"Gay Genes" and the Contested Origins of Same-Sex Desire

IF 0.5 3区 社会学 Q3 WOMENS STUDIES Feminist Studies Pub Date : 2023-03-16 DOI:10.1353/fem.2022.0051
Meg Wesling
{"title":"\"Gay Genes\" and the Contested Origins of Same-Sex Desire","authors":"Meg Wesling","doi":"10.1353/fem.2022.0051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This essay interrogates the increasingly widespread popularity of biological explanations for gay and lesbian identity, to consider what it means for queer and feminist politics when biological etiology is held up as the central facet of a progressive agenda. It asks how might we explain the fact that, despite the robust critique of biologization in feminist scholarship, this thinking has become even more pervasive in recent years. Tracing how the very invention of our contemporary understanding of homosexuality as a distinct category of identity is inextricably linked to the scientific justification of white supremacy, as racial difference was established in large part through the imagined sexual difference of African women that continues to have an impact on all people of African descent, I argue that the biological framework for understanding sexual identity is not only inadequate to the complexity of lived experience, but also antithetical to the political work of liberation. It is in linking sex to power, not biologized identity, that feminist critique finds one of its most powerful tools. The very omnipresent nature of heteronormativity makes choosing not to be heterosexual a radical reminder that heteronormativity continues to be a central facet of the subordination of women. This is a call, then, for a renewed feminist interrogation of the danger of making biology do the work of politics.","PeriodicalId":35884,"journal":{"name":"Feminist Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Feminist Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/fem.2022.0051","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"WOMENS STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:This essay interrogates the increasingly widespread popularity of biological explanations for gay and lesbian identity, to consider what it means for queer and feminist politics when biological etiology is held up as the central facet of a progressive agenda. It asks how might we explain the fact that, despite the robust critique of biologization in feminist scholarship, this thinking has become even more pervasive in recent years. Tracing how the very invention of our contemporary understanding of homosexuality as a distinct category of identity is inextricably linked to the scientific justification of white supremacy, as racial difference was established in large part through the imagined sexual difference of African women that continues to have an impact on all people of African descent, I argue that the biological framework for understanding sexual identity is not only inadequate to the complexity of lived experience, but also antithetical to the political work of liberation. It is in linking sex to power, not biologized identity, that feminist critique finds one of its most powerful tools. The very omnipresent nature of heteronormativity makes choosing not to be heterosexual a radical reminder that heteronormativity continues to be a central facet of the subordination of women. This is a call, then, for a renewed feminist interrogation of the danger of making biology do the work of politics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“同性恋基因”和同性欲望的争议起源
摘要:本文质疑对同性恋身份的生物学解释越来越普遍,以考虑当生物学病因被视为进步议程的核心方面时,这对酷儿和女权主义政治意味着什么。它询问我们如何解释这样一个事实,即尽管女权主义学术界对生物化提出了强有力的批评,但这种想法近年来变得更加普遍。追溯我们当代对同性恋作为一种独特身份类别的理解的发明与白人至上主义的科学正当性是如何密不可分的,因为种族差异在很大程度上是通过想象中的非洲妇女的性别差异建立的,这种差异继续对所有非洲人后裔产生影响,我认为,理解性身份的生物学框架不仅不适合生活经历的复杂性,而且与解放的政治工作背道而驰。女权主义批判正是在将性与权力联系起来,而不是与生物身份联系起来,才找到了最有力的工具之一。非规范性的普遍性使选择不做异性恋成为一个激进的提醒,即非规范性仍然是女性从属关系的核心方面。因此,这是一个呼吁,要求女权主义重新审视让生物学从事政治工作的危险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Feminist Studies
Feminist Studies Social Sciences-Gender Studies
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Pleasures of the Hunt / We Must Be Creatures: Toward an Ecofeminist Hunting Ethic What Hungers Call Us Home? Engaging Autotheory Through Food Legal Landscapes Post-Roe: Shifts in Antiabortion Violence and Implications of the face Act Oasis by Necessity: The Post-Dobbs Landscape in Central Illinois "Brutality and its aftermath": Autotheoretical Engagements with Violence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1