Mystery of the "gay gene"

The recent sacking of Prof Brendan Bain has become a controversial issue among the masses. J-FLAG is now advocating for the decriminalization of same sex acts. While I agree that homosexuals should have certain rights just as anybody else, I will not support them advocating that society should accept that behavior as norm.

Homosexuality is nothing new. The practice has been in existence for centuries. It is prevalent in both humans and animals. As such, scientists have done extensive research on the practice. This was to prove whether homosexuality was genetic or a choice. However, to fully understand this issue, we have to examine the issue of ‘sexual orientation’. Researchers have proposed that sexual orientation is determined before birth. As such, genetics play a significant role in determining sexual orientation.

Gay gene found?

A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight. A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men's sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region is involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.

Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Illinois, reveals that, “the study shows that there are genes involved in male sexual orientation. The work has yet to be published, but confirms the findings of a smaller study that sparked widespread controversy in 1993, when Dean Hamer, a scientist at the US National Cancer Institute, investigated the family histories of more than 100 gay men and found homosexuality tended to be inherited.” He also stated that “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice; we found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved.”

Research is biased

The problem that I have with this research is that it very subjective. Most of what I have read about genetics and sexual orientation is mostly centered on ‘gay’ men. What I have failed to see, is that no research has been done on lesbians (females) and bisexuals – those said to have multiple sexual orientation. Are we to conclude that females and bisexuals sexual orientation is not determined by genes? And if so, it is a choice? One study by Rice et al. in 1999 failed to replicate the Xq28 linkage results. If that is the case, what are we to believe?

Additionally, something that I want to understand is that, if homosexuality is determine by genes, that would mean, in any case, that the gene in the carrier would be recessive. If that person has a homosexual child, that would mean that in that child, the gene is dominant. So, how will that child be able to pass on that gene? For, that child will be attracted to the same sex, and he or she will not be able to reproduce – a man cannot impregnate a man neither a woman a woman.

Moreover, if there is such a gene, how it is that it has been recessive for so many generations (that means for another generation to come, reproduction has to take place, and for reproduction to take place, it has to be between heterosexuals) and it just happen that this specific child receive that “gene”. Research have also shown that females are the predominant carriers of the gene, so why is the gene always the dominant in the ‘male’ child, what about the female?

What if I decide to enter various prisons, separate the murderers from the rapists and do an extensive research on them and during my research, I found out that the murderers have a similar marker on a specific gene that the rapists do not have and the rapists have a specific marker on a gene that the murderers do not have, should I conclude then that there is a gene that determine murderers and rapists and therefore it is not a choice? And if that is the case, we should accept it because they have no control over who they become?

Choice or biological

There have been numerous research and testimonies of person who were gay and became heterosexuals and vice versa. As such, the debate of whether being gay or lesbian a choice will continue to avail. A curious young lady once asked the question, “Can people choose to become gay?” One person responded in saying “One of my friend's actually, decided to turn bi-sexual. I asked her "Why?" she said, "I want to experiment with my gender preferences." I said "that's....Interesting?", and she responded "Sometimes people are born the way they are -either gay, lesbian, bi sexual - and the rest of us are just in for the experiment. I want to see how girls appeal to me. Lately, I've noticed that I can find a girl to be just as cute as a guy. So, I want to go out there and see where I can go with this."

I saw a few people in middle school decide they want to try and be "lesbian" or "gay". It was almost a trend. I'm not too sure if they were born this way, never knew they could have the potential to desire the same sex, and later found out after puberty. As a result, from middle school and on, I started to believe that yes, some people can chose to turn gay or lesbian. At least this is the response I have gotten from a few friends who actually decided to make the change and stay that way for six years. Today, I have no current knowledge regarding their sexual preference status.

We can study and research as much as we want to substantiate any behavior. Whether we believe homosexuality is a choice or biological. I put it to all the gay lobby groups that please continue to advocate for the rights of these people, but do not tap into the realm of trying to force society to accept that behavior as norm.

Kenroy Davis is an educator and commentator on social issues. Email feedback to: kenroy.davis20@gmail.com

Survival of the Fittest defines our "Status Quo"

The jungle, in which the status quo exists, should convey to the Jamaican populous that it’s the minority that will make it – only the fittest of the fit will survive. Within the current structure and framework of our society, the ‘jungle’ mentality is quite evident. The recent accident on the mount rosser road captures it all. A media report reveals that “In a matter of minutes a horde of looters converged on the scene and, with scant disregard for the safety of the driver, began emptying the storage area of the truck.”

