Homosexuality interview question

[Concubine]

You choose your words very carefully.

You seem to be implying that there is a "gay gene" that has some sort of ethereal intention to turn someone gay. I would say, rather, that natural variance in genes that lead to physiological makeup predispose one to being gay.

Agreed. Our difference in opinion, I think, lies in our opinions on how much control we have over our own development. This is a difficult subject to debate.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[VelaenOscuridad]

Agreed. Our difference in opinion, I think, lies in our opinions on how much control we have over our own development. This is a difficult subject to debate.

One of the main theories about why someone is homosexual attributes it to a hormone wash in utero, that part of our prenatal development includes a bombardment of hormones to the fetus, which help it develop gender-specific characteristics, and perhaps a predisposition to sexual orientation. This is part of one's environment, not their genes, and yet they don't exactly have control over it. Environmental influence on development does not equal choice.

 

[Concubine]

One of the main theories about why someone is homosexual attributes it to a hormone wash in utero, that part of our prenatal development includes a bombardment of hormones to the fetus, which help it develop gender-specific characteristics, and perhaps a predisposition to sexual orientation. This is part of one's environment, not their genes, and yet they don't exactly have control over it. Environmental influence on development does not equal choice.

It seems like that would be a very difficult theory to prove.

 

[pennquaker08]

Luckily, as a practical matter, theories aren't "proven." They just aren't disproved.

And by the way, why, might I ask, are you so heavily emotionally invested in there not being a biological/genetic basis determining sexuality? It seems rather important to you that sexuality is a feature entirely determined by "environment" (what exactly that means I know not) considering your stalwart unreceptiveness to any of the posited hypotheses--which, by the way, if you search PubMed are supported by scientific evidence (and if you deny the biochemical means by which these data were attained, then you must necessarily cast into doubt all results gained by the same methods). Are you trying ultimately to make a case for some moral or biblical imperative? Do take care to remain squarely within the realm of science.

For fun, let's develop a syllogism.

1. Sexual behavior is a behavior; sexual thoughts are thoughts.
2. Behaviors and thoughts originate in the nervous system.
3. The nervous system's structure and function are determined by cell-cell interactions.
4. Cell-cell interactions are mediated by electrical and biochemical communication.
5. Electrical and biochemical communications are made possible through the actions of proteins such as voltage- and chemical-gated ion channels.
6. Proteins are encoded by genes.
7. Genes are heritable.

Ergo, sexual behavior, like any behavior, and sexual thoughts, like any thought, have a genetic basis.

Moreover, this all is not to say there is no environmental interplay, naturally. To be sure, each of these syllogistic features above enumerated is subject to copious environmental factors--temperature, pH, mechanical stress, etc. Nevertheless, one cannot discount the truth that all behaviors in some sense are biologically based. There are no purely "environmental" behaviors, and by the same token, there are no purely "genetic" behaviors (I'm sure exceptions to the latter can be found, but for our purposes it may as well remain absolute). To say, therefore, that there is no genetic/biological component to human behavior generally and sexual behavior specifically is rather ludicrous. Since the genetic basis of sexual behavior is still so poorly understood we can't make any assumptions about the exact interaction of gene products or the penetrance of those genes. To speculate idly is foolhardy.

 

[robbiekins]

It seems like that would be a very difficult theory to prove.

Well now I'm curious why you refuse to acknowledge the theories you've requested. Is it that you cannot admit being wrong?

You've broken standard rules of debating and now you've committed the logical fallacy of ignorance in asserting that things are the way you posit because it hasn't been proven otherwise.

Can I ask you, in all honesty, how (or if) you would treat an openly gay man or woman? Would you be sensitive to their needs, or would you try to find them another physician? I won't jump down your throat, I actually just want to know where you're coming from.

 

[Concubine]

Well now I'm curious why you refuse to acknowledge the theories you've requested. Is it that you cannot admit being wrong?

You've broken standard rules of debating and now you've committed the logical fallacy of ignorance in asserting that things are the way you posit because it hasn't been proven otherwise.

Can I ask you, in all honesty, how (or if) you would treat an openly gay man or woman? Would you be sensitive to their needs, or would you try to find them another physician? I won't jump down your throat, I actually just want to know where you're coming from.

No, I simply stated that the evidence for nurture outweighs the evidence for nature (you can also do a pubmed search on that). And I am not "so heavily emotionally invested in there not being a biological/genetic basis determining sexuality" Quite the contrary: I believe that genetics absolutely determines our default sexuality (which I don't think it is homosexuality).

As for how I will treat my patients that are homosexual: no differently.

 

[robbiekins]

No, I simply stated that the evidence for nurture outweighs the evidence for nature (you can also do a pubmed search on that). And I am not "so heavily emotionally invested in there not being a biological/genetic basis determining sexuality" Quite the contrary: I believe that genetics absolutely determines our default sexuality (which I don't think it is homosexuality).

As for how I will treat my patients that are homosexual: no differently.

Do you think all people are born into a default state of mind, a clean slate, which is then imprinted by society and experience to provide the basis for thought and behavior?

 

[pennquaker08]

No, I simply stated that the evidence for nurture outweighs the evidence for nature (you can also do a pubmed search on that). And I am not "so heavily emotionally invested in there not being a biological/genetic basis determining sexuality" Quite the contrary: I believe that genetics absolutely determines our default sexuality (which I don't think it is homosexuality).

As for how I will treat my patients that are homosexual: no differently.

