsense against science’: Analyzing Mohana Krishnaswamy’s defense of the 377 in India, by BerryNice, published on personal blog, Dec 22, 2013