Twins, with their shared biology and characteristically shared environment, have long been used to assist scientists in their eternal quest for answers. Now, with the possible existence of a “gay gene” hitting headlines and provoking controversy both inside and out of the GLBT community, twins are back under the microscope and feeling the heat.

There are two types of twins: Identical (monozygotic) twins hail from the same egg and share the exact same genetic makeup, while Fraternal (dizygotic) twins are formed from two different eggs, share a “twinned environment” in the womb, and are as genetically close as any other siblings – about a 50-percent match.

Individuals sharing the exact same DNA, often exposed to the same social environment and upbringing, are the perfect wet dream for professors hoping to unravel what creates differences between the two. For example, what causes one to be gay and the other straight?

The Gay & Lesbian Times asks: What can we learn from the experiences (and genetics) of both twins, where one or both are queer? Where do scientists place them on the nature vs. nurture scale? What does it mean for the future of the GLBT community, and how do gay twins feel about being a pawn in this battle over sexuality?

In 1991 Science magazine published research by Simon LeVay, which claimed to have found a group of neurons in gay men, during his study, which were twice as large as those found in heterosexual men. LeVay, a scientist at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, then suggested this group of neurons might be linked to sexual behavior, prompting discussion about the existence of a genetic key to unlock homosexuality.

However, LeVay also told Science magazine that of the 45 male cadavers he studied, he had “assumed” the sexual orientation of some of his subjects.

Amid mounting criticism, LeVay said, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way.” Which he added is, “The most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.”

Just five months after the LeVay study, another report claimed to have found a prevalence of homosexuality among twins, both identical and fraternal.

J. Michael-Bailey and Richard Pillard studied 56 pairs of identical twins where they knew at least one brother to be gay. Their study found that 52 percent of the identical twins were both gay, 22 percent of fraternal twins shared homosexuality, while only 11 percent of adopted brothers were likewise gay.

They repeated the survey three years later with twin sisters and found 48 percent of identical twins were both lesbian, while 16 percent of fraternal twins and 6 percent of adoptive sisters were also both lesbian.

These and subsequent studies purported a greater likelihood that if one twin or (to a lesser extent) sibling is gay, then the other is also gay, proving that genetics play a role in sexual orientation.

However, Michael-Bailey himself conceded that genetics may, in fact, have no impact on sexual orientation at all. He said, “In contrast to most prior twin studies of sexual orientation, ours did not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors for that trait.” He added, “This does not mean our results support heritability estimates of zero, though our results don’t exclude them either.”

One stridently obvious link between identical twins and sexuality continues to glare-down the statistics: If a gay gene existed, and homosexuality was entirely genetic in origin, then one would expect all identical twins to be either gay or straight, 100 percent either way for both twins. But then, as genealogists smartly agree, “the biology of a personality is much more complex than that.”

Anne Fausto-Sterling, professor of Biology and Women’s Studies at Brown University, stated that a truer test of biological sexuality would be in studying twins that had been raised apart. In her book Sexing the Body, Fausto-Sterling warns against simplifications when relating genetics to the masses.

“DNA or genes don’t make gene products; complex cells do. Put pure DNA in a test tube and it will sit there, inert, pretty much forever, [but] put DNA in a cell and it may do any number of things, depending in large part on the present and recent past histories of the cell in question,” Fausto-Sterling states.

Interestingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, three of the four most well-known researchers in this field are self-identified gay men.

The Gay & Lesbian Times interviewed four sets of twins, in which one or both are gay, to find out their views.

Steven Alix, a real estate professional from University Heights who is gay, and his straight brother, Scott, who lives in Clairemont, are identical twins that participated in the original Bailey-Pillard twins study back in 1991.

The Alix twins are identical, conceived from the same egg, but, uncommonly, matured in different birthing sacks rather than sharing one. They look strikingly similar, are attracted to similar traits in people, and, after some years apart, discovered an uncannily identical taste in home furnishings. But, it wasn’t until the twins study that they became comfortable with having differing sexualities and, subsequently, different life paths.

“We’ve always been very close,” Steven said, “but when we were growing up, our mom made sure we wore different colored clothes, had different interests and kept us separate [in that way]. When we reached about 16, we went our separate ways. I came out to my mom when I was 16, and she waited a few years before telling him for me.