I find it difficult you will be able to treat patients who happen to be gay equally when you do not even afford them the respect they deserve for who they are. Since you obviously feel that we are all born straight, per your own words, it likewise follows that it is unnatural or even wrong not to be (since, after all, aren't infants symbolically "innocent" and "uncorrupted"?) What an egregiously insensitive and judgmental way of thinking. I don't think you can handle being a doctor, quite frankly, if you do not understand that there is no way to extricate "nature" from "nurture" in the way that people are. I think if you could you are wasting your time going into medicine; philosophy would need you more.

Please do cite me some literature that corroborates the notion that heterosexuality is the "default" status for neonates. It seems that you are blinded by your heterocentrist prejudice that heterosexuality is exclusively genetically based, but homosexuality cannot possibly be. You can't have it both ways. Sex is sex, my friend; gay or straight, they are two sides of the same coin. They involve the same emotions and body parts and fulfill the same psychological needs (save of course procreation). I don't have sex with women; I never have and I never will--and frankly I never wanted to either. Now tell me how my genes are losing out in the fight. Moreover you go on to insult all LGBTQ people by asserting that the way all of their minds work is necessarily the result of some early trauma--merely because you have come into contact with a small subsample of people who had such experiences (the effect of which on their sexuality you cannot possibly know). Isn't this the very definition of prejudice? Can anyone say FAE?

Well, if you believe all of this (i.e., homosexuality is not innate but rather fomented solely by environmental factors and thus by logical necessity can be repealed by such), then it is only natural you support the ex-gay movement. Why don't you do a bit of research on that and tell me what you find--namely whether it seems a healthy thing to do.

 

[Concubine]

I find it difficult you will be able to treat patients who happen to be gay equally when you do not even afford them the respect they deserve for who they are. Since you obviously feel that we are all born straight, per your own words, it likewise follows that it is unnatural or even wrong not to be (since, after all, aren't infants symbolically "innocent" and "uncorrupted"?) What an egregiously insensitive and judgmental way of thinking. I don't think you can handle being a doctor, quite frankly, if you do not understand that there is no way to extricate "nature" from "nurture" in the way that people are. I think if you could you are wasting your time going into medicine; philosophy would need you more.

Please do cite me some literature that corroborates the notion that heterosexuality is the "default" status for neonates. It seems that you are blinded by your heterocentrist prejudice that heterosexuality is exclusively genetically based, but homosexuality cannot possibly be. You can't have it both ways. Sex is sex, my friend; gay or straight, they are two sides of the same coin. They involve the same emotions and body parts and fulfill the same psychological needs (save of course procreation). I don't have sex with women; I never have and I never will--and frankly I never wanted to either. Now tell me how my genes are losing out in the fight. Moreover you go on to insult all LGBTQ people by asserting that the way all of their minds work is necessarily the result of some early trauma--merely because you have come into contact with a small subsample of people who had such experiences (the effect of which on their sexuality you cannot possibly know). Isn't this the very definition of prejudice? Can anyone say FAE?

Well, if you believe all of this (i.e., homosexuality is not innate but rather fomented solely by environmental factors and thus by logical necessity can be repealed by such), then it is only natural you support the ex-gay movement. Why don't you do a bit of research on that and tell me what you find--namely whether it seems a healthy thing to do.

Excuse me. It seems like your emotions are getting the best of you and your assumptions are getting out of control. I won't be a good doctor because I believe that procreation is the ultimate goal of natural selection? Good lord. Your arguments are degenerating into personal attacks. I feel no need to debate this with you further.

 

[pennquaker08]

Clearly that is not what I said viz. procreation. And as far as personal attacks are concerned, you pounced first upon me and the entire LGBTQ world (not that that justified my retaliation, and for that I do apologize). In my own defense, I must say that gays have been the subject of much cultural persecution lo these many years, and so we have become extremely sensitized to attacks on an aspect of our being over which we have no control. It's a civil rights issue at its core, and civil rights issues are always contentious and they always accompany high emotions. Again, I do extend to you my sincere apologies if I hurt your feelings; it's just that gay rights is a crusade that is very important to me. But we never will agree. So we may as well chalk it up.

 

[soulspokn]

i think this went waay off topic. so I'll choose to ignore most of the above comments.

The personal statement is meant to describe your reasons for going into medicine. Much of my volunteer work was in the LGBT community, and I want to go into internal medicine or family practice, and PRIME type work to focus on medical care of the LGBT community. And so, me being gay is all over my application. so far, I think i'm doing quite well for myself. I have an interview coming up on 1/28/08. Its an open note one, so I'll keep you up to date on how it goes.

I find a lot of this discourse really in bad taste, and a bit childish/phobic. Then again, some of you guys are really cool. Thats why i stick around =P.

 

[pennquaker08]

Heh heh I'm better off sticking around in the MD/PhD forum where I belong. They warned me about you folks!

 

[doinmybest5840]

Every single gay person I have ever heard of or known usually had a messed up or incomplete family growing up or were social outcasts in middle/high school. This points to environment all the way. I just don't buy into the argument that people can be homosexual by default.

One of my best friends is a gay male who comes from a solid, complete family and was popular all throughout school. This argument does not stand.

 

[robbiekins]

Excuse me. It seems like your emotions are getting the best of you and your assumptions are getting out of control. I won't be a good doctor because I believe that procreation is the ultimate goal of natural selection? Good lord. Your arguments are degenerating into personal attacks. I feel no need to debate this with you further.

What a graceful way to bow out of an argument you know you can't win.

 

[VelaenOscuridad]

Let's hope that the anti-gay posters are now bored of this argument. Most people handled themselves very well in the debate, and although it did get off-topic, I think it's important to defend LGBT people when they are attacked. If we don't stick up for ourselves, nothing will change.

Merry Christmas!

