For a number of years I had a friend from Germany living in my city while she was pursuing a degree in International Relations. A philosophical type from an early age, when she was about ten she asked her grandfather, who raised and butchered pigs for a living, what was the purpose of life. He answered, "reproduction."
I think that one of the reasons GLBT people threaten the world view of the conservative sectors of societies is because of low GLBT reproductive rates. The imperative to reproduce, to assure the survival of the ego, family, clan, tribe, nation, etc., is so firmly ingrained in our biology and culture that most people scarcely think about it. This is scarcely surprising, because through most of human history survival was often in doubt, but this is not a threat that has obtained in most of the world in modern times. Nonetheless, lowered fertility is one tangible and emotionally-felt answer some would give to the question, "what harm do GLBT people really cause society?"
Although ZPG (zero population growth) as a political movement has always been very marginal, invisible almost everywhere, its goal has nonetheless been met--and very alarmingly to some, exceeded--in a few European countries, and that goal is close at hand in some other European countries as well. If it weren't for the influx of immigrants, who have higher fertility rates than the native-born, the US and Canada would probably also be at or on the verge of ZPG. All of this fertility reduction has occurred by voluntary action, without the assistance of plagues or war, and unlike most previous fertility declines, it has occurred in an environment of peaceful prosperity.
As usual, a trend such as this has first been manifested in the "advanced" societies. Many people assume that a decline in fertility will also eventually occur in the less-advanced societies but that strong population growth will still be the norm there for at least a number of decades. This situation is tailor-made for xenophobes, whether grounded in fears of racial, cultural, military or economic eclipse. Up to this point, it has mainly been conservative religious groups, abetted at times by ultra-nationalistic political elements, that have labored in vain to limit the use of fertility-reducing technology, finding their justifications in ancient religious texts. But a wider variety of conservative groups are also pro-natalist because they--and a great many others who would not necessarily identify themselves as conservative--view perpetual population growth as a fundamental requirement for the financial well-being of businesses, governments, and eventually, according to the rosy scenario, individuals.
Although the bulk of the decline in population growth in the developed countries can be attributed to popular birth control practices, a certain amount of it is also likely the consequence of greater acceptance of gay and lesbian people--and now, the transgendered. Given the more relaxed contemporary attitudes toward homosexuality, marriages of convenience (and whatever children are thereby produced) occur much less frequently. The same is increasingly true for transgendered people, especially as they are now coming to understand their own nature at earlier stages of their lives.
The alarm raised amongst fertility advocates by GLBT people:
It is perhaps understandable that the emergence and acceptance of transgendered individuals, above all the others in the GLBT grouping, would most viscerally alarm fertility advocates because the chemical and surgical interventions transpeople typically undertake significantly impair or destroy their procreative capabilities. If it were possible to change one's genitalia and body chemistry and not lose the natural ability to procreate--as in some distant imagined future--transpeople might be much less alarming to the overall pro-natalist society.
The concern about fertility also is important in understanding resistance to liberalizing marriage laws. The purpose of the institution of marriage is seen by many people as primarily a framework and an incentive for reproduction. For many, a childless marriage is still seen as an unfulfilled and pointless one, just as is sexual intercourse with no immediate procreative purpose. Childlessness after a certain age--regardless of marital status--is still often seen as tragic and as an affront to established norms of masculinity and femininity. These attitudes easily find their way into legislation, such as that which narrowly restricts the definition of marriage and which furnishes significant tax incentives to child-bearing.
It's also understandable that some scientists would become involved in the debates about GLBT people. The persistence in the population of GLBT individuals--long viewed as a relatively inconsequential minority--has been a puzzle for psychology and biology because it seems to contradict Darwinian tenets. But now, with growing awareness of the true number of GLBT people and the "problem" they represent for fertility, the concerns of scientists with conservative leanings have acquired an additional urgency.
The controversy over the causes of GLBTism, which is likely to continue apace over the next decades, informs the attitudes of various interest groups that are concerned with public policy on GLBT issues. There is some tantalizing but as yet no conclusive evidence that the presence or expression of GLBTism is caused principally by genetic or biochemical factors, but some features of the gender-variant landscape are well-established:
1. GLBT individuals are generally the offspring of non-GLBT
2. GLBT parents are likely to give birth to non-GLBT children;
3. GLBT individuals exist in all societies and represent approximately the same proportion of populations everywhere;
4. GLBT individuals, in their majority, can be induced by the forceful application of social, legal, etc. pressures to conform to societal norms, including procreation.