“We didn’t talk about it, but I think he was worried that because we’re identical twins, it obviously meant he had to be gay too. At first, I didn’t think he’d be interested in doing the gay twins survey… but I think it satisfied his curiosity about why we were different in such a big way, when we were meant to be genetically identical. It wreaks havoc with other genetic theories.”

Scott admits he did initially struggle with Steven’s sexuality and began questioning his own because of their shared genetics. He said, “I was a little sensitive at first because I was years deep into the military, but he sometimes thought I had an issue with it when I didn’t. I was just quiet about it because I was in a military surrounding, and I didn’t want it to be a big, ongoing deal. I was never ashamed of him or afraid of it.

“We talked about it a lot, and for a good eight months I went through a period where I challenged myself, asking ‘Am I gay?’ I had to really make sure I understood that it was OK [that] we were just different in this way; that I was straight. I’m sure this was because we’re twins. On almost everything other than the fact that he’s gay and I’m straight, we’re identical. We think identically, we look identical; we’re very, very similar.”

Despite participating in Bailey and Pillard’s groundbreaking twins study, Scott disagrees with science’s quest for a gay gene. “I take a little offense to it,” he said. “I don’t feel it’s [homosexuality] chosen, and I don’t feel it has anything to do with being a twin or genetics. I think it’s 100 percent nature; according to all the studies, I must be gay too. I think [Steven and I] disprove that theory. They should be looking for more important things, anyway.”

Evan Cohler, 51, of Mission Hills, is estranged from his family and his identical twin brother, Carl, who is married with four children. Evan believes their estrangement could be, in part, blamed on his brother’s denial about his own sexuality.

“Growing up I had a built-in best friend in my brother. Until we were 17 and I moved to L.A., we were known as ‘the twins.’ I didn’t feel like I had my own identity; there was no separation between us,” Evan said.

“When we were in junior high we both played with the girls, so when we got to high school, it was the boys that were a mystery to us, like the girls were a mystery to the straight boys.

“When we were younger, 13 or 14, we tended to talk about guys a lot, the same type of locker-room talk, confiding about which guys looked better. Obviously, it goes through my mind whether he is or isn’t [gay]. Sexuality is such a huge area, from the extremes of heterosexuality and homosexuality, there’s so much gray area in-between…[and] some people come out much later in their life,” Evan said.

Although Evan believes his twin may have hidden bi-curious tendencies despite a long-lasting marriage to his high school sweetheart, Evan’s more cautious at pointing the finger at genetics.

“I really see my gayness as more social, environmental, although I believe genetics play a role,” he said. “I’m all for science, but if they [geneticists] are looking for a way to ‘fix’ something, then obviously that’s not right.”

Except for Evan, all of the other twins we interviewed revealed that the coming-out process has brought them closer together, regardless of whether one or both twins are gay.

Doug and David Coats, 36, both from South Park, were childhood members of the Twins Club. Early participants in twin studies, the brothers that once wore T-shirts stating, “His Name Is Doug” and “His Name Is David,” now enjoy sharing the same GLBT family despite differing sexualities.

Doug said, “In our small town, we were know as ‘the twins,’ and we were definitely given special treatment. Everyone in town knew who we were. It was kind of exciting. I didn’t ever feel lonely, because I always had my brother.”

Then the twins graduated, and Doug left to fulfill ambitions in Europe, leaving David behind. “We’ve never been those twins that have to do absolutely everything together,” Doug said, “[but] we needed to separate and have that time on our own.”

After the split, the brothers experienced a dazzling moment of psychic twin kinship. What was at the time an apparently baseless question, popped into David’s mind.

“We were about 22 or 23 years old at a friend’s house and it just hit me,” David explained. “All of a sudden, I turned to him [Doug] and just asked, ‘Are you gay?’ He said yes, and we talked a bit about it, but it wasn’t a big deal. That was at a time when he wasn’t very open and, based on nothing, I just realized. I find that very interesting.”

He added, “If anything it’s brought us closer together. It gave me a new perspective and made me think about who I am and about my own bi-curiosity. I think a lot of people presume [we have the same sexuality], but it’s society that puts a big thing on being this way or that.”

Doug agrees that his coming out is probably what prompted his twin to question his own sexual identity. “I think he is curious about being gay merely because he has a gay brother,” Doug said. In fact, the twins have discovered they not only seek out partners that share similar traits, but also share the same sexual turn-ons.