 

[soulspokn]

Every single gay person I have ever heard of or known usually had a messed up or incomplete family growing up or were social outcasts in middle/high school. This points to environment all the way. I just don't buy into the argument that people can be homosexual by default.

I come from a complete home. I am very well rounded, and I'm not and never have been a "social outcast". But speaking on behalf of all gays, have you ever thought that being a social outcast may also be resultant of being gay? Not the cause? Gays have been around since human kind has been around. In many different tribal cultures (including many native american and pacific islander cultures", gays and lesbians were revered as communicators/mediators/shamans.

Many of the same type of phobias that stir racial and religious anxiety stir anti-homosexual anxiety. its a type of deep seated xenophobia. Nazi's rounded up jews and gays alike.

I don't mean to personally attack you, but statements like you made are such broad generalizations that they are dangerous, and are a slippery slope to warranting destructive behavior.

 

[jdh71]

homosexuality has been "reported" in every society for as long as their has been recorded history. the whole the "broken home" or "mommy didn't love me enough" theories cannot explain why there were gay pharaohs in Egypt back in 2000BC

Been lurking this discussion . . . and no one called you on this . . . how does homosexuality being recorded throughout history discount the influence of home social factors? How do you know what family life for gay pharaohs was like? If you have a time machine, I want to go on the next trip.

 

[Gut Shot]

I won't be a good doctor because I believe that procreation is the ultimate goal of natural selection?

No, you won't be a good doctor because you won't review PubMed to examine the myriad research on the topic at hand.

 

[jdh71]

However, the end result of genetic factors, that is, physiological makeup, of homosexual men are markedly different than straight men. Facial bone structure, levels of testosterone, average penis size, and many neurological factors such as the size of the amygdala and some prefrontal regions all have statistically-significant variance between the two groups. Easy search on pubmed for those who make wild claims without any previous research.

An easy search on pub-med will tell you these studies are crap - in fact when looking at Testosterone (which has a physiologic "normal" range of 200-1200 ng/dL to begin with) has more than one study showing homosexuals have higher Test, and then the next that homosexuals have lower Test, followed by another saying there is no difference. Most studies have an "n" or no more 30. It's all horrible pseudoscience, most likely politically motivated.

 

[mountainhare]

Been lurking this discussion . . . and no one called you on this . . . how does homosexuality being recorded throughout history discount the influence of home social factors? How do you know what family life for gay pharaohs was like? If you have a time machine, I want to go on the next trip.

I'm not sure why I'm still participating in this conversation because it's getting kind of rotten, but I think Dawktah Rawkah was trying to counter Concubine's assertion that people are born straight but then become homosexual because of environmental stressors such as being from a "messed up or incomplete family growing up or [being] social outcasts." DR was pointing out that in many societies throughout history homosexuality was considered normal, and in those societies homosexuals were not visibly put under any more social stress than anyone else. Perhaps his assertion isn't conclusive because he can't prove it using a time machine, but it's no less baseless an assertion than the one that Concubine made and which DR was trying to counter. Anyway, I agree with Gutshot that people should read some books or articles before coming on here and acting as though their opinion must necessarily be correct if the other pre-meds on this forum can't conclusively disprove it.

 

[jdh71]

I'm not sure why I'm still participating in this conversation because it's getting kind of rotten, but I think Dawktah Rawkah was trying to counter Concubine's assertion that people are born straight but then become homosexual because of environmental stressors such as being from a "messed up or incomplete family growing up or [being] social outcasts."

Tried and failed - based on what he said.

DR was pointing out that in many societies throughout history homosexuality was considered normal, and in those societies homosexuals were not visibly put under any more social stress than anyone else. Perhaps his assertion isn't conclusive because he can't prove it using a time machine, but it's no less baseless an assertion than the one that Concubine made and which DR was trying to counter.

That fails too. Here's the thing . . . if we are working off of the assumption that homosexuality is not a choice (we're talking orientation and not same-sex sexual relations), and if we both agree that the social pressures are such that a person would not logically, nor reasonably choose such a lifestyle (read: orientation), then we can reasonably agree that the percentage of homosexuals in the population today is roughly what one would expect to come about by "chance" (in quotes for a reason) and NONchoice. So then to bring up societies where homosexuality was not only considered "normal" but was the regular expression of male sexuality, such as in that of the Greeks (or the Egyptians?), only weakens any argument about homosexuality being a mere product of biology. In fact, such ancient societies actually emphasize the likely social relationships to the etiology of homosexual behavior.

 

[cbrons]

...Why did you feel revealing your sexual preference was important in the application process? I mean, I know it's been said so many times (and probably in much politer, more politically correct ways), but seriously what went through your head? I can only imagine what you wrote in your personal statement. "I'm gay and I'm proud of it..." or something along those lines. I mean, what else could it be? Is it possible you were, through revealing your sexual orientation in an inappropriate part of the application process, daring someone to challenge you?

I mean I suppose it's possible that you said something about facing opposition for who you are (and yes I believe its genetic and no I don't think theres anything wrong with it) but you have to ask yourself how revealing sexual preference makes you a good choice for admissions. Sexual orientation is really no ones business other than your own. You should be able to do whatever the hell you want in the privacy of your own bedroom. But with that being said, you should also keep it to yourself like heterosexuals do. When heterosexuals apply to medical school, do they make it known that they like girls?

So in the end, there's really no reason to reveal your sexual orientation. If you were discriminated against because of it I do think that is absolutely out of line. But in the end, I have to question what your motives were in revealing your sexual orientation. Either it was something innocent in which you passively suggested it (like saying you were part of GLB group at your undergraduate institute... which is obviously a valid thing to put on this part of the application) but I suspect you are simply trying to incite this. I know I'll probably get some outrage for this post but I think it had to be said.