Point #4 above is crucial because it has almost always been the means by which societies, absent until recently any knowledge of modern genetics, have handled their "undesirable" GLBT members. It is a major point of agreement by all who object to GLBT expression, whether they view it as an innate characteristic or as a sinful choice inspired by some devil figure.
The conservative movement towards GLBT eugenics:
It is likely that some dream of having the potential to intervene in genetic processes to reduce the number of GLBT individuals who are born, and this capability may emerge during our lifetimes; whether its application would ever become accepted as ethical is an open question. It may also be that there are extremists plotting organized genocidal strategies against GLBT people, but such plans stand, in my opinion, little chance of success in the constitutional democracies that govern in most developed countries today. This is not to say that these eventualities are impossible, and so it is worthwhile to have alert sentinels who are willing monitor the activities of fringe groups as well as the progress and application of potentially unethical scientific research.
In a political environment that forecloses options of being able to directly control the number and specific types of people who are to be born, traditional and conservative elements are limited to advocating general pro-natalist policies that reward those who express a preferred behavior, along with repressive and stigmatizing policies to deal with those whose behavior they do not sanction. The struggle over these policies represents the working out of social and cultural evolution rather than of biological evolution, which requires many millennia.
It may be true that the majority of people everywhere resist change in their lives, particularly when they believe that change will degrade any advantaged position they may hold. In the early days of NASA, during a congressional hearing on the possible benefits of including women in the astronaut corps, John Glenn stated, "The fact that women are not in this field is a fact of our social order." Note that he did not say that this was a happy or unhappy fact, nor did he justify the status quo by appealing to any authority to rationalize it; he was like many complacent advantaged people who simply say "what is, is." However, it would not technically be correct to say that conservatives always resist change, because many desire to change back to the way things were in the past (one may pick from a wide variety of defunct utopian eras). Also, conservatives heartily endorse evolution in the labor market of capitalist economic systems. What conservatives rarely ever do want is a forward movement of social evolution, even though it is in social evolution that the human race excels as a means of confronting the unpredictable challenges of life on this planet. The main reason for this is that social evolution has the greatest potential for altering the existing power structure, which continues to involve men holding most of the power and women performing most of the duties of reproduction and child-rearing.
It has never been enough for conservatives who are attempting to influence social policy to state, as John Glenn did, that a particular status quo merely exists and therefore should be preserved; with all of the urgent attacks on the contemporary social order, an appeal to a higher authority is necessary. For the religious side of the conservative house, the ancient scriptural texts suffice as unassailable authority, but belief in religious authority is not what it once was--for many people it has been supplanted to a significant degree by a belief in science. The challenge thus for conservatives is to find scientific authority for their wish to preserve the social status quo, and certain evolutionary psychologists (preempting the science of biology) have heeded their call by appealing in a very biased way to the most ancient text of them all--the human genome.
For examples of HBI members' thinking on the subject of eugenics and homosexuality, see the following investigative report: "Bailey, Cochran and Sailer on Homosexuality and Eugenics," by Conway and Kieltyka
But what does the human genome really say about how human beings should evolve?
Does the genome have an intelligence, does it have preferences? Is this much
different from asking if the earth "cares" about whether its atmospheric
composition is X or Y, or whether it is the home to a greater or lesser number
of plant and animal species? These are, in the end, unresolvable theological
debates that obscure the reality that imputed evolutionary preferences are
nothing more than the preferences of individuals living today. The important
debate is about the kind of society and culture we want to have in the future,
and this debate can't be limited to self-appointed scientific or theological
Brahmins--everyone, especially the members of the GLBT communities, must
participate in it.
We do know that the human genome is an extraordinarily complex system and that we have only just begun to grasp a few of the mechanics of its functioning. We also know that it is intricately connected by an ecological web to the genomes of other organisms and also to the physical environment, all of which also change over time. Then, we know that it is the nature of the genome to produce an enormous diversity of individuals and that this contributes greatly to its stability and capacity to adjust to changing circumstances--the vulnerabilities of monocultures are well-known. Finally, we take as a given that the genome ought to be allowed to continue to evolve, but the main question here has become, "under whose guidance, if under anyone's?"
