Writer's beliefs do not define medical disorders

Editor,

It doesn’t seem as though Mr. Ben Sanchez spent much time paying attention in his psychology classes when he clumsily attempted to support his argument in Wednesday’s letter that homosexuality should be recognized as a “disorder.” 

One argument made by Sanchez that I find particularly dismissible is his claim that homosexuality in humans constitutes a disorder because of its relatively infrequent occurrence compared to heterosexual behavior. By this logic, any characteristic that does not benefit from majority representation can be so defined as a “disorder” — regardless of whether it has any deleterious effect on one’s quality of life or overall ability to function.

Because clearly this is not by itself an appropriate criterion for identifying mental or physical disorder (unless left-handedness is also a disorder?), I would like to ask Mr. Sanchez to spend some additional time asking what exactly ought to contribute to the definition of a “disorder.” Mr. Sanchez’s next point, that homosexuality constitutes a disorder because it “goes against (the) natural order of life” is an argument I hear a lot, and is equally meritless.

In this case, Sanchez is taking the liberty to define what is “natural” and “abnormal” based on his own contrived opinions of how things “ought” to be — and that anything which does not reflect this narrow worldview is contrary to the natural order and thus “wrong.” As it turns out, however, people’s definitions of right and wrong vary considerably culturally and by individual — so who’s got it right?

Perhaps it might be worth Mr. Sanchez’s time to consider the possibility that formulating a personal code of ethics and morality is a far more subjective experience than he argues, and is largely separate from the realm of science (which, though it may influence social policy, is ideally not concerned with determining “right and wrong” but instead endeavors to explain the mechanisms that drive natural phenomena).

If nature is in fact somehow concerned with the preservation of some objectively-defined “natural order” which demands that sexual behavior only occurs between a male and a female, would it not be repulsed every time a single-celled paramecium violates this sacred reproductive rule by reproducing asexually, or every time a colony of bonobos engages in a raucous pansexual orgy?

If reproductive viability really is life’s “purpose” (another argument I hear way too often), are two adults in a heterosexual relationship blaspheming against nature if they opt not to have children? I strongly implore Mr. Sanchez to broaden his perspective — through research, dialogue and critical analysis — rather than lazily assume that his uninformed intuitions are enough in constructing his worldview.

Perhaps when Mr. Sanchez avers that “it’s not difficult to understand why humans exist in two differentiated yet complimentary sexes” or understand “the purpose of heterosexual orientation,” it’s because he’s not thinking about it hard enough. I believe that answering these questions becomes significantly more difficult, and also significantly more enlightened, when simple intuitions are rejected in favor of critical thought.

Sincerely

Jacob Peifer

UNM alumnus