Sexual preference doesn't make you a better candidate. There's no reason to reveal it. You are who you are, you have the absolute right to choose (and I don't mean 'choose' in the sense that its really a choice) what your sexual preference is. But the ADCOM doesn't need to know about it because in the end, like I said, it has absolutely nothing to do with how fit you are to enter the medical profession. That's all I'm saying...

 

[smq123]

...Why did you feel revealing your sexual preference was important in the application process? I mean, I know it's been said so many times (and probably in much politer, more politically correct ways), but seriously what went through your head? I can only imagine what you wrote in your personal statement. "I'm gay and I'm proud of it..." or something along those lines. I mean, what else could it be? Is it possible you were, through revealing your sexual orientation in an inappropriate part of the application process, daring someone to challenge you?

I mean I suppose it's possible that you said something about facing opposition for who you are (and yes I believe its genetic and no I don't think theres anything wrong with it) but you have to ask yourself how revealing sexual preference makes you a good choice for admissions. Sexual orientation is really no ones business other than your own. You should be able to do whatever the hell you want in the privacy of your own bedroom. But with that being said, you should also keep it to yourself like heterosexuals do. When heterosexuals apply to medical school, do they make it known that they like girls?

So in the end, there's really no reason to reveal your sexual orientation. If you were discriminated against because of it I do think that is absolutely out of line. But in the end, I have to question what your motives were in revealing your sexual orientation. Either it was something innocent in which you passively suggested it (like saying you were part of GLB group at your undergraduate institute... which is obviously a valid thing to put on this part of the application) but I suspect you are simply trying to incite this. I know I'll probably get some outrage for this post but I think it had to be said.

Sexual preference doesn't make you a better candidate. There's no reason to reveal it. You are who you are, you have the absolute right to choose (and I don't mean 'choose' in the sense that its really a choice) what your sexual preference is. But the ADCOM doesn't need to know about it because in the end, like I said, it has absolutely nothing to do with how fit you are to enter the medical profession. That's all I'm saying...

Have you read the OP's personal statement?

Maybe, just maybe, being gay had something to do with the OP's decision to become a doctor. If you haven't successfully applied yet, the PS is designed to explain why you'd like to be a doctor - it's not designed to be a hidden plea of "Let me in, I'd be great for your school, because I'm part of XYZ minority!" In order to explain why you'd make a good doctor, it's often a good idea to explain what motivated you to enter medicine in the first place. And for the OP, perhaps being gay had something to do with that.

Until we've read the OP's PS, maybe we should hold off on these kinds of "what were you thinking?!?" statements. And maybe we shouldn't accuse the OP of "trying to incite" a reaction by announcing his orientation in his PS, until we've had a chance to read it. "That's all I'm saying...."

...but I suspect you are simply trying to incite this. I know I'll probably get some outrage for this post but I think it had to be said.

Why did it "have" to be said? So that you could demonstrate your amazing ability at assuming people's motivations without any real basis in fact? Come on.

 

[cbrons]

Of course you get the immediate responders who are absolutey outraged!!! Outraged that you would be discriminated against for being gay! Totally out of line! Please. Some people really need to take a step back and stop trying to get so close to this. It's like every time something about discrimination towards one group or another comes up there's always the crowd who, like starving lions on a one legged antelope, reflexively write back how angry they are about the horribly unjust situation the OP experienced. None of these people know for sure what happened but even the smallest suggestion just sets them off.

And of course a thread about alleged discrimination in reference to a gay guy turns into a nature/nurture debate about homosexuality. Of course it does... After all, all of you extremely intelligent pre-meds out there have to show everyone just how open-minded and neuro savvy you are.

So I just want to remind everybody of the real question here: Is it appropriate to reveal your sexual orientation in the med. school application process? And if so, why is appropriate? Whether Elton John is gay because his father touched him where he pees when he was little (you know, the whole "gays are gay because they had a traumatic upbringing" crowd) or because he has a genetic predisposition is really not relevant to the discourse. Elton John's a good singer because he has talent. Likewise the OP is probably a good med school candidate because he worked hard in college, volunteered 3 hours a week, has a passion for helping people, etc. His homosexuality (or why he's homosexual) doesn't have jack **** to do with anything. But that's all I got for now...

 

[smq123]

Of course you get the immediate responders who are absolutey outraged!!! Outraged that you would be discriminated against for being gay! Totally out of line! Please. Some people really need to take a step back and stop trying to get so close to this. It's like every time something about discrimination towards one group or another comes up there's always the crowd who, like starving lions on a one legged antelope, reflexively write back how angry they are about the horribly unjust situation the OP experienced. None of these people know for sure what happened but even the smallest suggestion just sets them off.

Not outraged, just exasperated. It's annoying to read posts that basically read: "I have nothing against gay people, and I'm NOT a bigot, but...when is it EVER appropriate to reveal your orientation in your PS?!?!"

Until you've read the PS, there's no way you can say that it was appropriate or not. Maybe the OP's main clinical experience was in a gay health center. Or maybe his most valuable medically-related experience was while helping someone else who is gay. Or maybe he saw a nurse treat a gay patient disrespectfully. The point is - NEITHER OF US KNOW the context. So let's not assume until we've read it, okay? Maybe it WAS totally inappropriate - but I'm not going to make the judgement call until I've read the PS.

And of course a thread about alleged discrimination in reference to a gay guy turns into a nature/nurture debate about homosexuality. Of course it does... After all, all of you extremely intelligent pre-meds out there have to show everyone just how open-minded and neuro savvy you are.

Did you expect anything different? All threads on certain topics in the pre-allo forum tend to degenerate into the same repetitive exchange.

