The Mismeasure of Desire

Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. Stein discusses Freud's views.

Stein discusses the origins, nature, and importance of sexual orientation, including relevant legal and ethical issues. He critically examines scientific research on sexual orientation, questioning its assumptions, its methods, and its relevance.[1] He provides a philosophical discussion and criticism of "social constructionism" and "essentialism", which he defines respectively as "the thesis that sexual orientations are mere social constructs" and the thesis that "sexual orientations are more than mere social constructs."[2]

Research criticized by Stein includes a 1995 study by Jean-François Ferveur et al. that was published in Science. He finds it and other studies that claim to have identified genes that cause homosexuality in Drosophila (fruit flies) to be guilty of anthropomorphism. He argues that such research is irrelevant to understanding sexual orientation in humans. Stein criticizes the journalist Chandler Burr for uncritically accepting "courtship" behavior between male fruit flies as an example of animal homosexuality. Stein criticizes the philosopher Michael Ruse's views on social constructionism. Stein criticizes the neuroscientist Simon LeVay. He also discusses the work of the psychologist J. Michael Bailey and the psychiatrist Richard Pillard. Stein argues that the political commentator Andrew Sullivan failed to show that social constructionism is false. Stein argues that it has not been shown that sexual orientations are non-arbitrary groups ("natural kinds"). In his discussion of natural kinds, he draws on the work of the philosopher Hilary Putnam. He also argues that the ethics of sexual orientation research are open to question, and criticizes the geneticist Dean Hamer and the psychologist Daryl Bem.[3]

Discussing Halperin's social constructionist views, Stein writes that Halperin's claims about the development of contemporary categories of sexual orientation are not universally shared: while Halperin maintains that the word "homosexual" was coined by the journalist Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1869 and attaches significance to this event, others such as the historian John Boswell argue that the concept the word refers to has existed for centuries.[4] Stein also discusses the views of Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, and the work of the philosopher Michel Foucault.[5]

Stein calls Sexual Preference (1981) one of the most detailed retrospective studies relating to sexual orientation. Stein writes that while the study has been criticized on various grounds, including that all of its subjects were living in San Francisco, arguably an atypical place with respect to the sexual orientation of its inhabitants, Bell et al.′s conclusions about theories attributing sexual orientation to the effects of experience have been accepted and confirmed. Stein adds that the study "suggests that early sexual experience does not play an important role in the development of sexual orientation", and that it also fails to support theories relating homosexuality to family dynamics. Stein summarizes its data as showing no difference between gay men and straight men in the strength of their attachment to their mothers, and only a weak connection between unfavorable relationships with the father and male homosexuality and gender non-conformity, with similar findings for women. Stein writes that the study does not support the "parental manipulation theory" according to which "children with no siblings would almost never be lesbian or gay and...children with a large number of siblings would be likely to be so." Stein observes that many other retrospective studies have been conducted on childhood gender non-conformity partly because of Bell et al.′s findings relating it to homosexuality.[6]

The Mismeasure of Desire was first published by Oxford University Press in 1999. The book was published as an Oxford University Press Paperback in 2001. The book is part of the "Ideologies of Desire" series edited by queer theorist David M. Halperin.[7]

The Mismeasure of Desire has been praised by authors such as the anthropologist Roger Lancaster and the philosopher John Corvino.[8] Lancaster described the book as a "methodical, meticulous, and highly readable critique of scientific research on sexual orientation". He added that while Stein covers many of the problems of the research of LeVay, Hamer, Bailey, and Pillard, his "important and cautionary text was given less attention than it deserved in the gay press, and it was hardly noticed at all in the mainstream media".[9] Corvino gave the work a positive review in The Philosophical Quarterly,[10] and, in 2013, described it as a "dated but still excellent" book on sexual orientation research.[11] The book also received positive reviews from Jeffrey Ingram in Library Journal,[12] the radical feminist John Stoltenberg in The Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review,[13] the historian Michael Bronski in The Advocate,[14] the psychologist Bertram Cohler in the Journal of Sex Research,[15] J. L. Croissant in Choice,[16] the philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah in the Journal of Homosexuality,[17] from The Diversity Factor,[18] and, in Law and Philosophy, from the philosophers Martha Nussbaum and Ian Hacking.[19][20] The book received mixed reviews from Paul Gediman and Charlotte Abbott in Publishers Weekly,[21] Gilbert Zicklin in Signs,[22] and Heidi E. Grasswick in Hypatia.[23] The book received negative reviews from the journalist Michael Hemmes in Lambda Book Report,[24] the philosopher Timothy F. Murphy in Sexualities,[25] and the psychologist Scott Hershberger in The Quarterly Review of Biology.[26]