With the advance of technology, our species' potential to effect change in the biosphere--which includes the human genome--is increasing more and more rapidly. Decisions about whether and how to employ this potential have typically been made by those who possess the technology, for the primary benefit of their own groups and in view of their own short moment of time. Long-term considerations have frequently been neglected, as have been considerations of impacts on human outsider groups, non-human groups, and the physical environment.
There has been a genetic experiment of significant scale--an intervention in the human genome--proceeding for a number of years now in several Asian countries. Using simple technology, many families have been selectively aborting female fetuses to the extent that in some areas of India, for example, 55% or more of the children being born are male. This means that for every thousand children born in these areas, there is an excess of one hundred males who will not be able to find mates, assuming the continuation of the prevalent social norms of monogamy and heterosexuality. Though the government in these areas opposes this sex-selection, the majority of the populace does not, and so it continues, albeit in the shadows. Does anyone have a clear idea of the full ramifications of such an unbalanced ratio between the sexes? To a greater or lesser degree, a preference for male children characterizes most human societies in the world today, and far more advanced (as well as less brutal) technology for sex-selection of children is available in the developed countries, though at a price most in India cannot afford. Even granting that preferences for male children are less pronounced here than in India and the technology less often utilized, what justification is there for allowing (or alternatively, banning) this technology which contravenes the genome's natural output of an approximate parity between males and females?
I would suggest that society has a serious and legitimate interest in limiting or even prohibiting the use of technology in this way. Furthermore, I would view this technology as "a solution in search of a problem," whose application is driven mainly by the profit motive. Maintaining parity in the sex ratio of newborns is viewed by most as beneficial for societies, but individuals desire exceptions for themselves because of social and cultural beliefs that can also have financial implications; this is where individuals' rights must be weighed against the collective long-term well-being of societies. This situation also illustrates the folly of necessarily equating a beneficial collective genetic outcome with the sum of the genetic outcomes preferred by the individuals within that society. A much more satisfactory solution to the "problem" of those who desire to avoid having female children (and one far less fraught with unforeseen consequences) involves addressing the societal reasons that male children are so inordinately preferred, even if the required adjustments to the social status quo might be temporarily wrenching.
In a similar way, many of the thoughts and theories emanating from confederations such as the Human Biodiversity Group seem to be "solutions in search of a problem," appealing to popular prejudices and dislikes such as an Indian parent's dislike of having "too many" daughters. With respect to GLBT people, once more the question has to be asked, "what harm do they really do to society?" Clearly, on the positive side, they have made innumerable brilliant contributions to society. On the negative side, is there evidence that they are particularly given to destructive or criminal behavior? This is a case that cannot be made, especially with the understanding that the HIV pandemic is not solely a GLBT phenomenon.
Why are evolutionary psychologists so obsessed with GLBT people anyway?
The obvious answer is that they simply "don't like them"...
Consider, then, a research or position paper outlining the present scientific understanding of the etiology of disease (regardless of whether the focus is on genetic or microbial causation, or both), continues with speculation about what this might mean for ameliorating an additional disease or social problem, and then selects the existence of GLBT people as that single important problem (disease). Given the lack of any creditable evidence that GLBT people constitute a societal problem, this selection is tantamount to simply saying "we don't like them."
Ordinarily in the modern world problems come to light and are assessed for their severity by considering the cumulative costs associated with them--costs borne by individuals and society as a whole. In some respects an analysis of dollars-and-cents costs may be a crude way to measure a problem, but it is a tool that most people can agree on as a starting point. Preliminary conclusions can thus be reached about the relative importance of any number of social or medical problems--obesity, drug addiction, or violent behavior, for instance. These three are fine examples to contrast with the alleged "problem" of GLBT people, because they too are all considered to have at least some roots in genetic predisposition. In the case of violent behavior, which psychologists are apt to categorize under headings such as "anti-social personality disorder" or "explosive anger syndrome," enormous costs result, including physical damage to individuals and property, psychological damage to individuals, lost employment productivity, and the expense of treatment, law enforcement and incarceration.