Likewise the OP is probably a good med school candidate because he worked hard in college, volunteered 3 hours a week, has a passion for helping people, etc. His homosexuality (or why he's homosexual) doesn't have jack **** to do with anything. But that's all I got for now...

But you dont know that it "doesn't have jack**** to do with anything." That's just my point. And you don't even know how the OP "announced" his orientation in his PS! It could range from anything from "I'm GAY and proud of it! I'm GAY - I'm GAY - I'm GAY!" to "I volunteered at the same gay health clinic where I happened to be a patient for a number of years." The former is, obviously, kind of inappropriate and irrelevant, while the latter is appropriate and relevant. It might even have been have been something along the lines of "I became interested in clinical medicine when my boyfriend was diagnosed with lupus." That's also relevant, but it's quite subtle.

 

[cbrons]

Have you read the OP's personal statement?

Maybe, just maybe, being gay had something to do with the OP's decision to become a doctor. If you haven't successfully applied yet, the PS is designed to explain why you'd like to be a doctor - it's not designed to be a hidden plea of "Let me in, I'd be great for your school, because I'm part of XYZ minority!" In order to explain why you'd make a good doctor, it's often a good idea to explain what motivated you to enter medicine in the first place. And for the OP, perhaps being gay had something to do with that.

Until we've read the OP's PS, maybe we should hold off on these kinds of "what were you thinking?!?" statements. And maybe we shouldn't accuse the OP of "trying to incite" a reaction by announcing his orientation in his PS, until we've had a chance to read it. "That's all I'm saying...."

So being of a certain sexual preference gives you the motivation to enter the medical profession? What hypothetical connection could you make between who you choose to sleep with and your interest in becoming a doctor? If you could give me something plausible, I'll admit I'm wrong but I don't think that I am.

I suggested that perhaps the OP wished to get a negative response out of the interviewer because that is the only possible reason why someone would mention their sexual orientation on the application. Until homosexuals are considered to be URM, I don't understand why you would reveal this highly personal fact about you to complete strangers. Maybe to get some sympathy for being part of a group that is widely discriminated against but I think that would be worse than just trying to get a rise out of the interviewer. There are plenty people who love to bitch and moan about all the injustices done towards them in the world. We all know these people exist. So is it such a stretch to suggest that many of these people TRY to get a rise out of people just so they can do what they do best (bitch and moan). I stated about that I suspected this might be the OPs reason for mentioning this private fact about himself because I saw no other explanation for why he would.

Why did it "have" to be said? So that you could demonstrate your amazing ability at assuming people's motivations without any real basis in fact? Come on.

Well actually I think I did a good job of stating my case and backing it up but you be the judge.

 

[pennquaker08]

Of course you get the immediate responders who are absolutey outraged!!! Outraged that you would be discriminated against for being gay! Totally out of line! Please. Some people really need to take a step back and stop trying to get so close to this. It's like every time something about discrimination towards one group or another comes up there's always the crowd who, like starving lions on a one legged antelope, reflexively write back how angry they are about the horribly unjust situation the OP experienced. None of these people know for sure what happened but even the smallest suggestion just sets them off.

And of course a thread about alleged discrimination in reference to a gay guy turns into a nature/nurture debate about homosexuality. Of course it does... After all, all of you extremely intelligent pre-meds out there have to show everyone just how open-minded and neuro savvy you are.

So I just want to remind everybody of the real question here: Is it appropriate to reveal your sexual orientation in the med. school application process? And if so, why is appropriate? Whether Elton John is gay because his father touched him where he pees when he was little (you know, the whole "gays are gay because they had a traumatic upbringing" crowd) or because he has a genetic predisposition is really not relevant to the discourse. Elton John's a good singer because he has talent. Likewise the OP is probably a good med school candidate because he worked hard in college, volunteered 3 hours a week, has a passion for helping people, etc. His homosexuality (or why he's homosexual) doesn't have jack **** to do with anything. But that's all I got for now...

Spoken like a true straight white Judaeo-Christian male.

P.S. The term "sexual preference" is archaic and apocryphal.

 

[cbrons]

But you dont know that it "doesn't have jack**** to do with anything." That's just my point. And you don't even know how the OP "announced" his orientation in his PS! It could range from anything from "I'm GAY and proud of it! I'm GAY - I'm GAY - I'm GAY!" to "I volunteered at the same gay health clinic where I happened to be a patient for a number of years." The former is, obviously, kind of inappropriate and irrelevant, while the latter is appropriate and makes sense.

Well again why does "gay health clinic" have to be denoted as "gay." It's a health clinic... what does the fact that they treat a large portion of homosexuals have to do with anything? Is it really that important? And moreover, are there even /gay/ health clinics? I've never heard of such a thing... but I suppose they might exist.

But sorry I don't think you've offered any plausible explanation. Seeing a nurse treat a gay patient badly is, by itself, a pretty dumb reason to go into medicine. Gays get treated poorly by people in every profession so is the OP going to become a cop if he sees cops roughing up someone because their gay? Is he going to become a plumber because he refused to fix the pipes of a homosexual neighbor?

Sorry but I don't think you've offered a plausible explanation. But anyways I think we've probably reached an impasse. Thanks for the good argument.

 

[smq123]

So being of a certain sexual preference gives you the motivation to enter the medical profession? What hypothetical connection could you make between who you choose to sleep with and your interest in becoming a doctor? If you could give me something plausible, I'll admit I'm wrong but I don't think that I am.

I suggested that perhaps the OP wished to get a negative response out of the interviewer because that is the only possible reason why someone would mention their sexual orientation on the application.