The driver of the truck states that, "they were more concerned about looting the goods than about helping me. Only a few wondered aloud if the driver was not injured. I am glad neither me or anyone else was injured". The report further states, “It did not take long before the truck was emptied. The looters were still not satisfied. They then turned their attention to scrapping the truck and removed the front and back right wheels before emptying the gas tank.” With this ‘jungle’ mentality parading within our society, is it not palpable that Jamaica might be in a state beyond repair? This virus of a mentality is slowly spreading and consuming our people as a parasite feeding on its host.

There has been a prevalent increase in the method by which we seek justice. From the 8 y-old that was killed in St. Thomas, to a woman that was recently killed in a corporate area in Kingston, we hear of how persons take it upon themselves to administer sentences in which they deem right – ‘jungle justice.’ In this system of justice, you are guilty before you are tried. Then again, why not go down that route if we believe that our current justice system is deformed? Would I be correct to say that to the typical man, justice is fiction – something that the majority talks about but it’s not real? Why then would jungle justice be automatic in the case where a person is in wrong?

Education and Poverty

I have heard this statement quite often, ‘poverty is a state of mind.’ This means, you are poor if your mind tells you so. Recently, one of my colleagues and I were discussing the poverty issue. She maintained that poverty is a state of mind while I was trying to convince her that it is not – it is structure of the status quo. Either way, it is a national problem. A study conducted by member of the American Counselling Association and the Association of Adventist Family Life Professional Dr Alanzo Smith, reveals that, some 1.1 million Jamaicans are living below the poverty line, fuelling an intergenerational crisis. This means of a population of 2.7 million people, over 1 million is living below the poverty line, which is approximately 40.7 per cent.

Additionally the unemployment rate continues to rise. Within this context, education is highlighted as the priority. Dr. Grace Virtue, a public affairs practitioner, social policy analyst and social justice advocate, reports that “Development studies have long identified education as the key to eradicating poverty and alleviating the dysfunctions with which we struggle.” The Ministry of Education has indicated that between the University of the West Indies and the University of Technology, more than 6,000 undergraduate students are expected to graduate this year. Moreover, we consider our Teachers’ Colleges as well as other tertiary institutions. Out of that amount, how many will actually get jobs?

Students are told to get into professions that are of high demand, but one has to consider this fact – not everyone will be a pharmacist, doctor, lawyer or chemists. It’s often said that ‘links’ get you far, so what if you have no ‘links,’ what happens then? Poverty has become so absolute, that even our children, who is our future, are forced into prostitution as a means of survival. Not that they do not want to be educated, they just cannot afford it. People will do whatever it takes to make it, even if it means destroying their own. The reality is this; the current status quo defines a jungle, where ‘survival of the fittest’ becomes the pilot of our minds.

Kenroy Davis is an educator and commentator on social issues. Email feedback to: kenroy.davis20@gmail.com

Patwa vs. English saga

The Patois vs. English has become a common discussion for various academics. Regular Observer columnists have also conveyed their views on the matter, among them are Dr. Franklin Johnston and Dr. Grace Virtue. Though they may not be parallel on the issue, both have good substance to offer. As far as the discussion may takes us, it is important to note that nobody is disputing the fact that persons must learn English, as it is the universal language of commerce and communication. However, I hope that we will also note that Patois or the Jamaican Creole is unique to us, and it plays an important part of our cultural heritage.

The students’ performance English Language CSEC exams, is about 63.7 per cent. The reports revealed that students understand the language but are weak in expression. What is this saying to us? It is simply saying that students’ have problems expressing themselves in the language. Since the exams is in written form, what about their ability to speak the language? There was an argument that is proposing that just as Spanish; English Language should have an oral component of the examination. Will that prove to be effective? Who knows? It may or may not be. Dr. Franklin Johnston in his observer column was emphasizing the fact that politicians and celebrities should be role models for others to speak the language (English), but he failed to acknowledge an inconsequential aspect, that is, the home.

