She Bothered Me With Science (Beep Boop Beep)

Study: Gay men more likely to be right-handed

The link goes to an Edge Boston article describing a recent Canadian study on sexuality and manual dexterity. Specifically, the researchers found that gay men had higher rates of both left-handedness and extreme right-handedness. The implications of the study would potentially corroborate theories of homosexuality being related to developmental stressors during pregnancy. Having few or no older brothers also moderates the relationship between homosexuality and both left- and extreme right-handedness. All in all, it helps give more credence to the innateness of homosexuality.

So why include this in a portfolio about homophobia and heterosexism? For one, it seems like we as a culture should be questioning why we need scientific studies to prove that homosexuality is biologically determined. What would it mean if it wasn’t linked to genes or developmental stressors? What are the messages inherent in the cultural circulation of these research studies? Clearly, we (meaning Western culture) to be some sort of explanation as to why people would be gay, and the discursive value that our culture places on science and medicine illustrates the need for an official sanction for such deviant behavior.

I’m giving my very personal opinion, and although I value these scientific studies and find them interesting, I think that there is an assumption of biological essentialism. That is, this research maintains the notion that sexuality is inexorably linked to biology. And, undoubtedly, this is true to a considerable degree when looking at hormones, reproduction, et cetera. Yet, I think so much of our sexuality is socially constructed that focusing so intently on biology only serves to overlook these social meanings. For example, would these findings on handedness and homosexuality be applicable to other cultures or historical time periods? Homosexuality is a relatively recent and Western-centric identity, so I question just how applicable these findings are outside of the population studies. Not that it was the intent of the researchers to have universally applicable results, but I think that is how sexuality is often viewed; as unchanging no matter what the context.

So back to those pesky issues in the byline of the blog. Certainly, results like those of this study can help engender a greater acceptance of homosexuality by proving it does have a biological basis and is not merely some regrettable choice ten-ish percent of the population decided to make. Nonetheless, by giving so much clout to science and medicine on issues of homosexuality, we are basically reinforcing the normative status of heterosexuality. The converse of questioning the scientific basis for homosexuality is that the basis for heterosexuality goes unquestioned and accepted as normal. It’s kind of like disguising heterosexism in a white lab coat.