How about the example that I cited earlier: "I became interested in medicine after my boyfriend was diagnosed with lupus." It's relevant - explaining how you became interested in clinical medicine, but it would inadvertantly reveal the fact that the applicant, who is a guy, is dating another guy.

I suppose you could technically say, "I became interested in medicine after my very close friend was diagnosed with lupus." But since you're limited to 3500 characters (INCLUDING spaces!!), I'd probably just bite the bullet and use the word "boyfriend" instead. Besides - you're within your rights to refer to this person as a boyfriend, so why not?

 

[cbrons]

Spoken like a true straight white Judaeo-Christian male.

P.S. The term "sexual preference" is archaic and apocryphal.

Not really sure how to approach this. Does your nickname "pennquaker" suggest that you are a practicing Christian (Quaker)? Or are you simply offering a 2 sentence rebuttal my arguments by making condescending assumptions about my own religious practices?

Either way, there is really no need to nitpick. I used the terms sexual preference and orientation interchangeably. If this was confusing, sorry.

 

[Dawktah Rawkah]

Tried and failed - based on what he said.
That fails too. Here's the thing . . . if we are working off of the assumption that homosexuality is not a choice (we're talking orientation and not same-sex sexual relations), and if we both agree that the social pressures are such that a person would not logically, nor reasonably choose such a lifestyle (read: orientation), then we can reasonably agree that the percentage of homosexuals in the population today is roughly what one would expect to come about by "chance" (in quotes for a reason) and NONchoice. So then to bring up societies where homosexuality was not only considered "normal" but was the regular expression of male sexuality, such as in that of the Greeks (or the Egyptians?), only weakens any argument about homosexuality being a mere product of biology. In fact, such ancient societies actually emphasize the likely social relationships to the etiology of homosexual behavior.

this is becoming the thread that will not die ... but it distracts me from staring blankly at my mailbox waiting for letters from med schools. yes, even on Christmas day when i know there will be no mail delivered ... so let the magic continue ...

here it is. my final post on this thread. i hope. i'll try and keep it short and to the point.

yeah right.

my point about the gay egyptian pharaohs, which i'm glad to admit was an on-the-fly "hard to disprove" example, was just to highlight the fact the homosexuality has been around for a long time. i was not trying to say that ancient cultures celebrating/tolerating homosexuality somehow proves it is genetic. you're right, that would be flimsy logic. ... a better on-the-fly and impossible-to-disprove example which would've better supported my argument would be the tormented lesbians of ancient syria.
anyway, i was merely trying to say that it has been around for a very long time. many thousands of years. environmental attributions to things like a having a hard time in middle school in the united states in the late '90s can't really be used to explain its origins in all of the situations (a few tolerant ones but many more intolerant ones) where it has been, and continues to be, present as some steady rate. i was only trying to rebut concubine's "all the gay people i know came from broken homes ... therefore it can't be genetic" statement. if something occurs by "chance" (to borrow your lingo jdh71) consistently across cultures and time then it certainly must have some factor attached to our genetics. whether directly ("gay genes") on indirectly (predispositions).

yeah, the time machine is waiting for you in the fifth dimension ... where we're going, we don't need roads.

 

[smq123]

And moreover, are there even /gay/ health clinics? I've never heard of such a thing... but I suppose they might exist.

Uhhh...if I were you, I'd just stop right there. You're not helping your arguments by revealing your ignorance. (Well, maybe you live in a part of the country where there aren't large numbers of gay men in one specific area.)

There are many "gay" health clinics. There's one in Philadelphia (where I go to school), and the medical director teaches some first year classes at my school. It's called the Mazzoni Clinic, and while it is (obviously) open to everyone, their mission statement is to help the health of LGBTQ people in the area.

 

[cbrons]

How about the example that I cited earlier: "I became interested in medicine after my boyfriend was diagnosed with lupus." It's relevant - explaining how you became interested in clinical medicine, but it would inadvertantly reveal the fact that the applicant, who is a guy, is dating another guy.

I suppose you could technically say, "I became interested in medicine after my very close friend was diagnosed with lupus." But since you're limited to 3500 characters (INCLUDING spaces!!), I'd probably just bite the bullet and use the word "boyfriend" instead. Besides - you're within your rights to refer to this person as a boyfriend, so why not?

Then that would be valid. I already stated in my original reply that it was possible the OP revealed it passively. I just used another example (being a member of a GLB group at his school) to show this. But mentioning that your boyfriend fell ill and that is your motivation for entering medical school is plausible to me because it is still not overtly stating your sexual orientation... which has nothing to do with why you'd make a good med. school applicant.

 

[cbrons]

Uhhh...if I were you, I'd just stop right there. You're not helping your arguments by revealing your ignorance. (Well, maybe you live in a part of the country where there aren't large numbers of gay men in one specific area.)

There are many "gay" health clinics. There's one in Philadelphia (where I go to school), and the medical director teaches some first year classes at my school. It's called the Mazzoni Clinic, and while it is (obviously) open to everyone, their mission statement is to help the health of LGBTQ people in the area.

I do live in a part of the country where homosexuals have pretty much kept to a certain area of the city (I'm in Chicago). And I simply didn't know there were "gay" clinics in existence in the sense that they only tailored their medical services towards gay patients. I don't agree that not being aware of this makes me ignorant but thanks for "setting me straight" (no pun intended) on the issue.

 

[smq123]

I can only imagine what you wrote in your personal statement. "I'm gay and I'm proud of it..." or something along those lines. I mean, what else could it be?

Then that would be valid. I already stated in my original reply that it was possible the OP revealed it passively. I just used another example (being a member of a GLB group at his school) to show this. But mentioning that your boyfriend fell ill and that is your motivation for entering medical school is plausible to me because it is still not overtly stating your sexual orientation... which has nothing to do with why you'd make a good med. school applicant.

