Biological Research on Women's Sexual Orientations: Evaluating the Scientific Evidence

Journal of Social Issues, Summer, 2000 by Rosemary C. Veniegas, Terri D. Conley

Two Contrasting Perspectives on Biological Research on Sexual Orientation

The antigay perspective. Those who oppose legal protections for sexual minorities believe that homosexuality reflects a deficiency, abnormality, or deviation from the desirable standard of heterosexuality. Biological research findings about the origins of sexual orientation are interpreted through this lens. Bem (1997, p. 7) suggested that if science identifies biological determinants of sexual orientation, "those who hold antigay attitudes would conclude that being gay is like having a congenital physical disability or an inborn tendency toward schizophrenia or alcoholism." For those who view sexual minorities negatively, biological research into the causes of sexual orientation could lead to corrective interventions such as the selective abortion of "gay" fetuses (Burr, 1996; Schuklenk, Stein, Kerin, & Byne, 1997). Conversely, antigay activists may cite the failure to find biological causes for sexual orientation as proof that homosexuality is socially determined or chosen. Such an interpretation has been used to argue that homosexuality can and should be changed through reparative therapy or religious intervention (Haldeman, 1994).

The progay perspective. Those who seek to extend legal protections to sexual minorities and to reduce prejudice and discrimination bring a different interpretive lens to the debate. They reject a deficiency model of homosexuality and view sexual minorities as falling within the wide arc of human variation. Bern (1997, p. 7) suggested that "those who hold progay attitudes would conclude that being gay is like being left-handed," a natural variation in human sexual expression. Some hope that acceptance of biological explanations will minimize concerns about "contagion and recruitment, because one cannot catch or be persuaded to adopt a genetic trait" (Bohan, 1996, p. 89). For example, people who believe in biological causes for sexual orientation also tend to hold more positive attitudes toward homosexuality (Whitley, 1990). Additionally, if sexual orientation is immutable, some argue that sexual minorities deserve the same legal protection as ethnic minorities (Stein, 1994). Other progay activists are leery o f biological explanations for a variety of reasons. Some people fear that biological research will be used to harm sexual minorities, as in the case of selective abortions. Some people are concerned about increased pressures for gay individuals to interpret their personal life experiences in biological terms, perpetuating the dichotomization of sexual orientation as homosexual versus heterosexual. Still others worry that the reliance on biological explanations communicates a disempowering message. As one lesbian commentator (Van Gelder, 1991, p. 87) put it, "it's easier for some of them to pity us as bearers of a genetic flaw than to respect us as sexual equals."

Special Issues for Women

The debate over the biological origins of sexual orientation has special significance for women. First, the subjective experiences of lesbians and gay men may differ. Van Gelder (1991, p. 86) observed, "virtually every self-identified gay man I've ever met has been convinced that his sexuality is a biological given, but lesbians are a mixed bag. The gay party line reflects the universal male experience in this culture, not the complexities of the lesbian world." Second, there is evidence that women's sexuality may be more culturally and contextually malleable than men's (Baumeister, in press). Third, the methodological strategy of dichotomizing women as either lesbian or heterosexual oversimplifies the realities of women's sexual identities. Lesbians are heterogeneous in terms of self-identification, participation in lesbian communities, level of disclosure, and relationships (Morris & Rothblum, 1999; Rothblum, this issue). The research we examined found that some heterosexual women had engaged in same-sex f antasy or had some same-sex sexual experiences. Further, as we discussed in detail, there is very little evidence that women's sexual orientation is substantially influenced by biological factors. In addition, for many women, including contemporary feminists, the issues of choice and personal control over all aspects of sexuality are particularly salient. Psychologist Carla Golden (1994, p. 58) wrote, "Feminism as a movement and feminist psychology as a discipline have both encouraged women to self-consciously examine their lives and experiences as women and to make conscious, informed decisions about what they need and want. Implicit in this encouragement is the view that women can choose how to live, sexually and otherwise." For women, exercising sexual rights is essential to self-determination: the right to choose their partner freely regardless of gender, to choose freely the method of arousal, to have nonprocreative sex, and to choose if and when to have a child. In summary, emphasizing biological explanations for women's sexual orientation may misrepresent the actual experiences of many women, ignores the weak evidence for biological determinants, and dismisses the value that contemporary women place on sexual choice.