Corvino, discussing the work in The Philosophical Quarterly, described it as a "useful corrective" to oversimplified views of sexual orientation, and "lucid, engaging and ambitious". He credited Stein with eliminating some of the confusions regarding the "essentialist/contructionist debate." However, he nevertheless suggested that Stein might have misconstrued the debate, given that it often appeared to be more about how much significance sexual orientation should be given rather than whether it is a "natural human kind".[10] Ingram called the book "intelligent, well-researched, and well-written", and wrote that it "should be the first title on any queer studies reading list" and was "more interesting and more accessible than its rather daunting title would suggest". However, Ingram wrote that like many philosophical works, the book "poses a lot more questions that it answers".[12]

Stoltenberg wrote that, despite Stein's "careful method and measured tone", the book was "radically discombobulating". He considered it a "landmark book". He credited Stein with writing "simply and straightforwardly" despite his philosophical approach, and with refuting "biological arguments for lesbian and gay rights" and discrediting the "conventional wisdom" about the nature of sexual orientation, including the question of whether it makes sense to classify people on that basis. He was convinced by Stein's argument that, even if a sound scientific case for a biological basis to sexual orientation were made, this would not advance gay rights.[13] Bronski called The Mismeasure of Desire "a smart book that raises skepticism to a fine art", "groundbreaking", and "meticulously researched and argued". He credited Stein with discrediting gay politics based on genetic theories of sexual orientation and showing the harmful consequences of arguing that sexual orientation is innate. However, according to Bronski, LeVay expressed disagreement with many of Stein's conclusions.[14] Cohler considered the book "important for any scholar interested in a detailed review of the assumptions, methods, and findings emerging from the biological study of homosexuality". He also wrote that it may be "the most careful and detailed exploration to date of the claims of those maintaining biological factors as essential in the origin of a same-gender sexual desire fixed from earliest prenatal life", and that it cogently countering such claims. However, he was unconvinced by Stein's argument that his views should not be labelled social constructionist, and found Stein's discussion of the ethics of the research less impressive than his review of the scientific findings.[15]

Croissant wrote that the book was important and that Stein "meticulously articulates the assumptions of the current paradigms" governing scientific research on sexual orientation. However, he found Stein's critique of "constructivist theories" weak, attributing this to the fact that "Stein's argument converges with constructivist insights".[16] Appiah credited Stein with helping to clarify the issues surrounding social constructionism, but argued that, because of his avoidance of some technical philosophical issues, Stein failed to make the strongest possible case against some forms of "essentialism". He complimented Stein for his discussion of early scientific research on sexual orientation, as well as his criticism of more recent work by scientists such as LeVay, Hamer, and Bem. He wrote that Stein clarified the debate over the relevance of choice to sexual orientation, and considered Stein's "notion of nondeterminism" to be one of his most original contributions. He endorsed Stein's view that the science of sexual orientation is not relevant to debates on gay rights, but was less convinced by Stein's arguments that future technologies that might make it possible to determine a child's sexual orientation would encouraged prejudice and thus be unethical. He welcomed Stein's contribution to the debate over the morality of conducting scientific research on sexual orientation, and concluded that his was "a rich and rewarding work that should be read by anyone who wants to think about what is at stake in the scientific exploration of sexual orientation."[17] The Diversity Factor described the book as a "masterfully argued study". It credited Stein with providing a comprehensive overview of approaches to sexual orientation, showing the relevance of the idea of natural kinds to understanding sexual orientation, showing the methodological flaws of scientific studies on homosexuals and making useful suggestions for improved research. It agreed with Stein that gay rights should not depend on whether homosexuality is biological in origin and that it is important to consider the social effects of scientific research on the subject.[18]