Which was my original point: we don't know the context of how the OP "mentioned" the fact that he was gay in his PS. Maybe you were right and it was totally inappropriate. Or maybe it was very subtle and totally relevant. THAT'S the issue I had with your first post - when you said "I can only imagine that it was along the lines of 'I'm gay and I'm proud of it.'" We don't know that, so it's impossible for us to judge the OP.

 

[smq123]

I don't agree that not being aware of this makes me ignorant but thanks for "setting me straight" (no pun intended) on the issue.

Yeah, sorry about that. "Ignorant" is probably a bit strong.

 

[pennquaker08]

Ignorant on the issue yes, if not ignorant generally. But on the bright side you're now no longer the former either!

 

[robbiekins]

Then that would be valid. I already stated in my original reply that it was possible the OP revealed it passively. I just used another example (being a member of a GLB group at his school) to show this. But mentioning that your boyfriend fell ill and that is your motivation for entering medical school is plausible to me because it is still not overtly stating your sexual orientation... which has nothing to do with why you'd make a good med. school applicant.

How about this:

"I am a gay man who, throughout his academic career, has excelled in science. I attended high school in the deep South where I was mercilessly picked on and beaten up by fellow students who do not respect who I am or recognize what I can contribute to society. I want to become a physician not only to apply the talents I was blessed with but to demonstrate to society that I am worthwhile. I want to live by example, showing that men and women are capable of the intellect, dedication, and compassion to not only be effective physicians but outstanding people, regardless of their orientation."

I like that one.

The reason why this topic can be talked about in a personal statement is, simply, because it presents adversity to a candidate. Adversity often leads to one taking up a cause. Michael J. Fox and Parkinson's. Nancy Reagan and stem-cell research. Christopher Reeve and stem-cell research. None of those people cared about their causes before they experienced such adversity.

You don't experience discrimination because of your heterosexuality, which is why you may think it inappropriate to talk about one's sexuality in a personal statement.

 

[AKPsiMD84]

I am male. I'm not angry at the fact that he asked the question or got on the subject of homosexuality, just his overall attitude in approaching the subject. Thanks for the feedback, I think I will wait until I get an answer from the school, then go from there.

Oh, and of course I just didn't mention I was gay in my personal statement without putting it into some relevant context to medicine.

It sounds like your interviewer overstepped his boundaries.

 

[soulspokn]

honestly, being gay should be in your personal statement if and only if it is a factor in deciding to become a doctor. I did it.

".My goal as a physician is to work closely with the gay and Asian/Pacific Islander American communities in major metropolitan areas."

.I'm looking into internal medicine with a focus on sexual health including HIV/AIDS. So in my case at least, its CENTRAL to me applying to medschool.

 

[johnny pollen]

I do live in a part of the country where homosexuals have pretty much kept to a certain area of the city (I'm in Chicago). And I simply didn't know there were "gay" clinics in existence in the sense that they only tailored their medical services towards gay patients. I don't agree that not being aware of this makes me ignorant but thanks for "setting me straight" (no pun intended) on the issue.

Aw, man, I didn't really want to say anything, but this doesn't quite sit well with me. While there's a fairly prominent gay ghetto* in our city, I'd like to mention that Chicago's gay community is a lot more spread out than you give it credit. The Gay Pride parade in Chicago stays pretty much in Boystown; however, I live in a pretty outlying area and see a bunch of LGBT folks all over the place. I'd say that Chicago's more well-dispersed than you might think.

No harm, no foul -- but I just want to register that Chicago isn't divided into The Gay Area and Straightsville. (Ya know, for LGBT folks who are considering Chicago med schools: gays are everywhere, even in Maywood.)

Meanwhile, it's funny: I've been wrestling with what to write in my personal statement. My "why I'm going to med school" moment happened while volunteering in a bathhouse doing HIV counseling (for, entertainingly enough, one of the LGBT-focused clinics in Chicago). I've been told by a friend, who's a doc on the admissions committee at a very prominent med school, and a big ol' gay himself, that I should leave everything relating to my sexual orientation out of my statement. Others have told me that my experiences as an HIV counselor embody the most powerful and convincing reasons I have for going to med school. I tend to agree with the latter, but my friend's insistence gives me a lot of pause.

I'm not looking for answers -- I'll figure it out on my own, I reckon -- but I do want to chime in as someone else who's conflicted about outing himself in his personal statement. On the one hand, I have to acknowledge this intricate application process as the cold, calculated game that it is, as well as acknowledge that a personal statement isn't personal testimony; on the other, I feel that if my sexual orientation is so entwined with my reasons for going to medical school, I'll be unable to write anything nearly as compelling if I don't include it in the mix.

Oy.

* I hate this phrase, as both a Jew and a gay man, but it's in the common parlance. Please forgive me if it offends.

 

[StealthNerd]

Aw, man, I didn't really want to say anything, but this doesn't quite sit well with me. While there's a fairly prominent gay ghetto* in our city, I'd like to mention that Chicago's gay community is a lot more spread out than you give it credit. The Gay Pride parade in Chicago stays pretty much in Boystown; however, I live in a pretty outlying area and see a bunch of LGBT folks all over the place. I'd say that Chicago's more well-dispersed than you might think.

No harm, no foul -- but I just want to register that Chicago isn't divided into The Gay Area and Straightsville. (Ya know, for LGBT folks who are considering Chicago med schools: gays are everywhere, even in Maywood.)