“We’re attracted to the same type of person, and even what we lust over are similar things in terms of fetishes; what he likes to do sexually with girls, I like to do but with guys,” Doug revealed.

“Sometimes it feels like he’s gay too, or that I could be straight in that it doesn’t affect our relationship,” he continued. “Sexuality can feel like such a small difference between us. Everyone assumes you would both be either gay or straight. I don’t know if I believe people can be ‘turned gay’ by their environment. I think we’re born like this; I think there is a certain gay gene.”

Steven Alix agreed that for twins with a close and supportive relationship, what they have in common far outweighs any differences over sexual orientation.

He said of his brother, Scott, “We definitely look for the same characteristics in people we date. Funnily enough, the straight girls go for me more, and the gay boys like him!” he laughed. “Now we’re comfortable with each other’s lives; we spend equal time with each other’s gay and straight friends. Now we don’t even recognize a difference.”

For Doug and David Coats, it’s specifically their similarity that has gotten them, or more often other people, in hot water thanks to mistaken identity.

“People think he’s me when we’re at gay bars all the time,” Doug confides. “They’ll come up and slap him hard on the ass and then realize he’s my brother and get really embarrassed. He doesn’t care, but they’re really taken aback. We think it’s funny!”

If having one gay twin in the family causes a commotion, how do families and society react to twins that are both gay?

Margot Kelley, 27, of Hillcrest, and her fraternal twin brother, Ryan, of University Heights, may be queer twins, but they grew up following distinctly different paths. Ryan was the quieter, left-handed, “good kid,” while Margot was the right-handed, rebellious, defiant teen, who came out to her family at the age of 15.

“About that time [when I came out] we weren’t very close,” Margot said, “so we didn’t really talk about it much until he came out to me [age 19]. I think maybe it did bring up questions about his own sexuality. Then he went away to college and one day e-mailed me and said, ‘Hey, I’m gay!’ Once my brother came out, we got a lot closer. I think it opened the door for better communication between us.”

Born from a “liberal, open” family, Margot’s sexuality was accepted by her mom, dad and older sister without much fanfare, but Ryan’s outing as gay a few years later was greeted with much greater family apprehension.

“Our parents don’t view being gay as being wrong, so it wasn’t that,” Margot said, “but more that they were scared for their kids. It affected our mom differently. She knew that being gay is a lot harder than being straight, [and] because he’s a boy, she worried about AIDS and things like that. It was much harder for her, especially.”

Interestingly, Ryan recounts his coming out differently, and recalls being accepted by the family with very little parental reaction. “They were really cool about it, maybe because they had already dealt with any issues they might have had when Margot came out,” Ryan said.

Unlike the Alixs and Coats twins, Ryan feels his twin had little to do with the self-examination of his sexuality. “I don’t think I had that realization until I was a teenager. With Margot, I kind of suspected (in her early teens), but I don’t think it was necessarily because of Margot’s coming out; it didn’t have a conscious affect on me. It didn’t prompt me to ask that I might be gay because we’re twins, and no one said that or implied it either.

“I feel my own coming out was still a very personal thing.” However, he added, “It’s interesting that she came out as bisexual at first, because when I first came out to myself, I took the same route. Then I realized I’m gay and came out to everyone as gay.”

As fraternal twins, sharing the same amount of genes as non-twinned siblings, it may come as no surprise that Margot and Ryan lean more to the belief of sexuality being primarily constructed, rather than hereditary.

Margot, who now performs for the San Diego (Drag) Kings Club, said, “I think it’s a mixture. Maybe there are genes that give you a blueprint [for sexuality], but if you’re in an environment where people are accepting of you, I think you’re freer to explore who you want to be and not be repressed about it.”

Ryan agrees with his sister and is glowing with admiration for her drag king performances. “I really like that Margot is such an individual and unique, and that she doesn’t place restrictions on her sexuality,” he said. “She’s free to be who she is; I think it’s cool. I support her drag king stuff, it’s great.”

He is less reserved about whether there could be a gay gene, but concerned what scientists could do with such blueprints. “I’m concerned about any genetic engineering of children. I don’t think parents should be able to choose the eye color or sexuality of their child. If scientists are finding cures for life-saving diseases to treat a child before it’s born, then that’s different, but if it’s perceived that homosexuality is a disease to be cured, then that should be stopped. That’s very worrying,” he said.