Nussbaum wrote that the book "will advance the public debate about homosexuality and the law" and praised its "rigor and clarity, its wide-ranging and ingenious arguments, and its accessible style." However, she also found Stein's account of natural kinds, and hence also the debate over social constructionism, unclear. She maintained that the "issue of natural human kinds" is less important to the legal and ethical questions surrounding sexual orientation than Stein suggests.[19] Hacking called the book an "encyclopedic study", "an authoritative history of twentieth century scientific approaches to sexual orientations", and "a rich body of analysis, distinctions and arguments." He credited Stein with being the first philosopher to expose the confusions involved in asking whether homosexuality is a natural kind. However, he criticized Stein for defining natural kinds through reference to Putnam's work, questioning his use of Putnam. He also found some of Stein's claims about natural kinds confusing, and questioned the idea of the natural kind was useful for Stein’s purposes, Stein's use of his ideas, as well as his uses of the terms "essentialism" and "constructionism".[20] Stein replied to Nussbaum and Hacking, writing that while they both claimed that he believes that the question of whether sexual orientations are natural human kinds is relevant to ethical and legal issues, he sees no such connection.[27]

Gediman and Abbott called the book "refreshingly daring", but criticized Stein for his writing style and for separating his review of scientific and psychological research on sexual orientation from his discussion of the philosophical and ethical issues surrounding it. They believed some readers would find the book tedious. They complimented Stein for questioning the desirability of scientific research on sexual orientation, but concluded that, "he so frequently refrains from taking sides that his analysis raises more questions than it answers."[21] Zicklin maintained that Stein succeeded in "demonstrating the problematic epistemological and scientific status" of the concept of sexual orientation, but in the process tested "the reader's ability to follow an all-too-closely reasoned argument". While he found Stein's goal of diminishing "the cultural and psychological significance of the gender of one's sexual partner" laudable, he wrote that it "cannot be accomplished by simply analyzing the concept of sexual orientation." He criticized Stein for claiming to have eliminated cultural presumptions associated with the concept of sexual orientation, arguing that this was impossible "given how densely this concept is woven into our culture." He concluded that a better approach would be to abandon the concept of sexual orientation entirely and "publicize the moral bankruptcy of research into the etiology of homosexuality."[22]

Grasswick called the book an ambitious attempt "to delve into the difficulties of executing and assessing scientific research on sex and sexuality." However, she wrote that while Stein endorsed a "multiple-origins" model of sexual orientation in which biological factors played only an indirect role, he did little to develop the framework of such a theory. She commented that "in the course of strategically accepting and working with" a framework that involves "dualisms of nature/nurture, essentialism/constructivism, and science/ethics ... Stein leaves himself little room to explore the interactive complexities that his own analysis seems to point toward."[23]

Hemmes found the book informative, but also poorly written. He accused Stein of writing in "too much detail" and of presenting "tortuous examples".[24] Murphy considered the book poorly written, writing that parts of it resembled an "ossified philosophical dialogue." He criticized Stein for providing an "overlong discussion of possible views about the nature of sexual orientation." He summarized Stein as maintaining that "there are methodological and evidentiary problems in the contemporary science of sexual orientation" and that "there is insufficient reason to think that sexual orientations are natural kinds", agreeing with both points. However, he disagreed with the idea "that sexual orientations are purely social inventions." He found Stein's point that sexual orientation research is irrelevant to most ethical questions correct but unoriginal, and his discussion of whether it should be restricted to avoid harm to gay people unsatisfactory. He also denied the book's originality, finding nothing in it unprecedented in the philosophy of science.[25]

Hershberger wrote that while Stein argued that there is no conclusive evidence that sexual orientation is biologically determined, the evidence was in fact "overwhelming". He faulted Stein for criticizing only a limited number of scientific studies, ignoring "others that could only rationally have a biological interpretation", adding that LeVay had already answered the criticisms that had been directed against his study. He was unconvinced by Stein's criticisms of the concept of sexual orientation, and wrote that Stein wrongly elevated philosophical reasoning above empirical fact. He found the book well-written, and agreed that arguments for gay rights should not be based on scientific findings.[26]

• Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry
• One Hundred Years of Homosexuality
• Virtually Normal