What are we to make of those who pursue an interest in ridding the world of GLBT people when there are so many more serious problems that might be confronted? Is it a simple phobia based essentially on a primeval antipathy toward non-procreative individuals and codified in change-resistant religious and political institutions? I believe this to be true, but there is also a related and highly emotional secondary issue in play--the extreme malleability of human sexual and gender behavior. Humans have, in common with other primates, far more sexual energy than is required merely for reproduction, and this energy is often expressed in non-procreative--including same-sex--activity depending on the individual and the social situation. Likewise with gender, given the notoriously arbitrary and shifting precepts of gender normality, variance in this dimension occurs in all shadings depending in part on the time and place. In effect, it's entirely possible that the majority of the human population is "queer" to some extent. If this is true and it becomes accepted as common knowledge, both the technical and political feasibility of a genetic intervention fades to nothing. This is the principal reason that anti-GLBT eugenics advocates place such great emphasis on minimizing the count of GLBT people and on denying the existence of bisexuality: their program requires a small and very clearly definable minority.
Despite their different belief systems, in the end what the restless conservative scientists object to is the same as what religious conservatives object to: not wayward genetic evolution, but "undesirable" social evolution. Both groups abhor the idea that society could change so as to include and accommodate GLBT people. For them, this means the end of the world as they know it.
Suggested further reading:
See also the following important essay by Joan Roughgarden, Professor of
Biology at Stanford University, on the distortions of science by evolutionary
psychologists and by Mr. Bailey in particular. Prof. Roughgarden's essay
explores how such an unscientific movement could have arisen from within a
modern scientific field, and raises serious questions about the underlying
intellectual health and credibility of the field of academic psychology:
"The Bailey Affair: Psychology Perverted," By Joan Roughgarden
We mirror here the original roster of the Human Biodiversity Discussion Group members for your convenience. This roster, dated 7/20/99 contains a lot of useful evidence of connections among Bailey's affiliation and supportive circles. Note that many of the links and e-mail addresses in this early list are now obsolete. Nevertheless it has proven to be a great starting point for further investigation.
We have modified this roster in only one way:
We have added links from the key names in the first column to a files of "investigative notes" for each of those people. This enables readers to quickly find and jump to more detailed files about those individuals containing up to date information about them, links to their websites and publications, and information on their connections with other members of HBDG and other conservative affiliation groups.
Note that in so doing, we do not mean to imply that all of the members of the HBDG are of similar minds or are involved in the Bailey affair.
Instead what we find is that a key subset of HBDG members, including (importantly) HBDG leader Steve Sailer and a number of evolutionary psychologists, controversial trade-book writers, conservative columnists and right-wing pundits have long been close associates and supporters of Bailey - and have long been aware of and involved in his bringing forth TMWWBQ.
We strongly encourage readers to probe the details on this page and the files it links to, and then to push out into the web and search for more connections such as these that might help us better understand the story behind Bailey's book - how it came to be - who his supporters were - how they got it published at the National Academy Press (JHP) - how they tried to come to his defense - etc. As you uncover additional connections, please forward them to Andrea James and Lynn Conway.
