The Guardian Revisits Hair Whorls

Timothy Kincaid

September 15th, 2009

hair whorlThe Guardian has an article today revisiting the somewhat unorthodox study of Dr. Amar J S Klar and his observations about hair whirls.

Dr. Klar is a geneticist working at the National Cancer Institute in Frederick, Maryland. One day on vacation he ended up on a gay beach. And there he noticed a peculiarity: gay men seemed to have counter-clockwise hair-whorls more frequently than could be expected. Far more frequently.

So the next year he went back and checked again. And, yep, gay men have gay hair.

He reports that “altogether in a combined sample of 272 mostly gay men observed, 29.8% exhibited counterclockwise hair-whorl orientation”. This, he says, is “vastly different from the value of 8.4% counterclockwise rotation found in the public at large, which included both males and females”.

Although Klar’s paper, Excess of Counterclockwise Scalp Hair-Whorl Rotation in Homosexual Men (pdf), was published in 2004, it didn’t seem to catch much attention in the gay community or among mainstream media. In fact, I don’t know whether psychologist Richard Lippa was entirely aware of Klar’s paper when he conducted similar research at Long Beach Pride in 2007 (his results – 23% counterclockwise).

Although none of this is new, it is important. One of the primary arguments against gay equality is that it is not biological in origin and thus is mutable. There is no gay gene! You can change! (So you don’t deserve civil rights!)

And as part of their argument, many anti-gays will create interesting hypotheses as to how physical distinctions are created without biology. Recently some NARTH affiliates sought to discredit measured brain variances by arguing that the brain is plastic and therefore such differences were the result of conditioning based on behavior.

But hair whorls, well there’s just no way to learn ’em. They’re pure biology. And there’s just no credible way to explain them away.


September 15th, 2009

So who went to check in the mirror after reading this? Whats it called when you just have a line zigzagging from your forehead to where the whorl is in those photos?
PS: if clockwise is straight, and counterclockwise is gay, does that mean this is the hair of a bisexual?


September 15th, 2009

So long as having a clockwise whorl doesn’t mean I have to turn straight….


September 15th, 2009

Well.. I comb in a clockwise direction but I remember a barber telling me once I was combing it the wrong way so I guess it’s counterclockwise.

This and the finger length correlation are quite the curiosities..


September 15th, 2009

Taking a somewhat more serious turn here…say that there was no gay gene, that gay men could indeed change.

Why would they not deserve civil rights?

It’s wrong to discriminate against someone because they’re a Democrat or a Presbyterian, and they can change that.

So how can the anti-gays claim that gays can be discriminated against if there’s no biological basis for sexual identity?

Timothy Kincaid

September 15th, 2009


Good question. And the answer is, of course that absent religious condemnation there is no good reason to discriminate against gay people at all regardless of whether orientation lies in biology or just momentary whim.

But biological bases for orientation go further than just political arguments. Behind all of the “there is no gay gene” claims lies a deeper concern, a religious concern.

If one becomes gay by means of genetics or other biological reasons… then God did it. YIKES!!! That scares the bejeebers out of those who justify their biases by their dogma.

Now they’ll say that God also makes all people and that because of the fall of man and sin entering the world that humans are flawed. So it doesn’t justify sin if you have a sinful genetic flaw. But their dirty little secret is that they really don’t believe it.

Anti-gays know – and polls confirm – that if people believe that orientation is inborn then they support gay rights. Even the conservative religious folks who believe its inborn.

So studies like these, while whimsical, are extremely effective tools at changing hearts and minds.


September 15th, 2009

It hasn’t caught up because it’s junk science. Pretty poorly conducted process. It’s already been dismissed over countless science-interested websites.

There is no gay gene. It’s most likely a cooperation of many genes. Finding out the exact workings is not only rather far away given how much uncovered field there is in genetics, but also based on the fact that the US– the country with the most concentrated research in the globe– will not see any funding to research of this type. There’s nothing particularly lucrative about such research, and it can only court controversy and political interference toward the scientists involved.


September 15th, 2009

No one demands to know whether heterosexuals innately behave heterosexually or chooses to. It is oppressive to constantly demand to know whether gay people genetically are gay or not. Plus, it won’t move the vast majority of heterosexuals to sympathize with gay people. They already hate us and believe we deserve less or no rights at all.


September 15th, 2009

Funny, semi-related YouTube..


September 15th, 2009

Note: When ‘phobes bring out the “The identical twin of a gay person has only a 50% chance of being gay!” shtick, the response to that is “The average person has a 5% chance of being gay, so a person with a gay twin is ten times more likely to be gay, isn’t that right?”

Doesn’t have to be genetic to be biological.


September 15th, 2009

Sigh. Another study that makes no effort to include women at all. So freaking typical. If I were a scientist, I might be inclined to study the other half of the human race every now and then… just for kicks and giggles, of course.

Emily K

September 15th, 2009

I agree with Elise. The majority of sexual-related science has been conducted concerning men, even though the male and female psycho-sexualities are apples and oranges. And among gay research, mostly it’s men that get talked about, studied, and sensationalized. Only now have scientists realized “huh, maybe women ARE different from men in their brains and stuff.”

Leonard Drake

September 15th, 2009

Elise, and ALL interested readers:

There have been some WONDERFUL studies concerning homosexuality and bisexuality in women, comparitive studies regarding female sexualities over time (i.e. age) and possibile explanations from a psychoevolutionary perspective — all by Lisa Diamond. She is currently at the University of Utah, I believe. She also discusses why there are fewer studies focused on women, including sexism, heterosexism, and the particular issues that female sexualities bring to play within these fields of research completely unreleated to the “-isms.”

