IN RECENT WEEKS the media have given wide exposure to the work of Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard. This coverage was justified. Bailey and Pillard provide powerful evidence for an hereditary component to homosexuality. While such a component has long been suspected, this work is the strongest argument for its existence.
However, the reports have almost universally misunderstood the meaning of Bailey and Pillard’s conclusions as they relate to the question of psychological normality or abnormality. The reports have interpreted the conclusions as effectively demonstrating the normality of homosexual behavior. This is incorrect.





Comments