[Note: Original HBDG members' names followed by (*) have disassociated themselves from the ideology of core group of presently active HBDG members. Click on the links (*) by their name to read their statements below.]
|Roster of Human Biodiversity Discussion Group Members|
|as of 7/20/99||Maintained by Steve Sailerfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|H-Bd Member||Background||Email Address||Member||Books I'm familiar with||URL||status||Member||Since||Mode||Country||Public Contributor|
|Andrews, Louis R.||Stalking Wild Taboo email@example.com||Andrews||http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/||active||Andrews||3/4/99||USA||Yes|
|Arden, Rosalind||Journalist, TV firstname.lastname@example.org||Arden||Upcoming book on intelligence||active||Arden||3/4/99||UK||Yes|
|Armelagos, George||Bio Anthropologist, Emoryemail@example.com||Armelagos||bouncing||Armelagos||3/19/99||USA||Not yet|
|Bailey, Michael||Psychologist, Northwesternfirstname.lastname@example.org||Bailey||http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/||active||Bailey||3/4/99||USA||Yes|
|Bandow, Doug||Senior Fellow, Cato Instituteemail@example.com||Bandow||active||Bandow||6/9/99||USA||Not yet|
|Beamish, Jennifer||TV Documentary Producerfirstname.lastname@example.org||Beamish||Upcoming h-bd documentary||active||Beamish||7/1/99||UK||Not yet|
|Becker, Gary||Nobel Laureate Economist, U. of Chicagoemail@example.com||Becker||"Economics of Discrimination"||http://www.spc.uchicago.edu/users/gsb1/titlepage.html||active||Becker||4/19/99||USA||Not yet|
|Head of Clinical Sexology Program, Clarke U.||firstname.lastname@example.org||Blanchard||active||Blanchard||3/4/99||Canada||Yes|
|Bloom, Howard L.||Paleopsychologist||HowlBloom@aol.com||Bloom||"Global Brain"||www.paleopsych.com||active||Bloom||3/4/99||USA||Yes|
|Borjas, George||Economist, Harvardemail@example.com||Borjas||"Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy"||http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96nov/immigrat/borjas.htm||active||Borjas||5/7/99||USA||Yes|
|Brand, Chris||Silver-service waiter, psychologist, ex-Edinbrough U.||firstname.lastname@example.org||Brand||"The g Factor" - depublished||http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/||active||Brand||3/4/99||UK||Yes|
|Brimelow, Peter||Columnist, Forbes Magazineemail@example.com||Brimelow||"Alien Nation"||http://www.forbes.com/forbes/by/pbrimelo.htm||active||Brimelow||3/4/99||USA||Yes|
|Burfoot, Amby||Editor, Runners' World mag.||ABurfoo1@RodalePress.com||Burfoot||"White Men Can't Run"||http://www.runnersworld.com||active||Burfoot||3/4/99||USA||Not yet|
|Science writer, The Atlanticfirstname.lastname@example.org||Burr||"A Separate Creation"||http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jun/burr.htm||active||Burr||3/19/99||USA||Yes|
|Buss, David M.||Evolutionary psychologist, Texasemail@example.com||Buss||"Human Mating Strategies"||active||Buss||7/9/99||USA||Not yet|
|Calvin, William||Theoretical neuroscientist, U. of Washingtonfirstname.lastname@example.org (William H. Calvin)||Calvin||www.williamcalvin.com||active||Calvin||6/17/99||USA||Yes|
|Physicist, "New Germ Theory"||email@example.com||Cochran||2/99 Cover story in The Atlantic||http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99feb/germ2.htm||active||Cochran||3/29/99||USA||Yes|
|Dennett, Daniel C.||Philosopher, Tuftsfirstname.lastname@example.org||Dennett||"Darwin's Dangerous Idea"||active||Dennett||3/16/99||USA||Yes|
|Derbyshire, John||Novelist and email@example.com||Derbyshire||"Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream"||http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312156499/o/qid=918004877/sr=2-1/002-6512272-3747800||active||Derbyshire||5/10/99||USA||Yes|
|Ellis, Lee||Sociologist, Minot St.||firstname.lastname@example.org||Ellis||active||Ellis||3/4/99||USA||Yes|
|"Taboo" on race & email@example.com||Entine||"Taboo" - upcoming||active||Entine||3/4/99||USA||Yes|
|Fallows, James||Microsoft, former editor of USN&WRfirstname.lastname@example.org||Fallows||"More Like Us"||active||Fallows||3/4/99||USA||Not yet|
|Farrey, Tom||ESPN Columnistemail@example.com||Farrey||http://espn.go.com/gen/columns/farrey/archive.html||active||Farrey||3/4/99||USA||Yes|