Studies have shown that a baby can learn up to five languages simultaneously. With that being established, if we want to see people communicating ‘properly’ it starts from the home. Eventually a baby will grow up speaking the language that is predominantly used within the home. I can share from experience about a family that attends my church. Both parents speak the Jamaican Creole predominantly, but when I heard their children speak, I was marveled. I literally asked them if their children were in the US, but to my surprise, they said no. What they did, was to expose their children to a television station called, if my memory serves right, ABC kids.

Am I saying that we should eliminate the use the Jamaican Creole? I will never suggest that. The Jamaican creole plays a significant role in our cultural heritage. It has been passed down from generations; it is unique to us as a people. Others are fascinated by our language. What I have realized though, is that there is a stigma attached to speaking the language. Many times I have heard this question, “how yuh chat bad suh?” In some cases, those who speak the language are viewed ‘buttoos’.

The Language (Jamaican Creole) is, at times, associated to those who are of low status in society. I am not afraid to own the language and nobody should. I will publicly acknowledge that the Jamaican Creole is my first language. English is important and so is Patois. I will suggest that we should develop mastery of the English Language and use it when it is indeed necessary. At the same time, let us not view the Jamaican Creole as a problem, or that something is wrong with it, for some things I can say in the Jamaica Creole will not have the same effect if spoken in the English Language. Nah mean?  

Kenroy Davis is an educator and commentator on social issues. Email feedback to: kenroy.davis20@gmail.com

Violence, abuse, suicide, not the answer!

The content of a recent news article “Gruesome murder of a helpful teacher” should be a case of national concern. I must confess that I am overwhelmed by the status quo, as there are so many social issues affecting us locally and even nationally. Our crime rate is one of the major issues affecting us as a country. With Jamaica labeled as being the murder capital of the world, can we say that we have anything to boast about?

My concern is that our men are troubled and more needs to be done to swiftly address it, else we will hear about more ghastly murders. The article mentioned that: “Grossett was involved in a dispute with her common-law husband about 9:30 pm when a knife was brought into play and she was stabbed several times.” There was a dispute, and the solution was violence, what is that saying about our Jamaican men? Recently a mother and her two sons were also killed, and it is alleged she was also in dispute with the killer, whom she had relations with.

We have also heard of cases where two policemen committed suicide and based on the nature of the cases, it could be interpreted that they had relationship problems. Another case highlights the fact that a pregnant woman was beheaded by her partner. All these cases convey the end results of how our men are dealing with relationship problems. It seems that violence and suicide have predominately become the mode by which our men deal with their relationship problems and that is of much concern. This not only put our women in danger, but also our children. Additionally, in the case that children are left behind, it may have severe psychological implications.

This problem is nothing new, though recently it has become more prevalent. I think it is indicative of how our men are socialized. Psychological Theorist such as Lev Vygosky informed us that children are born tabula rasa, which means, in a blank state. As such, he believed strongly that community plays a central role in the process of "making meaning." Therefore, the home, school, community and socialization impact behaviors. So when our young men are socialized in such a way in which, beating and abusing women is the norm, their mother and father has issues and their father resort to abusing their mother, this eventually become wired or conditioned in their minds and they grow up believing that is the way to solve relationship problems.

I think that our men should be educated in the area of conflict resolution and anger management. We need to be aware that violence is not the solution, in fact, it makes the situation worse. If we ought to curb this problem so as to cease the past from repeating itself, then we need to first target our young men. They need to know that violence is not the answer. Moreover, our men need psychological help. A recent study by the World Health Organization (WHO) reveals that suicide is one of the leading cause of adolescent deaths in the Western Hemisphere. Therefore if we see in signs of trouble or depression in our men, we need to recommend psychological help. It should not be perceived that "he is a man, he can deal with it."  

If abuse, violence and suicide is the way we choose to deal with our problems as men, then that is manifesting that we are weak and not the other way around. We should aim to eliminate the misconception that is parading within our society that when one abuse women that makes one a man, ludicrous! If we ought to get this done, it is going to be a community, society and national effort. We need to reach that point when we can realize that violence, suicide and abuse is not the answer.  

Kenroy Davis is an educator and commentator on social issues. Email feedback to: kenroy.davis20@gmail.com

Repeal the abortion law, really?

