Conversations about Psychology and Sexual Orientation

Chapter 10: Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues in Public Policy: Some of the Relevance and Realities of Psychological Science

Chapter 10 Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues in Public Policy Some of the Relevance and Realities of Psychological Science Allen M. Omoto The preceding chapter, on the public policy implications of essentialist and social constructionist perspectives on sexual orientation, raised a number of interesting issues related to the interplay of psychological science and public policy. In the chapter, the authors discuss changes over time in understanding sexual orientation as recognized by mental health professionals and scholars, as well as some of the implications they see of a relatively essentialist understanding of sexual orientation for policy debates on lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) rights. In particular, they focus a good deal of attention on ongoing conversations about the origin of sexual orientation and the consequences, again as they see them, of accepting biological or nonbiological (choice) causal explanations for homosexuality . Another thread that runs throughout the chapter is homonegativity as a widespread and pernicious phenomenon. Rampant heterosexism is seen as influencing the practice of psychology, the experiences of LGB people, and the choice of and approach to topics of research . What is less clear, however, is the extent to which this heterosexism should be tied to either essentialist or social constructionist perspectives , for indeed, both approaches can be seen simultaneously as the cause of and the antidote for societal homonegativity. With this chapter as a starting point, I raise several broad questions about the nature of psychological science and public policy formulation. These questions concern the degree to which policy can and should be 165 informed by science as we know it and, pragmatically, the role that psychology currently plays in the process of policy development and implementation . From my perspective, social policies are too seldom informed by systematic, data-based empirical research. This issue, moreover, is not restricted to the contributions of psychology but extends to the social and behavioral sciences as a whole and is not limited to LGB issues. While regrettable, this is also a situation that presents tremendous opportunity for psychology. After responding specifically to the content of chapter 9, therefore, I offer some suggestions about the ways and points by which psychologists might consider actively participating in the formation of public policy. Assumptions about Essentialist and Constructionist Perspectives To address the authors’ points directly, I begin by taking a metaperspective in examining their construction of essentialist assumptions. They suggest that LGB individuals and advocates have rushed to accept uncritically biological explanations for sexual orientation. Some serious consequences of this acceptance, as the authors see it, are that “[t]here is no direct challenge to the assumption that LGB orientations are wrong or, at least, inferior to heterosexual orientations” and that “we evade the possibility of confronting homophobia and heterosexism and take a back door to personal and social acceptance.” With these statements, I think that the case has, perhaps, been overstated to a large degree. On logical and scientific grounds, seeking to understand the causes of a phenomenon does not explicitly or even implicitly suggest anything about the value or meaning of the phenomenon. Hence, seeking to understand the causes of sexuality, and homosexuality in particular, need not imply that certain practices or “orientations” are problematic, inferior , or otherwise deviant. Indeed, one of the most famous investigations of sexual behavior, the seminal research by Kinsey and his colleagues (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey et al., 1953), simply described reported sexual behaviors, histories, and practices of a convenience sample of American adults. It is the cultural context that places or creates value on research findings and not the research findings themselves that are imbued with specific value or merit. There is no necessary link between establishing or accepting a biological explanation for sexual orien166 a l l e n m . o m o t o tation (or any particular explanation for that matter) and certain social policy consequences. Homonegativity can and should be challenged on many fronts, and to suggest that it will not be because biological explanations for sexual orientation may be in favor is to underestimate the creativity and persistence of both gay rights advocates and adversaries. To belabor this point a bit further, the authors suggest that by embracing “reductionist explanations of sexual orientation,” practitioners, researchers , and advocates fail to confront homophobia and heterosexism. I ask, “Why should this be so?” At a conceptual level, identifying the cause of something can be viewed as one piece of a bigger puzzle, with social...