|Frost, Peter||Anthropologist, Laval U.||firstname.lastname@example.org||Frost||http://www.globetrotter.net/gt/usagers/pfrost/#Début||active||Frost||3/4/99||Canada||Yes|
|Fukuyama, Francis||Public Policy, George Masonemail@example.com||Fukuyama||"Great Disruption"||active||Fukuyama||4/25/99||USA||Not yet|
|Gelernter, David||Computer scientist/polymath, Yale||gelernter-david@CS.YALE.EDU||Gelernter||"Surviving the Unabomber"||active||Gelernter||5/17/99||USA||Not yet|
|Guest, James||Former MP, Australiafirstname.lastname@example.org (James Guest)||Guest||active||Guest||7/20/99||Australia||Not yet|
|Hamilton, William D.||Biologist, Oxfordemail@example.com||Hamilton||Kin selection, Red Queen theory||active||Hamilton||3/16/99||UK||Not yet|
|Harpending, Henry||Anthropologist, Utahfirstname.lastname@example.org||Harpending||Dads vs. Cads theory||active||Harpending||5/30/99||USA||Yes|
|Harrison, Lawrence||International, Harvardemail@example.com||Harrison||"Who Prospers?"||active||Harrison||3/4/99||USA||Yes|
|Hassan, Natasha||Opinion Page, National Post (of Canada)||firstname.lastname@example.org||Hassan||active||Hassan||6/9/99||Canada||Not yet|
|Heckman, James J.||Economist, U. of Chicagoemail@example.com||Heckman||http://www.reasonmag.com/9503/dept.bk.HECKMAN.text.html||active||Heckman||6/9/99||USA||Yes|
|Hilton, Anthony||Concordia, U.||firstname.lastname@example.org||Hilton||active||Hilton||3/4/99||Canada||Yes|
|Holloway, Ralph L.||Anthropology, Columbia||rlh2@COLUMBIA.EDU||Holloway||active||Holloway||3/4/99||USA||Yes|
|Hu, Arthur||Computer consultant, email@example.com||Hu||Index of Diversity||http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/intro.htm||active||Hu||3/4/99||USA||Yes|
|Iannone, Carol||Literature, NYUfirstname.lastname@example.org||Iannone||active||Iannone||6/9/99||USA||Yes|
|Jacobs, Ken||Anthropology, U. of Montrealemail@example.com||Jacobs||active||Jacobs||3/4/99||Canada||Yes|
|Kohn, Marek (*)||Science firstname.lastname@example.org||Kohn||"Race Gallery"||http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/racegallery/index.html||active||Kohn||3/4/99||UK||Not yet|
|Krugman, Paul||Economist, MIT; columnist: Slate & Fortune||krugman@MIT.EDU||Krugman||http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/paulkrugman.html||active||Krugman||3/25/99||USA||Not yet|
|Kugiya, Hugo||Journalist, Newsdayemail@example.com||Kugiya||active||Kugiya||5/17/99||USA||Yes|
|Landsburg, Steven E.||Economist, Rochester; Slate firstname.lastname@example.org||Landsburg||"Armchair Economist"||active||Landsburg||6/8/99||USA||Not yet|
|Lopez, Kathryn Jean||Editorial staff, National Reviewemail@example.com||Lopez||www.nationalreview.com||active||Lopez||5/21/99||USA||Not yet|
|MacDonald, Kevin||Psychologist, Cal State Long Beachfirstname.lastname@example.org||MacDonald||"People that Shall Dwell Alone" trilogy||http://www.csulb.edu/~acaproj/Fall95/macdonald.html||active||MacDonald||3/4/99||USA||Yes|
|Manners, John H.||Journalist||JHManners@aol.com||Manners||"The Running Tribe" - upcoming||http://www.umist.ac.uk/UMIST_Sport/2_art2.htm||active||Manners||6/19/99||USA||Not yet|
|Marks, Jonathan||Molecular anthropologist, Berkeleyemail@example.com||Marks||"Human Biodiversity"||http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jonmarks/index.html||bouncing||Marks||3/4/99||USA||Not yet|
|Sociologist, Ricefirstname.lastname@example.org||Martin||"Prophet with Honor: Billy Graham"||active||Martin||4/1/99||USA||Not yet|
|McCarthy, John||Computer scientist, Stanford||jmc@Steam.Stanford.EDU||McCarthy||Cofounder-Artificial Intelligence; LISP||http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/index.html||active||McCarthy||5/18/99||USA||Yes|
|Miele, Frank||Senior Editor, Skeptic Magazine||FMieleX@aol.com||Miele||active||Miele||4/3/99||USA||Yes|
|Economist/polymath, U. of New Orleans||Ed765@aol.com||Miller||http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_bibl.html||active||Miller||3/4/99||USA||Yes|
|Miller, John J.||Journalistemail@example.com||Miller||active||Miller||6/14/99||USA||Not yet|