Sunday May 11, 2014, being mother’s day, I can imagine the amount of events that were kept and mother’s wishes in acknowledging and appreciating our mothers for their hard work and dedication. We also reflect on the fact that it is a child that gives women the status of a mother, whether by conception or adoption. However, we also consider the fact that MP Dr. Dayton Campbell in his contribution to the sectoral debate stated that the abortion debate needs to be revived and also repealed.

According to Dr. Campbell, “he was not proposing abortion as a means of contraception, nor that mere poverty should be a reason for it. He said it was of paramount importance that the adoption laws be revised, so that the service can be legally and professionally available to women.” Then if it is that it should not be used as a means of contraception nor poverty as a reason, then what is the purpose for revising it? On what basis should it be professionally and legally available to women?

Abortion activists proposed that nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb. So, should we accept that abortion be done ‘only’ in the first trimester? What about conjoin twins, where one maybe dependent upon the other for survival, should we kill the one that is dependent because it cannot survive independent of his/her sibling? People who are on life machines, should we kill them because they cannot survive independent of the machine? Is it that the more dependent you are, the more vulnerable you are to be killed?

I think what Dr. Campbell is really saying is that we should scrutinize the issue, weigh the pros and cons and decide whether or not the cons really outweigh the pros. But really, what are the pros? If it is that the abortion law is revised, what do we hope to achieve? Aren't there issues that are more important than debating abortion? Dr. Campbell is disguising the truth, what other purpose is there to revise the abortion law if not as a means of contraception or that poverty is the reason?

He said that poor women are in need of the service. In 2008, it cost between J$15000-$20000 to do an abortion, how much is it now? If they cannot find money to buy basic necessities, in these tough economic times where are they going to find the money to do an abortion? Will it be on the onus of tax payers to finance it, as is the case in some countries? In that same year the abortion rate in Jamaica (number of abortions per 1,000 women age 15-44 per year) lies between 31,251 and a 51,875. That would mean that approximately J$778,125,000 was spent on abortion (killing babies) per 1000 women. That is a lot of money. But one may reason, why bring a child into world if one is not financially and psychologically prepared? Will it not add to the poverty statistics?

Studies show that abortion leads to child abuse, and currently, the child abuse rate has increased by 40 per cent. LifeSiteNews.com reported on October 24, 2005: A new study published in the medical journal Acta Paediatrica has found that women who have had an abortion are 2.4 times more likely to physically abuse their children. The study, led by Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University, looked at data taken from a survey of 518 low-income women in Baltimore who were receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children and who had at least one child aged 12 years or younger. The data compared rates of child abuse and neglect among women who had experienced either an involuntary (miscarriage or stillbirth) or voluntary (induced abortion) pregnancy loss. Is this what we really want?

Kenroy Davis is an educator and commentator on social issues. Email feedback to: kenroy.davis20@gmail.com

Our Prime Minister needs to do a course in "Public Speaking"

A recent news report by the CVM has yet again caught the attention of the populace. This is not a ‘cliftwang’ incident nor is it a ‘thirty thousand dresser’ incident; it is our prime minister embarrassing herself after a reporter asked her a question about the tax levy. Our prime minister has been chastised from the time she made this statement: “mi nuh fraida no man, no gyal, nuhwhere!” Her behaviors overtime have been questioned by the masses and I am led to ask the question, is this type of leader we want to lead our country?

Portia Simpson-Miller has made history, being the first female prime minister in Jamaica and this is a significant achievement that cannot be overlooked. She has been an inspiration to many Jamaican females and she has also gain the respect of many men. Most recently, Prime Minister Simpson Miller was inducted into the International Women’s Forum (IWF) Hall of Fame at the IWF Leadership Conference in Vancouver, Canada. The IWF said the award was in recognition of the “incredible impact that women of courage, creativity and passion have made towards improving society, inspiring others and building better leadership in the world”.

Her educational background includes Union Institute and University of Miami, Florida (BA Public Administration); Jamaica Institute of Management/University of California, Berkeley (certificate in Advanced Management); Harvard (Executive Programme for Leaders in Development at the John F Kennedy School of Government). Therefore, how is it that she cannot put herself together and deliver a good speech?

