CBSNews.com
March 13, 2006
Producer Shari Finkelstein Discusses 'The Science Of Sexual Orientation'
Yesterday, “60 Minutes” ran a story on “The Science Of Sexual Orientation.” Because of its religious, political and social significance, the topic seemed destined to invite controversy, and indeed, some blogs have already criticized the piece. (Many others, it should be pointed out, have lauded it.) I spoke to producer Shari Finkelstein about the early criticism, her goals for the piece, and the concerns those involved had in putting it together.
“We felt we couldn't shy away from a hot button issue because people might become upset,” said Finkelstein. She said she was concerned about criticism from two groups – the religious right and the gay and lesbian community. Many people in the former group believe sexuality is a choice, and thus would likely not respond well to the contention voiced by scientists in the piece that sexuality is inborn, if not necessarily entirely genetic. She feared some in the gay and lesbian community, meanwhile, might be offended by the portion of the piece that discussed how “the science was showing a lot of stereotypes [about people's voices and movement] could be proved scientifically,” though she felt on the whole that gays and lesbians would respond positively to the piece.
The key for Finkelstein – as it was for Scott Pelley in a piece on global warming – was to stick to science. “We decided we would just look into what the science was showing and report on that, and let people react to what was out there however they will,” she said. That meant not including in the piece people more associated with the cultural debate, such as those who argue that homosexuality is a choice, a position most scientists reject. “We just did not want to get into that controversy, because it was not about the science,” said Finkelstein.
The piece, some pointed out, did not explore one question that it seemed to raise: If sexuality can be affected by hormones, is it possible to alter a child's sexuality in the womb? And if so, what are the social ramifications? (One blogger raised this question here.)
“Frankly, there are so many issues associated with this subject and we had so much trouble fitting even what we did into the piece,” Finkelstein said when I asked why the issue had not been addressed. She pointed out that the issue has actually been around for a while, as the search for a “gay gene” raised questions about the potential for altering someone's sexuality long before scientists began looking at hormones.
Another of the early criticisms of the story is that it was “confusing gender non-conformity with homosexuality,” as one blogger put it. In the story, a nine year old boy named Adam, who is interested in dolls and paints his nails, is held up as an example of childhood gender nonconformity, unlike his twin brother, who has a G.I. Joe collection. Adam also says he thinks of himself like a girl. Critics said the story erroneously portrayed Adam as likely to turn out gay because of his gender non-conformity. Wrote the blogger quoted above:
Ask any gay man, do you want to be a woman. You will get a definite no. It sounds like Adam is going to end up being a transgender. Transgenders, not gay. It's a completely different type of mindset, personality, everything. Apparently 60 Minutes has never heard of this, though I know they have.
“We thought we were very careful not to label his sexuality in any way, because he's nine years old,” says Finkelstein. “He doesn't have a sexual orientation. But we did report what is accurate, which is there have been longitudinal studies that have followed boys like him, and the best study in that field said the vast majority of those boys grew up to be gay men.” She added it was possible that because being transgender is more accepted today than it used to be, a study that began today might show that more children with gender non-conformity would turn out to be transgender.
Finkelstein was in Puerto Rico when I spoke to her, so she has not had a chance to look at much of the response to her story. She has kindly agreed to make herself available to discuss any criticisms that emerge in the coming days. In the meantime, I spoke to “60 Minutes” spokesman Kevin Tedesco about the response he's seen so far.
“It's been the normal amount of feedback…There wasn't really a blip,” he said, adding that the feedback has been across the board, as opposed to a deluge of emails from one side. “Perhaps homosexuality is not as controversial as some people think, and the origin of it is not as controversial as some people think.”
+-+-+
March 14, 2006 Next Post | Previous Post
More Reaction To The '60 Minutes' Sexuality Story
Yesterday, I wrote about some of the early reaction to the “60 Minutes” story on “the science of sexual orientation.” Here's an update on what people are saying about the story, as well as more response from producer Shari Finkelstein.
A writer at the gay-oriented blog called “Good As You” calls the piece “fantastic” and “fascinating” before getting into the criticism he or she expects:
Of course there will be those who think it unfair that the show did not present the “pro-family” side's position that homosexuality is a choice, and we'd almost guarantee that the 'mo foes will try and debunk CBS's journalistic ethics within the next few hours/days. We'll call them on their bull when that time comes; for now, let's just relish the fact that there are rational folks in this world who seem supportive of the notion that if it's a choice, then your humble scribe's zygote had very strong opinions about boobs.
I haven't seen much in the way the sort of criticism the blogger expects, actually, though there is some to be found in the debate taking place in the comments section of Wayne Besen's blog. Most of the commenters seemed to like the story, but not all of them. “The one thing that you can say in favour of that program is that it is so obviously one-sided and unfair in not giving supporters of the family theories any time to make their case that it isn't likely to convince anyone who hasn't made up their mind already,” writes one commenter.
Some of the criticism has centered on Northwestern University professor J. Michael Bailey, who was featured in the piece. Conservative blog Newsbusters goes after “60 Minutes” for including Bailey in the story. “…what [correspondent Lesley] Stahl conveniently left out of her piece and failed to tell the viewing public, is that her “expert” J. Michael Bailey has been exposed and charged for “research misconduct” concerning the research he is best known for on transexuality. Turns out Bailey received many complaints from the transsexual women he interviewed for his book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism, saying that they didn’t know he was using them as research subjects and that he distorted versions of their case histories that appeared in his book.” Northwestern opened a formal investigation into Baliey's conduct in 2004, and he eventually resigned from his Chairmanship of the Department of Psychology, though he remains a professor at the university.
I asked Finkelstein to respond. “We were aware of the controversy surrounding Michael Bailey's book, and we looked into all the allegations before we decided to interview him for the story,” she said. “We didn't feel there was anything that disqualified him from being interviewed. And in fact, his work is highly regarded by all of the researches in the field who we spoke with, and we felt that he was a very worthy person to discuss these issues.”
A number of the emails that have come into “60 Minutes” about the piece have touched on an issue that was discussed yesterday – namely, the charge that the piece mistakenly equates gender non-conformity and homosexuality. Finkelstein again addressed the issue. “We are aware that most gay men were not boys who wanted to be girls, but according to the research, most boys who consistently and pervasively identify as girls grow up to be gay men,” she told me.
Finally, if you ever needed proof that it's almost impossible to anticipate the criticism any given piece will elicit, I give you this complaint from the comments section of yesterday's post on this story. It posits that the “60 Minutes” piece was “just an excuse to promote gays like Rosie O'Donnell.” The commenter goes on: “She has been campaigning to replace Bob Barker on the Price Is Right. She would make a terrible host. Although I sometimes watch the Price Is Right, I would stop watching it all together if O'Donnell replaces Barker. She is not as fun loving as he is.”
Price is Right producers: Consider yourself warned.