|Political scientist, American Enterprise Inst.||firstname.lastname@example.org||Murray||"Bell Curve", "Losing Ground"||active||Murray||3/6/99||Digest||USA||Yes|
|Noakes, Tim||Sports email@example.com||Noakes||"Lore of Running"||active||Noakes||3/4/99||South Africa||Yes|
|Nyborg, Helmuth||Psychologist, Aarhus U.||firstname.lastname@example.org||Nyborg||"Hormones, Sex, & Society"||active||Nyborg||3/20/99||Denmark||Yes|
|Olson, Walter||Manhattan Instituteemail@example.com||Olson||"Litigation Explosion"||www.walterolson.com||active||Olson||6/7/99||USA||Yes|
|O'Sullivan, John||Editor-at-Large, National Reviewfirstname.lastname@example.org||O'Sullivan||active||O'Sullivan||3/4/99||USA||Not yet|
|Pinker, Steven||Psychologist, cognitive scientist, MITemail@example.com||Pinker||"How Mind Works", "Language Instinct"||active||Pinker||3/4/99||USA||Yes|
||Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies||Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com||Pitchford||Human Nature website||www.human-nature.com||active||Pitchford||3/14/99||UK||Yes|
|Polsby, Daniel D.||Law Professor, George Mason U.||firstname.lastname@example.org||Polsby||active||Polsby||6/10/99||Web||USA||Not yet|
|Postrel, Virginia||Editor, Reason Magazineemail@example.com||Postrel||The Future and Its Enemies||www.reason.com||active||Postrel||7/20/99||USA||Not yet|
|Relethford, John||Anthropologist, SUNY Oneontafirstname.lastname@example.org||Relethford||active||Relethford||7/14/99||USA||Yes|
|Rodgerson, Richard W.||Kinesiologist, U. of Minnesotaemail@example.com||Rodgerson||active||Rodgerson||3/4/99||USA||Not yet|
|Rowe, David||Geneticist, U. of Arizonafirstname.lastname@example.org||Rowe||active||Rowe||6/24/99||USA||Yes|
|Psychologist, Western Ontario U.||email@example.com||Rushton||"Race, Evolution, & Behavior"||http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/rushton.html||active||Rushton||3/4/99||Canada||Yes|
|Sailer, Steve||Dilettante, founder of H-Bdfirstname.lastname@example.org||Sailer||nada||http://members.aol.com/steveslr||active||Sailer||3/3/99||USA||Yes|
|Salter, Frank||Political sociobiologist, Max Planck Instituteemail@example.com||Salter||active||Salter||3/4/99||Germany||Yes|
|Sarich, Vincent||Anthropologist, Berkeley (emeritus)||firstname.lastname@example.org||Sarich||Cofounder- molecular anthropology||active||Sarich||5/27/99||New Zealand||Yes|
|Seligman, Dan||Columnist, Forbes Magazine||AD453@aol.com||Seligman||"A Question of Intelligence"||http://www.forbes.com/forbes/by/dseligma.htm||active||Seligman||3/4/99||USA||Yes|
|Taylor, Jeremy G.||TV Documentary Producer||JeremyGTaylor@compuserve.com||Taylor||active||Taylor||3/4/99||UK||Not yet|
|Tripp, Steven D.||Education, U. of Aizuemail@example.com||Tripp||active||Tripp||3/3/99||Japan||Yes|
|Unz, Ron K.||Software, Public Citizenfirstname.lastname@example.org||Unz||Proposition 227, Voters Rights Initiative||www.fairvote2000.org||active||Unz||7/20/99||USA||Not yet|
|Van den Berghe, Pierre||Sociologist, U Washingtnemail@example.com||Van den Berghe||"Ethnic Phenomenon"||active||Van den Berghe||7/12/99||USA||Not yet|
|Wattenberg, Ben J.||Demographer, TV Host, American Enterprise Inst.||firstname.lastname@example.org||Wattenberg||"Thinktank" on PBS, "Real Majority"||active||Wattenberg||3/16/99||USA||Not yet|
|Whitney, Glayde||Behavioral geneticist, Florida Stateemail@example.com||Whitney||active||Whitney||3/4/99||USA||Yes|
From: Marek Kohn
To: Lynn Conway
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: HBDG
As you have published a membership list for the Human Biodiversity discussion group which includes my name, I'm writing to make clear that I reject the racial theories propounded by Steve Sailer and his colleagues.
I'm also fundamentally opposed to the political ideologies which appear to prevail in those circles; my own politics are of the democratic left.
My involvement in these matters arises from my book The Race Gallery: The Return of Racial Science. The site I created to accompany the book can be found via my homepage.
Its introductory page carries the slogan "for free speech : against racism". I believe that in the area of race and science, the second half requires the first: free speech is vital if racism is to be effectively opposed.