Though she has been recognized internationally for her achievements and impact she has on society, our prime minister however, is not perfect. During election time, G2K has put together a video that features our prime minister in her most embarrassing moments. Among them are the time when she was making a speech and it blew away and she could not move forward. This was embarrassing! Recently, she could hardly answer the question asked by the reporter, she was rambling, having not a clue what to say, this was indicative of ‘ignorance’. Not in the illiterate sense, but in the sense that she has no understanding of the levy, so she could not explain it. If that was the case she could have simply said so. However, we would want to know how is it that she being the prime minister did not understand the tax and its implications.

Our prime minister was also chastised for her 25 trips over the last two years which amount to about J$117.8 million. J$6.5 million was spent on a seven-day visit Ethiopia in May 2013 for the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Organisation of African States (OAS)/African Union. Her rationale was that ‘the African blood runs deep in my veins…’ it is also running in many of us veins, so why didn’t she take us? I do admire her for achievements, but time and time again she keeps embarrassing herself on national TV and it is not appealing. Our prime minister needs to demonstrate good public speaking skills because the state of our country is reflective of its leaders.  

Kenroy Davis is an educator and commentator on social issues. Email feedback to: kenroy.davis20@gmail.com

Teachers are not "miracle workers"

As an upcoming educator, I am very concern with Jamaica's current education system. For the longest while, our education system has being labeled as a 'failure' and to date, I am oblivious as to what has being done to eradicate that label. On the one hand, the onus is on teachers to ensure that their students' learn, while on the other hand, teachers are expected to teach students to more than merely 'pass exams.' There is no doubt that Jamaica lacks resources, and if that be the case, why then is there a burden on teachers to work 'miracles' in order to get students to learn? I am not insinuating that teachers do not have a role to play, but I am saying that burden cannot be solely on teachers. 

If the education system in Jamaica is a failure, are we to conclude that it is because of the teachers? I believe that education is very important but if the current system is a failure then Jamaica is doomed. An article was written by Dr. Grace Virtue, (February 18, 2014) in the Jamaica Observer, where she states "Development studies have long identified education as the key to eradicating poverty and alleviating the dysfunctions with which we struggle." So then if our education system is a failure, and studies have shown the impact of education on societies then we have failed as a country.

Wrong focus

Regardless of whatever factors influencing students' learning, the high expectation of teachers will still exist, and as such, teachers will continuously be the victims of chastisement of students’ failure. I would love to see an improved education system, however many persons are quick to label Jamaica's education system as 'failure' but they are unable to propose any solution. They are not focusing on the where the real problem lies; instead, they are blaming teachers for students failure. We measure the education system as failure based on the premise that students are not learning. If we maintain that learning is a change in behavior and students are not transformed, then no learning had taken place and if no learning as taken place, then students are bound to fail. 

More and more burden is being placed on teachers so much so that there is an argument that teachers should be paid based on performance. There are no resources available to schools, and if that is so, no resources are available to teachers. If it is that teachers are being blamed for students failing, then that implies that our education system will continue to be a failure because the focus is on the wrong thing, being channeled in the wrong direction. Please do not get me wrong, I am not saying that there aren't teachers out there who are lazy, irresponsible and careless, but teachers alone cannot transform Jamaica's education system.

Where the focus should be

From time to time, many statistics have revealed that many schools are failing schools. I figured more or less, that schools are labeled as failing because of students' performance in the CSEC exams. If schools are failing based on CSEC exams and teachers are being ask to teach students to more than merely pass exam, and they have to finish the syllabus within a certain time, wouldn't it be pressure on our teachers? I personally believe that the focus should be placed at the early childhood level as well as the primary level. 

In my opinion, both levels are directly proportional, that is, if the literacy level increases at the early childhood level, it would also increase at the primary level. When teachers at the secondary level receive students in high schools who cannot read or write, are teachers expected to work 'miracles' so that those students is able to be competent enough to sit an exam without proper resources? As I would continuously say I am not saying that we do not have teachers who incompetent for the profession but even if every teacher has a PH.D, teachers alone cannot transform the education system. 

In essence, I am saying that we as a country should focus on where the focus should be, our education system is a failure, but what is being done to resolve it? Instead of blaming teachers for students’ failure, schools' failure, which would imply blaming them for the failure of Jamaica’s education system, I suggest that we channel the attention to where the real problem lies and stop blaming teachers.

Kenroy Davis is an educator and a commentator on social issues. Email feedback to kenroy.davis20@gmail.com