Specifically, I would suggest the following:

Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Leonard Drake

September 15th, 2009

Let me add to the previous comment. There have been studies conducted regarding female [homo]sexualities by others within the scientific communities — not just Lisa Diamond, but she is a foremost expert on the topic.

It has been a few years since I have studied on this topic (at least extensively), but I do recall female sexualities tend to report — via the study results — as more fluid and variable throughout age. Male sexualities, on the other hand, TEND to report as consistent, steady, and polar toward heterosexual or homosexual. Rateds of male bisexuality, while reported, were much lower than that of female bisexuality. Lisa Diamond also incorporated a cross-national perspective into her study, whereby cross cultural “understandings” of how homosexuality is reported is also taken into account is also reported (i.e. not just western or occidental “gay” or “lesbian” hegemonical constructions of sexualities).

mobile hairdresser

September 15th, 2009

As a hairdresser, I find this article fascinating.


September 16th, 2009

I’m going out in a few minutes to have my hair cut. Will my barber notice that I’m gay?


September 16th, 2009

My hair’s too short to check myself.

Never fear, heterosexists will find an excuse to justify their beliefs. Maybe they’ll say everyone is “born” with clockwise hair and the hair must change as their mothers overbear and fathers underbear.

I think Jones and Yarhouse should include the hair patterns of their ex-gays. If their orientation has changed, their hair should change too, right?


September 16th, 2009

Interesting. What about those of us with 2 whirls in our hair? One on the left goes one way, one on the right goes the other. And this is also not uncommon. I’m pretty sure I’m not bi!


September 16th, 2009

I have a double whorl! What can this mean? Lol.

On a more serious note, Alan, Timothy and others here might find interest in these articles by Peter Tatchell (a well known human rights activist in the UK) re. homosexuality being genetic or not and the implications of this:

(Scroll down the left hand sidebar to “gay gene”. The article titled “Gene Genie” is probably the most relevant of the bunch.)

Chris McCoy

September 16th, 2009

Ivan wrote:

On a more serious note, Alan, Timothy and others here might find interest in these articles by Peter Tatchell (a well known human rights activist in the UK) re. homosexuality being genetic or not and the implications of this

While Mr Tatchell does make several salient points, he falls into the same trap as the “gay gene” proponents he aims to discredit – that genes are on/off switches – that the presence or absence of “the gay gene” is all that it would take, if there was a genetic cause for homosexuality.

If the on/off idea of genetics were true, every person with green eyes would have the same color of green, every blue eyed person would have the same color of blue – because this “eye color” gene would be either “on” or “off”.

In reality, genes often work in groups – this set of genes works together to determine which shade of green, that group of genes works together to determine which shade of hair color, another group of genes determine your height.

Some genes, when present, work to inhibit the expression of other groups of genes, or to change the result so that is is different than if the one group were not present.

We are complex people, we humans, and to think that we can point to one spot and say “there, that’s the one” is naive at best. To say that a single on/off switch is solely responsible for the gamut of human sexuality is to exhibit a gross lack of understanding of the complexity of the genetic code, but at the same time to pretend that genetics has no role, or a limited role, is also to misunderstand the significance of genetics in the makeup of our bodies.

That being said, I agree with Mr Tatchell on the main thrust of his argument – that the cause of homosexuality shouldn’t matter – that we shouldn’t point to genetics and say “pity us, we can’t help being gay” – we should fight for our right to be treated the same as all other human beings because it is the right thing to do, not because we are victims of some unfortunate genetic curse. In the end, it shouldn’t matter who or what or how we are gay. It should be a non-issue – like being left handed, or red haired.

Timothy Kincaid

September 16th, 2009

It should be a non-issue – like being left handed, or red haired.

Yes, indeed, it should be.

But it will not be until orientation is perceived as innate and immutable… like being left handed or red haired.

Orientation is likely based to some extent in genetics (the latest twin studies suggest as much as a 50% contribution) and the rest is either biological or non-biological environmental influences. Some suggest that these are pre-natal but in any case they are determined early and do not seem to be changeable by means of therapy or other efforts.

“Born gay” and “gay gene” are inaccurate shorthand for arguing ideology.

Timothy Kincaid

September 16th, 2009

Incidentally, guys. Immutability plays a roll in law. It is one of the factors which goes into whether a subpopulation is a suspect class. It is one of the questions that the judge asked in the Olson/Boies lawsuit to overturn Proposition 8.

Richard W. Fitch

September 16th, 2009

The question should also clarify the difference between immutable and suppressible. I had an uncle (b. 1909) who showed dominant left-handedness. As a child and a student he was forced to write with his right hand. Years later he rejected the whole thing and resumed his left handed nature. His script was beautiful – he was the one who was always asked to inscribe our various presentation Bibles. [You can draw out the rest of the anecdote.]


September 16th, 2009


Thanks for the comments.

Peter Tatchell (who over the last 30 years has gone from Being ‘a threat to society’ etc. to ‘a national treasure’ via a spectacular but ill-fated attempt to arrest Robert Mugabe) does some fine work and I hope you find time to have a look at some of the other stuff on his site.

In the meantime, back on the subject in hand, I’ve just remembered this interesting article from The Economist a while back:

Of course, having said all this, it’s religion, the source of so much anti-gay rhetoric, that is without doubt a lifestyle choice.

Jed Gumban

October 11th, 2011

I currently doing my Journal Critique as one of the requirements in our genetics..and this is the topic that I choose..thanks for all the comments..It helped me a lot to criticize this give me so many ideas.! :D

Payday Loans

December 12th, 2012

Guys, thanks for the info and debate.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts


Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.