Follow us on Google News (click on ☆)
Sexual orientation would result from processes that are still widely debated. However, for several years, a significant portion of research has been trying to identify potential biological factors. The goal: to show that our sexual preferences are mere variations of nature. For its supporters, this fact-based scientific approach would be effective in combating stigma, particularly against homosexual individuals.
A team from the University of Geneva (UNIGE) shows that the interpretation of this data by heterosexual individuals actually depends heavily on their frame of reference. It can thus lead to a reinforcement of both negative and positive attitudes towards homosexuality. These results are published in Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Our sexual orientation would result from both environmental and biological processes. But, to date, no scientific theory has reached a consensus. To try to explain it, a significant portion of research has focused on acquiring biological data. This approach posits that this information - genetic, hormonal, or physiological - is objective and therefore, a priori, particularly relevant to explaining our preferences.
Our study shows how much the interpretation of information, even scientific, remains strongly modulated by our values and beliefs.
"This research angle aims to find scientific 'evidence' to demonstrate that homosexuality is a natural variant of biology. It has shaped part of the political, social, and moral debates in defense of sexual minorities. For those who support it, it would help promote more positive attitudes towards homosexuality," explains Juan M. Falomir-Pichastor, full professor at the Psychology Section of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences at UNIGE.
By conducting one of the few in-depth experimental studies on the subject, the researcher now shows that the interpretation of this "evidence" by heterosexual individuals is actually strongly modulated by their frame of reference. It can thus lead to both a positive and negative reading of homosexuality.
Two interpretation factors
To conduct the investigation, the team recruited 300 volunteers. Heterosexual men and women, believers (of Christian faith) and non-believers. Gender and religiosity being two interpretation factors recognized as important. These individuals were exposed to scientific data suggesting that there are biological differences between heterosexual and homosexual individuals.
After the experiment, the team found that the pre-existing positive perception among non-believers was reinforced among the least religious men. It remained stable among the least religious women. The pre-existing negative perception among believers followed the opposite path among the most religious men (it was reinforced). But it also remained unchanged among their female counterparts.
Positive difference vs negative difference
"The difference in the impact of the experiment on the men and women who participated in the study is explained by the strong need for differentiation among heterosexual men," explains Juan M. Falomir-Pichastor. "These individuals directly associate masculinity with heterosexuality. Thus, they 'take advantage' of any element that reinforces this association, while keeping homosexuality at a distance."
If this need for differentiation has been identified generally among men, it did not lead to the same result among believers as among non-believers in the sample. Believers interpreted the scientific data as "evidence" of anomaly, and their negative attitude was reinforced. The latter saw it as "evidence" of the diversity of possible expressions of human sexuality. Their positive attitude towards homosexuality was thus reinforced.
The dangers of essentialist discourse
"Our study shows how much the interpretation of information, even when presented as scientific, remains strongly modulated by our values and beliefs. It also shows that by 'essentializing' a portion of the population, this type of discourse could prove dangerous. It is thus more necessary than ever to evaluate and rethink arguments for the inclusion of minorities based on this form of biological determinism," concludes the researcher.