Meanwhile, it's funny: I've been wrestling with what to write in my personal statement. My "why I'm going to med school" moment happened while volunteering in a bathhouse doing HIV counseling (for, entertainingly enough, one of the LGBT-focused clinics in Chicago). I've been told by a friend, who's a doc on the admissions committee at a very prominent med school, and a big ol' gay himself, that I should leave everything relating to my sexual orientation out of my statement. Others have told me that my experiences as an HIV counselor embody the most powerful and convincing reasons I have for going to med school. I tend to agree with the latter, but my friend's insistence gives me a lot of pause.

I'm not looking for answers -- I'll figure it out on my own, I reckon -- but I do want to chime in as someone else who's conflicted about outing himself in his personal statement. On the one hand, I have to acknowledge this intricate application process as the cold, calculated game that it is, as well as acknowledge that a personal statement isn't personal testimony; on the other, I feel that if my sexual orientation is so entwined with my reasons for going to medical school, I'll be unable to write anything nearly as compelling if I don't include it in the mix.

Oy.

* I hate this phrase, as both a Jew and a gay man, but it's in the common parlance. Please forgive me if it offends.

Hey man, great response. I know you didn't ask for advice but since I give it out spontaneously... I say you include your HIV work. It seems integral to why you choose medicine. Given your impressive MDApps profile I'd say you're pretty much guaranteed to get in somewhere.

Also, on a totally unrelated note, can anyone else tell that SDN uses Google advertisements? The banner on the bottom when I wrote this is for "HotJocks.com" or something... couple of pics of half naked men on it. ... Who wants to bet that Google AdSense is working like a damn charm?

 

[georgia_md]

I regularly post on SDN, but I don't want to post under my normal name since I have not completely come out of the closet (I am a homosexual).

I was at an interview, and we some how got on the subject of doctors treating homosexuality. I said I didn't believe that homosexuality should be looked at as a disorder since it may be genetic. He asked me "how homosexuality would evolve if it was genetic". I gave a pretty good answer (I think), but he asked it in a really condescending way. Overall, I think his attitude towards me was hostile. I'm worried now that I won't get in because I mentioned I was gay in my personal statement. Should I call the school and complain? I have very good STATS and got positive feedback on my personal statement from other schools.

Wow. Sorry, but , was the subject of homosexuality brought up because you behaved a certain way?

I have nothing against gay people. I was just thinking, oh golly, that's just strange, what if it happens to me. I tend to mumble and get nervous in front of audiences. What if on my interview, they ask me, "you think nervous behaviour/anxiety would evolve if it was genetic and/or acquired?" I'll probably won't be able to handle it half as well as you did. Geeshus!

Oh well, kudos for performing well on your interview! You rock!

 

[StealthNerd]

Wow. Sorry, but , was the subject of homosexuality brought up because you behaved a certain way?

I have nothing against gay people. I was just thinking, oh golly, that's just strange, what if it happens to me. I tend to mumble and get nervous in front of audiences. What if on my interview, they ask me, "you think nervous behaviour/anxiety would evolve if it was genetic and/or acquired?" I'll probably won't be able to handle it half as well as you did. Geeshus!

Oh well, kudos for performing well on your interview! You rock!

Uhhhh... .... you mean, like the interviewer was a guy and our OP here just started making out with him? Yeah, pretty sure that's not how homosexuality got brought up in the interview.

 

[soulspokn]

Uhhhh... .... you mean, like the interviewer was a guy and our OP here just started making out with him? Yeah, pretty sure that's not how homosexuality got brought up in the interview.

thats my last resort strategy if my interview goes south

 

[StealthNerd]

thats my last resort strategy if my interview goes south

Awsum. I just got a mental picture of a desperate applicant of either sex jumping the bones of some poor, unsuspecting interviewer....

 

[HanginInThere]

thats my last resort strategy if my interview goes south

Indeed.

 

[georgia_md]

Uhhhh... .... you mean, like the interviewer was a guy and our OP here just started making out with him? Yeah, pretty sure that's not how homosexuality got brought up in the interview.

That's not what I meant. I was talking about behaviour, like mannerisms and such.

 

[StealthNerd]

How insensitive are you? That's not what I meant. I was talking about behaviour, like mannerisms and such.

I know what you were talking about. But I choose to ignore your reality and supplant it with my own. Why? 'Cause I like comedy.

Besides, having stereotypical "gay mannerisms" doesn't mean the interviewer said: "Hey you seem effeminate. I bet you're a homo. Lets discuss."



Aaaaaahhhhh........ man, I crack me up. But seriously, see the posts I made about the spectrum of sexuality. Having effeminate mannerisms as a guy doesn't mean you like dudes. Hell, I like to sit around and talk about my feelings with my close guy friends. And I can say they're hot too. Know why? 'Cause I'm secure in my sexuality and I don't give a crap about stereotypes. Plus, I mean, come on. They are. If they weren't hot, we couldn't hang out.

Btw, just so you're aware if you haven't read any of my other posts... I think bigotry in all its forms is disgusting and pathetic. ... I just like to make jokes anywhere I can. It's my journey.

 

[soulspokn]

Aaaaaahhhhh........ man, I crack me up. But seriously, see the posts I made about the spectrum of sexuality. Having effeminate mannerisms as a guy doesn't mean you like dudes. Hell, I like to sit around and talk about my feelings with my close guy friends. And I can say they're hot too. Know why? 'Cause I'm secure in my sexuality and I don't give a crap about stereotypes. Plus, I mean, come on. They are. If they weren't hot, we couldn't hang out.

Btw, just so you're aware if you haven't read any of my other posts... I think bigotry in all its forms is disgusting and pathetic. ... I just like to make jokes anywhere I can. It's my journey.

youre my kind of straight man. lol. FWIW there seriously needs to be more people like you.