It appears many of my friends in the Ugandan media have allowed their own biases to stand in the way of subjecting President Museveni’s decision-making on the anti-homosexuality bill to rigorous scrutiny.
The President said last week that the Ugandan scientists from the Ministry of Health and Makerere University who had been assigned to advise him and the NRM caucus on homosexuality had in effect cleared his confusion on the subject.
In a press release NRM Caucus Spokesperson Evelyn Anite, she of the Museveni-should-stand-in-2016 resolution fame, said that after hearing from the scientists, the President had “made it clear that his work was done and that all he needed was for the scientists to sign the paper they presented since it would be a historical document forming the basis for the signing of the Bill”.
She added that the President had “declared he would sign the bill since the question of whether one can be born a homosexual or not had been answered”.
Answered? Did the President and/or Anite read the same “Scientific Statement on Homosexuality” dated 10th February 2014 that I have read over and over?
In their report, the scientists say they were asked to respond to two questions:
1) Is there a scientific /genetic basis for homosexuality?
2) Can homosexuality be learned and unlearned?
On the first question, the scientists said: “Genetic studies have attempted, though unsuccessfully, to pinpoint to one specific homosexual gene. A singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been demonstrated. As a result, many scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal, psychological, environmental and social factors determines sexual orientation.”
The scientists also write that “in sexuality, there (is) a spectrum of sexual behaviours. Some people are less fixed in one form of sexuality than others. Thus sexuality is a far more flexible human quality than used to be assumed in the past, demonstrating the biological variability within the human race.”
They go on to say the “sexual expression is the function of biology, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, the latter including cultural and religious influences. Ultimately, all sexual functions are determined by genes and their interactions with the environment. Thus, the causes of homosexuality can be traced to biological, social, environmental, psychological or a combination of them. These influence each other. Reparative therapies to change people’s sexual practices have not proven successful and their scientific validity has remained questionable.”
On whether homosexuality can be learned or unlearned, the scientists wrote that “homosexuality is a sexual behaviour (not a disorder) [their emphasis] involving sexual attraction to people of the same sex. It is not clear whether this differing physiological response exists at birth or developed after homosexual experience later in life. The conclusion from the current body of scientific evidence is that there is no single gene responsible for homosexuality and there is no anatomical or physiological data that can fully explain its occurrence.”
“Genetically, homosexuality represents one of the ‘sexual orientation’ variants possible in the same species. As is the case for many human behavioral variants, the evolution and emergence of one’s self identity as a ‘homosexual’— be it gay or lesbian must be governed by nature and nurture…”
“In our view, at least from existing knowledge and literature, there is no basis for a single, definitive structural genetic basis of homosexuality.”
The scientists conclude that:
a) There is no definitive gene responsible for homosexuality
b) Homosexuality is not a disease
c) Homosexuality is not an abnormality
d) In every society, there is a small number of people with homosexual tendencies
e) Homosexuality can be influenced by environmental factors (e.g. culture, religion, information, peer pressure)
f) The practice needs regulation like any other human behavior, especially to protect the vulnerable.
g) There is need for studies to address sexualities in the African context.
The NRM Caucus press release repeats all these observations, but distorts (b) and (c) to read “Homosexuality is not a disease but merely an abnormal behavior which may be learned through experiences in life.”
Regardless of where they stand on the gay debate, journalists still have a responsibility to subject statements from the President and other political leaders to scrutiny and to seek out the opinion of people who are knowledgeable about such complex issues, in this case the scientists whose advice the the President and his party purport to have relied on in reaching a key decision on the anti-gay bill. Additionally they have a responsibility to factual or accurate reporting would also include journalists not ignoring the human rights-based argument that the gay community invokes in defending their sexuality.
One of the experts is my friend Paul Bangirana (Ph.D.), a clinical psychologist who was part of the team of scientists that authored the report on homosexuality.
He told me in a phone interview that he was “personally disappointed by the Caucus. We didn’t say homosexuality is an abnormality. We categorically state it is NOT an abnormality. We also report that there [may be] a biological basis for the behaviour but there is no conclusive link as of now. They left out some vital facts in our report.”
Dr Bangirana said he can understand if some of the media reports were filed by journalists who didn’t have the report of the scientists. “But if they had the report, they have a responsibility to inform the nation based on factual reporting.”
Source: ACME
“[katogoaward]”