However, he also acknowledges such a genetic breakthrough could transform the GLBT community in a positive way. “I think it would help a lot of people who are on the fence with homosexuality,” he said, “if they know it’s something scientists have proven [that] sexuality’s something that can’t be changed. That might make people more accepting.”

Both of the Kelleys believe their sexuality has been an advantage for their relationship. “Because we’re both in the same community, it really does bring us closer together,” Margot said. “We feel more comfortable talking together about our relationships, and in more detail than we would with our older sister or our parents. We can understand where each other are coming from more. Maybe part of that is being a twin, but part of that is also experiencing the same lifestyle.”

The nature vs. nurture debate has been raging for hundreds of years, beginning at the turn of the 20th century when Western doctors carried out the first autopsies and peered within the body for answers to external, behavioral actions.

The end of the 19th century was a pivotal period in which homosexuality was identified as a medical condition: identifiable in certain individuals rather than a sinful behaviour.

“Sexual inversion” was the preferred term of Victorian doctors, who believed homosexuality was caused by a reversal of “maleness” or “femaleness” within the body of lesbian and gay people, resulting in their same-sex attraction; confusing socially-taught gender roles with sexual desire.

Sigmund Freud introduced psychoanalysis and the nurture angle in 1905 with his incestuous Oedipus complex, blaming family dynamics for steering an individual’s sexual desire. Further advancement came 40 years later with Alfred Kinsey’s studies that encompassed a vast range of queer experiences rather than baseless theories. His findings pointed to a far broader spectrum of sexuality than was previously understood, rather than simply homosexual or heterosexual, this or that.

However, once homosexuality had been struck from the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual of mental disorders (known as DSM) in 1973, the medical establishment turned its attention to DNA and genetics to unlock the illusive code for homosexuality.

Whether it’s genetics or environment, or a complex mixture of the two that creates a sexual blueprint, will these scientific discoveries advance causes for the GLBT community?

Derision from eminent professors, and even cautious detractions from the authors of twin studies, have done little to slow the momentous tidal wave of belief in, and hunger to discover, the genetic essence of queerness.

Why is this topic causing such a commotion in both the straight and queer communities? What does it mean for our community if the gay gene turned out to be one of life’s quirky red herrings? What then?

The weightily-titled Columbia Reader on Lesbians & Gay Men in Media, Society and Politics (1999) highlights a warning flag in scientists’ desire to find the cause for homosexuality.

The article “Causes and Cures: The Etiology Debate” warns, “What causes homosexuality? The question may be unanswered (or unanswerable), because it itself is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the phenomenon. By asking what causes homosexuality, we define it as a problem to be solved. Heterosexuality is taken for granted, it needs no particular explanation.”

Anne Fausto-Sterling agrees. She said, “But what does it mean to speak of gay genes or genes for some other complex behavior? I think the language [used by scientists] not only fails to illuminate the issues at hand; it gives us cataracts.”

The Columbia Reader proposes that a biological key to unlocking queerness may well be a double-edged sword for the gay community. It argues that “biological determinism” could on the one hand dismantle homophobia, negating choice or blame from sexual orientation. A gay gene would debunk conservative and religious-held arguments that homosexuality is unnatural behavior against nature’s intended path.

This is also likely to elevate sexuality into the realms of other predisposed human variations, such as race, sex and age, for which it is becoming socially and, in many cases, legally unacceptable to discriminate against.

On the other hand, what if sexuality is proven to be environmentally constructed? Would that mean GLBT people would then not deserve full civic equality? Isn’t the fact that we exist enough proof that we all, in all our splendid diversity, are part of nature’s plan?

The Columbia Reader concludes, “Open and visible queers proclaiming their right to slide up and down the Kinsey continuum challenge the assumption that the world is divided into sheep and goats. Heterosexism keeps us all in closets of restricted choices.”

Kay Diaz, in her article in the Columbia Reader, declares, “Gay white men who previously [until AIDS] considered themselves relatively privileged, began to… realize as blacks and women have long known, that science is not always friendly. It’s no accident that the ‘powers that be’ find solace in hearing gay biology is destiny. They want a cure.”